Productive(?) Censorship

A defense of Plato and possibly an argument for our nation's (don't mistake this for a party's, partial in other words) policy towards images that excite, Judith Butler's "Implicit Censorship" argues for the formative (hello Foucault) power of censorship.

At first her argument sounds like political philosopher Leo Strauss who threatened the possibility of the creative act by connecting individual ability to suppression. He said, "literature (here I include all forms of art) is essentially related to a society which is not liberal."

Think theory/criticism has nothing to do with everyday life? Check out his former teachers/students. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss

Ok. What if we're not ready to sign up for Strauss' camp?

Butler allows for censorship. She doesn't necessarily argue that we should censor; rather she says it happens. Again, think Foucault here. Instead of complaining about this censorship we should "embody the norms that govern speakability." This censorship can be "formative of subjects." Essentially, through discipline and not speaking, we will eventually be able to speak and speak powerfullly and meaningfully.

Then we can "compel the terms of modernity to embrace those they have traditionally excluded."

She seems to suggest that we should seek change internally; we should change our internal states first and subsequently seek internally to change our republic.

I believe she is correct to the extent that some are capable of embodying these norms that govern speakability. However, some do not have the option to embody norms. It, of course, depends on where you draw a line.

For Strauss the line stops after embracing only "the young men who might become philosophers." I'm not willing to make that concession, but I don't know how to reconcile the underclass, who because of their inherent status, are not allowed access to the avenues toward subject status.