February 26, 2008 12:44 PM
Propaganda in children's literature
Perhaps the greatest lesson for parents from conflicts about books like And Tango Makes Three is the need to develop a deeper understanding of children's literature.
C. S. Lewis wrote, "It certainly is my opinion that a book worth reading only in childhood is not worth reading even then."
So true. There are books that inspire and stir the imagination (Lord of the Rings, King Arthur). There are books that explore human relationships and the choices we make (anything Jane Austen). There are books that expose the culture's underbelly and show the triumph of the human spirit (anything Dickens). There are books that help children cope with insecurities (Ira Sleeps Over or A Birthday Gift for Frances), find their place in the world (Noisy Nora), or maintain hope and optimism (A Chair for My Mother).
Then there is the current tsunami of "relevant" teen books and propagandistic picture books for kids. Here is where parents really need to look beyond the pictures or the copy on the back cover to find the subtext(s). My girls tell me of books they're required to read on eating disorders, broken homes, suicidal teens. Often there is a Christian character to serve as a foil - representing everything hypocritical and evil to contrast with the goodness and virtue of the kids with all the problems. Not that Christian kids don't have problems - we all do- but hopefully they've been raised with compassion and hope.
Every writer has a worldview. Some writers write because they are compelled to write, as though somewhere along the line they struck oil and writing becomes the default. I think of people like Shakespeare and Dickens and Austen and Elliot who wrote in the days when a writer paid a price to write - cutting nibs on pens and mixing their own ink, handwriting page after page after page.
Nowadays, it takes so little effort to write that anyone can do it. So people can choose to grind out pulp teen fiction focused on darkness, on lives going nowhere - and thanks to Jr. Scholastic, people will buy it. People with a political ax to grind can write a warm and fuzzy picture book and progressive librarians will stock it.
In a culture with too much abundance and not enough discernment, our kids' library shelves have become like a cafeteria tipping way too far toward junk food. Too many choices and many of them meaningless.
(One of my friends is a librarian - I hope she understands this is not a personal attack on her profession, but simply observing: are we losing the transcendent in a bog of mediocrity?)
Which leads to my main problem with And Tango Makes Three and books like it.
I don't like to see children used as political pawns. Too often these days, children's literature is being hijacked by people with a political agenda who want to "teach" children the lessons they think they need to learn.
In a National Public Radio interview – “Here and Now” May 3, 2005, Robert Skutch, author of Who’s in a Family? said:
“The whole purpose of the book was to get the subject [of same-sex parent households] out into the minds and the awareness of children before they are old enough to have been convinced that there's another way of looking at life.
“. . . It would be really nice if children were not subjected to the – I don't want to use the word 'bigotry,' but that's what I want to say anyway – of their parents and older people.
That's a very narrow worldview, I must say. And I'm not sure that writers who write for children simply for indoctrination purposes merit the same kind of trust and respect that authors who write from a more inspired place and a broader worldview enjoy. (I don't write children's books, btw, but I've been reading them to students and my own children for 39 years.)
Adults themselves are vulnerable to propaganda. Why shouldn't children be protected from it? Children's propaganda is not new - in a cursory google search I found references dating back to the French Revolution.
I'm wondering if a picture book about a boy who wanted to grow up to be a priest - maybe based on a true story - would be acceptable on public school library shelves? Or how about a story of a girl who one day got off the bus crying because two boys - one from a fiercely atheist home - had called her "pea-brain" and "stupid" because she is a Christian? This really happened to my daughter Maddy a couple years ago (the only time she ever came home without a smile on her consistently happy face).
The point is that all children will encounter opposition at some point in their lives - they are too fat, too skinny, too smart, too dumb, too clumsy, too shy. Their house is too small, their car too old, their parents too weird. Maybe their parents are two dads or two moms. You know, I don't think in the world of little children these things really matter all that much.
The early years are the years for building up character, compassion and kindness so that when these issues come up our kids will respond in the right way. They would not bully someone for being homosexual or having homosexual parents because they do not bully, period.
The problem with children's propaganda is not only that it doesn't respect the autonomy of individuals and their families, but that they crowd out more worthy choices on crowded shelves and in busy schedules.
John Stevens says he is going to ask for a review/updating/overhaul of Loudoun County Public Schools book review procedures. If this is the case, I do hope that we will add a component to the review process that has to do with guarding our children from propaganda. When a group - many with no children in the public schools - dress up in black and white to defend a book about Penguins, you know it's about more than penguins.
Posted in Books, Loudoun County, Public schools | Permalink
Comments
Very well put!! I agree with you on all points and would love to see this in the Wa Post - perhaps you could submit it or at least send it as a letter to the editors? We need some balance in the media on this issue!
Posted by: Christina | February 26, 2008 5:32 PM
Barbara - I completely agree! Children are not little political pawns and should not be indoctrinated. I just wanted you to know that I linked to this article. I hope a lot of parents take a careful look at what their kids are reading at school.
Posted by: Shannon Miller | February 26, 2008 6:15 PM
Well said!!
Posted by: stacie | February 26, 2008 7:15 PM
I agree with you about attempts to exert pernicious influence over children by means of the literature they are given to read. One point of interest though: books that are heavily-handed in their didactic intention tend to turn kids off. They lack the sort of resonance that you get in a story written out of a compassionate spirit. Propoganda is always drier and more indigestible than good prose or poetry. Still, it is obnoxious when people try pushing a barrow, running an agenda and try getting into kids' heads with it. This could be why we see an increase in faith-based schools, and a move away from public education.
Posted by: Andrew Clarke | February 26, 2008 11:29 PM
May I suggest a book title for your consideration? "Outcasts of Skagaray" is one you might like, and it would be good to hear your opinion of it.
Posted by: Andrew Clarke | February 26, 2008 11:35 PM
Thanks for the article. It's amazing how we can gloss over obvious worldviews in children's literature and television.
Posted by: Matthew Griffin | February 27, 2008 7:44 AM
I found your post because I felt annoyed today by a new book that to me is propaganda. I was wondering if I was the only one who can spot it. I feel like more and more children's picture books are propaganda and it makes me so angry!
Great post.
Posted by: ChristineMM | November 30, 2008 10:55 AM
