An ancient reading group in which I participate recently discussed Janet Burroway’s “Slouching toward sensitivity”, an account of the strictures imposed on her as an editor of a creative writing anthology for college students by a publisher determined to avoid any hint of offense. The publisher’s “sensitivity reader” attempted to censor an autobiographical story recounting how painful being called “… hillbilly, ridge runner, clodhopper, and hayseed” had been. With difficulty, Burroway managed to persuade the publisher that the passage could be included since its point was how hurtful such name calling was.
Burroway needed to make her way through a minefield to find acceptable stories. She was instructed, inter alia, that:
“Foreign” and “foreigners” are offensive in any context. “Nerd,” “tribal,” “naïve,” “’hood,” “ugliness,” and “race” should not be said. Don’t mention shame, straitjacket, suicide, Donald Trump, or Kevin Spacey…
….
I was to omit, regardless of context, third world, homeless, white trash, whore, slut, slave, the Blacks, beaners and noble savages. Outlawed were Nazi, minstrel, blackface, homosexuals, boy, skinheads, dead animals, Rooskie, kike, spic, exotic and gumbo. Also Indians (cowboys and), dementia, shame, crazy, insane, ape, goddam moose, make love, fart, hell, goddam, screw up, asshole, along with some stronger expletives.”
Our reading group tried to think of books that could meet the constraints. About all we came up with was the old “Dick and Jane” series for beginning readers. Then someone worried about “Dick”.
Last night I continued slowly re-reading Yuri Slezkine’s “House of Government”, getting to the part describing literature in the early days of the Soviet Union. Aleksander Voronsky was initially the leading figure, with great power over what would be published. He was far from a free-speech absolutist. He wrote of political opponents “There was a time …when we had to keep silent. Now it is their turn.” Nevertheless, he was challenged by the more austere “proletarian” literary cult. In Slezkine’s account they “argued that all literature that was not militantly and self-consciously revolutionary was counterrevolutionary.” They held that Voronsky was too fond of pre-revolutionary literature, from Homer to Ibsen, and should be replaced. Voronsky responded “They are drawing a magic circle around themselves …[to keep out] …the unclean and undead. This is, of course praiseworthy, but it should be done with some sense: the circle should have a radius.”
Our modern sensitivity readers are drawing their circles with radii far smaller than Voronsky’s.
Couldn’t agree more. Scary times.
I recently saw a list of frowned-upon words from a college department—apparently “picnic” is offensive. Still scratching my head ...
The first word that came to mind was "snowflake". Not only because it reminded me of what these "circle drawers" are often compared with (derogatorily), but also since it was not among the words your essay listed. Then I thought this "circle" likely wasn't pursued because its dissemination may draw too much attention to the absurdity of this behavior - especially when weather reports stopped using it! Posts like yours should be much more widely circulated...thanks for sharing.