Review of Dangerous reading: How socially constructed narratives of childhood shape perspectives on book banning

Dangerous reading: How socially constructed narratives of childhood shape perspectives on book banning

Urruty, Nick

Tucker, T. (2024). Dangerous reading: How socially constructed narratives of childhood shape perspectives on book banning. Public Library Quarterly (New York, N.Y.), 43(2), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2023.2232289

The article starts by discussing the current surge in book-banning. Tucker notes that this recent movement is driven by the political right, but notes that historically, calls to ban or censor books has not been a tactic associated with any one part of the political spectrum; some progressives have called for the removal or alteration of certain  classic works of literature due to racist, sexist, or otherwise objectionable content. The sorts of books that progressives and conservatives challenge are very different, but Tucker argues they have one critical trait in common- that children are passive and helpless readers who will internalize any message they come across uncritically. While it doesn’t always manifest in calls for book banning, the idea that children can be corrupted by indecent media is a fairly common one in current western society, but Tucker argues that these beliefs are not shaped by facts and evidence but by the current understanding of what children and childhood are, an understanding that has changed drastically and repeatedly over many centuries. 

The current understanding of children and their relationship to books originate from Enlightenment and Romantic-era writers, John Locke and Jean Jacque Rousseau in particular. Both argued that children were susceptible to being negatively influenced by the world and culture around them, and these ideas gradually worked their way into Western culture itself. Much later, Evangelical writers like Hannah More and Mary Martha Sherwood expressed concerns about what parts of literature children were understanding on a deeper level, leading to greater scrutiny over material intended for child readers. 

More modern studies have shown what a complex and multifaceted process a child’s learning from reading is, and studies have drawn a variety of different conclusions about different aspects. While the varied results are not consistent enough to be considered definitive, this research suggests that reading can have an effect, but often short-lived or unpredictable effects, and rather than imparting new perspectives on the child, reading often simply reinforces the child’s existing beliefs and understanding. 

Tucker also brings up how, regardless of what we may want, sexual, violent, and racially charged encounters are not unknown to many children in the world, particularly those from underprivileged backgrounds. Being able to see their own experiences, traumatic ones included, reflected in characters in books, can help young readers navigate their own situations. 

I really enjoyed this article. Most of the arguments against book banning have focused on the damage that can be done by restricting children's’ access to such information, or the legal implications of removing materials from public spaces that should be protected. This article was the first time I had ever seen an examination of where the impulse to ban and censor literature for children's’ sake comes from in the first place. Exploring how the current perception of children in the west is both relatively recent and largely the product of a handful of writers was a very effective way of helping the reader to understand why the entire concept of censorship as a means of protecting children is flawed. I also really appreciated the acknowledgement that, while the political right has been spearheading the recent spike in book-banning, the practice is not exclusive to any one part of the political spectrum, and that some progressives have also been guilty of trying to protect childhood innocence by making certain material unavailable.

Following that section with an examination of studies on the actual impact of reading on children’s perception was another smart choice, illustrating that yes, a practice based on a largely invented understanding of children is not going to have results that align with that understanding. Pointing out that these studies show that reading doesn’t make children more open-minded or ethical just as it doesn’t make them less so was another valuable insight, here- Tucker is challenging the entire narrative that children are easily influenced by books, not just the parts of that narrative that opponents of book bannings are likely to criticize.

Tucker ends the article with more familiar arguments about the negative impact book bannings can have on children who have no access to representation in literature. The previous sections give this one a great deal more weight, though, showing us how pointless the work that had such negative consequences really was.

The current massive push for book bannings is VERY politically charged, but I think Tucker is correct in framing the root of the problem as a politically neutral one. I’m not sure how well the argument that our understanding of childhood is an invention would play to a national audience, but the emphasis on studies showing the lack of impact reading has on a child’s biases and perceptions, one way or the other, does seem like an effective way to change minds and rally support against book banning without the need to lean on political factionalism.