Image
Abstract: Counter-Stories as Resistance to Book Bans
Those working to ban books promote a dominant narrative claiming they are protecting children, they have a right to define appropriateness for everyone, and that books are harmful. This dominant narrative has succeeded in restricting access to books across the nation and has promoted an oppressive library ideology. A library ideology can be implemented through the practices, policies, and procedures of a library and is the result of choices made by librarians and the systems they operate within. While this dominant narrative has been reflected in district board policies, state legislation, and book banning data, there is another narrative working in opposition to it.
The words of four authors operate as counter-stories disrupting this dominant narrative. The speeches and articles by these authors are analyzed: Ruby Bridges’ testimony at a 2022 congressional hearing, George M. Johnson’s 2023 (Un)Banned article, Adib Khorram’s speech at a 2023 school district board meeting, and Maggie Tokuda Hall’s 2023 letter to Scholastic and blog post. I argue that these authors’ words operate as counter-stories through three key claims: these books reflect real and valid identities, experiences, and injustices; the authors are protecting children by providing windows, mirrors, and authentic experiences; there is power in community strength and collective action.
Counter-story literature from the communications field, critical scholars, and education scholars provide an analytical foundation to this study. Scholarship related to censorship in classrooms and school libraries further enhances understanding of a counter-story’s purpose to disrupt restrictions on access to information. Discourse analysis informed the methods and analysis, understanding how language can shape social norms, influence political decision-making, and determine value within school communities (Jaworski and Coupland 1999; Van Dijk 2015).
I conclude with a call for promoting a liberatory library ideology that y includes, affirms, and actively refuses to other, exclude, or oppress the identities and lived experiences of individuals and communities. I also discuss how these authors' texts and their activism can represent a double counter-story. These authors have felt compelled to provide a counter-story (these speeches) to their counter-stories (books), in effect, a double counter-story.
As a visual representation, I will provide succinct but compelling information related to the dominant narrative and counter-stories around book banning. These are 4 authors that many librarians will recognize and connect with, so I will highlight their significance and key quotes and contributions in order to convey the message of this study and the call to disrupt an oppressive library ideology.
The words of four authors operate as counter-stories disrupting this dominant narrative. The speeches and articles by these authors are analyzed: Ruby Bridges’ testimony at a 2022 congressional hearing, George M. Johnson’s 2023 (Un)Banned article, Adib Khorram’s speech at a 2023 school district board meeting, and Maggie Tokuda Hall’s 2023 letter to Scholastic and blog post. I argue that these authors’ words operate as counter-stories through three key claims: these books reflect real and valid identities, experiences, and injustices; the authors are protecting children by providing windows, mirrors, and authentic experiences; there is power in community strength and collective action.
Counter-story literature from the communications field, critical scholars, and education scholars provide an analytical foundation to this study. Scholarship related to censorship in classrooms and school libraries further enhances understanding of a counter-story’s purpose to disrupt restrictions on access to information. Discourse analysis informed the methods and analysis, understanding how language can shape social norms, influence political decision-making, and determine value within school communities (Jaworski and Coupland 1999; Van Dijk 2015).
I conclude with a call for promoting a liberatory library ideology that y includes, affirms, and actively refuses to other, exclude, or oppress the identities and lived experiences of individuals and communities. I also discuss how these authors' texts and their activism can represent a double counter-story. These authors have felt compelled to provide a counter-story (these speeches) to their counter-stories (books), in effect, a double counter-story.
As a visual representation, I will provide succinct but compelling information related to the dominant narrative and counter-stories around book banning. These are 4 authors that many librarians will recognize and connect with, so I will highlight their significance and key quotes and contributions in order to convey the message of this study and the call to disrupt an oppressive library ideology.