Censorship is a complex and contested phenomenon. In this paper, I examine one domain in which censorship is ubiquitous: the production of history. I proceed in three steps. First, I outline ongoing debates over definitions of censorship and free speech, analyzing the differences between ‘old’ and ‘new’ censorship theory and suggesting the usefulness of Wittgenstein’s notion of ‘language games’ in analyzing the gap between them. Moreover, I point to the, ironic, ‘Western imprint’ on most censorship theory. Second, I draw out some of the different modalities of censorship of history production by examining the works of Antoon de Baets and Michel-Rolph Trouillot. I argue that, although they can be read as exponents of ‘old’ and ‘new’ censorship theory respectively, their theories are more complex and at times intersect. I suggest that a dialogic reading, acknowledging the different epistemological assumptions that constitute their respective points of departure, can be productive in analyzing the different modalities of censorship in history production. Finally, I reflect on a set of recently formulated ‘good practices’ to counter censorship of history production, including integrity and professional solidarity. I conclude by arguing that these practices overlook the pervasive coloniality of historical knowledge production and the inherently censorial force of the historian and the historical field. My examples throughout the paper will come, in line with this special issue’s focus, from history education.
Ruben Zeeman (Wed,) studied this question.