Radio-Canada recently reported that the practice of “sensitive readers”1 gradually moved into Quebec publishing houses. This new trend consists in having a manuscript read before its publication “to detect offensive, stereotypical or even inaccurate representations”.
Posted at 12:00 p.m.
Our reflex in the face of this practice is to fear the censorship and self-censorship that may ensue. On the other hand, we too often forget the resulting redefinition of literature and the arts.
Exaggerated claim
As these sensitive readers would be directly concerned with the subject of the book, they would therefore be able to detect faulty representations. For example, a woman could make sure of “respecting the posture of women” in a novel. Isn’t there something presumptuous here?
Who are these official “representatives” of the different groups that make up society? What is their legitimacy to stamp certain representations with the seal of respectability? Doesn’t literature serve precisely to explore the human condition by playing with these “representations”?
Moreover, faced with these unjustified claims, one cannot help but point out the inconsistencies of the time. On the one hand, we are told that women are a pure social construction, while on the other, we defend the establishment of a vigil to ensure that they are adequately represented.
Literature is not sociology
There is also something irritating in this idea that literature must faithfully represent the world. Literature is not sociology, it is never obliged to mark societal trends. Why, then, do we prescribe representativeness?
But for the sake of discussion, let’s accept that literature has the function of tracing the features of society in the same way that the social sciences could do. It is nevertheless clear that the concept of sensitive reader again lacks coherence.
While we want an exact representation, we refuse to allow it to be stereotyped.
Such an idea is curious to say the least, because we know that stereotypes often, but not always, represent the heavy tendencies of society. They constitute essential generalities for reflection, insofar as we know that they tolerate a number of exceptions.
It would take bad faith to deny that there are differences between the groups. Noticing these stereotypes is not disturbing. They only become so when an individual is reduced to the group to which he belongs.
The public is the judge
A final pitfall can be seen in this ban on conveying “offensive representations”, namely the lack of trust in the public. This paternalism that pushes some to “protect the public” against these representations is simply unbearable.
Obviously, there are often disturbing speeches or characters in the works. But when we write, we have to consider our audience as intelligent enough to interpret these representations.
When it reads, listens to or looks at a work, the public is active. He dislikes one character and becomes attached to another. He does not drink in the words of the author, he reacts to them.
Let’s trust the public, they are able to separate the wheat from the chaff. He has the necessary sensitivity.