Outsider's Perspective: Self-Censorship

Below is the first entry to my new column in the quarterly academic magazine, P~YP!, published by the languages department at my Alma Mater.


Welcome to my column, Outsider’s Perspective. The name refers firstly to my current “outsider”-status as an expatriate. At present, I’m living in Korea and working at an English department of a university in Seoul. The column title is also a little tongue in cheek allusion to my artistic disposition. Once in a conversation with Ms Marinda Moodie I commented that those artistically inclined, like myself, often feel as if they are being treated differently. Her apt response was: “That’s because you are different.” Enough about that.

I’m starting this column with the rather strange notion of self-censorship. I had an essay prepared for this issue of P~YP! about Jacob Zuma as an iconic intertextual figure. Because of recent unrest on the Potchefstroom campus I decided to recall the essay, just in case it is misunderstood and provokes protest. Was this a good or a bad decision?

South Africa’s current enjoyment of freedom of expression was not always the case. We’ve experienced our fare share of governmental censorship. Out of that censorship grew a rich history of protest literature. In a free society, as we live in now, protest literature is mostly substituted with social comment. This is a sign of a healthy democracy, where one would expect the least amount of censorship by government or other institutions of authority.

But what about self-censorship?

THE GOOD

We are continuously busy with self-censorship. When you choose not to gossip, that is self-censorship. When you decide not to upload a rather unflattering picture of a friend on Facebook, that is self-censorship. So in a sense, self-censorship is sometimes merely considered behaviour. Good manners, if you like.

The news website SAGoodNews.Com deliberately focuses on more favourable South African news. This attempt at actively counteracting the avalanche of ill-news that is so prevalent in South African media, by deliberately not reporting on it, can also be seen as self-censorship.

It is my understanding that when people silence themselves it can be either intrinsically motivated or extrinsically motivated. SAGoodNews.Com is intrinsically motivated to give a positive perspective on South Africa. In doing so they make an editorial decision to censor out negative news about South Africa. It is a self-motivated initiative on their part; nobody forced them. Another example of intrinsically motivated self-censorship may be a journalist deciding to omit certain details, such as the names of their sources, in order to ensure the safety of these individuals. Some journalists have had to endure legal prosecution for their vow of silence. This is a form of self-censorship which is highly admired in the journalistic community.

So in short, one may be intrinsically motivated to self-censorship, if one thinks that speaking out could do more harm than good.

THE BAD

A negative form of self-censorship is when the reason for keeping quiet is not personally motivated, but externally motivated; for instance, when one is intimidated into silence. There might be no direct active censorship per se, but the socio-political atmosphere makes it difficult to speak up. Take for example the threats directed at South Africa’s foremost political cartoonist, Zapiro. His commentary against politicians has resulted in all kinds of threats, both legally and against his person. In reaction to the Zapiro cartoons that depict Jacob Zuma “about to rape the justice system”, the Mpumalanga branch of the South Africa National Civics Organization (SASCO) called for the reintroduction of media censorship.

Should Zapiro have been more careful (i.e. considerate) in his political comment? Is political correctness a good reason for self-censorship?

THE UGLY

Another cartoon-incident concerned a Danish newspaper, Jyllans-Posten. The newspaper published some cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad on 30 September 2005. Some proponents of Islam considered the cartoons blasphemous and a series of protests resulted in Denmark and around the globe, including attacks on Danish and other European embassies. According to UK’s TimesOnline, Danish Prime Minister Ander Fogh Rasmussen called the controversy the “worst international relations incident since the Second World War”. Interestingly the cartoons were part of a larger discourse about self-censorship. BBC’s documentary, Bloody Cartoons (2007), about this cartoon controversy ends with the rather sombre conclusion that since this storm has died down Danish newspapers have started to employ self-censorship out of apprehension for future uprisings. Is their self-censorship good or bad? Is it an intrinsically motivated decision for a more peaceful Denmark, or is it an extrinsically motivated decision based on intimidation by protestors?

Earlier this year Random House publisher announced that they will not publish the historical novel, Jewel of Medina, anymore. The novel, by Sherry Jones, is a fictional autobiography of Aisha, the beloved wife of Muhammad. The publisher feared Islamic reprisals to the book. Their fear was not unfounded. Another publisher, Gibson Square, who opted to publish Jewel of Medina had their offices in London firebombed a few weeks ago. Will they continue their planned publishing of the book, or will they make an editorial decision to retract the book? How much literature will be lost if publishers are intimidated into publishing only religiously correct-books?

Feminist social commentator, Naomi Wolf, describes in her book The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot (2007) how governments turn into fascist states. One step in this direction is through the intimidation or incarceration of certain key-figures, specifically social commentators and journalists who speak up against the government. After such arrests, many people that were once outspoken start to employ self-censorship out of fear of a similar fate. Soon no one is brave enough to take up the pen, lest they too become martyrs. According to Wolf, America is already leaning in that direction. I wonder what would become of works like George Orwell’s 1984?

Three days before the previous President Thabo Mbeki was requested to resign, his senior bodyguard was murdered in his sleep. His wife, who was sleeping next to him, was unharmed. Nothing was stolen. Mr Mbeki stepped down without so much as a whimper. Is there a link between the bodyguard’s assassination and Mbeki’s “silent” obedience? We don’t know. We don’t know because it seems that the media (and the country) have decided to take the route of self-censorship. Is it an intrinsically motivated silence, like SAGoodNews.Com, or is it extrinsically motivated, possibly like that of the Danish media?