《没有禁书:审查制度、权威和20世纪70年代的教科书争议

IF 0.3 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE American Political Thought Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1086/723442
Rita Koganzon
{"title":"《没有禁书:审查制度、权威和20世纪70年代的教科书争议","authors":"Rita Koganzon","doi":"10.1086/723442","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What accounts for the persistence of school book banning controversies in the United States? In Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that book removal violates children’s right to read, but school book challenges have only increased since then. I argue that Americans have been unable to put this controversy to rest because a misleading narrative of censorship framed the Pico case and has continued to frame the question since. That narrative depicted what is fundamentally a contest between competing adult authorities—educational professionals and parents—as instead a contest between children and adults. By reconstructing the development of this narrative by young adult authors and professional educators in the 1970s, I show that the invention of children’s “right to read” in this period sought to discredit the legitimate democratic authority of school boards over curricular decisions in a way that left the conflict simmering and unresolvable.","PeriodicalId":41928,"journal":{"name":"American Political Thought","volume":"12 1","pages":"1 - 26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"There Is No Such Thing as a Banned Book: Censorship, Authority, and the School Book Controversies of the 1970s\",\"authors\":\"Rita Koganzon\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/723442\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"What accounts for the persistence of school book banning controversies in the United States? In Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that book removal violates children’s right to read, but school book challenges have only increased since then. I argue that Americans have been unable to put this controversy to rest because a misleading narrative of censorship framed the Pico case and has continued to frame the question since. That narrative depicted what is fundamentally a contest between competing adult authorities—educational professionals and parents—as instead a contest between children and adults. By reconstructing the development of this narrative by young adult authors and professional educators in the 1970s, I show that the invention of children’s “right to read” in this period sought to discredit the legitimate democratic authority of school boards over curricular decisions in a way that left the conflict simmering and unresolvable.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41928,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Political Thought\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Political Thought\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/723442\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Political Thought","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/723442","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

是什么导致了美国学校禁书争议的持续?在1982年的“岛树学区诉皮科案”中,最高法院裁定,撤除书籍侵犯了儿童阅读的权利,但自那以后,对学校书籍的挑战只增不少。我认为,美国人一直无法平息这场争议,因为一种误导性的审查叙述框定了皮科案,并从那以后继续框定了这个问题。这种叙述从根本上讲是相互竞争的成人权威——教育专家和家长——之间的竞争,而不是儿童和成人之间的竞争。通过重构20世纪70年代年轻成人作家和专业教育工作者这种叙事的发展,我表明,在这一时期,儿童“阅读权”的发明,试图以一种让冲突不断发酵、无法解决的方式,抹黑学校董事会在课程决策方面的合法民主权威。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
There Is No Such Thing as a Banned Book: Censorship, Authority, and the School Book Controversies of the 1970s
What accounts for the persistence of school book banning controversies in the United States? In Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that book removal violates children’s right to read, but school book challenges have only increased since then. I argue that Americans have been unable to put this controversy to rest because a misleading narrative of censorship framed the Pico case and has continued to frame the question since. That narrative depicted what is fundamentally a contest between competing adult authorities—educational professionals and parents—as instead a contest between children and adults. By reconstructing the development of this narrative by young adult authors and professional educators in the 1970s, I show that the invention of children’s “right to read” in this period sought to discredit the legitimate democratic authority of school boards over curricular decisions in a way that left the conflict simmering and unresolvable.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Political Thought
American Political Thought POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
期刊最新文献
:The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism :The Cambridge Companion to Montesquieu Conservative Progressivism? Michael Cunniff, Federalism, and the Founding of Arizona :America’s Philosopher: John Locke in American Political Life “Dishonorable to the American Character”: James Madison and the Impact of the Federal Convention’s Bargain on Slavery
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1