Jane Harley explains at Comment is Free that Oxford University Press hasn’t banned pigs, it just…doesn’t want its education authors to mention them. (Scholars are entirely free to mention them, she says. Oh, whew.)
Given that our editorial guidelines that reference pigs and pork have been in place for as long as I can remember, little did I imagine that they would attract international headlines claiming that the Oxford University Press had banned sausages. To clarify, OUP does not have a blanket ban on pork products in its titles, and we do still publish books about pigs. Although there have been no recent changes to our guidance on this topic, these articles highlighted the fine balance needed when considering students’ cultural and learning needs.
*waves hand in the air* Question, question! We don’t know how long Jane Harley can remember. For all we know, she can remember the OUP editorial guidelines only up to two weeks ago when she started working there. We don’t know; she didn’t tell us. Saying “as long as I can remember” like that, as if we all knew each other, is silly.
And then, this notion about needing such a “fine balance” that you don’t mention pigs – that’s the very thing we’re questioning. We’re not convinced that students have “cultural and learning needs” that depend on not mentioning pigs. We know that’s what OUP intends, but that’s what we think is fatuous.
To address children’s learning needs, it is important that they also reflect the cultural context in which children are learning. In the UK, we take it for granted that we would not include references to sex, violence, or alcohol in our textbooks; to do so would be considered inappropriate and offensive to many. In order to make an impact around the world, there are other sensitivities that, although not necessarily obvious to some of us, are nonetheless extremely important to others.
Are there? And they include pigs? Not pork, but pigs? A religious taboo on eating pork translates to a taboo on the very mention of the live animal? I don’t like eating pineapples, but I don’t quail at the sight or thought of them.
It’s not clear to me that pigs can’t be seen as the very opposite of pork – pork is part of the corpse of a pig; a pig is a live animal. An animal isn’t the same as the meat you can take off its corpse.
While we should be mindful of these cultural sensitivities, a healthy dose of common sense is also required. Cultural taboos must never get in the way of learning needs, which will always be our primary focus. So, for example, a definition of a pig would not be excluded from a dictionary, and we wouldn’t dream of editing out a “pig” character from an historical work of fiction. We also maintain entirely separate guidelines for our academic titles which are relevant to scholarly rather than educational discourse.
Imagine my relief.
What we do, however, is consider avoiding references to a range of topics that could be considered sensitive – in a way that does not compromise quality, or negatively impact learning.
“Negatively impact” – oy. I take it back, I think we can be confident she’s been at OUP longer than two weeks; she’s got the corporate jargon down. God forbid she use the blunt word “damage” or “harm.”
So, for example, if animals are depicted shown in a background illustration, we would think carefully about which animals to choose. In doing so we are able to ensure children remain focused purely on their learning, rather than cultural characteristics.
Meaning, there shouldn’t be pigs in the background. But do they even know that pigs in illustrations bother anyone? I don’t know that.
Managing cultural sensitivities isn’t about reducing educational quality, pandering to minority views, restricting freedom of speech or self-censorship. It’s about ensuring the educational value of our publishing is able to navigate the maze of cultural norms for the benefit of students around the world. We want to ensure we can make the widest possible impact.
I suppose lobsters are forbidden too?
I think it’s an unfortunate result of the Government’s well-intended (to enable successful integration) multicultural policies.
“The exception proves the rule.”
Not in principle, anyway.
Anyone wanna bet that in a generation or two, public standards will default to the lowest common demoninator, ie Muslim cultural and religious mores, it’s just easier that way.
Dhimmi of the month-OUP.
There’s the jihadis scaring the crap out of everyone and the ‘culturally sensitive’ useful idiots—-It’s going to be a long struggle
Pigs are cute 🙂
Dogs are problematic in Islam, too, aren’t they? Children might become so distracted at the sight of one in an illustration that they will just stare open-mouthed and point, trembling and not learning. Better not to have any depictions of dogs. Or of women’s hair. Or unrelated men and women talking to each other. Or people listening to music?
Pork and pineapple go quite well together, really.
(Oh no! Now I have managed to offend all Muslims and our gracious host in one sentence! Shame on me!)
They’re going to do a new edition of Orwell’s Animal Farm with the sheep as the overlords.(*)
(* Not intended to be a factual statement)
The pig was central to the survival strategy of many rural and poor Europeans (that’s most of them) right up to my grandmother’s day – and consequently has an important role in European culture. But I guess European children don’t have a cultural and learning need to understand their history roots, Especially if they’re of poor origin, of course.
I’m not so sure about this one. Much depends on how it’s done and why. It’s important to have culturally sensitive education, so minority children aren’t disadvantaged by having to learn the basics in an alien or disturbing environment.
And that IS culturally specific. You don’t do a basic beginner reader for Anglo kids with “Kim and Soo are having a barbecue! Daddy is outside cooking the dog and Mummy is getting the kimchee and rice ready. Yum yum!” That sort of cultural difference is best left to a slightly older age group.
I agree with that, generally, but note that the example Jane Harley gave wasn’t of cooking a pig but of animals in a background illustration. That’s much much less particular and potentially upsetting or distracting – that’s kind of what “background” means. Cooking and eating are whole levels beyond merely passively sharing visual space with.
Reminds me of an interview of an abortion clinic escort who found out that she could keep the protesters at arms length by pinning a condom, removed from its packaging and laid out flat, to her blouse. The mere presence of a condom was so offensive to them that they couldn’t countenance it and were forced to step back, which was enough room to get the through.
I’ve seen a similar effect with snakes. Some, a few, people who are so disturbed by the sight of them that they can’t stand to be in the line of sight, even at a considerable distance.
@8 Alethea Kuiper-Belt,
“It’s important to have culturally sensitive education, so minority children aren’t disadvantaged by having to learn the basics in an alien or disturbing environment.”
If the minority children are members of a culture that assigns a vastly inferior role to women because of religious ideology, are educators obliged to avoid the depiction of women as social and political equals of men?
RJW, what sort of question is that?
Alethea has told you she thinks it’s important, not that it’s the only important thing.
(Much more plausibly, she thinks it’s but one consideration towards the overarching goal of not disadvantaging minority children, rather than the only consideration)
I thought the point was that it indeed is the pig that is the taboo (“unclean”) thing and the not eating pork thing is a consequence thereof.
John Morales,
“Alethea has told you she thinks it’s important, not that it’s the only important thing.”
No, we’re not considering a hierarchy of “important things” but the parameters of a principle i.e. where’s the boundary between ‘cultural sensitivity’ and liberal democracy. I’m not sure where it should be, however let’s be very careful that we don’t undermine our liberties in the process of accommodating the most bigoted and superstitious people in the population. The controversy over the depiction of pigs is really only indicative of a much wider and more serious problem. Most commenters on this site wouldn’t agree that Christians can impose their ‘cultural sensitivities’ on the rest of us, so do Muslims get a free pass and why?
Perhaps Alethea can speak for herself.
Usually when I rebut your arguments you disappear into cyber-space, so can we continue with this discussion?
“If we wouldn’t agree with ‘White History Month’, then why…”
Other criticisms of OUP’s policy are on the mark, but RJW’s comment completely ignores what Althea already wrote.
Sorry about the misspelling, of your name, Alethea.
Seriously, isn’t that what editors are for?
You’re telling me that a book written in the UK with illustrations of an archetypal British farm wouldn’t be edited and re-illustrated to fit the culture of Malaysia? Wouldn’t the children at least be color-washed brown? Even if you kept their oh-so-English clothing?
What laziness. It’s 2015, FFS. There’s a tool you can use to rapidly change text and illustrations. What is the name of that thing? Refuter, disputer, commuter …. something like that …
@17 Kevin Kehres,
“Wouldn’t the children at least be color-washed brown?”
No, not necessarily.
There are Malays, ethnic Chinese and ethnic Indians in the population, although most probably the Malays are in charge of the country’s cultural sensitivity.
You have a point, however, in regard to routine re-packaging of other countries’ media, Hollywood continually remakes movies and TV series, even from other English-speaking. countries. The virtues of cultural sensitivity are perhaps overstated, unless of course, we’re all cultural relativists.
Well, I followed the links and in my opinion, this is just way too third or fourth hand for me to reach any meaningful conclusion. The fuss seems to be that *one* editor wrote to *one* author about cultural sensitivity guidelines to not mention pigs. For all I know this could have been a author adapting “British Suzie’s fun day at the farm” for a Tel Aviv audience in which case the advice is spot on. (ALthough it’s equally, even more, conceivable that this was hyper-sensitivity.) This intercepted letter then gets interpreted as to OUP guidlines state *no* book shall *ever* mention a pig.
But I’ll admit the response linked is a bit weak so as to be almost meaningless, though. On the other hand, though, there’s nothing overtly wrong about it either.
[meta]
RJW @14:
I noted that your question only makes sense if you were reading Alethea to have made that claim; I parenthetically included a much more plausible reading of what you quoted.
Of course she can, but why you imagine I am speaking for her is obscure to me.
My comment was me writing to you about your comment to her.
I’ll keep responding or not according to my own criteria, but it’s cute that you imagine such attempts as your previous constitute a valid rebuttal.
(Specifically, I made an observation, not an argument)
@20 John Morales,
Well, at least you didn’t disappear this time, although, after considering the quality of your ‘reply’, I understand why you usually don’t continue.