“Censorship and Literature” by John Courtney Murray: Summary and Critique

1. The Central Issue: Balancing Freedom and Restraint

• Murray argues that the core issue of censorship revolves around striking a balance between social freedom and necessary constraints.
• He states, “In society, constraint must be for the sake of freedom” (Murray, 1956, p. 681), suggesting that regulations should ultimately serve to increase freedom rather than diminish it.
• He acknowledges the paradox of imposing constraints while protecting liberties and emphasizes that constraints should be minimal and justified.

2. The Role of Government in Censorship

• He explores whether the state has the authority to impose censorship and under what conditions.
• He notes that government censorship falls under the principle of “police power,” which extends to areas such as public morality and order (Murray, 1956, p. 680).
• Murray warns against excessive government interference, suggesting that censorship should be limited to necessary cases that protect society without infringing on individual rights.

3. Legal Censorship vs. Moral Law

• He differentiates between legal and moral censorship, stating, “It is not the function of the legislator to forbid everything that the moral law forbids, or to enjoin everything that the moral law enjoins” (Murray, 1956, p. 685).
• He emphasizes that law operates on a minimal level, enforcing only the essential moral framework for social order.

4. The Problem of Censoring Sexual Morality

• Murray highlights the challenge of regulating sexual content, noting that no government has ever successfully balanced sexual censorship without infringing on freedom or provoking negative consequences (Murray, 1956, p. 682).
• He points out historical paradoxes, such as the severe censorship of books by the Catholic Church while prostitution was rampant in Rome (Murray, 1956, p. 683).

5. American Constitutional Approach to Freedom of Expression

• He explains that the U.S. has constitutionally favored freedom over censorship, stating, “We have constitutionally decided that the presumption is in favor of freedom, and that the advocate of constraint must make a convincing argument for its necessity” (Murray, 1956, p. 684).
• Prior restraint on expression is largely prohibited, with the government retaining the right to punish offenses post-publication.

6. Non-Governmental Censorship and Social Responsibility

• Murray discusses the role of voluntary associations in censorship, distinguishing between persuasion and coercion.
• He acknowledges the legitimacy of such organizations influencing moral standards but warns against coercive tactics like boycotts and economic pressure (Murray, 1956, p. 688-689).
• He argues that censorship, whether governmental or private, must follow a “juridical process” guided by rationality and consensus.

7. The Role of Professional Competence in Censorship

• He asserts that censorship should not be left to amateurs and that literary critics or experts should guide the process.
• He references the Catholic Church’s approach, stating, “Censorship is no job for the amateur” (Murray, 1956, p. 690).
• He warns against moral indignation overriding objective judgment in censorship decisions.

8. The “Pornography of Violence” as a Greater Concern

• Murray argues that violent imagery combined with sexual themes is more harmful than explicit depictions of sex alone.
• He critiques media that romanticizes violence, calling for restraint in this area (Murray, 1956, p. 691).

9. The Need for Literary Creation Over Censorship

• He concludes by emphasizing that the focus should not be on censorship but on fostering quality literary works.
• He cites Pope Leo XIII, who argued that “there is great danger in not reading good books” (Murray, 1956, p. 691), highlighting the need for moral and intellectual engagement rather than mere restriction.

1. New Historicism and the Power of Institutions

• Theory Overview: New Historicism, developed by Stephen Greenblatt, argues that literature is deeply embedded in historical and political contexts. Institutions such as the Church, the government, and the legal system play a vital role in shaping literary production and reception.
• Murray’s Contribution:
  • He critiques the role of institutions in controlling literature, stating that censorship has historically been justified as an exercise of police power—the government’s authority to regulate public order (Murray, 1956, p. 680).
  • He acknowledges that moral constraints on literature arise from institutionalized norms but warns that these institutions must balance constraint with the promotion of freedom: “Censorship in the civil order must be a juridical process” (Murray, 1956, p. 685).
  • His discussion of the Catholic Church’s censorship of books (e.g., Index Librorum Prohibitorum) reflects New Historicist concerns about how power structures influence literary canon formation.

---

2. Reader-Response Theory and the Role of Interpretation

• Theory Overview: Reader-Response Theory, led by theorists such as Wolfgang Iser and Stanley Fish, argues that the meaning of a text is shaped by the reader’s interpretation rather than by authorial intent alone.
• Murray’s Contribution:
  • He discusses the ambiguity in defining obscenity in literature, acknowledging that different audiences will interpret texts differently: “People in general have a fairly clear notion of what obscenity is. And people in general can make, for themselves, a pretty good judgment on whether a particular work is obscene.” (Murray, 1956, p. 690).
  • His view aligns with Reader-Response Theory’s emphasis on subjective interpretation, as he argues against rigid definitions of obscenity and instead suggests that moral judgments should consider societal context.
  • By emphasizing that censorship should be guided by public consensus rather than imposed standards, Murray acknowledges the importance of the reader’s perspective in determining literary value.

---

3. Structuralism and the Role of Language in Censorship

• Theory Overview: Structuralism, particularly influenced by Ferdinand de Saussure and Roland Barthes, explores how language and signs construct meaning within a cultural system.
• Murray’s Contribution:
  • He critiques legal censorship’s reliance on arbitrary linguistic distinctions, arguing that defining literary obscenity is inherently problematic: “The Supreme Court declares that the category of the sacrilegious is altogether indefinable, while the Post Office rules that Aristophanes’ Lysistrata is an obscene book. This is indeed puzzling.” (Murray, 1956, p. 683).
  • His argument that censorship laws are textually unstable aligns with Barthes’ notion of the “death of the author”—meaning is not fixed, and different readers (or authorities) will derive different interpretations from the same text.
  • By highlighting the arbitrariness of legal and institutional linguistic frameworks, Murray indirectly supports Structuralist critiques of how meaning is socially constructed.

---

4. Postcolonial Theory and Cultural Hegemony

• Theory Overview: Postcolonial theory, led by Edward Said, Homi Bhabha, and Gayatri Spivak, critiques how dominant cultures impose their values on marginalized groups through literature and censorship.
• Murray’s Contribution:
  • He highlights the ethnocentric contradictions in Western censorship laws, questioning why certain moral and religious views dictate literature in a pluralistic society: “In a pluralist society, no minority group has the right to demand that government should impose a general censorship… according to the special standards held within one group.” (Murray, 1956, p. 687).
  • His discussion of how American and European societies differ in their definitions of obscenity reflects postcolonial concerns about how dominant cultural narratives control literature and suppress alternative voices (Murray, 1956, p. 684).
  • By advocating for diverse moral perspectives in literary regulation, he challenges hegemonic cultural norms that suppress marginalized voices.

---

5. Liberal Humanism and Literature’s Moral Function

• Theory Overview: Liberal Humanism, associated with Matthew Arnold and F.R. Leavis, holds that literature’s value lies in its ability to cultivate moral and intellectual refinement.
• Murray’s Contribution:
  • He argues that censorship should promote literary creation rather than merely restrict texts: “Our chief problem, of course, is not literary censorship, but literary creation.” (Murray, 1956, p. 691).
  • He warns against excessive focus on banning “bad” books instead of encouraging intellectual and artistic excellence: “Leo XIII is indeed remembered for his revision of the Index of Forbidden Books… But he was the first Pope to say that there is great danger in not reading good books.” (Murray, 1956, p. 691).
  • His perspective aligns with Arnold’s vision of literature as a means of cultivating higher moral and intellectual development, arguing that quality literature naturally regulates itself through aesthetic and ethical merit rather than external censorship.

---

6. Feminist Literary Criticism and Censorship of Sexuality

• Theory Overview: Feminist literary criticism examines how literature represents gender, sexuality, and power dynamics.
• Murray’s Contribution:
  • He acknowledges that literary censorship disproportionately targets works addressing sexuality, reinforcing gendered moral codes: “The strictness of traditional Catholic doctrine in regard to sexual lust appalls the libertarian; the laxness of many Catholic governments in the same regard appalls the Puritan.” (Murray, 1956, p. 683).
  • His critique of the selective censorship of sexual themes over other forms of moral corruption aligns with feminist concerns about how patriarchal institutions regulate female sexuality while permitting other social vices, such as violence.
  • He argues that censorship should prioritize addressing “pornography of violence” rather than purely sexual expression, echoing feminist calls to reconsider what constitutes harmful literature (Murray, 1956, p. 691).

---

Conclusion: Murray’s Multi-Theoretical Influence

Murray’s Censorship and Literature contributes to literary theory by engaging with:

• New Historicism (institutions shaping literature),
• Reader-Response Theory (subjective interpretation of censorship),
• Structuralism (arbitrary definitions of obscenity),
• Postcolonial Theory (ethnocentric censorship standards),
• Liberal Humanism (literature’s moral role), and
• Feminist Criticism (gendered censorship of sexuality).

His argument that censorship must balance moral concerns with literary freedom continues to inform contemporary debates about literature’s role in society.

1. Inconsistencies in Balancing Freedom and Restraint

• Murray argues that freedom should be the rule and censorship the exception, yet he also justifies some forms of moral regulation (e.g., restrictions on pornography and “pornography of violence”).
• Critics argue that this dual stance lacks clarity—who decides when censorship is justified?
• His assertion that “constraint must be for the sake of freedom” (Murray, 1956, p. 681) is seen as contradictory since restrictions on expression inevitably limit certain freedoms.

2. Over-Reliance on Pragmatism Over Ethical Absolutism

• Murray frames his argument through pragmatism rather than a strict ethical framework, stating that law should regulate only what is socially necessary (Murray, 1956, p. 685).
• Some critics argue that this pragmatic approach lacks moral consistency, as it allows moral and legal relativism—what is considered obscene or harmful varies across societies.
• His approach may justify historically oppressive censorship, such as book bans on political dissidents, under the pretext of “social necessity”.

3. Lack of Attention to Power Structures in Censorship

• While Murray acknowledges that institutions like the Church, state, and voluntary organizations influence censorship, he does not fully critique their power dynamics.
• New Historicist and Postcolonial critics argue that censorship is often a tool for upholding dominant ideological structures, marginalizing dissenting voices (e.g., censorship of anti-colonial literature).
• He does not adequately address how censorship disproportionately affects marginalized communities, particularly in religious or authoritarian contexts.

4. Insufficient Engagement with Feminist and Postcolonial Criticism

• Murray’s discussion of obscenity and morality focuses on sexual content, but he does not address how censorship historically targets feminist and postcolonial literature.
• Feminist critics argue that censorship has long been used to silence discussions of women’s sexuality and autonomy, yet Murray largely frames the issue around moral corruption rather than gendered power structures.
• His discussion of censorship in pluralist societies (Murray, 1956, p. 687) does not fully address how Western censorship frameworks have been imposed on non-Western cultures, particularly in colonial histories.

5. Idealistic View of Public Consensus and Legal Enforcement

• Murray claims that censorship should be guided by public consensus: “No society should expect very much in the way of moral uplift from its censorship statutes.” (Murray, 1956, p. 685).
• Critics argue that this overestimates the fairness of democratic consensus, as majority rule can still suppress minority voices.
• He does not fully address who gets to shape public consensus—powerful elites, religious institutions, or legal authorities?

6. Overemphasis on Religious Morality in Censorship Debates

• While Murray argues for pluralism, he still leans heavily on Catholic moral philosophy, using Christian ethical reasoning to justify certain censorship principles.
• His emphasis on moral constraints in literature (Murray, 1956, p. 690) suggests a preference for religious moral frameworks, which some critics view as exclusionary in secular or multi-faith societies.
• Secular critics argue that censorship debates should be guided by human rights principles rather than religious morality.

7. Failure to Address the Role of Economic and Corporate Censorship

• Murray primarily focuses on governmental and voluntary censorship but does not discuss corporate censorship, where publishers, media companies, and private entities restrict literature based on commercial interests.
• In the modern era, corporate media often suppresses politically controversial works—a major oversight in Murray’s framework.
• His legalistic focus on state censorship does not address how economic power structures influence what literature gets published and distributed.