Should children’s book awards be more inclusive?
A guest post by Jonathan Emmett
Jonathan Emmett is a children's author. In addition to writing picture books, such as Bringing Down the Moon, Someone Bigger and The Princess and the Pig, he also writes and paper-engineers pop-up books. He has a website at scribblestreet.co.uk
“Avoid pigs and witches,” — this advice was
given to me a few years ago when I was writing fiction for a schools’ reading
scheme. Pigs had to be avoided because they could offend Muslim readers and
witches because they could offend Christians. The editor that imparted this
advice knew from experience that stories that included them were unlikely to be
accepted for publication in a schools’ reading scheme.
Picture book publishers are less sensitive
about these elements and three of my most popular picture books are
about pigs. When I do a school or library visit, I give the school or library
service advance notice of which books I intend to read so they can assess their
suitability. I’m rarely asked to change my original selection, but when I am
it’s usually on the grounds of religion. On one occasion in 2010 I had to cut
my picture book Pigs Might Fly from a visit as the library I was
visiting was in a predominately Muslim area and the library service felt that
some of the audience might find the book offensive. A couple of years earlier,
a predominately Asian (mixed Hindu and Muslim) school I visited in the same
city had specifically asked me to read the same book. When I’d mentioned the
supposed unsuitability of the book for a Muslim audience to one of the school’s
Asian teachers, she’d rolled her eyes and shook her head at the idea that
anyone might hold this view.
Although the belief that Muslims find
stories about pigs offensive is still evident among publishers, librarians
and teachers, in my experience it’s only non-Muslims that subscribe to it.
Indeed, as long ago as 2003 the Muslim Council of
Britain appealed for an end to the "well-intentioned but
misguided" movement to remove books featuring pigs from primary school
shelves so as not to offend Muslims.
The wider point here is that the most
reliable way to judge a book’s appeal to a certain demographic group is to get
a member of that demographic group to judge it. The judgement of a
well-informed outsider will generally be less reliable than that of a
well-informed insider.
I’ve been making this point a lot recently,
but the issue has been gender rather than religion. I believe that picture
books tend to reflect female reading tastes more than male ones and that this
is deterring many boys from establishing a reading habit. I’ve written at
length about this issue at coolnotcute.com
and made several suggestions as to how male tastes might be better represented
in the picture book world. One suggestion I’ve made is that both sexes be
equally represented on the judging panel of the prestigious Kate Greenaway
Medal, which also judges the Carnegie Medal for fiction. The Carnegie Greenaway
panels have been overwhelmingly female for some time and this year all
thirteen judges were women. I’ve
suggested that the Carnegie Greenaway should follow the example of grown-up
literary awards, such as the Man Booker, by selecting gender-balanced panels
from next year onwards.
If we want every child to love books, we
have to do our utmost to make sure that every child’s perspective is accurately
reflected in them. At the moment I think we’re falling far short of this,
particularly in the world of picture books where reading habits are first
established. It’s a self-perpetuating problem. If a child does not see their
perspective represented in the world of children’s books, they’re less likely
to want to enter that world. They’re less likely to read books and less likely
to become publishers, booksellers, children’s librarians — or book award
judges. And, if they have children of their own, they are less likely to read
to them. If we want to break this cycle, we have to make a concerted effort to
get under-represented groups directly involved in the world of children’s
literature.
While some people have supported my proposal
of a gender-balanced Carnegie Greenaway others have strongly opposed it. The
judging panel is made up of children’s librarians and one children’s librarian
told me that it was hugely insulting to her profession to suggest that a
gender-balanced panel would be a better judge of books for children of both
sexes than a woman-only panel.
One justification for a woman-only panel is
that any differences between male and female reading tastes are entirely a
result of upbringing, so the gender of the panellists is irrelevant. I’m not
going to address this particular argument here, but my essay Nature and Nurture outlines some of the scientific evidence that contradicts
this view.
Other justifications I’ve heard for a
woman-only panel are:
- The judges are representative of the profession, which is overwhelmingly female.
- It tends to be women that put themselves forward to be judges.
- The judges are highly trained, experienced professionals who are entirely objective in their judgments.
- Gender-balancing the panel would mean that some male
judges would be selected on the basis of representation rather than merit.
Appropriately reworded, these same four arguments
could be used to justify the under-representation of any demographic group,
whether that demographic related to religion, class, race or sexuality. I suspect that some of the people that used
these arguments to justify an all-women panel would be less comfortable using
them to justify an all-white panel.
These same four arguments have also been used to
justify the under-representation of women in the British judiciary. 23% of the
judiciary of England and Wales are women compared with 51% of the population.
This is the
third lowest figure in Europe — the European average is 48% women in the
judiciary. High court judges are highly trained, experienced professionals; I
suspect that some of them might find the suggestion that a gender-balanced
judiciary would be better than a male-dominated one “hugely insulting”.
Nevertheless, there is a growing acceptance both within and without the legal
profession that the judiciary ought to be more representative of the population
as a whole, not just in terms of gender, but in terms of race and other
demographics.
Being of a different sex, race, class, religion or
sexuality brings a different perspective to judgment that no amount of training
can authentically replicate – and this applies to the judges on a children’s
book award panel as much as the judges on high court benches.
The Carnegie Greenaway panel’s lack of
inclusivity is only a tiny part of this problem, but it’s not insignificant.
The Carnegie and Greenaway awards do a great deal to promote children’s
literature and thoroughly deserve their prestigious positions. But their
prestigious positions are also the reason I’ve chosen to focus on them. If the
Carnegie and Greenaway adopted an inclusive approach to panel selection then
other children’s awards might follow their example. The winners of many
children’s book awards are decided by children’s votes, but the shortlists for
these awards are sometimes selected by a panel of adults — if so, that
panel needs to be inclusive! And if book awards became more inclusive, other institutions
in children’s literature might follow suit.
Book awards are
important. When we give a book an award we’re not just recognising that that
particular book is exceptional, we’re sending out a message that books are to
be cherished and valued. If we want every child to pay attention to that
message, we have to ensure that every child’s perspective is accurately and
equally reflected in the judging of children’s book awards.
Jonathan and Inclusive Minds hope you will share your views on this post using the comment option.
Tags: gender awards inclusive
comments powered by Disqus