Censorship and Silencing

Robert C. Post

Censorship used
venerable to be aseparating
divisions very dull subject. Aligned
liberals from along predictable
conservatives, and
oriented to-
ward 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 dramati-
cally.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 free-
dom to picket.4
Many contemporary liberals scoff at traditional First Amendment juris-
prudence, 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 align-
ments. 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 sup-
pression 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
powatul violatingThe
powerless people force
call for juridical into silence and
t.o check hiding behind
oppressive state
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 diffi-
cult 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 inno-
vative 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 cir-
culates."" For Bourdieu the necessity for a practice of censorship manifested
by ".explicit prohibitions, imposed and sanctioned by institutionalized au-
shortly, 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
- q i l r sublectl.
~ e t o l p,Hence
O i i U v.am$orship
el^I .... ~ transmutes
_t
from an external," revressi/e
,
,-, t,,,wrz mat constitutes pracuces
. as it. -defines
thek boundari~3o
Fouctult had himseI, -, Detail from the front cover of the annual rel~rt issued in
knowledge and .,~'-, "always seen. power as productive, as constructing 1898 by the New York Society for the ~ of Vice.
_ .. . "~-,-, pracnces. He had onsequentl re'ected n " Courtesy Library of Conipass.
o p p o a u- ....on~ ........ y l a y- stmvle_
. . -~s~allgI . ,
m d m d uisasubiects, . . zl ,-_, person,oncludin g instead a
th t power "makes
as ~-.a.-~-.m
~..,~,ucuve, me not new scholarship,
as one or more censorship is of
discrete acts analogously
repressive
2
COntrol over free expression, but as a 'n,~rmal' and
. . 'ct~nstitutiv-,
~ : Pa ¢t, "trifle
.. . . ,,,, ed,
a very condtnon, of free expressnon.
. .-- The striking
,
and
. , anomalo usCOnse,
quence of this characternzation_ ts precnsely to cut .against.. attempts t o
use
charge of ¢ensorshtp as grounds for political mobtltzation.
These are exciting and important intellectual developments. For
. . all 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 re-
gime.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 sacri-
rice" 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,
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 pos-
sible 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 uni-
venal. 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 exhib-
ited 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
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 vana-
say~
difference between,
dons among kinds of struggles, de-emphasizing the
the agonism of poets and that ot legal aid clients... _, .t.. ,,,~ schol-
The 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
Censorship and S,lenc,n8
the Assembling a group of extraordinarily talented scholars, this volume inter-
rogates that issue from divergent disciplinary perspectives, ranging from
political science to philosophy, from law to cultural theory, from literary crit-
icism 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 jus-
tifications for state interventions to regulate private power that constrains
expression.
m
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 concep-
tion of censorship as a process of "removal and replacement," and instead to
visualize censorship as a matter of "dispersal and displacement." Burt's ambi-
tion is to undermine any simple opposition "between the censored and un-
censored," 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 organiza-
tions,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-
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 ver-
sions 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 vol-
ume 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
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 under-
inclusive 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
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,;.-~* -.:--,
. o n l y s e r v e d"~:
0 ,pur~,
..- '~
_. , .. . __ . . r -'-", *,~,,ence
ucu~ar v,ston ot Christ,an commun,ty. If the bfirst
ut ,,I..~ .
- ,,,:,o Instantiated
of the-- , '-'"
a par.
sumably be subject to the caveats outlin..J, -- . ~e goals wou}d -
not, and to this day the so-called di--" ~.-u ny L/av,son, the second, pre.
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
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,,~,--~, ....
-, ne,..-8~ v, augnL[exes,
"'"'~',~,s.~ u~ a a!smtegrating
a Knowledge mere..
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.
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 cen-
sorship. 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 marginal-
ization 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 empiri-
cal pmces~ by which our "expressive possibilities" are constituted and con-
' '.i'~
" is roblemati¢."
.
sequentlv restricted, then "the .very
- -. .
concept
_ _L of use
..... :''""' censor,h,p P
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
but that
process. S,ahout theitallocation
serves instead usa label applied
of content-determining-- P0St hoc
authority:"' to conclus!ons
These conclus~on.$
do not depend so much upon the mere fact that expression is suppresseu, a
they do upon political and purposive considerations like "institutional com-
petence. "separation of powers;' or the maintenance of profes.sional auton-
omy. 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 cen-
sorship,j' To recognize this onflation, however, is merely to invite deeply
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. . . .
.
David Wasserman canvasses the rich omplemties revolved in auessmg
restrictions on government subsidies for scientific research into genetic pre-
dispositions to impulsive, violent, or antisocial behavior. Wasserman dem-
. ." onstrates 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 dis-
parate 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 on-
straint," 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 prop-
eat 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 "autono-
mous 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

Part !I! of the me returns to the insight that nonstate power perva- Censorsn,p il~d Silenc,na

. ' x-ression, and that sometimes these constraints

. operate in
sjvely constrains e p . . . the ground that uptake is nor secured. !( pornography is to be regulated, sug-
gests Green, it should be on other grounds, as for example on the ham of
ways that could be ascn.p!ively ch.aractenzed as censorshtp. In such circum-
stances it might be lusttfiable to revoke state power to remove these con- norms of equality which, like the norms of charity evoked by Shuger, reflect a
straints, even at the price of direct government regulation of speech. This part/cular vision of communal identit'):"J
reasoning underlies contemporary calls for restrictions on pornography and Wendy Brown concludes Part I!I with an extended meditation on the
hate speech, for state controls over public access to media broadcasting out- theme of silencing. Brown is concerned to unravel the usual equation that
lets, and so forth. reads voice as registering authenticity and power, and that reads silence as
Judith Butler begins Part I[I with a theoretical account of the ways in reflecting repression and domination. Brown identifies the subtle dangers
associated with what she calls "compulsory discursivity; which conscripts
which "the speaking subject is produced through constraints on speech that
subg'cts into the regulatory norms of the very discursive practices that enable
precede the subject itself? Because these constraints establish "the domain of
speech. From this perspective, silence can function as a "resistance to regula-
speahabi}ity" and "the onditions of intelligibility," they are inevitable, indis-
tory discourse," as a quiet and sheltered place in which freedom can be prac-
pensable, and unspeakable. Butler speculates that for this reason they may be ticed, ikown treads a fine line, carefully distinguishing "between the pleasures
misdescribed by the language of "censorship," and she herself proposes to use and freedoms of silence on the one hand and habituation to being silenced on
the term [oredosure. She wishes to designate a "primary form of repression, the other."44 Brown's point is that, having once tasted the Foucaultian apple,
one that is not performed by a subject, but', rather, whose operation makes we can neither view expression as the simple opposite of censorship, nor
possible the formation of the subject." Butler contrasts such foreclosure with silence as the simple ant/thesis of freedom.
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 incom- We have come, therefore, full circle. We have ieanmd m see regulation in the
plete, because of the continued independence of the subject and of the inabil- very formation of our speech; we have lean~ how thoroughly we are sub-
it,/"to circumsaibe effectively the social domain of speakable discourse."41 ject to mmral causal consmumts. N~, to the extent we continue as
The social power to censor, albeit limited, can nevertheless prove consider- agents to act and to judge, we require criteria by which to ~te among
able. The essays of Rue Langton and Leslie Green explore the characterization resuictiom on speech: to a~elX some and m ~ others. Because we have
and consequences of that power in the particular instance of pornography. At learned that such judgments cannot rest merely on the fact that expcemion is
the outset Langton rejects accounts of censorship that universalize it, that constrained, we must reformulate them to depend instead upon purposive
comidemdous, upon ideals of juridical enforcement or of insuitutioual om-
phce it "everywhere? Censorship as a normative concept must refer to some-
p 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
thing discrete and remediabk. Using J. L Austin's speech act theory, Langton
judlpnems only ff it is reabsorbed into this normative ~ B~ the oa-
argues that pornography functions as a form of "illocudonary disablement"
cept comes to us now stril~ of its pr/o[ innocence by the acid of Foucauit-
that prevents woag.n from having the full power to speak in certain kinds of
inn sophistication. That loss has momentous political ~ as we
have learned in the last two decades. The challenge addreued by the essa~ in
~he~&ee. It is thus
speech of awomen-then
form of censorship,
there isand if "the free
a choice speech
about of men
which silences
speech is to vohme is how these consequmces may be mastered and subordinated to
be protected."4z
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
Nora
~ve the igocutionaty force of, and to perform the action of., makinz a con-
1. Fora good ~ see Kathleen M. Sullivan, "Ft~ Spee~ Wars," ~
M~ ~ Law Aet,/ew 4g 11994}:. 203; Katbleen M. Sullivan, "Remrreet-
teluaty 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 - - ~ . . . . . . ing Free Speech," Fo~ Lmw Ret/ew 63 11995): 971.
, p -
2. For an accooat, see Domdd Alecauder Downs, Tbe lqew ~ °[ ~
that~a~Y .,o .n..~.. ined both-~/fel~;'c~ndiVcrYdoz~ez~d~bysg s~oc~ZiaV~Z~ora7 (Chica~. Univ. af Chicaso Prea, 19m.
ate hist'..-~_,tae ~'fiilment of these conditions. These conditions and forces 3. Compare ldari J. Mamula et al., Won~ tb~ Wond: ~ ~
~ Speed, ad dM F/rd ~ (Boulden. Westview INes, 1993), with Cm,-
dora of qxech tha- everywhere, so that one cannot speak of a flee- Fets/omd Record, t01st Goes., 1st Sc~, 1989, 135:16Z76 (ixopoeed statute by Jesse
o f i . o o n -
- - - " r ' - ' . ' . u . P l O 0 1 ~ -C agompmm
- -- ' " ot -being
- .
silenced merely on
a
Ruled Out:
Vocabularies of the Censor
Judith Butler

Descriptions
subject ofofpower.
censorship
When presuppose
we claim thataan more general
individual theory of for
is censored, the
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 effica-
cious 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 cen-
sored, 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 decla-
ration? 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
ls ' then it contributes
. to- making
. . the
. . object
. . that it ,also
- ,coustrain~
" / |
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
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~lit-
ically normative ~nse One can live in a polity without the ability to translate
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
COmet Would there . ;.implicit tin..,,:-.,
---.,.-- am of censv.~hip
oz censorshiB ,~o.~:k,-would
- "-
closures and operative _m_?n)n.gmt speech at all Were it noifo; -~"" ro over-
"that ,_.* being constrained and som,,:_~werful a~ue that tt is their freedom
Ruled Out
to any authoriat decision. A more radical view would be that those rules,
"decided" prior to any authoriai decision, are precisely the constraining con-
ditkms 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 recon-
sider the re|ation between agency and censorship.
The other view voiced at the meeting was that "censoring a text is neces-
sarily 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 ex-
ceeds 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.
htcannot
~lly
" " rl one m=. g 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
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~

speech. Censo.hip is most or-=- "-'~""=: more parucularly, their freedom

¢~;li rm~r . Of why others seem quite helpless to effect any capture it alL,What =o-'~__~.,_~
persons or against the cont--,. -= -~ recl to as that whzch is directed auainst ~?
-
the eif~cv or the fadure that characwrize different operanons
. ot censo~u,v.
--,,t ~ mezr s ~- ,t
stramm8 and re~u|ato-- t__ , peech. Is censorshzp, des-it~ i-- "--II- ---~rable from that which it seeks m censor, per
_j_ zy UlnCtlon~ a wa~, ^~ ,.-- ~ p t - s c O n . x,c
z -,--
u ~ e -~ --'-
- ' n ~ -[ -"
a ~ ......
urvr[ z~ty ~p~
, . . - " wa-~ that
-uvance what wdl and will not L_ ,,, ~,roaUCmg speech, constraining in
o¢conle ac~ haps censorship is implicated in the matena! tt seeks m censor.to r~
~t .r~l to as the "conventional- view -- pt,able speech? In what I have re- ~,. ~- produce paradoxical consequences. If cen=onns a re=,- always,o ,nine .tans=

art of the discourse produced by the mechanmm ot censor*n v"

sorship Produces s,,~-z. -~ een made. But m the vrew that su~zees~ ,k~..--. oL~ b -" To ex lain
P this lastPhenomenon, tt ts ~t uuu and. tnadvertem
xu:---~:~t . _ _
,..,,4.= .L t"~-',, mat temn,,,~t -At__ . . o~ -- ,-.~, ~,, ~ "-
~ , shiPas
' a roductive
P Jorm O f p -~ w e r , m ~ y W O- r~:-
"-'-~:~ me text (by Wk;,-k t , , . ~"'"" ,~:mUon IS reverted. Censozshin ore- ~ _ ~;~ K In illlFU~"
z,,ses as usual meanmS,
and is in -...--- ~-" ""'" = mcmue "Speech" and other ....s...__, _ ~ "-_~ ~ . r ~" waY S./ks a product i r e f o r m o ! p o w e r," ".c. e. .n. s o r~,__ ~ u ,....~.=er~be
v , - " . . .trim
..
~.",~ ~nse responsible for its "rod----" ~,,,,~=a, expresstou=), --
' becomes unclear whether "c¢nsorshtp I " w o r K s t v ~ - ~ ' " . ,
-rt w....
o Vtextm ~,,,, .... , . . If ~s~uct:ton. ~ ~ d-~~.~~ ~ and tt . sto . , and u~l~t
--=t---t
o;, .... / '
-"'- "-,,,~[~ea m the Courst. ,-,~ .a._ ,,-._~ . "-'- ~.. ~, ~'- ~ t l o n o f opw e r . I t i s p o "hie
o pera r e to .di=ingmsh
. . . _ _ between
*-crying ~at seem, in.-=--- . ~--.~- -,~ ~euy seminar on censorshln and °* " , .,~ . . ~ e r t n ex~, ~ - .i n
n t r u ,-,= ....
..
cemorsh~p The la~ re(e. to imphCtlt operetta-. .. - '- -rex,-- s,
r ....
no expl~t res-
to register ~.- .-- ,~,csnn~y, the reverse of each oth~.,- ,k~,, ..,...... ~..~.. t'~" ~ ~.,-
in uns kaOt¢. In such ~
mg a text is necessarib, ;..~'___'," -nova.= One vxew maintained that uncensor- ¢ .."'', 0 .j...~
cam ~_ . u|ation is ne~ in which to articulate thls cons~,~¢,~= d"Uo~"'o/-e~ip
,, a text-.~ ==~umplete.~ Th;- .t_:_
-- :- . "-,=.= appears to .
thatno ,,, r ~q~ bO ~a--
' a .t impt = t en,o.h p s.W ' a, at t -..are o.e ..h
SOme kind of cen~,,~'._~; remain readable-without first being subjected to ~" r ~"~ ~ that are nObased
t in ex licit
P .-
state
. .
policy or
_ utesumuu":
. . ; t n ~ u = r t l ""
t t o_,
n u...,~.~hin- and
x ~ , = . - - - . r, , _
Poses that cem~.'._'~=up' m SOme way that is not yet clear, this"view presup- ~,'~"" for anod~er term m d¢-~'xdx arm more trnV,~-~ -r_-; =~,~.clo~u~" nusht De
~,.smp Precedes
readable, ts produced th.~.._~the text in question, and that a text, to become I will suzeat
z later in t~is essay how the norton
m.u,on'~.~k.,~r,
,-~--- --seems ira-
P~sibilities, and realizes'~t~egnrsapr°cess ot selection that rules out certain appropriated fo~ such use. Buts cauUona~ wo.. ....,.,;,-=llv between
PO~ea decision, One m-,4- ~:,=. ,he process Of ~¢lection appears to pr.up- portant here. ~lfe might think that b Y.di~'TZra2e'c;~;.~'-~roximsu;
c--~'~
....me
, rules ace-- "- explicit and implicit forms of ceasot~P t_na~ - Yet it m*y well be that
--" "x t~e author of the text Yet rh..
.. .. _ ..._ author doe s not
tam Ways the rulesurging
that govern
to which the mtelh&qbility
s.el~.'o.n, is made,
ofand
a text
in are
some~decided"
very impor-
prior the dI w
xmrki oof n p
censorship as . a form.
- - - - - .ot
, u upow=r~.~_~
m m w, , w, , ~- -middle
- ceSion
explicit and imp|icit ~rms exist on ~-v,,,,,,
 . ,
e. , ,
, I" , " iot o
' . , ol ~
. ,..

e,t,,,.
, . . ' °
Itlll """
"~J~i"
"" q'o

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

Ruled Out
way. Indeed, the masquerading or fu-,tnv " - ..
exphclt and imnli ', di .... g corms ot tens . . ' g _ ubI¢
, s hnn
a .tl~.
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
When we can-.----~,' mat.confusion, may be th. _" conceptually co..,-"" / cer ned to. retain L_ ---ered b,,~a sneaking
veh~cle
" _ ,,,,, ,.e, r~h;...L_.
whether or not s,,,.--L. r ..nder which. nt
. may control
ue u-over what . termsub/ect,
rthe _
restricting
wxll mean .and thechat speak
cond,
, .~_a L..L. re
t,
for cen v,-~,., ,s""co,,.-_.
,-ost politicalh..., ,,~us.
.I ~rect;,.~ '" . , __a -...-0.,sivelv those sublects who are nor aescr, veo vy ,,r,
unwittinoh,
e~y. so._...~ ,sac ns precisely the' - ~
,,,-..--, "'~,nous, Whether,t:.IS"'~'
.~.~tsion In wE: " the
~crt it Works its way
. .
more effncac~ous than explicit for °'.m.bguo..fo,.of
unspeakable. Cen~,--L-_. ms m renderi o .. .... . shnp ma~, h, .
no ,-ercatn ki-a- - - -"
,:
I,,___. . -,,,,,,np is eXn~ ,_ _ .
.,~.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- . hat....

they seek to La-- ..y by rehears,
la -- ,, gresmonal star.,-.- , _ u r from dnsc very definition of the homosexual that the military provides.. A homosexual
- Ourse.
.w the don't ask_ a...,. _ ,.,, ---'- va~ea in (~,~^,-_ o,, whose definition is 1o be left to others, one who is demed the. a~ oL selt
mdntarv_
-,, v,.,I,,.. ___,.. . suc
pro,terated cP°"'.°" reference to
Y onstramed P".'
ectarat~on m 'the
.,o definition with respect to his or her sexuality, one whose self.demal Js a pre
horn . ~ ~ requisite for military service. . . _ .
documentat,on but al_~ ;-.L h references riot onh, ;- :- osexualury in tee .
tent of the sta h, ;. __'~. ,,,.me pubhc debates ~ -z ,-_,rs own SUpporting ^~:)~ .-, .. ." ~
~ , /~ l -¢hborate uvon
, - mecnarusm o, - this
- -example
, ¢ensorsrup . because
- - , - ,t. illustrates
us engagea .m. . m©
a..-"onthe
o( way
a tic,mre
p,ouu~.,,~
wh,.ch the
ot/~omo-
_ 0-: . __
but to estah,;~'.~'° aur Only to limit the" . ostered on the 'ssue. The'_
nn- sexuality, a figure that is, as it were, backed by the stare. The regulau.on.s mar
I.__ -"-,, mat such self-----. coming
-vmosexual conn,..- _ . ',m:nptave speecl, ...... out" of re;n;,...-
---,., or a s,an ~h.. _ _ ""'"~ Personnel.
c,._j ......
,,muct m Inkely.s "rg_ _.,. "- ""'" " propensih.._ __ "" '-uasututes either " determine whether homosexuals, will be allowed to enter or remain m the
. a form of military does not simply constram the speech of those who would enter or
on the matter of wL'-'- .mm~ry thus engaged in ;~cngage an homosexual
,-~ Is to -,-,er protra . stay; it appears to be about certain kinds of speech, bur it is also concern, ea
conduct
... a
re ,,,
.v t._
,.~ ~..
umt- be onsndered
..... ,, _ _ cted duscuss ,on
- . homose-._,..
""~,, ann _.
how speech and
tina,,-- - . . ,-guasn~, with establishing a norm by which military subj~txon..pro~.. In omer
.'q, one m,gh, enloy (or nwhether
.... ,t can or should __ _ words, the statute_iL~~ged in the prodS' one
m homosexual ,.__. _ uc enjoy} hom~.. .... , be, and whether
the "prone,,;,~.,~nuuct" (a Clinton .._...-~-;,m status without ,noo.~-" for who~ct~, pubitcig demea or recaa.ma-
"-'"7 uelinition ,._. v-,,vuo that is ©fie---:---, _'o-s-,s .' ...._ ..........
In relauomh~p to the" mascuhmty
. . "" " m;limry
of',he this will mean
sub~ . _. ..mar
_~
., ....
-,ways on the veto,, - ,-a( suggests that., ..... ~'"vew unctone by
the norms that govern masculinity will be those that reqmre me aemm m
the term L_ "~s~ .or expressina its, t~. _ - ~,ams ,s, by its v
"~moscxual --us ;. ,..._ _ _ --,s a form o~----~ _ _ cry nature, homosexuality. Fo~ women, the self-denial requires either a r.et~, n m an
¢Ontrdry, the statu,------, -. no s act of e,,,,..._,_.
tmple - ,-u-uuct). linked w~~ a dora-
. Regulatton of apparmt heterosexuality or to an asexuality (so~ .,, ....'- -orlon of
effect ,4.;. _ "~ "ectOUbles the ---- .-~,.v~ap or silencing, n. ,t._
inant conception of female heterosexuality)that rams me munrar,- -
itself uns"~,._~,_ns..~int through this na'r.~t_t .seeks to COnstrain and ='on'":
^__ ~'~Oie, but only r ',uux~cal redoubli unit cohesion.
,-e uses tito a.__ uns,~c_,_, . . nS. The term ns. not I, T~,.,. o~,..,,,,,-h.,j~m~ of cemor~p is acavety --' "- the
¢n&al~ "' ~-oduct/on
-- v-~ ..... .
" ~ 4 : r l l._
) e -r , becomes
n.-.,, r'-,,,~ole LrI ~h..... ":'"'~ ~'" """"" ._. .,. _ . . _ ~,,v~ml I~l~r#
.a:._. . . .

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

11
of the speech under que~,oa h, everym~.. . --- --d, failure ~o
comnle~e
r - - ~ . or. total subjectificadon through leith..m~,;;; -~.-__.
cumscn~ cf:fectiv~ m~ ,o,:m aoo-,-. ";:72,~ ~. not .~dizamuc. o~
- - . ,,
" "-'----=- of s'v~lmt~le o~ouu.~
~
Clear_.. mill tory
I,,.rJ~ ', e~n to ~,~e ,p~,... 7___~-..2
- --.---.-, ,,.- - , , - ....~,~ve"
r----
. ntrast wire tn~ ..
not only appears in thedin
regulation
the term culminate, in"
also reappears m . .
nts proliferataon. The an im~itlon of power. By -prod tguv¢, .~ md~,
o,~ ,.,.....
,,-, :."-,~..ot
- conc~vecl
. ~du-
. as that d . ~...,
, - - - , ...~...
- - - - , v ,~, . **
- - - tommnve
- ~ ¢onmmu_m.~~~, -. _-:-- .,~ lil~rtim. ~
-- ----; -----'~"~---'F-~the dcprlvauo- "-,- --
t h e COnjured __. the publac debate o.-- ;.. t_. tscourse to be regulated but s "v
t e lasy - - -a - ~ - .-~~ - =~~on
: = . . . . o~ on,~,_,,-
. . . _ _ _ . . . , ---"
._._....a ori~t/*'e,
,.,~_Iv ~,cu*~ ---- r- .
the n...,__'," ,,r "nagined act of,oF.-'~'."'~. m,r.ne, and value, s i6ali as Ac¢ordine to ~ view, cenmor'amp '* ~.-- "'"" ___, .k~ in ~rmm
v'umontt°n that cann°t ~ake P=::i~o~t:~;2tnbgtod~~e tcuvc P ~ - ~.-~- --. m, -- ....
2SO 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 censorship determines who will be a subject, a determination that depends on
9perates to make certain kinds of cittzens possible, and others impossible whether the speech of the candidate for subjecthood otggs the noma.that
Some arguments that take this point of view stress that censorship is not "ri"
govern
. ,.,._what is speakable
:_ ... what is nor.
and status
,.;=t, ,~ne's as aTo move outside
subject; of the
to embody thedmnam of
norms that
madly about speech, that it is exercised in the service of othe - v - .
SpeagaDlllty .~ tw -,=,- v ,
aims, and that the restriction of speech is instrumental t r knnds of SOcial
o the achtevements ., govern speakability m one's speech ts to consummate one s status as a subject
of other, often unstated, social and stategoa
Is. One example of this include
of speech. .
a concepuon of censorship as a necessary part of the -roces, ..~ ---- . _s
rag,
" where censorship can be exercised by ma,-oinal.-~--, _ "'" -a.uon t)uild. Let us return to one of the quandaries that. opened this d~ion, nangly,
-o ,,.,:u groups who see the view that "uncensoring a text is necessardy incomplete. In this formula-
achieve cultural control over their own representation an,~ - .....
" " ' " - " - - - -
. . . k to
stm,ar, out Omtmct kmd of argument, however, is also made typically on
~" t=a[ra[IVlZatlOrl. A
tion, it seems that no text can be full.y freed firom the shadcles of c=mmsh,p
behalf o:.a dominant power that seeks to control any challenges posed to because every text or expression is =n part structured through a process ot
own legitimacy. Another, related exam-h is th- ....." .. in its selecnon that is determined in part by the decisions of an author (or, slgaker)
~ = -~¢ or censorst,
to budd (or rebmld) consensus within an instit,,,;.... .... etn~l in hart by the language in which one expresses onesdf, a t--__~,~-~ that
L .P an effort
--thin a nanon;, another ~ the use of censorsh;;i'n"th:cn_ as,~ me. mihtary, or o~,rates ,"-~:o-~ing to selective and diffe~ndal rules that no ind/vidual $1xalmr
o~, 'as m state con~'ol ovi monument .-,--- ....; _ .-°mncatmn of mere- ever made (that may well be collectively forged, burn or tra(x~le m a,~.
.
msmtence that certain kinds of .historical
. v,,--'~, vauonL_ and buildin
even- . g tz
, o r" m the
. . as '~roductive L__ vs oe narrated onl on author, except in spedfic cases of gra.mmatical revisnon and cmnage). -!]!~
The vtew of censorshp . . y way. th~-~i~ i~ a hi--dr eeneralized one, and =t appears to apply to any' and all Inn-
. , - ~ , - u w e v e r, m n o t a l w a
with v~ews that hold that e~.o...~k._ :_ _, .
_ . - " " ° v ' = ' " p i s a l Wa t , $ i r l t s t r u - - _
" ys coextensive
" gua-gc.-~dm=ru~t it" may well be true and vail.d, I d~. d=t.in ks~
merit of other soctal aims. . ~
Consider d~at m uthe
u mexa--
e n t a--"
i t-o t h e a c h i e v e , form it does not directly u-amhte into a poetical constderatmn ot ~P
censorship is not primarily oncerned with speech andhave
. mpms I theiust suggested,_.
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
g pamcmar vg, ws of ~--:-~- of socml am= because all ~pres,iou is alwars alrm~ cmum~ to smm desa~ itum~ no
,;,,_.= ____ . . . ,¢r~umacy, consensus, cultural aaron
.=---=, ==-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 0¢p¢~ the
d ....-e. muenUU- [ conditions of iaudligibiliv/--and, thus, to oppose the v~ tern~ by which the
.works as a cover for the real tmlitical -;-- -, - .."¢m°rmsP or, tamer, =t oppc=t~a is ~.
mg or little to do with spe~- -== u= ~msorsmp, ones that have nod1- The view dmt [ pmpm~ ~ mdses this m°re ~ ~ in
Censorship is a producti-- ____ , ' the folbwi~ ,4i~on: d~ .co~'.dom of ~ are ~~fcm.u'..
. .
.... - ..........
. - ~ I u r l n _..
O ~J~_
l wet.~t~snot
~--~--'we~. l wam ,,, a;_:___.. _--- --. ..... merely pnvauve, but lat~ iu aad by ~ ,nd't~ aormadve ~ of .pcmmr is mrS.. ~adc-
ctaun that spetch is iacideatal-~--~-'-: "= eosmon tro. m the one that ~ _ _ . . a n ~ . . . . _ _ _
t!~ am= of . =am=~ the most imal~ fmms d ~ ~ga dkxnm ot ~ tttat
==o, ,._,._;._ =o . --
-~-. :~e...'~.~.aao
uon of ~ =u : .......lure
, _. : ...... _biect ~;._._ ~ . _ _un_~i~t
. no au.d
. ;.r~_ and "this~"~~-
~.
mu,~- - ~ t im.L
a m___
R ] T ~- I-X._:
) i m ~_~.~
~ h . . I k _ . .o_o
J w~m the "---'a"-- -~- ~- ----It."2--:
~ - .....
~ that a oecasmm. This F~-.~st,.- _e~p~.. ~. ...... + .- _ _ . ..
to the reguht~ ,~, - -, __'~ ;~.=,,-, .
~ - me suu-~s
. -
; ; _". . -, . -~
- - - ~ .......
, u u . O I S J~
-- /===apromou=__.._1~
f~uga - =" ;~ imm ~,~t~. m,,~~_~'~..u
.......... ___ _. :- __ -~ _~_ .-
., .,,.~~, .___~ -.-..: production
._..dpa~ of =~,~.~,. ~-_ -F~_. =~t -u~ to d~ reS~tiog0fd=
, -,, u, . .... is narrowly ;'---;--
~ ~-~-~ ~ ,,~ ,p.~ _p~_ ~, a~ ~ ~ .~
letted ,,,- -
" ' " -
: .- .--- ....... ~ . T o ~ , ~ , _ _ . . . , _ _
- ~ - - ~ I ~ , .
.
._ ...... ~ . . .._ ._ ~. - . . ~ ~- - - -=- .=. . .~ ~
.
' '*~ o~~~~--=~
,-.: , -. ......... ~=~ Qf._~.__ -.. - .., . peech
'L_
m m u l a t ~ = h b u t- '~-~' .-: ~
. : ~m
~ ,a~tm ~
p=o=l. i tt m
~~s m- a y s e e m l i k e a c o n ,,.....,...jr
~'i;;',~
follow them? If a ml~. ~ a subject b7 ~ the ~.h.~ of
,=ave nmde t~ m d-:- -, . . t,~ ,.utah meormut from Axistode to A,.,.,.,I t.,,,~,,,,,,~~_ ~ in mine ;~m ways these rulm precede amd ~~-~te
. m ~t i . . ......_t
kiads of I~,,=. 1,_ _~_ . t =s as imgumta: that humans L .... .--- , the ~ ~c,,,~..i~ of the ~ ~ are not roles ~--_---_~--~_~-~. by a =ub-
---,e~ ~.~y ~___ . u¢~ome po~ucal
elect at an -'_._-.~.-~_=-__-_--.~_I discatme; on the ~, ~ = rides that Bovem
~ ~ ~ . c O ~ a n e a 0 t e l ~ o n O f s u d t a c l a i m . " T h e : , ,

~,p,,h~ o~....
-~.~~~.~----,... -;--~ ~ ~ -,,-,_ ~i ~ "
z ""~) ucu:2"IlUP~ who WiU alld ~
=-o .... " ~ q 7 a S a S O e = l r ; , . . . _ _ L . _ ~," cem~ mm imevisieual ~ wi~ dm form~_~: We troy be tempted m
x.~ ~ speech "_.--"~~olect. l'kred~e - -m notwhether certain I
quemon
U~'b~ a ..t~_-_
daha e~t, ~~ ,~mmt of speech i~ud~ ~ of wh=t
~ are censored, but how an operation of ]
_
252 ,, '/ 253
~-
 "~':i~.~ Ruled out
akes speech .possible-an inquiry into its conditions (ff Possihilj .
-,-.. s,,,'ech act is addressed, it is the sut!jec~
at a n°v'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 .... t.hs..e~hof,.heone.t~Wsuh;hmp~,~e,~otthestateorso.me,ot.h
e P .... r , __.su,.,nosed an(] l;Jo~d r ,zt~~
d to w,em
that disrinction, But d,. .,". °[ :aria a~tempts to supply persua~'uc' speech ix 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~,
t .
one who derivee model of stare power, and .a,muur,-
case." Thus_ th,. ,--- -, .wdl be the case" under the -' [ Power, a fugi. or&ng to th . "ect. the unxlateral action .of power rema,n.s
the ....... ' ~". "~,)' uescnpdon of the Field ^" . rubr, of "what is .L
~ummon ot ,tl normative o"'rati-- - u~ speech is in no sense - ." me smr~ . t f om the"-state
a,cc.L-a to the subl ,_~__..., ~ subiect, and its exert|on culm,-
exerted by a SUD!cc~ v,, -
-~ ,ee evmence of this kind of move in the kind,of speech re uire
"
inaugurate the -Ibdenying and repentant h on o! speech.
q
c.,,,,,.h in this view ts the mstru . ---- of how power constrams
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 iew of speech ca, t,,,e ,?co.?j_.. ,. oo -, th, s, ha
way .,u, .-..,.- ---.~..,-.;nn of speech. Furmcr, m©L.-. ,- -- ,.. ~ ;~ nroduced "7
formingJ ...~'~ :,,,-,~r power, the translati on of one, --'"°"'P
..-, ....requires the bar- " /
-----, ...~n ,,,,---:-- . and forces the p[uu. ~ .... unt of how the speaking suaj_~,. ,- r- L..~." %
..u__ _ . .,-.~4~mg g~llngt domestic ..,......., _ - -,,,ue into a COmmo
,~.~r a vernon of herself o~,-...... - -'"-=, abuse reauir,,. -.-- dry tag;© a~.u . ~ rouu~.--.-
xbdity to COincide ~,- "~,-, v,na .~. any doubt as to L~-- " "."[ a Woman ' mode| of power, can _L .~.., ,~recede the subFct ~tself. Th P -'-:-. /
_, ~ . . ~,ore me law w,~ a-- :J--,- - :,cr sexua~ purl rhro,f,h onstraints on spec~, .,-- r.~ . 1 the language or censorsn,v ~/
remmme heterosr~,ol;,....r ,, ,uea,~z~ and d,~--..--," -- ~' her . ,
--...uauz~ re.ion form of po i 6ifficult to describe trurougn
before .~.- ,-- --'---,~. wn,m we ask wh "
van n~lreS w,~..:s.m .. m ,-a ~ssc work Ot ~'O--.--L- -- ir'~-uoon
~,~ole a $.l~.akin- -- ~- -,~.xosure that 0--L
In ,-.J .... , s mol~:t w,th a l~;,.. 16 ~mestrates this powe[. ., . . _,_ .i.I.. censored and quite 8nOther
,,_ ""~" contexts where ..- ~er- "'""" " ne
O ~hin gfor certain
. . .kinas. ot speech : - -~u
- ; ' ",,,.
t O____.u
. ~ m c ~._,~,melv. as ....
the
" '~:ono--nec~sarv linL- ....L
IS . , , . . . . . ;'.~
compulsory dim,,-;..:-., o o n a l e v e l t l t a t s s p - , - . - " . . . . s k-
, --- " ---'"-,ff roll .... . -" -" ,,, me taw, --
"
f o r c e n s o r s h i p t o o p e r a t e . . . . . .- J..m.o.,,tmted ~rom the um
r- . a O^rlgall$ nay© "'"
cure the ,,,,., : .... ,..--~-.. u~ comess~onal a: .... . - I r a , m e a t c o n s t t t l R u I g 1 l o t t o D y w. .
. --- --z m wn,ch policy issues ar- --- ,~.,,~uurse, lot snsten~, Sm:c. ame. ~ Jean. Lap|anche
-' "- -"--choana|vsts
~ne I~)" an(] .j.-o..~.~ -t .-..ressicm,
msusnce, a story about abuse an" '- "~- ,ramea; ,n reference to dru . . ~.__ .. ,,,~m~ torm o[.L,-J~ .......,~.,...
one
~e'(m oreclomr~ ~. a~ay ot aes~nau-s * ~.': .'='='- ..... (ion makes ~" ;:
topic is addressed ;- - ,. . u nea~,ng beComes ce-~ . gs, for ~ for¢_~
: - -'---,='---;:-~.~, ra~r~ whose ol~m...- .
to m~.~---.."'.~.', m reference to ana-affirm .-~a, to t~e way the ~at is ,or'-- ~,~rm_¢dby s.u,q~,, ~,--, ..
ave, ot irdi~duah who ,_._.-,;.vmvm,ty of California r.l..-:-'=---"--
over -- ..... , . - o,,;~u~..a.? OVm'en,.,,. -a. "'u"h narra- A~'~ Erom d~ u s e o ' ~ t e r m m c-e a'e
l e term me~S,
state m a more gene.rally,
" 7 " m U ~ t l l , ~ . . . . . . . . . . . m. mUV~l~ie CII" ...... . ~~,|J
"t,....-,,, ,-, v. o~,,~narac mmtu~;..--, -,. . ,---,~mnee~ triumn~h ring the redem tion of a mort~ge mr yam e, m --'-- it anr~ars to pinuP'
,,.,j=..~ . n~rart~ ,as w,__-- _ nunatmn m ..a .......
. wci~Gy JSJrow~ ...-m_, . "oum;~uon. ~uch
- . mort may but 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 -.. ~
. . o , . . . . . . 'T'^ .nd~:[_---~no ~'~" .... . i il
. . . da~ ~,ncs as ~m
. une, and ~",a~:-'--., .. emma enect oLs" !._u~.~.:-~--~*= ~ subject.
-- aaa-teo pote,, ,l,. -- I m
-""~ ~ can ..- --~ m.g ff~. I
.
~hO~! v~W _e .. "~ pcmaps most ~.,;I.;._,_ t _
' no. ,. mo, on. p r o - - * "" 1
-- '-a~ been ~"~ . '-al~ For con- ; i
.'~m~veret~lx)we~..;i.,.._,,_- "~"an"ruPasonemwhlcha~.mr.li..~4 Exmo{p)wer.[t~.m~tluuw~ . . mmtremin~w I I
ot speech ia b'--' .. -"'";,-,r/repremq a ....'- - ----"
. . . ~ ~ t ~ - - - - . . ~ . u s a - . ~ a t ~ :., u....
l~-~ ~ - t ~ o ~ m m , ~ ~ ~ " * , , k . , ~ ~ ~ . ~ ' °, -w. 1
- - m u,,..,, .... ~ . . , , m c i s ~ i o n ~ "
~empomry reSm~
m
deprive oae Im~ ..~ ..~_ ~''.wmcn atlem that citizens wield th- -,,~-- -- m
1~..--_. ---.-- v. um~ ~ Of "---J" ~ - ~...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----- m b ~ - t . b e f o ~ . _ ~ v ~ - . _ _ _ ; h , t [ V i : L , x d u J ; J O n ~ l tm ' O.----
~ ~ l -~ .,.
: ~_
l-~ i ~
t l ~ t - ' -~- - ,- ~m r c e ~ o m h ; . - . _ _ _ _ . - - ' WO..I..._ a _ -~'" "" " " ~ t' "o ~ "m. .e. . ----
,,~, (o censor m'.ot~r ,~,k;,,,.. ~ a--t
~ " s'~A a tern.m..- ....
- if'~'~l~'r-m~. '.~_'~;,.,ible widm~ L
b l m r a n y a ~ o f r -s- '
' '
- '
- ~ , t t ~ u v . - -s -¢ -~_. n . m . - -- .- -- h
- - i_~_ ~#_~~ '~(;,
a d d r e s s e d , - - - . - - - v - ~ q l a r ( ~ l a s " a l l ~ ; . - . , , z , , _ _ , - - . " " . " 1 . " ' , . . . . . .
:--,,umorized by the &m'--.----'--'";';']' ~epnved of the power to res,,,,nd
n e~ounte~. :,__ ."~. ~'~z q~eec~ act, backed k,, i._i...~.__ , ~'"7 ' '
s ~ ~ ~
where that - :"~"'~m~..e~ff~.__ of a lw e~orc~ ,~. ,,- .... _ . ,_ -
. ~ , " y ~ - ~ - - ~ u © a e a u t n o s l z ~ t l o n fl ~ . . _
2 B 4 . . . . . . . . . "'-- .... " - ' - - ' ~ " ~ ' ~ ' : ~
 - ,

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 Any decision on how to decide will .be. implicated m a process of .c~.sof
w-~ha.t.2ssPcakahle and what isrunsr~ab~.~
- ~ a , , , c . / h,~urawtng
e the dlstmctio, - --,~o ship that it cannot fully oppose or. eradicate. In. th.ls sense, censorship is at
property of- -the subject, an in'- .... . of the su~-,,
agency betwe, cn
_, -erent wall or freed^- - " nlegt is no, - . e the cond ition for agency and its necessary hmzt. Thzs paradox . d.oes
, not.
u r i c . . . . :g.li'~ of decision, but merely suggests that decmon s imph
o.~ power, one that is not fully dete-.-:--~, - "',-, nut Is Precisely rh.. _," " relute me pos~,,~,,, ,~ .
duced In sne~h ,g .... L " . ''""¢U m a~lvance I~ .t._ ." """ 'meet
mauve [*mttatton that sets the -
,otcomes
~_ -
.
possuble on the co-~-s c. e n e l o r t h' e,,s~ucy
~ "- ~~- -u- .s . t h
ot
. i s f o u n d8i nand
tt~e sub'-,
- - "fo.
r
"
ambivalence. Although the postulauon that s.f~h ,s condmoned by ,mpliat
. censorship--or foreclosure in the sense described above--suggests that any
agency of the SOverei-- _._, .numon ot such a foreclosure. "rLICC.t' Agency
instm----.-,L- 6I' sunlect, one who only an.~ -,- -a,s is not the and all speech is so conditioned, and that .what remains is to distinguish
...~,,ta,y on another: on ,k. ..... / " d,ways exero;.--
between forms of censorship that are const, tuttve and, hence, presumably
.eu~ subject
is also openwhose sphereof
to a hnher and di~u"u.-nrrary' tals isisthe
.._ --,re opera,on agencyi-of- a'~S_p°wer
delimited z~ustSOver,
--expected dellmitae;r.. ~c i" aovance but inalterable, and social forms that are contingent and alterable. What is equa. l-
sure does no- "-"
ly pressing, however, arid |¢ss easy to address, is the qucstl~, o.f how
date its pO;era~e place once and for all, but must~'he acuon of fOre~lo,
forms of censorship come to appear arid to o.p,~rt¢ as constnm-~ ~ n~l-
.___, ... .umplicitlv
~axaole ,u eatcacy. The subject
rein-.-'- ~ -, .. wh,,
-- -~Peaks
_ .e repeated to reconso
wtthi.- .L_ . h ".
terable conditions of speech,.h.ow certain k,nds of speech are ruled out m
vocation, bower--'-'- .~.oxes tae. toreclOsure on whi,4. :. '~ ,,e sphere of the order for "speech" in its provmonally proper sense to emerge.
is n-.-- L ,, ~,, ,s netmer mechanical -- _ ,., ,[ uepends. This r-:~-.
Z"-'_'."
,,~.a~aons m,? of
one's
thatown, but that la..--.~'or sure. One speaks a lan*ua--
inv .... .o s¢-~,~"
mat
-I~uage
- -[he s----'- only r~rsio.. _,.
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 Notes .
. ate corulltloRs 0 "
. f,tt
..__The.cnncal task ,s not sim,,I .... _ Affa/rs 22 (1993): Z93-330. . ,
"~-rT. external to m,~.,,h .__, ~-,~ m speak -against- th __.,f the law
. Z. i take ~ to be one o/the salient questions posed by Frederick Sdmuer s ~n-
~m. If me,.,-h a.~_~_""~ -,,u speech the nrivi,---- e law, as
--'_;--. -~.--7-', '~1a:nds upon r,..o^_~.." ,,-s .ca Venue tor indiv" mbution ~o this volume. _ --
o~x t ,,,._._. ---,-v~a ,, ,.._ .. . tdual free- .
..~ 0 ..nelau~ IS at 0""- .L . mr'.u~" ~ Drimq,.I- .L ~ 3. Adil~'ent venion o~ this ~ IPPea~mthe cOnlz~°~cbalMlr4 °t my
nere m no op~ositi- ""-~....
me tor----" " ". ".. ~.-:~-'~-,~_~_[.nat o "
,,,, ~o me. lines
. - ' adra-
u v e "-P' r i"n°pP°st.tLoaal
c i p l e o * - speec~h~.
. T. ~ g h t 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 ) - . .
rcarawmg
- " of those re--- li _. ,*n oy toreclosure e.x; "" :. _ ._._.. . .~ee
. ~.~ . . .~auuer,
. . . . . . . _- _,,,~
. . _v.m,,,~
_ , . _ . . ---
_ , ---------~r.
r. ~ , , . " ~ 1 47-6, in ta~
4. e~ -~.
temporal dynamic --/Y n es. Th,s is not a a._., . _ ~pt through the volume. . . .
.to exploit the -re a.nu prornme of its peculisr"b.md_eml tot ageny, but the 5 Seegicim~-,,~ .(th~ial)etail:TheFeti~dCemmd~md~
1 ~ 1 1 1 7 ~ 1 " S g t ~ m e ~ ~ " " " ~ ~ . . . . . . z,k...,., t'~

. , - - " - , ~ w o r t h e C e n * . - - - t . - . . . . . . . . . . . " ......:~"

me sul~ect of s,,-,-- ---~smp, broadly Consm,~ ,k... :_ _
. .
arise in .~:. .""" u°cs not tdl us ho... w,_---"
OeSt "~.°'.= engaged
tO tb,,qA., ..c_ m form mg am~/~,/,~ Cr/z//m~ m~ ~t~ pab/~ Sp6m~ O~mmPO~ Uah" °~ .~
. usm~UUlons Of ,- ..... .
might dbain-.:-r .-..~-~orsasp. It does --- ~ -.'"~ me quemom that ~ D94). .
,,,~.L
""e'~ m_a~,-,a
k e ~ e mv,
n s e -diom -~. v.__
. , " .o n. m
,,,,x
v i d i orurmsn
us i- criteria k.. .-~
_.,.._,
wnw.n we 6. See ]E. S. B~zt, "i~a ~ Tmte. for Trath': ~ ]HIEm~ m B~mdle-
stand theu m
1-'--" h;.,e. "Let hlloa~" ~ 111-43 Ea tim ~ame. .
.,.-L 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, "----" " --" .... -1--o~" - ....n.~....,m,;mlmmldaimsamu~atd~~inda~

I~ ~__ . t t_asU .S. l.b. l v I ~ _ ~- - - - - . w u l ~ 8 0e,,,.

- - i n o r m a t i v e - r P ~ . ~ s - -m" -i a
e~, -kP 1~ WI"L-'- ~" '
. uu,n waw.~ m qlammo~
~h,,, ,.,,,., he oma:xmaliae& ~ m m d the ~
"'ugxl~red an "",~- We r
dea:nptioa. ,,,. d framed thro,,o0. _ .ec~ze that the wry field of'~ . -JL-- la~ m ~ aad (b) ~,mmm~ - . mmm,,,,= .-,,-.,,-~-
we ate ~ smrlBs tha um~ m za~a . _ . . . . . ~ _ _ - ~ d m
. ..
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
- - , -t,h
u ,ej , m
, ~I, k . , - , . . _ , ] o~ ~ and, Im~ carom ~ be mmlmed m me ~ --,~
.... ---.- or c'-'nSorshin and -~ . s mat we lint offer a description of 8. ~, dmro,~ real ~ ~ o~ d~ mum ,rod ~ "p.~m./t~
,- men decide among them t~'ough recourse
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
, our de~ri o
of the" ~eaEa~,,-
~ m a d _vante, through a ~---, lm as are themsdves norma-
Sa.alk~ $ (t99~)= lSS-2S2.
~am~,-:_.
-'"p m~,~.
thisland,
Waywithin tha-
-- . .,, -- ",,:wao.~ure
,m.e 0Omam ofthat establishes
descri'--:on, -, the domain 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
'.~'an8 rL~hinb;._th p u I ~ U n . ~ q t t O Vi ~ lelpl eoamms, ~m m~' "Se'mmt~ ~" k ~ ~ (m emae -3)"
-"~ss e w.ope of normativity.
256
i
 Butler

Ruled Out
10, This il a distinction that Michel Foucault offers in the ~eco,d v-lume t~f Tke
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 sion that corresponds to psychosis, Lacan introduces "foreclosu¢e" to specify that
power conceived as "repressive" and as "productive." d' '
form of repression... ,
11, ~ George E, Man:us, "Censorship in the Heart of D' 11. Ox[ord Eng,:s" Dictio.orY, 2rid ed., s.v., foreclosure.
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---+-
, 111111 / -~ P.e ".
n 0 t---:-'~,
C l | ¢ ~ l , A lPuKes
~ $ t o d e ' $ i~5--219
definitionin" ,,
this volu,-.
"""

I; ng. .
. ~ + . + I t ~ O r / ~ e l ~ I t s , 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 : ~ ? '

I ~to4n: , IC
n tehm~onn| ~
e i+pTedni fdf ¢S~i fl -r -o. m
- 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-.__, , .
mrLb~l~e~.,_m , - " othe Frenchm l l....
, u r ~ g I D
llllQO~ Or ~_r lntroduced
~ l ~ ; . . . . as
.
-.----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.-_. .

Tin. Omd.of
of of,h+
m dote
, .to
. . the notion o+ . . "~n~ seme of the "outride., ~
howell, one that
+ u ~ ~ 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~ .....
~ ~mwpreciS-
uon l ~ t i s w-- t o u - -,,me
s e"" :+ or repu<~u~l ~rom the - --" :'~"="
, .--,_ . 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- -,.- .....
--., nm v ~ ~ X. m + " . . . . . -
. + ~.mmnnanl. What m

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

" e,,,. ;-.- ... .
, , ~ r. _ f to
--.,~',ce - " ~m , o ~ , . ~ t i u ,mmu
e x d . -II~rm~es
-:~-'-' ~ m= ~ ~ dure~rem
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 -