Censorship and Silencing

Robert C. Post

Censorship
used
to be aseparating
very dull subject.
Aligned
along predictable
and
venerable
divisions
liberals from
conservatives,
oriented
toward ancient and well-rehearsed chestnuts such as obscenity and national
security, the topic promised little of analytic interest.
In recent years, however, the landscape of censorship has altered dramatically.1 Now feminists in Indianapolis join with fundamentalist Christians to
seek the regulation of pornography.2 Critical race theorists join with Jesse
Helms to regulate hate speech,j Advocates of abortion rights seek to restrict
political demonstrations while conservative pro-life groups defend the freedom to picket.4
Many contemporary liberals scoff at traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, viewing it as a "breeding ground of libertarian sentiment,"s and
they demand instead a .`New Deal" for speech that would empower the state
to regulate campaign financing and the broadcast media.6 Constitutional
restraints on government intervention are said primarily to protect the status
quo, with its entrenched hierarchies of power and wealth2 Conversely, many
conservatives have displayed a resurgent and largely libertarian appreciation
for the value of freedom of expression, invoking it to check proscriptions of
pornography and hate speech, as well as to block campaign finance reform,s
This represents a remarkable disintegration of traditional political alignments. The historical causes of this transformation are no doubt multifarious
and complex. Certainly one important factor, rendered vivid by the demise of
the Cold War, has been the pervasive perception, most fully theorized for this
generation in the work of Michel Foucaulh that the state holds no monopoly
of power.9 While histories of censorship used to chronicle official legal suppression of speech,t Foucault's work invited us to "escape from the limited
field of juridical sovereignty and State institutions, and instead base our
analysis of power on the study of techniques and tactics of domination."n
In the hst two decades we have begun to perceive power as dispersed, as cir.
culating, as spinning out from the enactment of discursive and disciplinary
p raCflC'~..So

A profound effect of this vision has been the tendency to focus on "power
as such," with a consequent equation of state force with private domination.t2
In the words of Catharine MacKinnon, "The operative definition of censorship
accordingly shifts from government silencing what powerless people say, to

~ost

' -'epeop~,,ij
violatingThe
powerless
people force
into silence
and
hiding behind
state
powatul
call for juridical
t.o check
oppressive
discursive

Censorih,p and SslenClnli

power to do li. _ _...~, to be seen not as invoking the state "as a censor, hut

speech, the left has.moblhzed to pursue a rich variety of polmcal agendas,

ranging from restraining the speech of the wealthy to avoid submerging the
voices of the poor, to restricting pornography to avert the silencing of women.
From a political point of view, the most striking aspect of these agendas is
their trust of government action, Henry Louis Gates has remarked how difficult it is m imagine these agendas being "expressed by... activist counterparts
in the sixties, who defined themselves through their adversarial relation to
authority and its institutions .... Today, the aim is not to resist power, but to
resist power? ts
Political efforts m enlist state power, like those of Catharine MacKinnon,
have ~ypically sought to mobilize support by portraying censorship as a form
of oppression. But within the academy there has emerged a remarkably innovative new scholarship that has taken a more rigorous and uncompromising
view of the matter. Focusing with a sharp Foucaulfian lens on the constitutive
m~omechanisms of power, on the minute intersections of resistance and
&nmaion through which power is exercised, this new scholarship follows
Foucaultian premises to their fundamental and radical implications.
If censorship is a technique by which discursive practices are maintained,
and if social life largely consists of such practices, it follows that censorship is
the norm rather than the exception. Censorship materializes everywhere. It is
for this reason that Pierre Bourdieu can refer to the "censorship constituted
by the very mucn~e of the field in which the discourse is produced and circulates."" For Bourdieu the necessity for a practice of censorship manifested
by ".explicit prohibitions, imposed and sanctioned by institutionalized aushortly, diminishes" precisely to the extent that "the structure of the field
itself" is capable of governing "expression by" controlling "both access to
expression and the form of expnmion?n
.To .the ex~.t that the new scholarship conceives censorship as "pervasive
am msment m dl disciplines that mediate language," the force of censorship

~aa!

mrma, tive concept .must proportionately diminish.iS Thus it is rightly said

ttlo be for or apmst censorship as such is to assume a freedom no one

.G~, .rship isytt Censorship establishes the practices that define us as

ulcial
transmutes
from an external," revressi/e
- q i l r sublectl.
~ e t o l p,Hence
O i i U v.am$orship
el^I .... ~
_t
,
.
,-, t,,,wrz mat
constitutes
pracuces
as it. -defines
thek boundari~3o
Fouctult had himseI, -,
knowledge and .,~'-, "always seen. power as productive, as constructing
_ .. . "~-,-, pracnces. He had onsequentl re'ected n "
o p p o a u- ....
on~ ........
y l
a y- stmvle
_
. .
-~s~allgI
.
,
person,oncludin
instead
a
g
th t power "makes
m d m d uisasubiects,
. . zl ,-_,
me
new
scholarship,
is of
analogously
as ~-.a.-~-.m
~..,~,ucuve,
not
as one
or more censorship
discrete acts
repressive
2

Detail from the front cover of the annual rel~rt issued in

1898 by the New York Society for the ~ of Vice.
Courtesy Library of Conipass.

~ : Pa t, "trifle
COntrol over free expression, but as a 'n,~rmal' and
. . 'ct~nstitutiv-,

..

. . ,,,,

ed,
a very condtnon, of free expressnon.
and
.
.-- The striking
. , anomalo usCOnse,
,
quence of this characternzation_ ts precnsely to cut .against.. attempts t o
charge of ensorshtp as grounds for political mobtltzation.

use

These are exciting and important intellectual developments. For

all
.
.

Censorship and S,lenc,n8

the

Assembling a group of extraordinarily talented scholars, this volume interrogates that issue from divergent disciplinary perspectives, ranging from
political science to philosophy, from law to cultural theory, from literary criticism to anthropology. Our strategy is to re-examine state censorship with the
insights of the new scholarship firmly in mind. In Part I we inquire into the
specific dynamics of explicit legal control of speech through criminal and civil
sanctions, in Part !I we investigate other forms of state regulation of speech,
ranging from subsidies to property rights. And in Part I11 we examine justifications for state interventions to regulate private power that constrains
expression.

tt-heir

undentable power, however, they seem to miss somethtng of nmportance fea-

tured in more traditional accounts. The new scholarly orientation toward

censorship seems blind, for example, to the "high drama of repression and
suppression" retold by Zamir Niazi in his effort to "preserve... for posterity"
the courage of Pakistani writers resisting the oppression of a tyrannical regime.23 Nor does it seem able to appreciate the "heroic names" celebratedb y
Seamus Heaney in his "modern martyro|ogy, a record of courage and sacririce" presented in his study of the sacrificed poets of Eastern Europe.24
By focusing so intensely on the quotidian operations of power, the new
scholarship of censorship ultimately centers attention, like Foucault himself,

Part I begins with an essay by Richard Burr, one of the foremost proponents
of the new scholarship. Carefully focusing on court suppression of the English
playwright Thomas Middleton, Bun invites us to suspend our usual conception of censorship as a process of "removal and replacement," and instead to
visualize censorship as a matter of "dispersal and displacement." Burt's ambition is to undermine any simple opposition "between the censored and uncensored," thus calling into question traditional theories of free speech that
rely on postulated polarities between repressed and authentic versions of an
author's work3s
Middleton was subject to a court officer, the Master of the Revels, whose
judgments were highly personal and discr~onary. Although s~ individual
discretion to censor still exists with respect to speech within state organizations,z9 direct official control over public discourse (like the theater) is today
almost entirely dependent upon the application of judicially interpreted legal
principles.3 Quite apart from the well-rehearsed debate as to whether the
ideals of free speech ought to exempt public discourse from direct official con-

onthe"agonism"inwhich"therecalcitranceofthewil andthe
intranstgence"
of freedom" form a "permanent provocation" to "the power relationship,"
which itself establishes a necessary and inescapable "structure" for "the possible field of action."zs Agonism signifies that while we are always both bound
and enabled by existing power relationships, we are also always potentially
at odds with those relationships. Agonism, however, does not distinguish
Joyce struggling to publish Ulysses from, say, the "struggle" of the client of a
poverty lawyer to overcome the "violence of silencing" imposed by "the order
of discourse~ of the usual "lawyer-client relation?'z6 Agonism is precisely univenal. It is precisely omnipresent.
The enormous expansion of understanding facilitated by the Foucaultian
perspective on censorship (and, to be old-fashioned about it, the immense
increase in the possibilities of sympathetic apprehension it enables), is thus
purchased at the price of a certain abstraction. Foucault's work itself exhibited a vertiginous oscillation between extreme abstraction and minute detail;
the space between, where most people live most of their lives, was persistendy
and scrupulously effaced. The new scholarship of censorship can be similarly
characterized. It tends to veer between the concrete mechanisms of silencing

trol, we may therefore also ask whether legal proceedings are themselves a
suitable instnmtent for the regulation of speech.3n These questions do not
depend upon any implicit opposition between censored and uncensored versions of a text; they instead concentrate on the internal requirements of a
modern legal system.
Both Ruth Gavison's and Lawrence Douglas's contributions to this volume discuss the many and subtle ways in which these requirements affect the
law's ability to fulfill our purposes when we seek to use the law to regulate
expression. Although many in Israel have called for the suppression of speech
that incites to political violence, Gavison probes the law's capacity to serve

and the abstraction of struggle. The result seems to flatten distinctions among
kinds of power, implicitly equating suppression of speech caused by state, legal
action with that caused by the market, or by the dominance of a parucul.ar
discourse, or by the institution of criticism itself. It tends also to flatten vanasay~
between,
difference
dons among kinds of struggles, de-emphasizing the
the agonism of poets and that ot legal aid clients... _, .t.. ,,,~ scholThe challenge is thus how to vre.~rve the analyuc torce o~ u,~ ,.:-- . .
r without
_
arshi,,
sacrificing
the values
and
concerns
of moreann
~adit:d~~c
.-""
-----:..-scanable,
v"
..
rt_.....thPnart/CusaL"
counts, gecogmzmg always me pervas,vc, ,,.,silencing of expression, can we say anything distinctive a oo"" :';" ~,,ntrol,
province of what used to define the study of censorship: the onrcg, ~--'
of expression by the state?z7

this function, and in particular sh.e demonstrates.how such factors as the

law's internal need for public lum.ficanon, causes ttt.o be over- and underinclusive and otherwme generally meffecuve m fulfiihng this task. Douglas
~,

observes how the ambition to enshrine a certain view of the Holocaust by

criminalizing speech that denies it has been undermined by the law's own

internal requ~nts ot~ advocacy and agnosticism.

Of course there are many di~rent purposes for which the law can be used

to control speech, and some may prc~ve more a~lena-le, b

' '.i'~

q~
thanlegal others.r nThe lasth _~tw essaYSshugerin Part ! examine furth ert .legal. realization,.
modern.
Fngi,sh. proscrtpt,ons of slander and libel not-exeges's of haw ear'of mlntmiztng Inc,tements to noli,;.-~* -.:--,

" is roblemati."

ut ,,I..~ .
- ,,,:,o
Instantiated
'-'"
ucu~ar v,ston ot Christ,an commun,ty. If the bfirst
of the-,
a par.

.
sequentlv restricted, then "the .very
concept
of use
censor,h,p
P
_ _L
..... :''""'
of the concept
with,n
-.
.
Schauer also suggests, however, that the pe**,,~,L,.,,,
popular debates implies that the term does not in fact refer to these empirical

not, and to this day the so-called di--" ~.-u ny L/av,son, the second, pre.

but that
serves instead
usa label applied
P0St hoc
to conclus!ons
process. S,ahout
theitallocation
of content-determining-authority:"'
These
conclus~on.$

forms of communit-, s-I,.a-c:- - gn,~ torts aspire to enforce-- would

, .......
. ~ ,, ucnnirion.~, [-hat aspiration t._.
oy t~..~: I~u.rt, who uses French judicial decisions *:--- ' -uweve.r, ,s ,analogous
queried
,rat conoemnmg and then
.
rehabdttatmg poems from Baudela,.re's F.leu. rs .du real to explore .efforts to

do not depend so much upon the mere fact that expression is suppresseu, a

_. ,

sumably

..

. __ . .

-'-", *,~,,ence

o n l y s e r v e d"~:
0 ,pur~,
..- '~

be subject to the caveats outlin..J, -- . ~e goals wou}d -

they do upon political and purposive considerations like "institutional competence. "separation of powers;' or the maintenance of profes.sional autonomy. They. depend, for example, upon whether we wish potitic,ans or a~tsts
to determine the aliocatmn of NEA grants.
.
censorshtp IYbay
5chauer's argument implies that the new schola~hip o!
onflate the descriptive fact of silencing with the ascnptive ludgment of censorship,j' To recognize this onflation, however, is merely to invite deeply

emploYthe law
canthe law to suppress obscemty within Merature. Burt's point m tidal
e x t r a c t particular versmns of ommu--, -~
. .
,,m norms-from itter
only by blinding itself to the "netative k-n..,~-a-- -, ...
art texts
or)," carried in the very la o,,~,--~, ....
"'"'~',~,s.~
u~ a a!smtegrating
mere..
-, ne,..-8~ v, augnL[exes,
a Knowledge
that is inde
dent o! any :poet's agency."~3 This knowledge, this literarines; ev-a--I~.,
, uues au
.
censorious efforts to affix texts wtth determinate_ .meanings.

perplexing inquiries about how exactly an as,:riptive and normative judgment

of censorship should be applied to state action that doe. s not impose dtrect
civil or criminal sanctions. The remaining three essays m Part II explore the
difficulties of this problem.
.
. .
.

Part II of the volume turns from the Issue of.dtre.ct legal c~. ?trol of exprer,

stun and examines the use of.state power to mamta,n and prmlege part-ular
dmcurs,ve practices. Every tune the state educates a student, or estabhshes
acquisition criteria for a public library, or chooses to subsidize one form of
speech rather than another, the state uses government resources to establish a
discursive field. It supports some speech and marginalizes other speech. In
popular debate, these actions have come to be characterized as a form of censorship. Those who oppose the imposition of "decency" restrictions on NEA
grants, for example, charge that they "censor artists' speech,"~' while those
who defend the restrictions write "In Praise of Censorship."3s A recent report
from People for the American Way documents "300 incidents of attempted
censorship," defining these incidents as efforts "to remove from a classroom,
library or curriculum, books or other materials or programs for ideological or
sectarian reasons."~
This usage of the concept of censorship is odd, because no matter what
speech the state does or does not fund, no matter what ma~rial it assigns or
does not assign within a chssroom, no matter what books it acquires or does
not acquire for a library, the state will be acting for reasons that can properly
be termed "ideological." This suggests the practical truth of the theoretical
insight that all discursive practices establish themselves through the marginalization and suppression of competing practices. If we wish to condemn this as
"censorship," then censorship is indeed everywhere and inescapable. Yet in
popular rhetoric the term "censorship" continues to be used as if it denotes a
particular kind of especially egregious and voluntary state action, one that
could, like direct civil and criminal sanctions, be avoided.
This is the paradox addressed by Frederick Schauer in the f~t essay in
Part If. Schauer's point is that if the term c.o~orsb/p is applied to the empirical pmces~ by which our "expressive possibilities" are constituted and con-

David Wasserman canvasses the rich omplemties revolved in

. ."

auessmg

restrictions on government subsidies for scientific research into genetic predispositions to impulsive, violent, or antisocial behavior. Wasserman demonstrates how judgments of censorship must in the end turn on sensitive
assessments of imtitutional and professional competencies, political purposes,
and so forth. Sanford Levinmn examines this same set of issues as applied to
state efiom to educate the public to particular visions of history. Whereas
Douglas probes efforts to enshrine a specific version of the Holocaust through
direct criminal sanctions, Levinson discusses the state', tutelary attempm to
achieve the same end through ~he erection of public historical monuments.
Levimon spins the reader in a diz~ circle, teasing out a humbling array of disparate considerations that might inform ascriptive judgments of censorship.
One of the subtlest, most pervasive, most unobtrusive, yet most powerful
methods by which the state establishes discursive fields is through the creation
and allocation of property rights. Property rights undergird what the new
scho|arship of censorship has termed "market censorship?~ But however
much we may acknowledge that "the market is itself a structure of onstraint," it is difficu|t to imagine a modem society entirely without property
rights, so that once again the descriptive and ascriptive concepts of cemorship
mutt be diaentangled.0 In the last essay in Part 11 George Marcus ventures
into this difficult terrain, examining contemporary claims to cultural propeat by aboriginal peoples in the United States, Canada, and Australia. Such
claims distribute power and hence have fundamenta| pofifical contequeg~es;
they reflect cultural identities that challenge deep assumptions of "autonomous individualism" otherwise embodied within intellectual propenV law;
they interfere with the free circulation of ideas and expression; yet ought they
to be characterized as censorship? Marcus worries the issue, but, like Wasaer-

man and Levimon, ultimately reserves judgment.

7

post

" ' yore

me returns to the insight that nonstate power pervaPart !I! of the
' x-ression, and that sometimes these constraints
operate in
.
.
sjvely
constrains e p .
.
.
ways that could be ascn.p!ively ch.aractenzed as censorshtp. In such circumstances it might be lusttfiable to revoke state power to remove these constraints, even at the price of direct government regulation of speech. This
reasoning underlies contemporary calls for restrictions on pornography and
hate speech, for state controls over public access to media broadcasting outlets, and so forth.
Judith Butler begins Part I[I with a theoretical account of the ways in
which "the speaking subject is produced through constraints on speech that
precede the subject itself? Because these constraints establish "the domain of
speahabi}ity" and "the onditions of intelligibility," they are inevitable, indispensable, and unspeakable. Butler speculates that for this reason they may be
misdescribed by the language of "censorship," and she herself proposes to use
the term [oredosure. She wishes to designate a "primary form of repression,
one that is not performed by a subject, but', rather, whose operation makes
possible the formation of the subject." Butler contrasts such foreclosure with
the censorship performed by a sovereign actor, whether that actor be the state
or the speaker of hate speech. Censorship performed by a sovereign actor,
which is explicit, discrete, and from outside the subject, is necessarily incomplete, because of the continued independence of the subject and of the inabilit,/"to circumsaibe effectively the social domain of speakable discourse."41
The social power to censor, albeit limited, can nevertheless prove considerable. The essays of Rue Langton and Leslie Green explore the characterization
and consequences of that power in the particular instance of pornography. At
the outset Langton rejects accounts of censorship that universalize it, that
phce it "everywhere? Censorship as a normative concept must refer to something discrete and remediabk. Using J. L Austin's speech act theory, Langton
argues that pornography functions as a form of "illocudonary disablement"
that prevents woag.n from having the full power to speak in certain kinds of
~he~&ee.
It is thus
form of censorship,
and
if "the free
speech
of men
silences
speech
of awomen-then
there is
a choice
about
which
speech
is to
be protected."4z

Censorsn,p il~d Silenc,na

the ground that uptake is nor secured. !( pornography is to be regulated, suggests Green, it should be on other grounds, as for example on the ham of
norms of equality which, like the norms of charity evoked by Shuger, reflect a
part/cular vision of communal identit'):"J
Wendy Brown concludes Part I!I with an extended meditation on the
theme of silencing. Brown is concerned to unravel the usual equation that
reads voice as registering authenticity and power, and that reads silence as
reflecting repression and domination. Brown identifies the subtle dangers
associated with what she calls "compulsory discursivity; which conscripts
subg'cts into the regulatory norms of the very discursive practices that enable
speech. From this perspective, silence can function as a "resistance to regulatory discourse," as a quiet and sheltered place in which freedom can be practiced, ikown treads a fine line, carefully distinguishing "between the pleasures
and freedoms of silence on the one hand and habituation to being silenced on
the other."44 Brown's point is that, having once tasted the Foucaultian apple,
we can neither view expression as the simple opposite of censorship, nor
silence as the simple ant/thesis of freedom.

We have come, therefore, full circle. We have ieanmd m see regulation in the
very formation of our speech; we have lean~ how thoroughly we are subject to mmral causal consmumts. N~, to the extent we continue as
agents to act and to judge, we require criteria by which to ~te among
resuictiom on speech: to a~elX some and m ~ others. Because we have
learned that such judgments cannot rest merely on the fact that expcemion is
constrained, we must reformulate them to depend instead upon purposive
comidemdous, upon ideals of juridical enforcement or of insuitutioual omp e u m ~ o r o f f r e e d o m o r o f e q u a l i t y. T h e ~ o f c e n s o r s h i p c a m p i d e o u r

judlpnems only ff it is reabsorbed into this normative ~ B~ the oacept comes to us now stril~ of its pr/o[ innocence by the acid of Foucauitinn sophistication. That loss has momentous political ~ as we
have learned in the last two decades. The challenge addreued by the essa~ in
vohme is how these consequmces may be mastered and subordinated to
an infom~ political will.

In Austinian terms, the illocution of an utterance refers to the action con.refuted ~ the utterance. To say "I agree" in the appropriate context is to
~ve the igocutionaty force of, and to perform the action of., makinz a conteluaty ondmons" that permit the "uptake" of the utterance. ~1~ im lies,
. h o w e v e r, t h a t t h e i l l o c u t i o n a r v f o r c e - - ~ . . . . . .
, p that~a~Y .,o .n..~.. ined both-~/fel~;'c~ndiVcrYdoz~ez~d~bysg s~oc~ZiaV~Z~ora7
ate hist'..-~_,tae ~'fiilment of these conditions. These conditions and forces
dora of qxech tha-

o f

everywhere, so that one cannot speak of a flee-

i . o

o n -

- - - " r ' - ' . ' . u . P l O 0 1 ~ -C agompmm

- -' "
a

.
ot -being
silenced
merely on

Nora

1. Fora good ~ see Kathleen M. Sullivan, "Ft~ Spee~ Wars," ~

M~ ~ Law Aet,/ew 4g 11994}:. 203; Katbleen M. Sullivan, "Remrreeting Free Speech," Fo~ Lmw Ret/ew 63 11995): 971.

2. For an accooat, see Domdd Alecauder Downs, Tbe lqew ~ [ ~

(Chica~. Univ. af Chicaso Prea, 19m.
3. Compare ldari J. Mamula et al., Won~ tb~ Wond: ~ ~
~ Speed, ad dM F/rd ~ (Boulden. Westview INes, 1993), with Cm,Fets/omd Record, t01st Goes., 1st Sc~, 1989, 135:16Z76 (ixopoeed statute by Jesse

Ruled Out:
Vocabularies of the Censor
Judith Butler

Descriptions
censorship
more
general
theory of for
the
subject ofofpower.
When presuppose
we claim thataan
individual
is censored,
instance, we tend to separate analytically the one who comes under the force
of the censor from the censor itself and to conceive of the censor either as
an individual or as an extension of state or institutional authority. Further,
this authority is presumed to act upon the individual in an especially efficacious way. This conventional view of censorship commits us to understanding
power as that which is wielded by the one who censors on the one who is censored, where each of these "ones" is undentood as external to, or accident~y
related to, the power of censorship itself. The power is usually presumed to be
wielded by a subject who speaks and who declares that another shall not
speak or that another's speech is not to qualify as "speech" in a restricted
sense. But are there restrictions on the one who delivers the censor/ous declaration? Is there an operation of restriction that makes speech possible? And is
there, as a corollary, a covert form of censorship that, un_,emarke~ makes
possible the overt declaration of censorship?

In the schema above, power is immnced as the act of censorsh/p, figured

as an efficacious action that one subject performs tWon anothcm Thus, power
is reduced to that which is externally imposed upon a subject. Subjects are
understood as outside of power, relaying the effects of power, but not cousid- "~
ered one of dune effecxs. If power is unde~ in juridical terms, it limits

and constrains the object on which it operates; ff power is, however, also .XJ
-roductlve
to- making
that it ,also
' then it contributes
,coustrain~
"
ls
.
. . the
. . object
. .
/ |

Although somewhat paradoxical, this vL-w maintains ,m own xma og sense:./

the power that am on an object also o~ it in and through the opera-

don of that onm'~t. The rekvinm of this notion of making or ~on

for the q~ of ceumr.hip ~ clear when we realize that the subject
who is cenmn~ as well as the subject who censors are conuimted in part by
a restricfve and productive power. This paradoxical process of comtitution is
occluded by the conventional view of cemordfip which ~ the agency of
its ope~doa m an italy, ition performed by a pgegiven mibject on another -~,
p~give'n subject. Th~ ~ cannot ,b.roach. the question of how ~ip ;
eom~ m form--to produce--the tubjects in question.
/

Cznvmtimml notions of cemorship presume that censorship is exercir~

by the state against tho~ who are ten powerfid. There are, ~ ~ ~ m~

..,~:.~
i

Butler

making use ot power, and then there arc th~sc who are deprived of l~x~.cr hy

Ruled Out

that prior use A stronger argument, I~owevcr. is als,~ P,~ssilqc: t,~ be~.~,~e a
civic and political subiect, a citizen-subject, one must be able t~ n~ake ,se ,f
IX+wet, and this ability to make use of pOWer is. as it Were, the n~eas,re of the
subject. To make u~ ot power is linked to the ability to speak irish+far as the
Cmzen is defined as one with the ability to do what one says, to translate xVt+rd
into deed.~ There is, of course, a grammatical "'one" that wanders intt+ the.~,
formulations, but this "one" L~ not to Ix, confused with tl~e sul~jLx:t i, its Pt~litically normative ~nse One can live in a polity without the ability to translate

to any authoriat decision. A more radical view would be that those rules,
"decided" prior to any authoriai decision, are precisely the constraining conditkms that make possible any given decision Thus, there is an ambiguity of
agency at the site of selection, one to which we will return when we reconsider the re|ation between agency and censorship.
The other view voiced at the meeting was that "censoring a text is necessarily incomplelets This view maintains that a text always escapes the acts
by which it is censored and that censorship is always and only an attempted
or partial action Here, it seems, something about the text being cens0ced exceeds the reach of the censor, suggesting that some account needs to be given
of this "excessive" dimension of speech. One might appeal to a generalized
rheor yof textuality to suggest why the effort to constrain
speec,
h.
~lly
" " rl one
m=. g
htcannot
a
e
that
, r~ .
target or capture the polysemy of language. Stmda y:
the communicative sphere of language necessarily pus,Is a realm ot obscen,ty
that it seeks, with always partial success, to keep rigorously excluded from its

words into deeds, and this is a relatively (though m~t absoh~tely~ pOWerless
v,..ay to live: it is to live on the margins of the subject or. rather, as its margin,
Implicit in this notion of a citizen-subi~.t is a conception of a human sub.
j~'t with full control over the language one speaks. Were the sovereign Con.
. ~..
~u/~- of the speaking.citizen true, the implicit dora"
_ ~y.overcome.
But be
~s -the
tin..,,:-.,
am of censv.~hip
---.,.-oz censorshiB
,~o.~:k,-would
- "COmet
Would there
. ;.implicit
closures and operative _m_?n)n.gmt speech at all Were it noifo; -~"" ro over-

own operation.' One might also argue.that language Is compelled to repeat

what it seeks to constrain, and so mvanably reproduces and restages the very
. .
text that it seeks to silence.
The generalizable character of these explanations are u~. ,~1 but l!m!ted:
they cannot tell us when and why certain kinds of censorship ,are, m ta~

"that ,_.* being constrained and som,,:_~werful a~ue that tt is their freedom
speech. Censo.hip is most or-=- "-'~""=: more parucularly, their freedom
~;li rm~r
Of
.
persons or against the cont--,. -= -~ recl to as that whzch
is directed auainst
~?
--,,t ~ mezr s
~,t
stramm8 and re~u|ato-- t__
,
peech. Is censorshzp, des-it~
i-p
t
s
c
O
n
.
_j_
zy UlnCtlon~ a wa~, ^~ ,.-- ~
,
-uvance what wdl and will not L_ ,,, ~,roaUCmg speech, constraining in

why others seem quite helpless to effect any capture it alL,What =o-'~__~.,_~
the eif~cv or the fadure
that characwrize different operanons
. ot censo~u,v.

"--II- ---~rable from that which it seeks m censor, per

x,c
z -,-u ~ e -~ --'- ' n ~ -[ -"
a ~ ......
urvr[ z~ty ~p~

~,.

sorship Produces s,,~-z. -~ een made. But m the vrew that su~zees~ ,k~..--. oL~ b
o~ -- ,-.~, ~,,
t"~-',, mat temn,,,~t -At__ . .
,..,,4.= .L
~ ,
"-'-~:~ me text (by Wk;,-k t , , . ~"'"" ,~:mUon IS reverted. Censozshin ore- ~
_ ~;~
~
.
r
~"
and is in -...--- ~-" ""'" = mcmue "Speech" and other ....s...__,
_
~ "-_~
~,,,,~=a,
expresstou=),
~.",~ ~nse responsible for its "rod----"
-rt w....
~ ~ d-~~.~~ ~
o Vtextm ~,,,, .... , . .
If ~s~uct:ton.
/
o;, ....
-"'- "-,,,~[~ea m the Courst. ,-,~ .a._ ,,-._~
.
"-'- ~.. ~, ~'- ~
*-crying ~at seem, in.-=--- . ~--.~- -,~ ~euy seminar on censorshln and * " , .,~

to register ~.- .-- ,~,csnn~y, the reverse of each oth~.,- ,k~,, ..,...... ~..~.. t'~" ~ ~.,mg a text is necessarib, ;..~'___'," -nova.= One vxew maintained that uncensor- .."'', 0 .j...~
cam ~_ .

,,

Th;- .t_:_
a text-.~ ==~umplete.~
-- :- . "-,=.=
appears to

thatno

,,, r ~q~ bO ~a--

' a .t

cen~,,~'._~; remain readable-without first being subjected to ~" r ~"~ ~

Poses that cem~.'._'~=up' m SOme way that is not yet clear, this"view presup- ~,'~""
~,.smp
Precedes
readable, ts
produced
th.~.._~the text in question, and that a text, to become

SOme kind of

P~sibilities, and realizes'~t~egnrsaprcess ot selection that rules out certain

PO~ea decision, One m-,4- ~:,=. ,he process Of ~lection appears to pr.up-

c--~'~
....me
, rules ace-- "--" "x t~e author of the text Yet rh..
..
.. _ ..._ author doe s not

tam Ways the rulesurging

that govern
to which the
s.el~.'o.n,
mtelh&qbility
is made,
ofand
a text
in are
some
~decided"
very imporprior

" wa-~ that

haps censorship is implicated in the matena! tt seeks m censor.to r~

~- produce paradoxical consequences. If cen=onns a re=,- always,o ,nine .tans=

oconle ac~

~t .r~l to as the "conventional- view -- pt,able speech? In what I have re-

art of the

'

discourse produced by the mechanmm ot censor*n v"

_
. _
-" To ex lain
xu:---~:~t
uuu and. tnadvertem
P this lastPhenomenon, tt ts ~t
~ "shiPas
Jorm O f p -~ w e r , m ~ y W O- r~:K In illlFU~"
' a roductive
P
z,,ses as usual meanmS,
~ u ,....~.=er~be
v , - " . . .trim
..
waY S./ks a product i r e f o r m o ! p o w e r," ".c. e. .n. s o r~,__
-I
"
w
o
r
K
s
t
v
~
~
'
"
' becomes unclear whether "cnsorshtp
. ,
. , and u~l~t
and tt
. sto
--=t---t

r e to .di=ingmsh
. . . _ _ between
o pera
t l o n o f opw e r . I t i s p o "hie
. . ~ e r t n ex~,
n t r u ,-,= ....
~ - .i n
..
cemorsh~p The la~ re(e. to imphCtlt operetta-.
-- s,
r ....
.. - '- -rex,
no expl~t resin uns kaOt. In such ~

u|ation is ne~ in which to articulate thls cons~,~,~= d"Uo~"'o/-e~ip

impt = t en,o.h p s.W ' a, at t -..are

o.e ..h

that are nObased

t
in ex licit
state
policy or
and
_ utesumuu":
. . ; t n ~ u = r t l ""
t t o_,
n u...,~.~hinx ~ , = . - - - . r,
, _
P .. .

for anod~er term m d-~'xdx arm more trnV,~-~ -r_-; =~,~.clo~u~" nusht De
I will suzeat
z later in t~is essay how the norton
m.u,
on'~.~k.,~r,
,-~--- --seems iraappropriated fo~ such use. Buts cauUona~ wo.. ....,.,;,-=llv between
portant here. ~lfe might think that b Y.di~'TZra2e'c;~;.~'-~roximsu;
explicit and implicit forms of ceasot~P t_na~ - Yet it m*y well be that
xm
p
the dI w
rki oof n
censorship
as . a form.
ceSion
- - - - - .ot
, u upow=r~.~_~
m m w, , w, , ~- -middle
-

explicit and imp|icit ~rms exist on ~-v,,,,,,

.
,

e,t,,,.

e.

'

I"

,
. ,

,
,

ol

, . . '

" iot
.

,..

Itlll """

"~J~i"
""

consists of forms of censorship that are. not rigorously distit ,

q'o

"

Ruled Out

way. Indeed, the masquerading or fu-,tnv " , s hnn

a .tl~.
g corms ot tens . . ' g
_ ubI
exphclt and imnli ', di ....
ing, and, by vir~u~t~t :l,nsnons are perhaps the rno--orshlp ,hat have bo,,~

, very act, We m.ight conclude that the state and .the mzJxtary are merely, d

/ cer ned to. retain

L_ ---ered
b,,~a sneaking
restricting
chat
speak
control
wxll mean
.and the
cond,
t,
. may
r ..nder which. nt
ue
u-over what
rthe
. termsub/ect,
, .~_a L..L. re
_
'"
. , __a -...-0.,sivelv those sublects who are nor aescr, veo vy ,,r,

When we can-.----~,' mat.confusion, may be th. _" conceptually co..,-""

veh~cle
" _ ,,,,,
,.e, r~h;...L_.
whether or not s,,,.--L.
,-ost politicalh...,
,,~us.
for cen
.I ~rect;,.~
v,-~,., ,s""co,,.-_.
unwittinoh,
,,,-..--,
"'~,nous, Whether,t:.IS"'~'
e~y. so._...~ ,sac ns precisely the' - ~
the
.~.~tsion In wE: "
~crt it Works its way
. .
more effncac~ous than explicit for
ms m renderi o .. .... . shnp ma~, h,
unspeakable. Cen~,--L-_.

'.m.bguo..fo,.of

I,,___.

. -,,,,,,np is eXn~ ,_ _

..

.
no ,-ercatn ki-a- - - -"

,:

.,~.ommg explicit, and .... f-~.,, ,u a certazn vulnerab;n:.-. _ ".~ ot speech

being clearly identi~_L, -~ape$ nt most shrewdb, ,..L_'".~y precisely throu
play their g,.,. ,-_ ,re.me. On the other hand, ex : .-,_ca it operates wi hoguh
Consnder the con- .
la -- ,,

hat....
they seek to La-- ..y by rehears,
gresmonal star.,-., _ u r from dnsc
-

.w the don't ask_ a...,. _ ,.,, ---'- va~ea in (~,~^,-_

cP"'." reference to
mdntarv_
___,.. . suc
Y onstramed
-,, v,.,I,,..
pro,terated

horn

Ourse.

P".'
.,o
ectarat~on
m 'the

documentat,on but al_~ ;-.L h references riot onh, ;- :- osexualury in tee

tent of the sta h, ;. __'~. ,,,.me pubhc debates ~ -z ,-_,rs own SUpporting
but to estah,;~'.~' aur Only to limit the" . ostered on the 'ssue. The'_
nnI.__
-"-,,
mat
such
self-----.
coming
out"
of
re;n;,...-vmosexual conn,..- _ . ',m:nptave speecl, ......
""'"~ Personnel.
---,., or a s,an ~h.. _ _
c,._j
......
""
'-uasututes
either
"
,,muct m Inkely.s "rg_ _.,. "- ""'" " propensih.._ __
. a form of
on the matter of wL'-'- .mm~ry thus engaged in ;~cngage an homosexual
,-~ Is to
-,-,er protra
.
conduct
a
,,,
t._
~..
be
onsndered
,,
re
.v
,.~
umt.....
_
_
cted
duscuss
,on
...
- .
homose-._,..
""~,, ann _.
how speech and
tina,,-- - .
. ,-guasn~,
,t can or should
.'q, one m,gh, enloy
(or nwhether
....
__ _
m homosexual ,.__. _ uc enjoy} hom~.. .... ,
be, and whether
the "prone,,;,~.,~nuuct" (a Clinton .._...-~-;,m status without ,noo.~-"
v-,,vuo that is fie---:---, _'o-s-,s
"-'"7 uelinition ,._.
., ....
-,ways on the veto,, -

,-a( suggests that., .....

~'"vew unctone by

the term L_ "~s~ .or expressina its, t~. _ - ~,ams ,s, by its v
"~moscxual --us
;. ,..._
_ _ --,s a form o~----~ _ _ cry nature,
s act of e,,,,..._,_.
- ,-u-uuct).
Ontrdry, the statu,------,
-. no
tmple
. Regulatton of
"~
"ectOUbles
the
---.-~,.v~ap
or
silencing,
n. ,t._
effect ,4.;. _
itself uns"~,._~,_ns..~int through this na'r.~t_t .seeks to COnstrain and ='on'":
r ',uux~cal redoubli
~'~Oie, but only
^__
I,
,-e uses tito a.__
uns,~c_,_, . . nS. The term ns. not
" ~ 4 : r l l._
) e -r , becomes
n.-.,,
.a:._.

r'-,,,~ole LrI ~h.....

^~:)~ .-, .. ." ~

~ , /~

very definition of the homosexual that the military provides.. A homosexual

o,, whose definition is 1o be left to others, one who is demed the. a~ oL selt
definition with respect to his or her sexuality, one whose self.demal Js a pre
requisite for military service.
.
. _ .
.
l -hborate uvon
because
the
wh,.ch
the
, ensorsrup
- this
- -example
.
- - , - ,t. illustrates
.m
. . m
a..-"on
o( way
a tic,mre
ot/~omomecnarusm
o,
us engagea
p,ouu~.,,~
_ 0-:
. __
sexuality, a figure that is, as it were, backed by the stare. The regulau.on.s mar

determine whether homosexuals, will be allowed to enter or remain m the

military does not simply constram the speech of those who would enter or
stay; it appears to be about certain kinds of speech, bur it is also concern, ea
with establishing a norm by which military subj~txon..pro~.. In omer
words, the statute_iL~~ged in the prodS' one
for who~ct~, pubitcig demea or recaa.ma.' ...._ ..........
. .
"" " m;limry
this will
mean
In relauomh~p
to the" mascuhmty
of',he
sub~
. _. ..mar
_~
the norms that govern masculinity will be those that reqmre me aemm m
homosexuality. Fo~ women, the self-denial requires either a r.et~, n m an
linked w~~ a dora-

apparmt heterosexuality or to an asexuality (so~ .,, ....'- -orlon of

inant conception of female heterosexuality)that rams me munrar,- unit cohesion.
--' "- the
~-oduct/on
T~,.,.
o~,..,,,,,-h.,j~m~
of
cemor~p
is
acavety
n&al~
"'
-v-~ ..... .
":'"'~ ~'" """""
._.
.,. _ . . _
~,,v~ml I~l~r#
"~"-- ......

"

11

i~0 dO ~,'i~ ~- "~--'-

of the speech under que~,oa h, everym~.. . --- --d, failure ~o

comnle~e
through leith..m~,;;; -~.-__.
r - - ~ . or. total subjectificadon
- " "-'----=- of s'v~lmt~le o~ouu.~

. ,,
cumscn~ cf:fectiv~ m~ ,o,:m aoo-,-. ";:72,~ ~. not .~dizamuc. o~
~

I,,.rJ~
mill tory
', e~n to ~,~e ,p~,...
7___~-..2
Clear_..
- --.---.-,
,,.- - , , - ....~,~ve"
r---.

not only appears in thedin

regulation
the term culminate, in"
. .
nts proliferataon.
The
also reappears m
.
.
as that d
t h e COnjured __. the publac debate o.-- ;.. t_. tscourse to be regulated but

the n...,__'," ,,r "nagined act of,oF.-'~'."'~. m,r.ne, and value, s i6ali as
v'umonttn that cannt ~ake P=::i~o~t:~;2tnbgtod~~e
2SO

ntrast wire tn~

..

an im~itlon of power. By -prod tguv, .~ md~,

o,~ ,.,.....
,,-, :."-,~..ot
- conc~vecl
. ~du-

~...,
~ onmmu_m.~~~, -. _-:-- .,~ lil~rtim. ~
, - - - , ...~...
- - - - , v ,~, . **
- - - tommnve
-- ----; -----'~"~---'F-~the dcprlvauo- "-,- -._._....a ori~t/*'e,
s "v
t e las
y - - -a
- ~ - .-~
~ - =~~on
: = . . . . o~ on,~,_,,. . . _ _ _ . . . , ---"
,.,~_Iv ~,cu*~ ---- r.
Acordine to ~ view, cenmor'amp '* ~.-- "'"" ___, .k~ in ~rmm
tcuvc
P ~
- ~.-~- --. m, -- ....
wayo, but it is ak~o for~ tire ot SUo~. u* a,,.,,.. ---_.__.__

Butler
Ru4ed Out

speech. This notion of a productive or formative power is ,ot reducible to the

~ielary function of the state, that ts, the moral tnstruct,on of citizens, but
9perates to make certain kinds of cittzens possible, and others impossible
Some arguments that take this point of view stress that censorship is not "ri"
madly about speech, that it is exercised in the service of othe v aims, and that the restriction of speech is instrumental t r knnds of SOcial
o the achtevements
of other, often unstated, social and stategoa
Is. One example of this include
a concepuon of censorship as a necessary part of the -roces, ..~ ---- . _s
rag,
_ "'" -a.uon t)uild.
" where censorship can be exercised by ma,-oinal.-~--,
-o ,,.,:u groups who see
achieve cultural control over their own representation an,~ - .....
. . . k to
" " ' " - "
- - - ~"
t=a[ra[IVlZatlOrl.
A
stm,ar, out Omtmct kmd of argument, however, is also made typically on

censorship determines who will be a subject, a determination that depends on

whether the speech of the candidate for subjecthood otggs the noma.that
is speakable
and status
what is nor.
move outside
of the
of
govern
. ,.,._what
:_ ...
,.;=t, ,~ne's
as aTo
subject;
to embody
thedmnam
norms that
.,

tion, it seems that no text can be full.y freed firom the shadcles of c=mmsh,p
because every text or expression is =n part structured through a process ot
selecnon that is determined in part by the decisions of an author (or, slgaker)
etn~l in hart by the language in which one expresses onesdf, a t--__~,~-~ that
o~,rates ,"-~:o-~ing to selective and diffe~ndal rules that no ind/vidual $1xalmr
ever made (that may well be collectively forged, burn or tra(x~le m a,~.
author, except in spedfic cases of gra.mmatical revisnon and cmnage). -!]!~
th~-~i~ i~ a hi--dr eeneralized one, and =t appears to apply to any' and all Inngua-gc.-~dm=ru~t it" may well be true and vail.d, I d~. d=t.in ks~
form it does not directly u-amhte into a poetical constderatmn ot ~P

_
" ys coextensive
"

- " " v ' = ' " p i s a l Wa t , $ i r l t s t r u - -

merit of other soctal aims.

. ~
u mexa-e n t a--"
i t-o t h e a c h i e v e ,
Consider d~at
m uthe
.
mpms
I
suggested,_.
censorship is not primarily oncerned with speech andhave
theiust
control
or reguh- (

or = nommtive view on how best to decide issues of censmslxip, h .d~l,.

in its most generalized form, one normative implicauon of mmh a ~ u; that

of socml am=
g pamcmar vg, ws of ~--:-~,;,,_.= ____ . . .
,r~umacy, consensus, cultural aaron

because all ~pres,iou is alwars alrm~ cmum~ to smm desa~ itum~ no

.=---=, ==-ore. = = =oa ==t,==~ ,~,o, of thi, km ~, ;.o_.~..o~.,

lsm, speech is cast as wholly incidental to the aims of .... -.. /

sense to try to oppose censorship: to qplmse _,:ep_ -=~J, ip fully is to 0p~ the

conditions of iaudligibiliv/--and, thus, to oppose the v~ tern~ by which the

oppc=t~a is ~.
The view dmt [ pmpm~ ~ mdses this mre ~ ~ in

d ....-e. muenUU- [

.works as a cover for the real tmlitical -;-- -, - .."mrmsP or, tamer, =t
mg or little to do with spe~- -== u= ~msorsmp, ones that have nod1'

Censorship is a producti-- ____ ,

. .
. - ~ I u r l n _..
O ~J~_
l
.... - ..........
wet.~t
~snot
~--~--'we~. l wam ,,, a;_:___.. _--- --. ..... merely pnvauve, but
ctaun that spetch is iacideatal-~--~-'-: "= eosmon tro. m the one that ~
t!~ am= of
.

==o, ,._,._;._

the folbwi~ ,4i~on: d~ .co~'.dom of ~ are ~~fcm.u'..

lat~ iu aad by ~ ,nd't~ aormadve ~ of .pcmmr is mrS.. ~adc_ _
. .
a n
~
.
.
.
.
_
_ _
=am=~ the most imal~ fmms d ~ ~ga dkxnm ot ~ tttat

=o

-~-. :~e...'~.~.aao
no au.d
and "this~"~~uon of ~ =u
: .......lure
~.
. ;.r~_
~;._._ ~ . _ _un_~i~t
.
, _. : ...... _biect

._..dpa~ of =~,~.~,. ~-_ -F~_. =~t -u~ to d~ reS~tiog0fd=

, -,, u,

letted ,,,- -

: .- .--- ....... ~ . T o ~ , ~ , _ _ . . . , _ _
-

- - ~ I ~ ,

,-.: , -. ......... ~=~ Qf._~.__ -.. -

~ ~-~-~ ~ ,,~ ,p.~ _p~_ ~, a~ ~ ~ .~

' '*~ o~~~~--=~
~ . . .._ ._ ~. - . . ~ ~- - - -=- .=. . .~ ~
.

._ ......

.., .

peech

'L_
m m u l a t ~ = h b u t- '~-~' .-: ~
. : ~m
~ ,a~tm ~
s m- a y s e e m l i k e a c o n ,,.....,...jr
~'i;;',~
p=o=l. i tt m
~~

follow them? If a ml~. ~ a subject b7 ~ the ~.h.~ of

,=ave
nmde t~ m
d-:-, . . t,~ ,.utah meormut from Axistode to A,.,.,.,I
.
m ~t i
. .
......_t
kiads of I~,,=. 1,_ _~_ . t =s as imgumta: that humans L ....
.--- ,
---,e~ ~.~y ~___

~ ~ ~ . c O ~

a n

e a 0 t e l ~ o n

t.,,,~,,,,,,~~_ ~ in mine ;~m ways these rulm precede amd ~~-~te

the ~ ~c,,,~..i~ of the ~ ~ are not roles ~--_---_~--~_~-~. by a =ub-

u~ome po~ucal

O f

s u d t

c l a i m . "

T h e

elect at an -'_._-.~.-~_=-__-_--.~_I discatme; on the ~, ~ = rides that Bovem

~,p,,h~ o~....

-~.~~~.~----,... -;--~ ~ ~ -,,-,_ ~i ~ "

=-o .... " ~ q 7 a S a S O e = l r ; , . . . _ _ L . _

z ""~) ucu:2"IlUP~ who WiU alld ~

x.~ ~ speech
"_.--"~~olect. l'kred~e
- -m notwhether certain I
quemon
U~'b~ a ..t~_-_
~ are censored, but how an operation of ]

cem~ mm imevisieual ~ wi~ dm form~_~: We troy be tempted m

~,"

daha e~t, ~~ ,~mmt of speech i~ud~ ~ of wh=t

252

--

that a oecasmm. This F~-.~st,.- _e~p~.. ~. ...... + .- _ _ . ..

f~uga
..........
___ _. :- __ -~ _~_ .-- /===apromou=__.._1~
- =" ;~ imm ~,~t~.
m,,~~_~'~..u

mu,~
w~m
the
"---'a"--~- ----It."2--:
.....
- - ~ t im.L
a m___
R ] T ~- I-X._:
) i m ~_~.~
~ h . . I k _ . .o_o
J
J~
.
.
;
;
_
.
.
,
.
~
,
u
u
.
O
I
S
~
~
~
"
-~
.......
- -, __'~ ;~.=,,-,
to the reguht~ ,~,
~ - me suu-~s
is narrowly ;'---;-., .,,.~~, .___~
-.-..: production
. ....
" ' "

Let us return to one of the quandaries that. opened this d~ion, nangly,
the view that "uncensoring a text is necessardy incomplete. In this formula-

o~, 'as m state con~'ol

ovi monument .-,--- ....; _ .-mncatmn of mere.
. v,,--'~,
vauon
msmtence that certain kinds of .historical
evenL_ and buildin
.
g tz
, o r" m the
.
vs
oe
narrated
onl
on
. as '~roductive L__
way.
The vtew of censorshp
. y
.
.
, - ~ , - u w e v e r, m n o t a l w a
.
_

govern speakability m one's speech ts to consummate one s status as a subject

of speech.

behalf o:.a dominant power that seeks to control any challenges posed to
own legitimacy. Another, related exam-h is th- ....."
its
.. in
~
= -~ or censorst,
to budd (or rebmld) consensus within an instit,,,;.... ....
L .P an effort
--thin a nanon;, another ~ the use of censorsh;;i'n"th:cn_ as,~ me. mihtary, or

with v~ews that hold that e~.o...~k._ :_ _,

SpeagaDlllty .~ tw -,=,- v

,,

'/

253
~-

"~':i~.~
akes speech .possible-an inquiry into its conditions (ff Possihilj .

Ruled out
-,-.. s,,,'ech act is addressed, it is the sut!jec~
r , __.su,.,nosed an(] l;Jo~d r ,zt~~
t.hs..e~hof,.heone.t~Wsuh;hmp~,~e,~otthestateorso.me,ot.h
e P ....
d to w,em
whO now is v- _1. institutional power ,s p,~. ~rL.. ~,,hiect is described
instnu-". ,. -rs the woraS [-"" ""
l - L - .a~k the locus ot power na~,

at a nv'twe account ,eeks to answerm..e q u e s t i o n o f . L . t ~_ ,I n d

acceptable and which is ....

that disrinction, But d,. .,". [ :aria a~tempts to supply persua~'uc' speech ix
t

.
one who derivee model of stare power, and .a,muur,or&ng to th
. "ect. the unxlateral action .of power rema,n.s
a,cc.L-a
to the subl ,_~__..., ~ subiect, and its exert|on culm,smr~ . t f om the"-state
exerted
by a SUD!cc~ v,, -

case." Thus_ th,. ,--- -, .wdl be the case" under the -' [ Power, a fugi.
the ....... ' ~". "~,)' uescnpdon of the Field ^" . rubr, of "what is .L
~ummon ot ,tl normative o"'rati-- - u~ speech is in no sense - ." me
-~ ,ee evmence of this kind of move in the kind,of speech re uire

inaugurate the -Ibdenying and repentant h

on o! speech.

see:it When the emancir~,ti,.- t.__ , omoseXual men mili,--- . d to

IL~I'In Of On*,% S.L_ ~- uu from slavery into ~tiw~..k:
"[Y ranks; We
formingJ ...~'~ :,,,-,~r power, the translati on of one, --'""'P
..-, ....requires the bar-----, ...~n ,,,,---:-- .
..u__ _ . .,-.~4~mg g~llngt domestic ..,......., _ - -,,,ue into a COmmo
dry
,~.~r a vernon of herself o~,-...... - -'"-=, abuse reauir,,. -.-xbdity to COincide ~,- "~,-, v,na .~. any doubt as to L~-- " "."[ a Woman
~,ore me law w,~ a-- :J--,- - :,cr sexua~ purl
_, ~ . .
remmme heterosr~,ol;,....r
,, ,uea,~z~ and d,~--..--," -- ~' her
--...uauz~ re.ion
before .~.- ,-- --'---,~. wn,m we ask wh "
van n~lreS w,~..:s.m

c.,,,,,.h in this view ts the mstru .

iew of speech ca, t,,,e ,?co.?j_.. ,. oo -, th, s, ha

way .,u, .-..,.- ---.~..,-.;nn of speech. Furmcr, mL.-. ,- -- ,.. ~ ;~ nroduced "7
and forces the p[uu. ~ .... unt of how the speaking suaj_~,. ,- r- L..~." %
tag; a~.u
.
~ rouu~.--.mode| of power, can
_L .~.., ,~recede the subFct ~tself. Th P -'-:-. /
rhro,f,h onstraints on spec~, .,-- r.~ . 1 the language or censorsn,v
~/
,
.
i 6ifficult to describe trurougn
form of po

" /
'

ir'~-uoon
--,~.xosure that
0--L

_,_ .i.I.. censored and quite 8nOther

this powe[.
., . .
" ne
. . .kinas
.
ot speech
as ....
the
IS
O ~hin gfor certain
: - -~u
- ; ' ",,,.
t O____.u
. ~ m c ~._,~,melv.
. , , . . . . . ;'.~
o
n
a
l
e
v
e
l
t
l
t
a
t
s
s
p
,
.
"
.
.
.
.
"
s kf o r c e n s o r s h i p t o o p e r a t e . . . . . .- J..m.o.,,tmted ~rom the um

s mol~:t w,th a l~;,.. 16

~mestrates
In ,-.J .... ,
"'"""
,,_
""~" contexts
where ..~ercompulsory
dim,,-;..:-.,
" '~:ono--nec~sarv linL- ....L
o
, --- " ---'"-,ff roll ....
. -" -" ,,, me taw, -cure the ,,,,., : .... ,..--~-.. u~ comess~onal a: .... . - I r a , m e a t
. --- --z m wn,ch policy issues ar- --- ,~.,,~uurse, lot snsten~, Sm:c.

o,,;~u~..a.? OVm'en,.,,. -a.

, ~

. . . . .

. . . . . m. mUV~l~ie CII" ......

"t,....-,,, ,-, v. o~,,~narac mmtu~;..--, -,.

n~rart~ ,as w,__-- _
,,.,j=..~ .
wci~Gy JSJrow~ ...-m_,

a O^rlgall$ nay "'"

: - -'---,='---;:-~.~, ra~r~ whose ol~m...- .

l e term
state m
a
A~'~ Erom d~ u s e o ' ~ t e r m m c-e a'e
me~S,
more gene.rally,
ring the redem tion of a mort~ge mr yam e, m --'-- it anr~ars to pinuP'

"'u"h narra.

. ,---,~mnee~ triumn~h
nunatmn m ..a .......
"oum;~uon. ~uch

mort may

but

. une, and ~",a~:-'--., ..

--

-""~ ~ can ..- --~

~hO~! v~W _e

. da~ ~,ncs as

m.g ff~.

p r o

' no. ,. mo, on.

um~

Of

"---J"

a d d r e s s e d , - - - . - - - v - ~ q l a r ( ~ l a s " a l l ~ ; . - . , , z ,
:--,,umorized by the &m'--.----'--'";';']' ~epnved of the power to res,,,,nd
n e~ounte~. :,__ ."~. ~'~z q~eec~ act, backed k,, i._i...~.__ ,
~'"7 '
where that
:"~"'~m~..e~ff~.__ of a
B

""

1
; i
I I

m
m

- ~...r...a

-vt=~. when one aubject, drrou=hi~,

" . " u s a t r Y r e m a r k l o';Pml~tatlK)mL
r r-----~'" ""
a
_
t l ~ t - ' -~- - ,- ~m r c e ~ o m h ; . - . _ _ _ _ . - - ' WO..I..._
,,~, (o censor m'.ot~r ,~,k;,,,..

-- I

- - m u,,..,, .... ~ . . , , m c i s ~ i o n ~ "

~empomry reSm~

deprive oae Im~ ..~ ..~_ ~''.wmcn atlem that citizens wield th- -,,~-- -v.

- -

i il
~m

~ - t ~ o ~ m m , ~ ~ ~ " * , , k . , ~ ~ ~ . ~ ' , -w.

. . . ~ ~ t ~ - - - - . . ~ . u s a - . ~ a t ~ :., u....
l~-~
---.--

. . . . . 'T'^ .nd~:[_---~no ~'~" ....

-- '-a~ been ~"~ .

'-al~ For conExmo{p)wer.[t~.m~tluuw~ . . mmtremin~w

.'~m~veret~lx)we~..;i.,.._,,_- "~"an"ruPasonemwhlcha~.mr.li..~4
ot speech ia b'--' .. -"'";,-,r/repremq a ....'----"
-

1~..--_.

, .

emma enect oLs" !._u~.~.:-~--~*= ~ subject.

aaa-teo pote,, ,l,.

.. "~ pcmaps most ~.,;I.;._,_ t

. o

~~,|J

trJt

pose a tub}ect, hut that prel.uppoi _.

a s i , , -.l a r-.,a Ic~o~
c n o n ,is" 1~
~
.
.
,-a,,,~ toreclmu-rc is no~n~_.
seouctxon ot ~rmmn~r. u,,-..---, ."-~ure ~ suca -.. ~

;:

~at is ,or'-- ~,~rm_dby s.u,q~,, ~,--, ..

ave, ot irdi~duah who ,_._.-,;.vmvm,ty of California r.l..-:-'=---"--

~e'(m
oreclomr~ ~. a~ay ot aes~nau-s * ~.': .'='='- ..... (ion makes ~"
~ for_~

to m~.~---.."'.~.', m reference to ana-affirm .-~a, to t~e way the

.

~ Jean. Lap|anche
ame.
-' "- -"--choana|vsts
~ne I~)"
an(] .j.-o..~.~
-t .-..ressicm,
one
. . ~.__ .. ,,,~m~
torm o[.L,-J~
.......,~.,...

topic is addressed ;- - ,. . u nea~,ng beComes ce-~ . gs, for

" m U ~ t l l

r-

c o n s t t t l R u I g 1 l o t t o D y w.

msusnce, a story about abuse an" '- "~- ,ramea; ,n reference to dru

" 7

---- of how power constrams

m ,-a ~ssc work Ot ~'O--.--L-

..

~,~ole a $.l~.akin- -- ~-

over -- ..... ,

"

. ~ , " y ~ - ~ - - ~ u a e a u t n o s l z ~ t l o n fl ~ . . _
"'-- .... " - ' - - ' ~

m b ~ - t

, _

_ ,

- -

" " . "

. b e f o ~ . _ ~ v ~ -

i ~
L
'~(;,

_ _ _ ; h , t [ V i : L , x d u J ; J O n ~ l tm
' O.---~ ~ l -~ .,.
: ~_
l-~
" " ~ t' "o ~ "m. .e. . ---....
~ a--t
~ " s'~A a tern.m..- if'~'~l~'r-m~. '.~_'~;,.,ible widm~
o
f
s
'
'
'
~ , t t ~ u v . - -s - -~_. n . m
. - -- .- -- h
b
l
m
r
a
n
y
a
~
r
'
- - i_~_ ~#_~~
1 . " ' , . . . . . .

s ~ ~ ~
lw e~orc~ ,~. ,,- .... _ . ,_
"

'

'
'

: ~

RuleCl Out

Akhough the one who speaks is an effect of such a forcclos,r~,, the s

ject is never full), or exhaustively reduced to s,ch ,--- .'
uh.
speaks at the border of the speakable rist.o _.,, . a,.~rte~t. A suhiecr ,. b
w-~ha.t.2ssPcakahle
and what isrunsr~ab~.~
the dlstmctio, - --,~o
- ~ a , , , c . / h,~urawtng
e
. of the su~-,,
betwe,
property of- -the subject, an in'- ....
agency
cn
-erent wall or freed^- " nlegt is no, _,

o.~ power, one that is not fully dete-.-:--~, - "',-, nut Is Precisely rh.. _," "
" .
''""U m a~lvance I~ .t._ ." """ 'meet
duced In sne~h ,g .... L
mauve [*mttatton that sets the ,otcomes
~_
~ "- ~~- -u- .s . t h
- - "fo.
"
. i s f o u n d8i nand
.
possuble
on the co-~-s c. e n e l o r t h' e,,s~ucy
r
ot
tt~e
sub'-,
.
agency of the SOverei-- _._, .numon ot such a foreclosure. "rLICC.t' Agency
6I' sunlect, one who only an.~ -,-a,s is not the
instm----.-,L...~,,ta,y on another: on ,k. ..... / " d,ways exero;.-.eu~
subject
sphereof
tals isisthe
agencyi-of- a'~S_pwer
is also
openwhose
to a hnher
and di~u"u.-nrrary'
.._ --,re opera,on
delimited
z~ustSOver,
--expected dellmitae;r.. ~c i" aovance but
sure does no- "-"
date its pO;era~e place once and for all, but must~'he acuon of fOre~lo,
.___,
... .umplicitlv
,u eatcacy.
The subject
_ .e repeated
to reconso
~axaole
rein-.-'~ -, .. wh,,
h ".
-- -~Peaks
wtthi.- .L_
.

vocation, bower--'-'- .~.oxes tae. toreclOsure on whi,4. :. '~ ,,e sphere of the

_ ,., ,[ uepends. This r-:~-.

is n-.-- L ,, ~,, ,s netmer mechanical -Z"-'_'."
m,? of
one's
but that la..--.~'or sure. One speaks a lan*ua--~,~"
,,~.a~aons
thatown,
inv ....
.o
s
mat
-I~uage
only
r~rsio..
_,.
- -[he s----'r - "'~ mrough rer-~.-a
...2
.L
u~non.
.
u t l l l l ~ ugh the utteran--- -~
I'~II act ~ "
"
amtams
tern- . ... r ~ - a t ~ U
.
.

Any decision on how to decide will .be. implicated m a process

ship that it cannot fully oppose or. eradicate. In. th.ls sense, censorship is at
not.
. d.oes
,
. e the cond ition for agency and its necessary hmzt. Thzs paradox
u r i c . . . . :g.li'~ of decision, but merely suggests that decmon s imph
.
relute me pos~,,~,,, ,~
ambivalence. Although the postulauon that s.f~h ,s condmoned by ,mpliat
censorship--or foreclosure in the sense described above--suggests that any
and all speech is so conditioned, and that .what remains is to distinguish
between forms of censorship that are const, tuttve and, hence, presumably
inalterable, and social forms that are contingent and alterable. What is equa. lly pressing, however, arid |ss easy to address, is the qucstl~, o.f how
forms of censorship come to appear arid to o.p,~rt as constnm-~ ~ n~lterable conditions of speech,.h.ow certain k,nds of speech are ruled out m
order for "speech" in its provmonally proper sense to emerge.

Notes

Affa/rs 22 (1993): Z93-330.

.
,
Z. i take ~ to be one o/the salient questions posed by Frederick Sdmuer s ~nmbution ~o this volume.
_ -.
3. Adil~'ent venion o~ this ~ IPPea~mthe cOnlz~~cbalMlr4 t my
F. x c / t a b / e S
: A ~ o f ~ P ~ { l q e ~ Yo r k : g o , d e d ~ 1 9 9 7 ) - . .
. .~ee
. ~.~
. . .~auuer,
. . . . . . . _- _,,,~
. . _v.m,,,~
_ , . _ . . --_ , ---------~r.
r. ~ , , . " ~ 1
47-6, in ta~
4.
e~
-~.
volume.
. . .
1 ~ 1 1 1 7

- , ~ w

o r

t h e

C e n * . - - - t .

. . . . . . . . . . .

me sul~ect of s,,-,-- ---~smp, broadly Consm,~ ,k... :_ _

. .

might dbain-.:-r .-..~-~orsasp. It does --- ~ -.'"~ me quemom that

,,,~.L
_a~,-,a
,,,,x
criteria k.. .-~
_.,.._,
. , " .o n. m
v i d i orurmsn
us iwnw.n we
""e'~ m
k e ~ e mv,
n s e -diom -~. v.__

m e

" " " ~

. . . . . . z,k...,., t'~

]HIEm~ m

B~mdle.

"----" " --" .... -1--o~" - ....n.~....,m,;mlmmldaimsamu~atd~~inda~

.,.-L

I~ ~__
.
1~ WI"L-'- ~" '
t t_asU .S. l.b. l v I ~ _ ~- - - - - . w u l ~ 8 0e,,,.
e~
, -kP
uu,n waw.~
- - i n o r m a t i v e - r P ~ . ~ s - -m" -i a
.

~h,,, ,.,,,., he oma:xmaliae& ~ m m d the ~

"",~- We r

d framed thro,,o0. _ .ec~ze that the wry field of'~

dea:nptioa. ,,,.
we ate
~ smrlBs tha
. ..
v a n , , ,l ,a.r ~_, .. _ e a c c u s t o m~ eu d l .~_- _., t . .
t p r e cre- -d, - e
, ~I, k . , - , . . _ , ]
..
- - , -t,h
u ,ej , m
.... ---.- or c'-'nSorshin and -~ . s mat we lint offer a description of

,- men decide among them t~'ough recourse

, our de~ri o

~ m a d _vante, through a ~---, lm as are themsdves normaof the" ~eaEa~,,~am~,-:_.

tha-- ",,:wao.~ure
establishes
-'"p m~,~.
thisland,
Waywithin
-- . .,,
,m.e
0Omam ofthat
descri'--:on,
-, the domain
256

6. See ]E. S. B~zt, "i~a ~ Tmte. for Trath': ~

h;.,e. "Let hlloa~" ~ 111-43 Ea tim ~ame.

stand theu m
1-'--"
t s O tto
i t sfind
e r a d out
i , . . k what
: a : . _ .we
a m-: a. nmtances
b y " c e n s of
o r acemorshin
h ; , , - . _ J _ ' ~But
" , "i,

'.~'an8 rL~hinb;._th

1 " S g t

am~/~,/,~ Cr/z//m~ m~ ~t~ pab/~ Sp6m~ O~mmPO~ Uah" ~ .~

~ D94).
.

. usm~UUlons Of ,- .....

" ......:~"

arise in .~:. .""" ucs not tdl us ho... w,_---"

engaged
m form mg
OeSt "~.'.=
tO tb,,qA.,
..c_

"'ugxl~red an

5 Seegicim~-,,~ .(th~ial)etail:TheFeti~dCemmd~md~

.to exploit the -re a.nu prornme of its peculisr"b.md_eml tot ageny, but the
- - "

of .c~.sof

ate corulltloRs 0 "

f,tt
..__The.cnncal task ,s not sim,,I .... _
"~-rT. external to m,~.,,h .__, ~-,~ m speak -against- th
__.,f the law
.
e law, as
~m. If me,.,-h a.~_~_""~ -,,u speech the nrivi,-----'_;--. -~.--7-', '~1a:nds upon r,..o^_~.." ,,-s .ca Venue tor indiv"
o~x t ,,,._._.
---,-v~a
,, ,.._ ..
.
tdual freemr'.u~" ~ Drimq,.I- .L
~
..~ 0 ..nelau~ IS at 0""- .L .
"
""-~....
me tor----" " ". ".. ~.-:~-'~-,~_~_[.nat o
nere m no op~ositi. - ' adrau v e "-P' r i"npPst.tLoaal
c i p l e o * - speec~h~.
. T. ~ g h t
,,,, ~o me. lines
rcarawmg
- "
of those re--- li _. ,*n oy toreclosure e.x; "" :. _ ._._..
temporal dynamic --/Y n es. Th,s is not a a._., . _ ~pt through the

. ,

p u I ~ U n . ~ q t t O Vi ~

m qlammo~

.-,,-.,,-~. -JL-- la~ m ~ aad (b) ~,mmm~

- . mmm,,,,=
~
_
_
~
d
m
_
.
.
.
.
.
um~ m za~a
.
o~ ~ and, Im~ carom ~ be mmlmed m me ~ --,~
8. ~, dmro,~ real ~ ~ o~ d~ mum ,rod ~ "p.~m./t~
c l n m , , e e j a m x E . H a l k y, " l ' ~ S e a m s l G m t a c ~ ~ i a t h e L ~ 9 3 ~ t o
Sa.alk~ $ (t99~)= lSS-2S2.
9 . ~ a ~ d d m , . . . ~ . ~ - , , . , : - _ ~ - T- i s a ~ m : h a ~ d m r y m a d i n m i n e
lelpl eoamms, ~m m~' "Se'mmt~ ~" k ~ ~ (m emae -3)"

-"~ss e w.ope of normativity.

i

Butler
10, This il a distinction that Michel Foucault offers in the ~eco,d v-lume t~f Tke

Ruled Out

History of Srx~lily, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage, 1980}, in hi~ effort to
counter disciplinary form of power with sovereign power. He Istmgt~ishes between
power conceived as "repressive" and as "productive."
d' '
11, ~ George E, Man:us, "Censorship in the Heart of D'
e n y, [ n d : g e n o u s P e o n i e s ' . - , - . . . . . . . . .
dference: C ..-- , _ _ _ . . . . . . . . r M " ' " " ~ " ' s , a n d C h a l l e n g e s t o W,. Ul.ura,
Prop.
pll$ca ~l-qZ in this volume,
cstern LIherat
Thought.
12, See Sin)ford Levinmn, "The "Put-' ,
,
.
elary btate: Cen
,
Practices of Cultural P.e~ularin,,'- .....
sonhtp, Sdenc;,..., ",s, and the
13. Hs---+this volu,-.
, 111111 / -~ P.e ".
n 0 t---:-'~,
C l | ~ l , A lPuKes
~ $ t o d e ' $ i~5--219
definitionin" ,,
"""

I; ng. .

. ~ +

. + I t

~ O r / ~ e l ~ I t

, n t ~ p r e t l t i o n

o f

A r i s t . ~ e

o n

t L -

-e POlltica| animal as a speak.

a ' ~ ' ,

[ J l f e ' e :

| 9 ' S ) ~ l

: ~ ? '

n tehm~onn| ~
e i+pTedni fdf S~i fl -r -o. m
I ~to4n: , IC
- zR
- +. o b e_r t.P o lot ,f etuh m
i s =d l.m. n.c u. o n i - L ~ " ,
.
15 See SQid: .. ""-,,qk ImSes 1-12 m this volume
- ms Introouc
forthcomi~!, q,a nartman, ~ of Subiectioa (New York: Oxford Univ. Press,
F ~ V ~ ' ~ l ~ ; ~ m e ~ ( N ~ e w f ~ y o ~ : l ~ W ~ " i udedge,
n J u d i t h1992).
l~uder and Joan Scott,
1 7 . We a d v r e . o . . . . . .
.:--'-" "", rnm<lom'eSih..o..,._
"".'~ pages 313--27 in tl~ volume.
18, Ibid.

19. laml~on (see nora 1).

20. L~'s word is

fo~l~ion and is i

Freud's te~m, V~e" v-.__,

,
.
the French
m l l....
llllQO~ Or
-.----uu or "~n"
----" '" smuemay t~nda~d :--- -- ...
taro r.aSllMI I~
velli~im .i.._ "-~"" 132 tile V~Id4/re ~ I. ~. . .
"+ prjc.b+mm~le (Fszis: n.___+ .
.
. ~-- ,,+ trance, L967~ I.-_. .
,

mrLb~l~e~.,_m

- " o

, u r ~ g

Tin.

I D

~_r lntroduced
~ l ~ ; . . . . as
.

Omd.of

of

m dote
,
.to
. . the notion o+ . .
+

u ~

of,h+

"~n~ seme of the "outride., ~

howell, one that
o ~ ' "

. ~'ume ~t u the d~mi.g limit or .me. u used.l~ Jacques I~rida. This i~

InWEI~/~L were it imported into d~t univemeeX~/to a ~ven s.bolic .ve~e, __
, ..would ~ m mresrity ~ co~ .....
~ ~mwpreciSl ~ t i s w-s e""
t o u - -,,me
:+
or repu<~u~l
~rom the - --" :'~"="
uon

, .--,_ . nee ~ dmt uaivenm m..,~._ .1

. ..xmoo, muver~ m ques-

wmmlt ~

m~ Wlmt m ~ is eo be +Pu,Jnm,
. . . i,~a ~-,
.
telm=~ (,,r~...
....
- - - : . . . . -..,,
'"~ m I~rem~k t_J ,. _ .

l O l e d -1-m
, ..
--.,
. _ _ _ _ _ m~m--~
-m mto .the- -,.- .....

mmof ~...

"

nm

v ~ ~ X. m + " . . . . . . + ~.mmnnanl. What m

mx's n(x belo.s to d~e ~ of

e,,,. ;-.-

... .

m-

, , ~ r. _ f to
- " ~m , o ~ , . ~ t i u ,mmu
e x d . -II~rm~es
-:~-'-' ~ m= ~ ~ dure~rem
--.,~',ce
F,~ oll ~ko ,rL ~ m relation to.~- -- s~rmbohc coherence. Freud
~,, ,~ _~. -u,m~ ~ Sexual...,. -,..._ -,-,car mcmmmdon in both "TbeThree

--:, ..,i as, m ~, sP~.~.., ~'. " ~1, am/~ xism~ of an ~.,...~,- ~--_
.r m
"'-,-,
umu,. un~ the-----. ':.I. " .~+/~rn~ e~=~olo~t Wor~ of Sig~, 19S3-1974t wn_ ~ emCourhin of ,.__ +. .
,, --ea~ F~e.d O,~,.;--..,Lr J""" ~ (Lomlo.: H~
25S

+ - - - ' ~ " Y ~ t o d e fi u e a f o r m o f r e p r m -

sion that corresponds to psychosis, Lacan introduces "foreclosue" to specify that

form of repression... ,
11. Ox[ord Eng,:s" Dictio.orY, 2rid ed., s.v., foreclosure.