Ringel and Mullally

Literature as a Conservative Force 


In Paul Ringel’s “How Banning Books Marginalizes Children,” he discusses the history of children’s literature and how it has changed over time. Ringel says, “the industry serves those who benefit from the status quo, which is why most scholars see children’s literature as a conservative force in American society,” (Ringel). Literature and the arts are typically thought of as means of expression, and in ideal circumstances free from government control or persuasion. However, people are fallible. Systems and algorithms are capable of racism, sexism, and marginalizing people because people design them. This thought is especially troubling, though, when it comes to the systems that shape our children’s minds. 

Claire Mullally talks about the systems in place that allow the banning and censorship of books to occur. Her article also suggests that the literature industry mainly serves White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, and is extremely conservative. She writes, “The frightening specter of Nazi book-burnings in Germany in 1933, Boyer says, crystallized anti-censorship sentiment in the United States. Within a few months after the book-burnings in Germany, the landmark federal court decision… broke the back of the Comstock law,” (Mullally). Americans had to be put face-to-face with actual Nazis to see exactly how far-right their book banning and censorship policies were. 

All literature, but especially children’s literature, should be representative and make kids feel seen,

heard, and respected. Literature provides people with a guide on how to move in the world, and without a

proper guide, many people lack basic characteristics like empathy and compassion.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Don't Let Them Define You

     The book  George , by Alex Gino explores the struggle of gender and identity within the main character, George. One of the themes that I found prevalent in this book that I believe relates to the entirety of the course is the idea of defining things. Throughout many of the works we have read throughout this course there has been an underlying notion of society trying to define certain people. Such as Starr, for example, who was defined by both her white friends at school and by her black community as different things for different reasons. Or in  Lysistrata  where the women were defined by their sexuality and pleasure that they could provide to their husbands. Throughout society in the real world and in many of the books we have read, definitions and labels are always being imposed on people. And as we can see through the practice of banning books, society does not like when people try to expound upon or reject these labels. They have a need to be stra...
Read more

Ringel

     While reading Ringel’s article, “How Banning Books Marginalizes Children,” a quote really struck me: “More broadly, keeping books about certain types of children or experiences out of libraries or putting them on separate shelves perpetuates a troubling vision of a sheltered American childhood that in fact has rarely existed” (Ringel 4-5). By telling American children that their experiences and lives are not valid or appropriate, we run the risk of making them even more excluded than they already feel. Keeping the books that deal with relevant life experiences out of libraries and on separate shelves is troubling. Even as a twenty-year-old, when I look in the LGBTQ+ section of Barnes and Noble, I barely feel safe around my family. They question why I am even looking in that section to begin with, telling me that it is a sin to read these types of books and that they will "turn me gay." The fact that it is separated allows for more marginalization and could possibly o...
Read more

Ringel and Mullally

In the articles "How Banning Books Marginalizes Children" and "Banned Books," Paul Ringel and Claire Mullally provide a compelling discourse on the banning of books. Specifically, the authors explore the implications these decisions have on young students.  One aspect of Mullally's article that I found especially interesting was her discussion of book banning today compared to book banning in the past. In its earliest days, book banning was often associated with the destruction of texts. If a book was deemed unsuitable for the public, it was common for the book to be burned and destroyed. At this point, this decision was controlled by secular and religious authorities rather than the individual beliefs held by people. Because this was prominent in Europe, it unsurprisingly spread to the Americas. Initially, book banning continued in the United States as a unified system. This is seen most prominently through the development of the Comstock laws, enacted by the...
Read more