this week i listened to someone give a presentation of a book review. the book was what you might call an obviously orientalist text, complete with uncomplicated universalizing of western christian values as global values, and tokenistic reference (one chapter) to 'other' worldviews such as those homogenous cultures in 'india' and 'china' that are just so darned easy to summarize. the book was presented to a group of students, myself included, as a text that would be worthwhile for new scholars and their teachers in the field in which the book was immersed - ethics.
as the book sat silently on the table beside its puppet, i was shocked at the amount of violence such a tiny little thing could carry - the book, i mean. while of course the book is only significant in the context of multiple other influential sites of orientalist meaning-making, the innocent looking little paperback of not more than 200 pages sitting before me allowed its reviewer to read the story of contemporary western ethical principals as simply passively inherited. according to my gracious interlocutor, religious wars and longstanding principled regulations launched in the name of christianity, are apparently rendered insignificant to the current ethical frameworks of the west. i take issue with this because as these culture-shaping events are ignored in the book, they further erase the extensive histories of imperial cultural domination through which the contemporary moral foundations of the west are stabilized. some examples of these textual omissions include, enduring legacies of islamophobia (from varying scales of christian cultural domination such as the crusades and including canonical literature such as dante's inferno), gendered violence (the eradication of pagan and feminized medicinal practices through the practiced burning of so-called witches), and colonialism (if enlightenment taught us anything, it was that the civilized know better than the savages). indeed the sanctity of modern ethical frameworks in the christian world, including western legal traditions, rests on these historical practices of active suppression. although the christian moral foundation of the west as often (mis)taken as an acquiescent invisibility, it is certainly not a set of values that simply 'came to be.'
as the reviewer concluded by reiterating the great pedagogical value of the text, my levels of anger reached their boiling point. there, in that university classroom, i found myself thinking an unthinkable thought...'i would like to burn that book.' pause. 'i would like to burn that book?' pause. if i burned the book, people would call me a fascist. granted, if i burned the book, i would call myself a fascist. im sure i could never bring myself to burn a book. but this got me thinking, what is it about burning books in the west that is so evocative?
certainly, the books of iraq, palestine, and afghanistan have been recently burned - and continue to burn as i write - by the hand of allied forces' bombs and airstrikes. certainly, poorly funded individuals and organizations who collect archival materials necessarily subject their collections to unsafe environments because they cannot afford secure storage. these practices can result in the loss of years of documents and ephemeral materials from minority cultures due to things like basement flooding, or violent eviction measures. moreover, the foundational structure of the publishing industry itself is such that there are certain types of knowledge, certain languages, certain subjects, and certain ways of communicating, that are (pardon the pun) bound to be published. the industry itself thereby regulates the fundamental concept of what can be considered 'a book.' do these examples, not also represent forms of, albeit in some cases more subtle, 'book burning'?
of course, the burning of books conjures up images of dangerous, alarming scenes - with particular historical reference - where freedom of speech is under attack and ideologies have gone to such extremes that textual forms of dissent cannot be tolerated. however, do the less-prescriptive forms of exterminating books not also embody the same fundamental issues that we are fearful of when we think of infamous public book burnings such as freedom of speech, and ideologically informed censorship? why is it okay to burn some books and not others? whose practices of book burning get labelled fascist and whose are exempt from criticism due to insitutionalized excuses such as 'collateral damage' or a normalized capitalist private property ownership model that systemically discriminates against those who cannot, or refuse to, engage with it?
my deeply entrenched liberal values urge me to guard against a reading of my words here as an endorsement of book burning, but actually, im not sure what that i would be defending. the moral value attributed to the sanctity of 'freedom of speech' is not a passive right or inherited foundational principal of freedom divorced from historical and political context, but a device that actively legitimizes some kinds of 'freedom of speech' over others'.
