# Contemporary censors at work: targeting medical science to shape social reality

Astrid Chevance

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Astrid Chevance. Contemporary censors at work: targeting medical science to shape social reality. British Journal of Psychiatry, 2025, 228 (1), pp.1-3. 10.1192/bjp.2025.10459. hal-05475891

HAL Id: hal-05475891

https://hal.science/hal-05475891v1

Submitted on 25 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# Contemporary censors at work: targeting medical science to shape social reality

Astrid Chevance

**Summary**

Censoring language in medical science enforces ideological conformity and political repression of marginalised groups through self-censorship. This editorial urges the scientific community to resist language control as a grave threat – not only to research freedom, but ultimately to human diversity and life itself.

**Keywords**

Censorship; mental health; Klemperer; Darnton; science.

**Copyright and usage**

© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists.

## The List as the momentum of censorship

In March 2025, *The New York Times* published a list of nearly two hundred words that the US Federal Government was (and still is) attempting to suppress from scientific discourse.¹ As we previously discussed in a *BJPsych* editorial by Malhi et al, terms such as ‘mental health’, ‘women’, ‘bias’ and ‘disability’ have been removed from funding proposals, research agency websites, etc.² The editorial defends the continued use of these terms, affirming the *BJPsych* Portfolio’s commitment to publishing rigorous, inclusive mental science that serves all populations.

In the present editorial, I choose to capitalise this list as ‘The List’ to highlight a form of institutionalised violence against politically targeted groups – commonly referred to as censorship. Drawing on historical and philological work, I argue that The List is not merely a bureaucratic artefact but a tool of ideological control that continues a long history of repression of marginalised populations. As with earlier instances depicted by historian Robert Darnton and philologist Viktor Klemperer, The List reshapes reality by narrowing the language through which it can be known and contested.³,⁴ Darnton’s comparative history of censorship – which gives this editorial its (adapted) title – examines three cases across different times and places: 18th-century France, 19th-century British India and 20th-century East Germany.³ He defines censorship as a process that is ‘fundamentally political and enforced by the state’. Furthermore, he argues that investigating censorship requires a methodological attention to the dynamic between censors and the censored. In doing so, he reveals the violence of the former against the latter – a violence that seeks, quite simply, to control them, if not to erase them altogether. The momentum embodied by The List might well be considered a fourth case for the 21st century.

Certainly, science has long been a target of censorship. This is not surprising: the very logic of scientific inquiry – based on questioning, doubting and demonstrating – acts as a counter-power to ideology. Across eras and cultures, scientific books have been burned in acts of repression. Now, in our digital age, where keywords and prompts serve as gateways to knowledge, censoring specific words might be seen as its modern adaptation. Targeting the language used in medical science, which is fundamental to shaping our understanding of health, well-being and life itself, reveals the calculated nature of this repressive strategy.

## From censorship to self-censoring: a perverse mechanistic

The List does not openly prohibit scientific research – although one might argue otherwise, given that terms like ‘science-based’ and

‘evidence-based’ are themselves prohibited – but rather dictates how findings can be communicated. This tactic allows an administration to claim that it is not censoring science while subtly shaping discourse to align with its political agenda. Klemperer’s work shows us that this is precisely how authoritarian language control begins – not with an outright ban on knowledge, but with seemingly minor linguistic constraints that eventually reshape how knowledge is framed and understood.⁴ Scientists are effectively amputated, not only from parts of their vocabulary but from entire research questions and fields of inquiry. To survive, they are encouraged to stay ‘voluntarily’ within the approved boundaries. Yet, by complying, they risk becoming complicit in a deeply perverse form of power – self-censorship. That is, to continue working, the censored must internalise the logic of censorship and in doing so become its most effective agents. Once again, Darnton offers crucial insight into the inner workings of this particularly insidious and effective form of control, drawing on the experiences of Solzhenitsyn, Kundera, Kiš and Manea.³ Manea did not regret the specific cuts he had ‘agreed’ to make in his novel *The Black Envelope*, but rather ‘the entire process of compromise and complicity’ that was required to produce texts acceptable to the censors.⁵ Censors place censored in a position of constant negotiation – over meaning, interpretation and acceptability. Beyond confronting the censor, self-censorship becomes ‘a double that peers over your shoulder and interferes with the text, preventing the writer from making an ideological misstep. It is impossible to defeat this double/censor: it is like God, it knows and sees everything because it comes from your own brain, your own fears, your own nightmares’.⁶ Through the same mechanism of self-censoring, The List will place scientists in a quite paradoxical and perverse position because they are both targets of censorship and conduits for political violence aimed at rendering invisible the listed groups and individuals.

## The politics of language: banning words or banning people?

The selective banning of words by The List exemplifies the violence of state power, which ultimately targets not just language but the ideas and people those words represent. It is important to note that this is not a new mechanism. Klemperer, who was a professor of philology in Germany in 1920, chronicled the gradual modification of language by the leaders of The National Socialist German Workers’ Party between 1919 and 1945.⁴ The banning of words, their replacements and the creation of neologisms began years before they came to power, to instil a worldview that aligned with their political agenda. For instance, hyperbolising the regime’s acts,
personifying the power or euphemising crimes were usual
rhetorical processes. One striking example he gives is the positive
revaluation of the word *fanatisch* (fanatic), which had previously
carried a strongly negative connotation then became a celebrated
virtue used to describe the ideal soldier's unwavering devotion.⁴
Similarly, *blinder Gehorsam* (blind obedience) was recast as an
admirable quality, essential to loyalty and discipline.⁴ Klemperer's
key argument is that linguistic control does not merely reflect
authoritarian power, but actively constructs and enforces it.⁴

Furthermore, Klemperer demonstrates that linguistic norms did
not merely support a repressive agenda – they were among the
earliest tools deployed to discriminate against targeted populations
and to prepare their systematic exclusion and persecution.⁴ For
people considered as German by the regime, first names from the
Old Testament were simply banned and Christian names cast
suspicion on their bearer, suggesting affiliation with the opposition.⁴
On the contrary, people considered as Jewish by the regime, but who
did not bear a clearly Hebrew name according to the regime
standard, were required to add Israel or Sara to their name.⁴ These
mandatory names, much like the yellow star, made individuals easy
targets for street and state hatred.⁴ This mechanism also applied to
notable names in science, such as the interdiction in physics to use
the name ‘Einstein’ and the unit of frequency ‘hertz’ – after Heinrich
Hertz.⁴ The elimination of words was never arbitrary; it was meant to
ultimately eliminate the people they represented.

The current political climate necessitates a rigorous distinction
between censorship as a form of state-enforced political repression
and other forms of language change that also involve the removal or
replacement of terms. Efforts to reform language – such as the
rejection of racist, sexist or transphobic terminology – are not acts
of repression. On the contrary, they are often driven by the
advocacy of those directly affected, aiming to reduce harm and
promote dignity and rights. These changes rather reflect a
democratic process of ethical reflection and social justice.
Censorship, by contrast, is imposed from above to silence and
control, often targeting specific groups for exclusion or erasure.
Conflating these distinct phenomena risks obscuring both the
political violence of censorship and the importance of addressing
other forms of linguistic harm, such as insult and stigmatising
language.

How can historical lessons shine light on The List's momentum?

History warns us that linguistic censorship, even in seemingly
minor forms, sets a dangerous precedent. The List clearly falls
within Darnton’s definition of censorship as a form of political
power enforced by the state.³ This is no longer a time for calls to
vigilance – political agendas are already dictating scientific
discourse to shape the society they envision. Klemperer invites
us to recognise that it is the people listed who are the ultimate
target – barely concealed by language – and warns against
underestimating the insidious and performative power of words
over their lives.⁴ As warned by Darnton, ‘rejecting censorship as a
crude repression exercised by ignorant bureaucrats is a misunderstand. It is, in fact, generally a complex process that requires skill
and training, extending deeply into the social order’.³ His
ethnographic perspective on censorship portrays it as ‘a system
of control that permeates institutions, colors, human relationships,
and penetrates the hidden mechanisms of the soul’.³

Resisting censorship

Engaging with the content of The List already means accepting its
existence and, in doing so, playing into the logic of the censor. By

creating lists – of books, journals or words – censors confine debate
within their repressive framework. Such lists, by their very nature,
invite classification, negotiation and ultimately hierarchies: who is
included, who is excluded and of course who is permitted to speak.
This can lead to perverse dynamics – for instance, individuals or
groups named in The List may seek to distance themselves from it,
even at the cost of disavowing others. We must make no
concessions by debating what or who belongs within such as
The List: this is a dangerous and slippery slope that accelerates the
marginalisation of the most vulnerable. More importantly,
negotiating its content distracts from the deeper scandal – the
existence of The List itself. This is a deliberate tactic of the censors:
to shift the centre of the discussion so far that the battle is already
lost for the targeted groups.

In my view, science cannot operate under such a framework –
there should be no list at all. The very idea of establishing censored
word lists in science is an affront to intellectual freedom, which
enables scientists to remain relatively independent from state
ideology. Such impoverishment of language inevitably enforces
ideological conformity. More broadly, we must reject the principle
of censorship itself – as a linguistic form of political repression
directed at the groups targeted by that ideology.

Klemperer believed that language could be both a tool of
oppression and a means of resistance. In the context of The List, the
scientific community has a responsibility to resist. This means
continuing to (a) use accurate terminology to push the boundaries
of knowledge; (b) create any new concepts and notions required to
explore, explain, model and understand; and (c) openly discuss the
implications of such censorship, in particular uncovering the
repression against targeted groups. This is undoubtedly much easier
to achieve in some parts of the world than in others, and those who
are able to do so must act. Beyond the scientific community, the
media and academia must call out these linguistic repression tools
as they happen, rather than allowing them to become normalised.
As Klemperer demonstrated, once authoritarian language becomes
commonplace, it is much harder to challenge. People begin to think
within the boundaries of permissible vocabulary, limiting their
capacity for critical thought and resistance. The disappearance of a
word makes the reality it once described (in this case, people’s
health and life) difficult to articulate, explain, understand or
advocate for.

**Astrid Chevance** (b., MD, PhD, Associate Professor Public Health, Paris Cité University and Sorbonne University Paris Nord, Inserm, INRAE, Center for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Paris, France; and Centre for Clinical Epidemiology, AP-HP, Hospital Hôtel-Dieu, Paris, France

Email: astrid.chevance@aphp.fr

First received 10 Jun 2025, final revision 8 Aug 2025, accepted 22 Sep 2025

Acknowledgements

I thank my colleagues Karolin Krause and Chris Veal for their valuable suggestions.

Funding

This study received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Declaration of interest

A.C. is a member of the editorial board of the *British Journal of Psychiatry*. She did not take part in the review or decision-making process of this paper. The views expressed in this editorial are those of A.C. and do not necessarily reflect those held by the Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Paris Cité University or Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP).
References

1. Yourish K, Daniel A, Datar S, White I, Gamio L. *These Words Are Disappearing in the New Trump Administration*. The New York Times, 2025 (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/07/us/trump-federal-agencies-websites-words-dei.html [cited 6 Aug 2025]).

2. Malhi GS, Adlington K, Al-Diwani A, Ali S, Arya S, Baldwin DS, et al. The value of mental science: we publish what matters. *Br J Psychiatry* 2025; **227**: 429–33.

3. Darnton R. *Censors at Work: How States Shaped Literature*. W. W. Norton & Company, 2015.

4. Klemperer V. *The language of the Third Reich: LTI, Lingua Tertii Imperii: A Philologist's Notebook*. Continuum, 2006 (http://archive.org/details/langua geofthirdr0000klem [cited 10 Jun 2025]).

5. Manea N. *The Black Envelope*. Northwestern University Press, 1996 (https://nupress.northwestern.edu/9780810113770/the-black-envelope/ [cited 10 Jun 2025]).

6. Kis D, Sontag S. *Homo Poeticus: Essays and Interviews*. Farrar Straus & Giroux, 1995.