Is book burning a legitimate symbol of protest or irrational destruction? I recently finished reading Ari Armstrong’s article on book burning “Draw, Don’t Burn”. He believes the act of destroying books because of their ideas “is a repulsive and immoral act”. On the other hand some of the commenters believe on a small scale it’s still a legitimate symbol of protest. Which side is right?
Book burning: The goal
To decide if book burning can be a rational act we need to look at the goal and the end result of the action. I see two possible goals in burning a book. The first is to inflict harm or give insult to those who find meaning in the book. In this case it becomes the moral equivalent of name calling. It isn’t an act of self defense. It doesn’t protect anyone. It’s an act of mental violence for the sake of violence. For no other reason than you feel like it. It isn’t the behavior of a rational thinking person but of a thug intent on mindless hurt.
The second possible goal is to make a clear statement that you disagree strongly with the ideas in a book. People argue it’s a matter of speech and communicating their opinion to the world. In this case things become more complex because communication is a rational goal. However, is the behavior a rational way of accomplishing the goal? Does burning a book create positive communication and advance your cause?
Book burning: The audience
Let’s think about the different groups of people who “hear” your statement. First there are the radicals on both sides of the argument, those who completely agree and those who completely disagree. Your action creates lots of noise on both sides. Some people cheer with joy while others scream in anger. But in both cases you haven’t changed anything. Each group still feels exactly how they felt before. You created the moral equivalent of a pep rally but it was a pep rally for both sides. For every ounce of cheering there was an ounce jeering. As your side screams “Yeah, get them!” their side screams “This is why! Get them!” Everyone spends lots of energy for a stalemate.
In-between the radicals there is the middle. This is the group both sides hope to influence. They may lean one way or another but are open to discussion and the possibility of changing their mind. Does book burning get their attention? Definitely! Just look at the current media storm. But does it get the right kind of attention? Does it advance your cause or your enemy’s cause?
Book burning: The message
To see the real message, imagine a story on a much smaller scale. You enter a room with two five year old children. On one side a little boy sits quietly playing with a toy car. On the other a little girl smashes her toys on the ground while screaming “He’s evil! He is mean! He does bad things!!!” Does she get your attention? But why kind of attention does she get? Is your first instinct to talk about her problem or deal with her behavior? Do you feel sorry for the girl or the boy?
Now imagine the story differently. Instead of breaking things the second child runs to to you upset but in control. She says, “Help! He keeps taking my toys! I want my car back!” Does she still have your attention? Can you focus on her issue? Now which child do you feel sorry for? Which one of these behaviors will lead to the quickest resolution of the problem?
Just as loud or violent behavior causes people to judge children it also causes people to judge adults. When someone commits violence, whether it’s name calling, screaming or destruction, it sends a clear message. However, it’s usually not the intended message. Just as rational person seeing a man hit a woman doesn’t assume the woman is evil, a rational person seeing a man burn a book doesn’t assume the book is evil. A violent act is a moral judgment on the person committing it and not on the person or object that is the victim.
Book burning: The result
Violence scares people. Arson is violence. It doesn’t make people trust you. It doesn’t make people listen to you. It makes people fear you. Instead of having a rational discussion with those in the middle you advance a climate of fear. But it’s not fear of your enemy. It’s fear of you.
Can a rational person expect to win an argument by scaring the very people they are trying to influence?
No.
Can a rational person advance their cause with fear?
No.
Can book burning ever be rational?
No.
Respect the legal right but never give moral sanction to book burning. An act of destruction is an act of destruction.
