Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Robert C. Post
Censorship
used
to be aseparating
very dull subject.
Aligned
along predictable
and
venerable
divisions
liberals from
conservatives,
oriented
toward ancient and well-rehearsed chestnuts such as obscenity and national
security, the topic promised little of analytic interest.
In recent years, however, the landscape of censorship has altered dramatically.1 Now feminists in Indianapolis join with fundamentalist Christians to
seek the regulation of pornography.2 Critical race theorists join with Jesse
Helms to regulate hate speech,j Advocates of abortion rights seek to restrict
political demonstrations while conservative pro-life groups defend the freedom to picket.4
Many contemporary liberals scoff at traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, viewing it as a "breeding ground of libertarian sentiment,"s and
they demand instead a .`New Deal" for speech that would empower the state
to regulate campaign financing and the broadcast media.6 Constitutional
restraints on government intervention are said primarily to protect the status
quo, with its entrenched hierarchies of power and wealth2 Conversely, many
conservatives have displayed a resurgent and largely libertarian appreciation
for the value of freedom of expression, invoking it to check proscriptions of
pornography and hate speech, as well as to block campaign finance reform,s
This represents a remarkable disintegration of traditional political alignments. The historical causes of this transformation are no doubt multifarious
and complex. Certainly one important factor, rendered vivid by the demise of
the Cold War, has been the pervasive perception, most fully theorized for this
generation in the work of Michel Foucaulh that the state holds no monopoly
of power.9 While histories of censorship used to chronicle official legal suppression of speech,t Foucault's work invited us to "escape from the limited
field of juridical sovereignty and State institutions, and instead base our
analysis of power on the study of techniques and tactics of domination."n
In the hst two decades we have begun to perceive power as dispersed, as cir.
culating, as spinning out from the enactment of discursive and disciplinary
p raCflC'~..So
A profound effect of this vision has been the tendency to focus on "power
as such," with a consequent equation of state force with private domination.t2
In the words of Catharine MacKinnon, "The operative definition of censorship
accordingly shifts from government silencing what powerless people say, to
~ost
' -'epeop~,,ij
violatingThe
powerless
people force
into silence
and
hiding behind
state
powatul
call for juridical
t.o check
oppressive
discursive
power to do li. _ _...~, to be seen not as invoking the state "as a censor, hut
~aa!
~ : Pa t, "trifle
COntrol over free expression, but as a 'n,~rmal' and
. . 'ct~nstitutiv-,
..
. . ,,,,
ed,
a very condtnon, of free expressnon.
and
.
.-- The striking
. , anomalo usCOnse,
,
quence of this characternzation_ ts precnsely to cut .against.. attempts t o
charge of ensorshtp as grounds for political mobtltzation.
use
the
Assembling a group of extraordinarily talented scholars, this volume interrogates that issue from divergent disciplinary perspectives, ranging from
political science to philosophy, from law to cultural theory, from literary criticism to anthropology. Our strategy is to re-examine state censorship with the
insights of the new scholarship firmly in mind. In Part I we inquire into the
specific dynamics of explicit legal control of speech through criminal and civil
sanctions, in Part !I we investigate other forms of state regulation of speech,
ranging from subsidies to property rights. And in Part I11 we examine justifications for state interventions to regulate private power that constrains
expression.
tt-heir
censorship seems blind, for example, to the "high drama of repression and
suppression" retold by Zamir Niazi in his effort to "preserve... for posterity"
the courage of Pakistani writers resisting the oppression of a tyrannical regime.23 Nor does it seem able to appreciate the "heroic names" celebratedb y
Seamus Heaney in his "modern martyro|ogy, a record of courage and sacririce" presented in his study of the sacrificed poets of Eastern Europe.24
By focusing so intensely on the quotidian operations of power, the new
scholarship of censorship ultimately centers attention, like Foucault himself,
Part I begins with an essay by Richard Burr, one of the foremost proponents
of the new scholarship. Carefully focusing on court suppression of the English
playwright Thomas Middleton, Bun invites us to suspend our usual conception of censorship as a process of "removal and replacement," and instead to
visualize censorship as a matter of "dispersal and displacement." Burt's ambition is to undermine any simple opposition "between the censored and uncensored," thus calling into question traditional theories of free speech that
rely on postulated polarities between repressed and authentic versions of an
author's work3s
Middleton was subject to a court officer, the Master of the Revels, whose
judgments were highly personal and discr~onary. Although s~ individual
discretion to censor still exists with respect to speech within state organizations,z9 direct official control over public discourse (like the theater) is today
almost entirely dependent upon the application of judicially interpreted legal
principles.3 Quite apart from the well-rehearsed debate as to whether the
ideals of free speech ought to exempt public discourse from direct official con-
onthe"agonism"inwhich"therecalcitranceofthewil andthe
intranstgence"
of freedom" form a "permanent provocation" to "the power relationship,"
which itself establishes a necessary and inescapable "structure" for "the possible field of action."zs Agonism signifies that while we are always both bound
and enabled by existing power relationships, we are also always potentially
at odds with those relationships. Agonism, however, does not distinguish
Joyce struggling to publish Ulysses from, say, the "struggle" of the client of a
poverty lawyer to overcome the "violence of silencing" imposed by "the order
of discourse~ of the usual "lawyer-client relation?'z6 Agonism is precisely univenal. It is precisely omnipresent.
The enormous expansion of understanding facilitated by the Foucaultian
perspective on censorship (and, to be old-fashioned about it, the immense
increase in the possibilities of sympathetic apprehension it enables), is thus
purchased at the price of a certain abstraction. Foucault's work itself exhibited a vertiginous oscillation between extreme abstraction and minute detail;
the space between, where most people live most of their lives, was persistendy
and scrupulously effaced. The new scholarship of censorship can be similarly
characterized. It tends to veer between the concrete mechanisms of silencing
trol, we may therefore also ask whether legal proceedings are themselves a
suitable instnmtent for the regulation of speech.3n These questions do not
depend upon any implicit opposition between censored and uncensored versions of a text; they instead concentrate on the internal requirements of a
modern legal system.
Both Ruth Gavison's and Lawrence Douglas's contributions to this volume discuss the many and subtle ways in which these requirements affect the
law's ability to fulfill our purposes when we seek to use the law to regulate
expression. Although many in Israel have called for the suppression of speech
that incites to political violence, Gavison probes the law's capacity to serve
and the abstraction of struggle. The result seems to flatten distinctions among
kinds of power, implicitly equating suppression of speech caused by state, legal
action with that caused by the market, or by the dominance of a parucul.ar
discourse, or by the institution of criticism itself. It tends also to flatten vanasay~
between,
difference
dons among kinds of struggles, de-emphasizing the
the agonism of poets and that ot legal aid clients... _, .t.. ,,,~ scholThe challenge is thus how to vre.~rve the analyuc torce o~ u,~ ,.:-- . .
r without
_
arshi,,
sacrificing
the values
and
concerns
of moreann
~adit:d~~c
.-""
-----:..-scanable,
v"
..
rt_.....thPnart/CusaL"
counts, gecogmzmg always me pervas,vc, ,,.,silencing of expression, can we say anything distinctive a oo"" :';" ~,,ntrol,
province of what used to define the study of censorship: the onrcg, ~--'
of expression by the state?z7
' '.i'~
q~
thanlegal others.r nThe lasth _~tw essaYSshugerin Part ! examine furth ert .legal. realization,.
modern.
Fngi,sh. proscrtpt,ons of slander and libel not-exeges's of haw ear'of mlntmiztng Inc,tements to noli,;.-~* -.:--,
" is roblemati."
ut ,,I..~ .
- ,,,:,o
Instantiated
'-'"
ucu~ar v,ston ot Christ,an commun,ty. If the bfirst
of the-,
a par.
.
sequentlv restricted, then "the .very
concept
of use
censor,h,p
P
_ _L
..... :''""'
of the concept
with,n
-.
.
Schauer also suggests, however, that the pe**,,~,L,.,,,
popular debates implies that the term does not in fact refer to these empirical
not, and to this day the so-called di--" ~.-u ny L/av,son, the second, pre.
but that
serves instead
usa label applied
P0St hoc
to conclus!ons
process. S,ahout
theitallocation
of content-determining-authority:"'
These
conclus~on.$
do not depend so much upon the mere fact that expression is suppresseu, a
_. ,
sumably
..
. __ . .
-'-", *,~,,ence
o n l y s e r v e d"~:
0 ,pur~,
..- '~
they do upon political and purposive considerations like "institutional competence. "separation of powers;' or the maintenance of profes.sional autonomy. They. depend, for example, upon whether we wish potitic,ans or a~tsts
to determine the aliocatmn of NEA grants.
.
censorshtp IYbay
5chauer's argument implies that the new schola~hip o!
onflate the descriptive fact of silencing with the ascnptive ludgment of censorship,j' To recognize this onflation, however, is merely to invite deeply
emploYthe law
canthe law to suppress obscemty within Merature. Burt's point m tidal
e x t r a c t particular versmns of ommu--, -~
. .
,,m norms-from itter
only by blinding itself to the "netative k-n..,~-a-- -, ...
art texts
or)," carried in the very la o,,~,--~, ....
"'"'~',~,s.~
u~ a a!smtegrating
mere..
-, ne,..-8~ v, augnL[exes,
a Knowledge
that is inde
dent o! any :poet's agency."~3 This knowledge, this literarines; ev-a--I~.,
, uues au
.
censorious efforts to affix texts wtth determinate_ .meanings.
Part II of the volume turns from the Issue of.dtre.ct legal c~. ?trol of exprer,
stun and examines the use of.state power to mamta,n and prmlege part-ular
dmcurs,ve practices. Every tune the state educates a student, or estabhshes
acquisition criteria for a public library, or chooses to subsidize one form of
speech rather than another, the state uses government resources to establish a
discursive field. It supports some speech and marginalizes other speech. In
popular debate, these actions have come to be characterized as a form of censorship. Those who oppose the imposition of "decency" restrictions on NEA
grants, for example, charge that they "censor artists' speech,"~' while those
who defend the restrictions write "In Praise of Censorship."3s A recent report
from People for the American Way documents "300 incidents of attempted
censorship," defining these incidents as efforts "to remove from a classroom,
library or curriculum, books or other materials or programs for ideological or
sectarian reasons."~
This usage of the concept of censorship is odd, because no matter what
speech the state does or does not fund, no matter what ma~rial it assigns or
does not assign within a chssroom, no matter what books it acquires or does
not acquire for a library, the state will be acting for reasons that can properly
be termed "ideological." This suggests the practical truth of the theoretical
insight that all discursive practices establish themselves through the marginalization and suppression of competing practices. If we wish to condemn this as
"censorship," then censorship is indeed everywhere and inescapable. Yet in
popular rhetoric the term "censorship" continues to be used as if it denotes a
particular kind of especially egregious and voluntary state action, one that
could, like direct civil and criminal sanctions, be avoided.
This is the paradox addressed by Frederick Schauer in the f~t essay in
Part If. Schauer's point is that if the term c.o~orsb/p is applied to the empirical pmces~ by which our "expressive possibilities" are constituted and con-
. ."
auessmg
restrictions on government subsidies for scientific research into genetic predispositions to impulsive, violent, or antisocial behavior. Wasserman demonstrates how judgments of censorship must in the end turn on sensitive
assessments of imtitutional and professional competencies, political purposes,
and so forth. Sanford Levinmn examines this same set of issues as applied to
state efiom to educate the public to particular visions of history. Whereas
Douglas probes efforts to enshrine a specific version of the Holocaust through
direct criminal sanctions, Levinson discusses the state', tutelary attempm to
achieve the same end through ~he erection of public historical monuments.
Levimon spins the reader in a diz~ circle, teasing out a humbling array of disparate considerations that might inform ascriptive judgments of censorship.
One of the subtlest, most pervasive, most unobtrusive, yet most powerful
methods by which the state establishes discursive fields is through the creation
and allocation of property rights. Property rights undergird what the new
scho|arship of censorship has termed "market censorship?~ But however
much we may acknowledge that "the market is itself a structure of onstraint," it is difficu|t to imagine a modem society entirely without property
rights, so that once again the descriptive and ascriptive concepts of cemorship
mutt be diaentangled.0 In the last essay in Part 11 George Marcus ventures
into this difficult terrain, examining contemporary claims to cultural propeat by aboriginal peoples in the United States, Canada, and Australia. Such
claims distribute power and hence have fundamenta| pofifical contequeg~es;
they reflect cultural identities that challenge deep assumptions of "autonomous individualism" otherwise embodied within intellectual propenV law;
they interfere with the free circulation of ideas and expression; yet ought they
to be characterized as censorship? Marcus worries the issue, but, like Wasaer-
post
the ground that uptake is nor secured. !( pornography is to be regulated, suggests Green, it should be on other grounds, as for example on the ham of
norms of equality which, like the norms of charity evoked by Shuger, reflect a
part/cular vision of communal identit'):"J
Wendy Brown concludes Part I!I with an extended meditation on the
theme of silencing. Brown is concerned to unravel the usual equation that
reads voice as registering authenticity and power, and that reads silence as
reflecting repression and domination. Brown identifies the subtle dangers
associated with what she calls "compulsory discursivity; which conscripts
subg'cts into the regulatory norms of the very discursive practices that enable
speech. From this perspective, silence can function as a "resistance to regulatory discourse," as a quiet and sheltered place in which freedom can be practiced, ikown treads a fine line, carefully distinguishing "between the pleasures
and freedoms of silence on the one hand and habituation to being silenced on
the other."44 Brown's point is that, having once tasted the Foucaultian apple,
we can neither view expression as the simple opposite of censorship, nor
silence as the simple ant/thesis of freedom.
We have come, therefore, full circle. We have ieanmd m see regulation in the
very formation of our speech; we have lean~ how thoroughly we are subject to mmral causal consmumts. N~, to the extent we continue as
agents to act and to judge, we require criteria by which to ~te among
resuictiom on speech: to a~elX some and m ~ others. Because we have
learned that such judgments cannot rest merely on the fact that expcemion is
constrained, we must reformulate them to depend instead upon purposive
comidemdous, upon ideals of juridical enforcement or of insuitutioual omp e u m ~ o r o f f r e e d o m o r o f e q u a l i t y. T h e ~ o f c e n s o r s h i p c a m p i d e o u r
judlpnems only ff it is reabsorbed into this normative ~ B~ the oacept comes to us now stril~ of its pr/o[ innocence by the acid of Foucauitinn sophistication. That loss has momentous political ~ as we
have learned in the last two decades. The challenge addreued by the essa~ in
vohme is how these consequmces may be mastered and subordinated to
an infom~ political will.
In Austinian terms, the illocution of an utterance refers to the action con.refuted ~ the utterance. To say "I agree" in the appropriate context is to
~ve the igocutionaty force of, and to perform the action of., makinz a conteluaty ondmons" that permit the "uptake" of the utterance. ~1~ im lies,
. h o w e v e r, t h a t t h e i l l o c u t i o n a r v f o r c e - - ~ . . . . . .
, p that~a~Y .,o .n..~.. ined both-~/fel~;'c~ndiVcrYdoz~ez~d~bysg s~oc~ZiaV~Z~ora7
ate hist'..-~_,tae ~'fiilment of these conditions. These conditions and forces
dora of qxech tha-
o f
i . o
o n -
.
ot -being
silenced
merely on
Nora
Ruled Out:
Vocabularies of the Censor
Judith Butler
Descriptions
censorship
more
general
theory of for
the
subject ofofpower.
When presuppose
we claim thataan
individual
is censored,
instance, we tend to separate analytically the one who comes under the force
of the censor from the censor itself and to conceive of the censor either as
an individual or as an extension of state or institutional authority. Further,
this authority is presumed to act upon the individual in an especially efficacious way. This conventional view of censorship commits us to understanding
power as that which is wielded by the one who censors on the one who is censored, where each of these "ones" is undentood as external to, or accident~y
related to, the power of censorship itself. The power is usually presumed to be
wielded by a subject who speaks and who declares that another shall not
speak or that another's speech is not to qualify as "speech" in a restricted
sense. But are there restrictions on the one who delivers the censor/ous declaration? Is there an operation of restriction that makes speech possible? And is
there, as a corollary, a covert form of censorship that, un_,emarke~ makes
possible the overt declaration of censorship?
and constrains the object on which it operates; ff power is, however, also .XJ
-roductlve
to- making
that it ,also
' then it contributes
,coustrain~
"
ls
.
. . the
. . object
. .
/ |
..,~:.~
i
Butler
making use ot power, and then there arc th~sc who are deprived of l~x~.cr hy
Ruled Out
that prior use A stronger argument, I~owevcr. is als,~ P,~ssilqc: t,~ be~.~,~e a
civic and political subiect, a citizen-subject, one must be able t~ n~ake ,se ,f
IX+wet, and this ability to make use of pOWer is. as it Were, the n~eas,re of the
subject. To make u~ ot power is linked to the ability to speak irish+far as the
Cmzen is defined as one with the ability to do what one says, to translate xVt+rd
into deed.~ There is, of course, a grammatical "'one" that wanders intt+ the.~,
formulations, but this "one" L~ not to Ix, confused with tl~e sul~jLx:t i, its Pt~litically normative ~nse One can live in a polity without the ability to translate
to any authoriat decision. A more radical view would be that those rules,
"decided" prior to any authoriai decision, are precisely the constraining conditkms that make possible any given decision Thus, there is an ambiguity of
agency at the site of selection, one to which we will return when we reconsider the re|ation between agency and censorship.
The other view voiced at the meeting was that "censoring a text is necessarily incomplelets This view maintains that a text always escapes the acts
by which it is censored and that censorship is always and only an attempted
or partial action Here, it seems, something about the text being cens0ced exceeds the reach of the censor, suggesting that some account needs to be given
of this "excessive" dimension of speech. One might appeal to a generalized
rheor yof textuality to suggest why the effort to constrain
speec,
h.
~lly
" " rl one
m=. g
htcannot
a
e
that
, r~ .
target or capture the polysemy of language. Stmda y:
the communicative sphere of language necessarily pus,Is a realm ot obscen,ty
that it seeks, with always partial success, to keep rigorously excluded from its
words into deeds, and this is a relatively (though m~t absoh~tely~ pOWerless
v,..ay to live: it is to live on the margins of the subject or. rather, as its margin,
Implicit in this notion of a citizen-subi~.t is a conception of a human sub.
j~'t with full control over the language one speaks. Were the sovereign Con.
. ~..
~u/~- of the speaking.citizen true, the implicit dora"
_ ~y.overcome.
But be
~s -the
tin..,,:-.,
am of censv.~hip
---.,.-oz censorshiB
,~o.~:k,-would
- "COmet
Would there
. ;.implicit
closures and operative _m_?n)n.gmt speech at all Were it noifo; -~"" ro over-
"that ,_.* being constrained and som,,:_~werful a~ue that tt is their freedom
speech. Censo.hip is most or-=- "-'~""=: more parucularly, their freedom
~;li rm~r
Of
.
persons or against the cont--,. -= -~ recl to as that whzch
is directed auainst
~?
--,,t ~ mezr s
~,t
stramm8 and re~u|ato-- t__
,
peech. Is censorshzp, des-it~
i-p
t
s
c
O
n
.
_j_
zy UlnCtlon~ a wa~, ^~ ,.-- ~
,
-uvance what wdl and will not L_ ,,, ~,roaUCmg speech, constraining in
why others seem quite helpless to effect any capture it alL,What =o-'~__~.,_~
the eif~cv or the fadure
that characwrize different operanons
. ot censo~u,v.
x,c
z -,-u ~ e -~ --'- ' n ~ -[ -"
a ~ ......
urvr[ z~ty ~p~
~,.
sorship Produces s,,~-z. -~ een made. But m the vrew that su~zees~ ,k~..--. oL~ b
o~ -- ,-.~, ~,,
t"~-',, mat temn,,,~t -At__ . .
,..,,4.= .L
~ ,
"-'-~:~ me text (by Wk;,-k t , , . ~"'"" ,~:mUon IS reverted. Censozshin ore- ~
_ ~;~
~
.
r
~"
and is in -...--- ~-" ""'" = mcmue "Speech" and other ....s...__,
_
~ "-_~
~,,,,~=a,
expresstou=),
~.",~ ~nse responsible for its "rod----"
-rt w....
~ ~ d-~~.~~ ~
o Vtextm ~,,,, .... , . .
If ~s~uct:ton.
/
o;, ....
-"'- "-,,,~[~ea m the Courst. ,-,~ .a._ ,,-._~
.
"-'- ~.. ~, ~'- ~
*-crying ~at seem, in.-=--- . ~--.~- -,~ ~euy seminar on censorshln and * " , .,~
to register ~.- .-- ,~,csnn~y, the reverse of each oth~.,- ,k~,, ..,...... ~..~.. t'~" ~ ~.,mg a text is necessarib, ;..~'___'," -nova.= One vxew maintained that uncensor- .."'', 0 .j...~
cam ~_ .
,,
Th;- .t_:_
a text-.~ ==~umplete.~
-- :- . "-,=.=
appears to
thatno
' a .t
SOme kind of
c--~'~
....me
, rules ace-- "--" "x t~e author of the text Yet rh..
..
.. _ ..._ author doe s not
oconle ac~
art of the
'
_
. _
-" To ex lain
xu:---~:~t
uuu and. tnadvertem
P this lastPhenomenon, tt ts ~t
~ "shiPas
Jorm O f p -~ w e r , m ~ y W O- r~:K In illlFU~"
' a roductive
P
z,,ses as usual meanmS,
~ u ,....~.=er~be
v , - " . . .trim
..
waY S./ks a product i r e f o r m o ! p o w e r," ".c. e. .n. s o r~,__
-I
"
w
o
r
K
s
t
v
~
~
'
"
' becomes unclear whether "cnsorshtp
. ,
. , and u~l~t
and tt
. sto
--=t---t
r e to .di=ingmsh
. . . _ _ between
o pera
t l o n o f opw e r . I t i s p o "hie
. . ~ e r t n ex~,
n t r u ,-,= ....
~ - .i n
..
cemorsh~p The la~ re(e. to imphCtlt operetta-.
-- s,
r ....
.. - '- -rex,
no expl~t resin uns kaOt. In such ~
o.e ..h
for anod~er term m d-~'xdx arm more trnV,~-~ -r_-; =~,~.clo~u~" nusht De
I will suzeat
z later in t~is essay how the norton
m.u,
on'~.~k.,~r,
,-~--- --seems iraappropriated fo~ such use. Buts cauUona~ wo.. ....,.,;,-=llv between
portant here. ~lfe might think that b Y.di~'TZra2e'c;~;.~'-~roximsu;
explicit and implicit forms of ceasot~P t_na~ - Yet it m*y well be that
xm
p
the dI w
rki oof n
censorship
as . a form.
ceSion
- - - - - .ot
, u upow=r~.~_~
m m w, , w, , ~- -middle
-
.
,
e,t,,,.
e.
'
I"
,
. ,
,
,
ol
, . . '
" iot
.
,..
Itlll """
"~J~i"
""
q'o
"
Ruled Out
, very act, We m.ight conclude that the state and .the mzJxtary are merely, d
veh~cle
" _ ,,,,,
,.e, r~h;...L_.
whether or not s,,,.--L.
,-ost politicalh...,
,,~us.
for cen
.I ~rect;,.~
v,-~,., ,s""co,,.-_.
unwittinoh,
,,,-..--,
"'~,nous, Whether,t:.IS"'~'
e~y. so._...~ ,sac ns precisely the' - ~
the
.~.~tsion In wE: "
~crt it Works its way
. .
more effncac~ous than explicit for
ms m renderi o .. .... . shnp ma~, h,
unspeakable. Cen~,--L-_.
'.m.bguo..fo,.of
I,,___.
. -,,,,,,np is eXn~ ,_ _
..
.
no ,-ercatn ki-a- - - -"
,:
hat....
they seek to La-- ..y by rehears,
gresmonal star.,-., _ u r from dnsc
-
cP"'." reference to
mdntarv_
___,.. . suc
Y onstramed
-,, v,.,I,,..
pro,terated
horn
Ourse.
P".'
.,o
ectarat~on
m 'the
tent of the sta h, ;. __'~. ,,,.me pubhc debates ~ -z ,-_,rs own SUpporting
but to estah,;~'.~' aur Only to limit the" . ostered on the 'ssue. The'_
nnI.__
-"-,,
mat
such
self-----.
coming
out"
of
re;n;,...-vmosexual conn,..- _ . ',m:nptave speecl, ......
""'"~ Personnel.
---,., or a s,an ~h.. _ _
c,._j
......
""
'-uasututes
either
"
,,muct m Inkely.s "rg_ _.,. "- ""'" " propensih.._ __
. a form of
on the matter of wL'-'- .mm~ry thus engaged in ;~cngage an homosexual
,-~ Is to
-,-,er protra
.
conduct
a
,,,
t._
~..
be
onsndered
,,
re
.v
,.~
umt.....
_
_
cted
duscuss
,on
...
- .
homose-._,..
""~,, ann _.
how speech and
tina,,-- - .
. ,-guasn~,
,t can or should
.'q, one m,gh, enloy
(or nwhether
....
__ _
m homosexual ,.__. _ uc enjoy} hom~.. .... ,
be, and whether
the "prone,,;,~.,~nuuct" (a Clinton .._...-~-;,m status without ,noo.~-"
v-,,vuo that is fie---:---, _'o-s-,s
"-'"7 uelinition ,._.
., ....
-,ways on the veto,, -
~'"vew unctone by
the term L_ "~s~ .or expressina its, t~. _ - ~,ams ,s, by its v
"~moscxual --us
;. ,..._
_ _ --,s a form o~----~ _ _ cry nature,
s act of e,,,,..._,_.
- ,-u-uuct).
Ontrdry, the statu,------,
-. no
tmple
. Regulatton of
"~
"ectOUbles
the
---.-~,.v~ap
or
silencing,
n. ,t._
effect ,4.;. _
itself uns"~,._~,_ns..~int through this na'r.~t_t .seeks to COnstrain and ='on'":
r ',uux~cal redoubli
~'~Oie, but only
^__
I,
,-e uses tito a.__
uns,~c_,_, . . nS. The term ns. not
" ~ 4 : r l l._
) e -r , becomes
n.-.,,
.a:._.
"
11
comnle~e
through leith..m~,;;; -~.-__.
r - - ~ . or. total subjectificadon
- " "-'----=- of s'v~lmt~le o~ouu.~
. ,,
cumscn~ cf:fectiv~ m~ ,o,:m aoo-,-. ";:72,~ ~. not .~dizamuc. o~
~
I,,.rJ~
mill tory
', e~n to ~,~e ,p~,...
7___~-..2
Clear_..
- --.---.-,
,,.- - , , - ....~,~ve"
r---.
the n...,__'," ,,r "nagined act of,oF.-'~'."'~. m,r.ne, and value, s i6ali as
v'umonttn that cannt ~ake P=::i~o~t:~;2tnbgtod~~e
2SO
..
~...,
~ onmmu_m.~~~, -. _-:-- .,~ lil~rtim. ~
, - - - , ...~...
- - - - , v ,~, . **
- - - tommnve
-- ----; -----'~"~---'F-~the dcprlvauo- "-,- -._._....a ori~t/*'e,
s "v
t e las
y - - -a
- ~ - .-~
~ - =~~on
: = . . . . o~ on,~,_,,. . . _ _ _ . . . , ---"
,.,~_Iv ~,cu*~ ---- r.
Acordine to ~ view, cenmor'amp '* ~.-- "'"" ___, .k~ in ~rmm
tcuvc
P ~
- ~.-~- --. m, -- ....
wayo, but it is ak~o for~ tire ot SUo~. u* a,,.,,.. ---_.__.__
Butler
Ru4ed Out
tion, it seems that no text can be full.y freed firom the shadcles of c=mmsh,p
because every text or expression is =n part structured through a process ot
selecnon that is determined in part by the decisions of an author (or, slgaker)
etn~l in hart by the language in which one expresses onesdf, a t--__~,~-~ that
o~,rates ,"-~:o-~ing to selective and diffe~ndal rules that no ind/vidual $1xalmr
ever made (that may well be collectively forged, burn or tra(x~le m a,~.
author, except in spedfic cases of gra.mmatical revisnon and cmnage). -!]!~
th~-~i~ i~ a hi--dr eeneralized one, and =t appears to apply to any' and all Inngua-gc.-~dm=ru~t it" may well be true and vail.d, I d~. d=t.in ks~
form it does not directly u-amhte into a poetical constderatmn ot ~P
_
" ys coextensive
"
of socml am=
g pamcmar vg, ws of ~--:-~,;,,_.= ____ . . .
,r~umacy, consensus, cultural aaron
sense to try to oppose censorship: to qplmse _,:ep_ -=~J, ip fully is to 0p~ the
d ....-e. muenUU- [
.works as a cover for the real tmlitical -;-- -, - .."mrmsP or, tamer, =t
mg or little to do with spe~- -== u= ~msorsmp, ones that have nod1'
. .
. - ~ I u r l n _..
O ~J~_
l
.... - ..........
wet.~t
~snot
~--~--'we~. l wam ,,, a;_:___.. _--- --. ..... merely pnvauve, but
ctaun that spetch is iacideatal-~--~-'-: "= eosmon tro. m the one that ~
t!~ am= of
.
==o, ,._,._;._
=o
-~-. :~e...'~.~.aao
no au.d
and "this~"~~uon of ~ =u
: .......lure
~.
. ;.r~_
~;._._ ~ . _ _un_~i~t
.
, _. : ...... _biect
letted ,,,- -
: .- .--- ....... ~ . T o ~ , ~ , _ _ . . . , _ _
-
- - ~ I ~ ,
._ ......
.., .
peech
'L_
m m u l a t ~ = h b u t- '~-~' .-: ~
. : ~m
~ ,a~tm ~
s m- a y s e e m l i k e a c o n ,,.....,...jr
~'i;;',~
p=o=l. i tt m
~~
,=ave
nmde t~ m
d-:-, . . t,~ ,.utah meormut from Axistode to A,.,.,.,I
.
m ~t i
. .
......_t
kiads of I~,,=. 1,_ _~_ . t =s as imgumta: that humans L ....
.--- ,
---,e~ ~.~y ~___
~ ~ ~ . c O ~
a n
e a 0 t e l ~ o n
u~ome po~ucal
O f
s u d t
c l a i m . "
T h e
~,p,,h~ o~....
x.~ ~ speech
"_.--"~~olect. l'kred~e
- -m notwhether certain I
quemon
U~'b~ a ..t~_-_
~ are censored, but how an operation of ]
~,"
252
--
mu,~
w~m
the
"---'a"--~- ----It."2--:
.....
- - ~ t im.L
a m___
R ] T ~- I-X._:
) i m ~_~.~
~ h . . I k _ . .o_o
J
J~
.
.
;
;
_
.
.
,
.
~
,
u
u
.
O
I
S
~
~
~
"
-~
.......
- -, __'~ ;~.=,,-,
to the reguht~ ,~,
~ - me suu-~s
is narrowly ;'---;-., .,,.~~, .___~
-.-..: production
. ....
" ' "
Let us return to one of the quandaries that. opened this d~ion, nangly,
the view that "uncensoring a text is necessardy incomplete. In this formula-
behalf o:.a dominant power that seeks to control any challenges posed to
own legitimacy. Another, related exam-h is th- ....."
its
.. in
~
= -~ or censorst,
to budd (or rebmld) consensus within an instit,,,;.... ....
L .P an effort
--thin a nanon;, another ~ the use of censorsh;;i'n"th:cn_ as,~ me. mihtary, or
SpeagaDlllty .~ tw -,=,- v
,,
'/
253
~-
"~':i~.~
akes speech .possible-an inquiry into its conditions (ff Possihilj .
Ruled out
-,-.. s,,,'ech act is addressed, it is the sut!jec~
r , __.su,.,nosed an(] l;Jo~d r ,zt~~
t.hs..e~hof,.heone.t~Wsuh;hmp~,~e,~otthestateorso.me,ot.h
e P ....
d to w,em
whO now is v- _1. institutional power ,s p,~. ~rL.. ~,,hiect is described
instnu-". ,. -rs the woraS [-"" ""
l - L - .a~k the locus ot power na~,
that disrinction, But d,. .,". [ :aria a~tempts to supply persua~'uc' speech ix
t
.
one who derivee model of stare power, and .a,muur,or&ng to th
. "ect. the unxlateral action .of power rema,n.s
a,cc.L-a
to the subl ,_~__..., ~ subiect, and its exert|on culm,smr~ . t f om the"-state
exerted
by a SUD!cc~ v,, -
case." Thus_ th,. ,--- -, .wdl be the case" under the -' [ Power, a fugi.
the ....... ' ~". "~,)' uescnpdon of the Field ^" . rubr, of "what is .L
~ummon ot ,tl normative o"'rati-- - u~ speech is in no sense - ." me
-~ ,ee evmence of this kind of move in the kind,of speech re uire
on o! speech.
way .,u, .-..,.- ---.~..,-.;nn of speech. Furmcr, mL.-. ,- -- ,.. ~ ;~ nroduced "7
and forces the p[uu. ~ .... unt of how the speaking suaj_~,. ,- r- L..~." %
tag; a~.u
.
~ rouu~.--.mode| of power, can
_L .~.., ,~recede the subFct ~tself. Th P -'-:-. /
rhro,f,h onstraints on spec~, .,-- r.~ . 1 the language or censorsn,v
~/
,
.
i 6ifficult to describe trurougn
form of po
" /
'
ir'~-uoon
--,~.xosure that
0--L
, ~
. . . . .
l e term
state m
a
A~'~ Erom d~ u s e o ' ~ t e r m m c-e a'e
me~S,
more gene.rally,
ring the redem tion of a mort~ge mr yam e, m --'-- it anr~ars to pinuP'
"'u"h narra.
. ,---,~mnee~ triumn~h
nunatmn m ..a .......
"oum;~uon. ~uch
mort may
but
--
~hO~! v~W _e
. da~ ~,ncs as
m.g ff~.
p r o
um~
Of
"---J"
a d d r e s s e d , - - - . - - - v - ~ q l a r ( ~ l a s " a l l ~ ; . - . , , z ,
:--,,umorized by the &m'--.----'--'";';']' ~epnved of the power to res,,,,nd
n e~ounte~. :,__ ."~. ~'~z q~eec~ act, backed k,, i._i...~.__ ,
~'"7 '
where that
:"~"'~m~..e~ff~.__ of a
B
""
1
; i
I I
m
m
- ~...r...a
-- I
deprive oae Im~ ..~ ..~_ ~''.wmcn atlem that citizens wield th- -,,~-- -v.
- -
i il
~m
. . . ~ ~ t ~ - - - - . . ~ . u s a - . ~ a t ~ :., u....
l~-~
---.--
.'~m~veret~lx)we~..;i.,.._,,_- "~"an"ruPasonemwhlcha~.mr.li..~4
ot speech ia b'--' .. -"'";,-,r/repremq a ....'----"
-
1~..--_.
, .
. o
~~,|J
trJt
;:
~e'(m
oreclomr~ ~. a~ay ot aes~nau-s * ~.': .'='='- ..... (ion makes ~"
~ for_~
~ Jean. Lap|anche
ame.
-' "- -"--choana|vsts
~ne I~)"
an(] .j.-o..~.~
-t .-..ressicm,
one
. . ~.__ .. ,,,~m~
torm o[.L,-J~
.......,~.,...
" m U ~ t l l
r-
c o n s t t t l R u I g 1 l o t t o D y w.
msusnce, a story about abuse an" '- "~- ,ramea; ,n reference to dru
" 7
..
~,~ole a $.l~.akin- -- ~-
over -- ..... ,
"
. ~ , " y ~ - ~ - - ~ u a e a u t n o s l z ~ t l o n fl ~ . . _
"'-- .... " - ' - - ' ~
m b ~ - t
, _
_ ,
- -
. b e f o ~ . _ ~ v ~ -
i ~
L
'~(;,
_ _ _ ; h , t [ V i : L , x d u J ; J O n ~ l tm
' O.---~ ~ l -~ .,.
: ~_
l-~
" " ~ t' "o ~ "m. .e. . ---....
~ a--t
~ " s'~A a tern.m..- if'~'~l~'r-m~. '.~_'~;,.,ible widm~
o
f
s
'
'
'
~ , t t ~ u v . - -s - -~_. n . m
. - -- .- -- h
b
l
m
r
a
n
y
a
~
r
'
- - i_~_ ~#_~~
1 . " ' , . . . . . .
s ~ ~ ~
lw e~orc~ ,~. ,,- .... _ . ,_
"
'
'
'
: ~
RuleCl Out
o.~ power, one that is not fully dete-.-:--~, - "',-, nut Is Precisely rh.. _," "
" .
''""U m a~lvance I~ .t._ ." """ 'meet
duced In sne~h ,g .... L
mauve [*mttatton that sets the ,otcomes
~_
~ "- ~~- -u- .s . t h
- - "fo.
"
. i s f o u n d8i nand
.
possuble
on the co-~-s c. e n e l o r t h' e,,s~ucy
r
ot
tt~e
sub'-,
.
agency of the SOverei-- _._, .numon ot such a foreclosure. "rLICC.t' Agency
6I' sunlect, one who only an.~ -,-a,s is not the
instm----.-,L...~,,ta,y on another: on ,k. ..... / " d,ways exero;.-.eu~
subject
sphereof
tals isisthe
agencyi-of- a'~S_pwer
is also
openwhose
to a hnher
and di~u"u.-nrrary'
.._ --,re opera,on
delimited
z~ustSOver,
--expected dellmitae;r.. ~c i" aovance but
sure does no- "-"
date its pO;era~e place once and for all, but must~'he acuon of fOre~lo,
.___,
... .umplicitlv
,u eatcacy.
The subject
_ .e repeated
to reconso
~axaole
rein-.-'~ -, .. wh,,
h ".
-- -~Peaks
wtthi.- .L_
.
vocation, bower--'-'- .~.oxes tae. toreclOsure on whi,4. :. '~ ,,e sphere of the
ship that it cannot fully oppose or. eradicate. In. th.ls sense, censorship is at
not.
. d.oes
,
. e the cond ition for agency and its necessary hmzt. Thzs paradox
u r i c . . . . :g.li'~ of decision, but merely suggests that decmon s imph
.
relute me pos~,,~,,, ,~
ambivalence. Although the postulauon that s.f~h ,s condmoned by ,mpliat
censorship--or foreclosure in the sense described above--suggests that any
and all speech is so conditioned, and that .what remains is to distinguish
between forms of censorship that are const, tuttve and, hence, presumably
inalterable, and social forms that are contingent and alterable. What is equa. lly pressing, however, arid |ss easy to address, is the qucstl~, o.f how
forms of censorship come to appear arid to o.p,~rt as constnm-~ ~ n~lterable conditions of speech,.h.ow certain k,nds of speech are ruled out m
order for "speech" in its provmonally proper sense to emerge.
Notes
- , ~ w
o r
t h e
C e n * . - - - t .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. .
m e
. . . . . . z,k...,., t'~
]HIEm~ m
B~mdle.
.,.-L
I~ ~__
.
1~ WI"L-'- ~" '
t t_asU .S. l.b. l v I ~ _ ~- - - - - . w u l ~ 8 0e,,,.
e~
, -kP
uu,n waw.~
- - i n o r m a t i v e - r P ~ . ~ s - -m" -i a
.
"",~- We r
stand theu m
1-'--"
t s O tto
i t sfind
e r a d out
i , . . k what
: a : . _ .we
a m-: a. nmtances
b y " c e n s of
o r acemorshin
h ; , , - . _ J _ ' ~But
" , "i,
'.~'an8 rL~hinb;._th
1 " S g t
. usm~UUlons Of ,- .....
" ......:~"
"'ugxl~red an
5 Seegicim~-,,~ .(th~ial)etail:TheFeti~dCemmd~md~
.to exploit the -re a.nu prornme of its peculisr"b.md_eml tot ageny, but the
- - "
of .c~.sof
f,tt
..__The.cnncal task ,s not sim,,I .... _
"~-rT. external to m,~.,,h .__, ~-,~ m speak -against- th
__.,f the law
.
e law, as
~m. If me,.,-h a.~_~_""~ -,,u speech the nrivi,-----'_;--. -~.--7-', '~1a:nds upon r,..o^_~.." ,,-s .ca Venue tor indiv"
o~x t ,,,._._.
---,-v~a
,, ,.._ ..
.
tdual freemr'.u~" ~ Drimq,.I- .L
~
..~ 0 ..nelau~ IS at 0""- .L .
"
""-~....
me tor----" " ". ".. ~.-:~-'~-,~_~_[.nat o
nere m no op~ositi. - ' adrau v e "-P' r i"npPst.tLoaal
c i p l e o * - speec~h~.
. T. ~ g h t
,,,, ~o me. lines
rcarawmg
- "
of those re--- li _. ,*n oy toreclosure e.x; "" :. _ ._._..
temporal dynamic --/Y n es. Th,s is not a a._., . _ ~pt through the
. ,
p u I ~ U n . ~ q t t O Vi ~
m qlammo~
Butler
10, This il a distinction that Michel Foucault offers in the ~eco,d v-lume t~f Tke
Ruled Out
History of Srx~lily, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage, 1980}, in hi~ effort to
counter disciplinary form of power with sovereign power. He Istmgt~ishes between
power conceived as "repressive" and as "productive."
d' '
11, ~ George E, Man:us, "Censorship in the Heart of D'
e n y, [ n d : g e n o u s P e o n i e s ' . - , - . . . . . . . . .
dference: C ..-- , _ _ _ . . . . . . . . r M " ' " " ~ " ' s , a n d C h a l l e n g e s t o W,. Ul.ura,
Prop.
pll$ca ~l-qZ in this volume,
cstern LIherat
Thought.
12, See Sin)ford Levinmn, "The "Put-' ,
,
.
elary btate: Cen
,
Practices of Cultural P.e~ularin,,'- .....
sonhtp, Sdenc;,..., ",s, and the
13. Hs---+this volu,-.
, 111111 / -~ P.e ".
n 0 t---:-'~,
C l | ~ l , A lPuKes
~ $ t o d e ' $ i~5--219
definitionin" ,,
"""
I; ng. .
. ~ +
. + I t
~ O r / ~ e l ~ I t
, n t ~ p r e t l t i o n
o f
A r i s t . ~ e
o n
t L -
[ J l f e ' e :
| 9 ' S ) ~ l
: ~ ? '
n tehm~onn| ~
e i+pTedni fdf S~i fl -r -o. m
I ~to4n: , IC
- zR
- +. o b e_r t.P o lot ,f etuh m
i s =d l.m. n.c u. o n i - L ~ " ,
.
15 See SQid: .. ""-,,qk ImSes 1-12 m this volume
- ms Introouc
forthcomi~!, q,a nartman, ~ of Subiectioa (New York: Oxford Univ. Press,
F ~ V ~ ' ~ l ~ ; ~ m e ~ ( N ~ e w f ~ y o ~ : l ~ W ~ " i udedge,
n J u d i t h1992).
l~uder and Joan Scott,
1 7 . We a d v r e . o . . . . . .
.:--'-" "", rnm<lom'eSih..o..,._
"".'~ pages 313--27 in tl~ volume.
18, Ibid.
fo~l~ion and is i
,
.
the French
m l l....
llllQO~ Or
-.----uu or "~n"
----" '" smuemay t~nda~d :--- -- ...
taro r.aSllMI I~
velli~im .i.._ "-~"" 132 tile V~Id4/re ~ I. ~. . .
"+ prjc.b+mm~le (Fszis: n.___+ .
.
. ~-- ,,+ trance, L967~ I.-_. .
,
mrLb~l~e~.,_m
- " o
, u r ~ g
Tin.
I D
~_r lntroduced
~ l ~ ; . . . . as
.
Omd.of
of
m dote
,
.to
. . the notion o+ . .
+
u ~
of,h+
wmmlt ~
m~ Wlmt m ~ is eo be +Pu,Jnm,
. . . i,~a ~-,
.
telm=~ (,,r~...
....
- - - : . . . . -..,,
'"~ m I~rem~k t_J ,. _ .
l O l e d -1-m
, ..
--.,
. _ _ _ _ _ m~m--~
-m mto .the- -,.- .....
mmof ~...
"
nm
e,,,. ;-.-
... .
m-
, , ~ r. _ f to
- " ~m , o ~ , . ~ t i u ,mmu
e x d . -II~rm~es
-:~-'-' ~ m= ~ ~ dure~rem
--.,~',ce
F,~ oll ~ko ,rL ~ m relation to.~- -- s~rmbohc coherence. Freud
~,, ,~ _~. -u,m~ ~ Sexual...,. -,..._ -,-,car mcmmmdon in both "TbeThree
--:, ..,i as, m ~, sP~.~.., ~'. " ~1, am/~ xism~ of an ~.,...~,- ~--_
.r m
"'-,-,
umu,. un~ the-----. ':.I. " .~+/~rn~ e~=~olo~t Wor~ of Sig~, 19S3-1974t wn_ ~ emCourhin of ,.__ +. .
,, --ea~ F~e.d O,~,.;--..,Lr J""" ~ (Lomlo.: H~
25S
+ - - - ' ~ " Y ~ t o d e fi u e a f o r m o f r e p r m -