The Effect of the Terministic Screen: Burke, Johnson, and Their Roles in Children's Literature

Children's literature is one of the most pervasive and effective creators of a child's terministic screen. The right book can shape a child's world view any which way, and affect them for years to come. Burke had recognized this in his essay "Terministic Screens" and had argued that the world was shaped by experiences. E. Pauline Johnson had argued in her essay "A Strong Race Opinion: On The Indian Girl in Modern Fiction" that having only one type of ethnic minority character would negatively affect minority readers.




But how does this boil down into children's lit? Does it really matter as to what characters that children read about? Do they really have to look like them for it to have effect? According to writers like Sherman Alexie and social psychologists such as Kenneth and Mamie Clarke, there is a huge efect on children depending on the characters that they see. Burke had argued in his essay "Terministic Screens" that "the kind of deflection (he has) in mind concerns simply the fact that any nomenclature necessarily directs the attention into some channels rather than others." (45) Simply put, what we see, experience, and know affects how we view the world. Burke's theory of Terministic Screens could be applied to the Clarkes' Doll experiments, which had involved African American children from segregated schools and their perceptions of beauty. The social scientist would display two dolls to the child-one white, one black-and ask them things such as "Which is the nice doll? Which is the pretty doll?" The majority of the children chose the white doll over the black doll in these cases, which the Clarkes argued was from the result of segregation.

Oh. (from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund)

The experiment and Burke's arguments all tie into the ideas that children's books need more representation. One could argue further that the lifestyles that these children had had affected their terministic screens and had inundated them with images and expectations of what white people were expected to be versus what black people were expected to be. Simply put, when white children are depicted like this and black children are depicted like this, they may begin to internalize those ideas. Furthermore, the organization We Need Diverse Books, which argues for racial diversity in chidren's and young adults' books, backs up this argument with statistics such as how there were roughly 6.7 books (out of 5,206) with African American children in them in 1965, and how the number had shot up to 93 (out of 3,200) in 2013.

But what is the effect of racially diverse media, especially in children's books? Does it do anything to help children? Couldn't they just read about white kids and still get the same effects of the story? E. Pauline Johnson had disagreed in her essay "A Strong Race Opinion: On The Indian Girl in Modern Fiction", stating that the barest of representation just doesn't make it:

Her unhappy, self-sacrificing life becomes such a burden, both to herself and the author that this is the only means by which they can extricate themselves from a lamentable tangle, though, as a matter of fact suicide is an evil positively unknown among Indians. (386)

What this means is that people are so varied that they can't be covered simply by using one stock character; they have to include a varity of characters with a variety of experiences. Anything else just comes off as placid at best and racist at worst. Sherman Alexie, writer of The Absolutely True Diary of A Part Time Indian and outspoken about racial issues, hit the nail on the head in his Wall Street Journal Essay "Why The Best Kids Books Are Written In Blood" when discussing the lack of minorities in young adults' literature and what happens when we try to remove or limit experiences to a 'one minority only" sort of deal. He spoke of his experiences with kids who had related to his book's content: the suffering of a Native boy who experiences racism at the hands of white teachers who doubt that he does his work, white students who bully him for being too smart, and white government officials who have so little faith in Native Americans :

When some cultural critics fret about the “ever-more-appalling” YA books, they aren’t trying to protect African-American teens forced to walk through metal detectors on their way into school. Or Mexican-American teens enduring the culturally schizophrenic life of being American citizens and the children of illegal immigrants. Or Native American teens growing up on Third World reservations. Or poor white kids trying to survive the meth-hazed trailer parks. They aren’t trying to protect the poor from poverty. Or victims from rapists. No, they are simply trying to protect their privileged notions of what literature is and should be.

Literature and societies do not move forward through being protected. The lack of inclusion of ethnic minorities in children's literature is racism, whether it be innucuous or intentional. When children don't see themselves in stories, they can't relate to them and develop low self confidences. When we leave out their experiences, they feel that their experiences aren't valid or are wrong. Future writers shouldn't contribute to this poisonous terministic screen or the simple reflection of only one type of ethnic minority.