“War can so easily be gilt with romance and heroism and solemn national duty and patriotism and the like by persons whose superficial literary and oratorical talent covers an abyss of Godforsaken folly.”
George Bernard Shaw
How complicit was the publishing industry in supporting British government censorship and propaganda during WW1?
With losses of one million soldiers and a further estimated 1.6 million wounded, the Great War (1914-18) tore apart the fabric of British society. Paper shortages, high production costs and loss of staff to the military service were more prominent concerns which plagued the publishing industry. But also characteristic of publishing during this period was a sense of patriotism and duty. William Heinemann took this duty further and felt it was important to publish The Soul of War (1915) by Phillip Gibbs, a book which was realistic in its portrayal of war and agony. A book, which at that moment, was the antithesis of the official government propaganda.
The passing of the Defence of the Realm Act, in 1914, ushered in government control mechanisms like censorship:
"No person shall by word of mouth or in writing spread reports likely to cause disaffection or alarm among any of His Majesty's forces or among the civilian population"
Unwin believed that this effectively diminished freedom of speech. The government regulations imposed a strict agenda upon the publishing industry and they were expected to comply, as agents of that sanctioned censorship. Bourdieu states that censorship is "imposed on all producers of symbolic goods" (1997:137). The majority of publishing houses did comply; Hodder & Stoughton produced some of the most profitable books of the War. But some did not comply; C.W.Daniel was prosecuted for publishing Rose Allatini’s novel, Despised and Rejected.
Furthermore, British publishers were identified as being able to distribute the official government propaganda. The British War Propaganda Bureau (WPB), headed by Charles Masterman, encouraged publishers to do this through the ‘5/5/- arrangement’ which paid 5 guineas to each publisher for the use of his imprint and £5 towards the cost of advertising. With the wartime shortage of paper it it provided a much-needed aid to those publishers willing to assist Wellington House. More importantly it allowed the government to discreetly circulate its propaganda and appear to be more credible.
Hodder & Stoughton published over 130 pamphlets and books for the bureau; T.Fisher Unwin lent his imprint to 78 books; Nelson published 18 and Macmillan 17 texts. Oxford University Press lent its name to 13 pamphlets and Stanley Unwin’s firm published 13 Wellington House documents. This shows the majority of publishers were complicit in supporting the British government, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they were actively assisting.
"No person shall by word of mouth or in writing spread reports likely to cause disaffection or alarm among any of His Majesty's forces or among the civilian population"
Unwin believed that this effectively diminished freedom of speech. The government regulations imposed a strict agenda upon the publishing industry and they were expected to comply, as agents of that sanctioned censorship. Bourdieu states that censorship is "imposed on all producers of symbolic goods" (1997:137). The majority of publishing houses did comply; Hodder & Stoughton produced some of the most profitable books of the War. But some did not comply; C.W.Daniel was prosecuted for publishing Rose Allatini’s novel, Despised and Rejected.
Furthermore, British publishers were identified as being able to distribute the official government propaganda. The British War Propaganda Bureau (WPB), headed by Charles Masterman, encouraged publishers to do this through the ‘5/5/- arrangement’ which paid 5 guineas to each publisher for the use of his imprint and £5 towards the cost of advertising. With the wartime shortage of paper it it provided a much-needed aid to those publishers willing to assist Wellington House. More importantly it allowed the government to discreetly circulate its propaganda and appear to be more credible.
Hodder & Stoughton published over 130 pamphlets and books for the bureau; T.Fisher Unwin lent his imprint to 78 books; Nelson published 18 and Macmillan 17 texts. Oxford University Press lent its name to 13 pamphlets and Stanley Unwin’s firm published 13 Wellington House documents. This shows the majority of publishers were complicit in supporting the British government, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they were actively assisting.
Deana Heath emphasises the ways in which censorship often works to suppress opposing viewpoints through state legal action, market forces or dominant discourses. The state legal action in this case is the implicit threat of prosecution if publishing houses were seen to be publishing anti-war literature. Market forces at play were the loss of the work force to the war effort, the shortage and rationing of paper and because of this financial struggles. All these factors have influenced the core decisions of the publishing houses. By drawing on these difficulties the government has manoeuvred itself into a position whereby it has an implicit form of control. Judith Butler points out ’implicit’ forms of censorship may be more effective than ‘explicit’ forms such as state policy (Heath 2010:53). The final element is dominant discourse, which worked via the poster campaigns and pamphlets the WPB distributed. This encouraged belief in the war effort and a sense of British nationalism, overlooking the unspoken government agenda.
Click this link to see Dr Jane Potter's lecture on Popular Fiction in World War One:
http://theopenacademy.com/content/lecture-9-popular-fiction-world-war-one
http://theopenacademy.com/content/lecture-9-popular-fiction-world-war-one
Bibliography:
Deana Heath ‘Obscenity, Censorship and Modernity’ in A Companion to the History of the Book, ed. Simon Eliot and Jonathan Rose (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), pp. 508-519.
Jane Potter, ‘For Country, Conscience and Commerce: Publishers and Publishing, 1914–18’, Publishing in the First World War: Essays in Book History, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007, pp. 11-26.
Pierre Bourdieu, Language and Symbolic Power, Harvard University, Press 1990.
Deana Heath, Purifying Empire: Obscenity and the Politics of Moral Regulation in Britain, India and Australia, Cambridge University Press 2010.