Legislation is not very effective when it comes to morality; it is much better suited as a supplement.
I was thinking about this after noticing a sign on a recent morning walk. The sign was for a conference by the Association of Christian Librarians.
For a minute or two, I thought that was a rather novel concept. Until I considered that something about books has been used for a long time to organize thought around areas like morality (among other things, of course). And, the very idea of having a conference for Christian librarians reflects this reality. My mind went, of course, to the current efforts, by our government, to control what books are available in the public sphere (often under a banner of something called Christian). Like many things, it feels like such identities emerge, when something feels threatened, whether we’re talking about something governmental or Christian.
Published material plays an important part in culture (or at least often it does). And, therefore, in morality. Often, organized efforts around something like morality beg the question of what it actually is in the first place. And, while I’ve discussed this before, it seems that when it comes to morality, there are many common themes throughout time and spaces where people exist. I think it must be noticed, however, that there are also some significant divergences (which should again beg the question about the existential nature of it). And, because morality seems to be a construct of larger notions about what it means to live together as human beings, it would appear that those are hard to completely capture in something that can be legislated. In other words, the idea would seem to be that morality is larger than something than only words can describe (although I think we should be grateful, in most cases, for the attempts those words make).
Back to the question of legislation. It often appears that legislation is an attempt to codify something at the very least and, in particular, in relation to morality. It not only tries to describe what it is or what it should be, but also reaches towards trying to dictate what it is or should be. And, invariably it seems, especially in this context, difficult to avoid not being dumped off on the doorstep of censorship. Somebody or something (or a group of either) is often attempting to determine what needs to be included in the space the words take up as a means of controlling for the things that should be included, as well as the things that should be excluded.
This dynamic is not particularly confined to something like morality. It is involved in many scopes of reality. The Bible, for example, was largely constructed from this dynamic as men (and some women) debated what was the most appropriate to include and what to exclude. Perhaps, this is just a human thing we do and it, in and of itself, is not inherently bad. But it can be. Legislation is often an attempt to distinguish when it is and when it isn’t.
The legislative enterprise is as constructive and fraught with dynamics that exist in nearly any enterprise. But, the making of law is something that should be carefully understood, especially given the range of dynamics involved.
So, am I talking about libraries or books? Or, morality or censorship? Or, legislation and the range of what is true that cannot be codified (but is commonly understood in some innate way by the scope of human experience throughout time and space)?
Yes.
