God Is Watching You

Call me cynical, and perhaps a sinner, for having the image of Orwell's Big Brother pervade my mind as I read the rules of St. Benedict. Especially in the chapters where the degrees of humility are discussed, does the emphasis of one's lowliness as a human being, pathetic and powerless in the eyes of God, shine. A passage from chapter 7, for instance, is as follows: "The eyes of the Lord observe the good and the evil and the Lord is always looking down from heaven on the children of earth... our deeds are daily, day and night, reported to the Lord by the Angels assigned to us, we must constantly beware."  God, like Big Brother, is always watching, ready to judge or smite at a whim. Worse than Big Brother, though, is that God can condemn us after we die, and commit us to eternal torment by barring us from Paradise, though St. Benedict would exhort that it is not God's fault, but our own puny fault. 

Most of these rules involve suffocating our own human nature, which is thought-provoking, because didn't God make us in his image? So, if we censor our nature, couldn't we also be censoring the nature God has imbued within us? There is probably a reasonable explanation for this, and I realize that I am definitely showing my non-Christian bias here. St. Benedict's rules are quite austere and inhibit enjoyment of any kind, just to prepare for everlasting, heavenly joy in the afterlife, yet why even be born if not to enjoy the life we are given? Must we force ourselves to be austere for that alleged spot in heaven, sacrificing the life we know to be true, on earth?  

One Man's Utopia is Another Man's Dystopia

Books II and III of Plato's Republic comprised Wednesday's reading assignment. Socrates, Adeimantus, and Glaucon, discuss what components are necessary in the foundation of a city. The "first and greatest need," according to Socrates, is food (44). His arguments, to start, are relatively standard. Food, shelter, medical care, etc., are all necessary, and things that generally come to mind when one considers city planning. The incomparable Socrates, however, soon shifts the conversation onto the city's residents, delving into a discussions of censorship, and the like, and how it is necessary in order to keep citizens temperate and without too much passion.

Socrates discusses how he plans to control what stories may be told, and what stories must be "thrown out." He declares that storytellers must be "supervised," and the only sufficient stories are ones that "are fine or beautiful... since they will shape... children's souls" (53). He plans to censor stories that give "a bad image of what the gods and heroes are like," for fear that examples of these mythic figures' debauchery, violence, unvirtuousness, and the like, will create a bad example for young people to follow (53-54). Socrates' willingness to selectively censor the literary/poetic canon of his city's inhabitants, in an attempt to hide any and all notions of bad behavior, is somewhat disturbing. This act of censorship seems quite Orwellian, and to me echoes some of the reasoning certain folks have when trying to ban or censor books today. 

Socrates continues his reasoning for banning certain stories, not only wanting to ban stories of war crimes or the licentious pursuits of the gods, but of excessive laughter, appetite, etc, in an effort to encourage moderation among his citizens. He emphasizes self-control. While I agree that moderation, applied to certain aspects of life, is generally a good practice, the fact that Socrates wishes to control and censor the media consumed by his residents in order to keep them loyal, unfeeling, and "moderate," is worrisome. He decides what the truth is. To me, this seems like the erasure of passion, and he pursues this desire to erase passion, in his specific discussions of the "guardians" dispatched to lead the city, of their education, of the types of music played, etc. To Socrates, censorship is a utopian necessity, in other to keep his citizens mild, emotionless blobs. The classic Greek stories of the gods getting into less than savory activities must be hidden from this city's constituents, because "they are harmful to people who hear them, for everyone will be ready to excuse himself when he's bad... For that reason, we must put a stop to such stories, lest they produce in the young a strong inclination to do bad things" (68).

Does Socrates, the self-imposed founder of the city become the person that decides what is good or bad? What myths are too sexy to be seen? Who determines who decides? His city is based censorship and control of his citizens. He plans to manipulate the media, to hide many of the stories central to the literary canon from the city's unwitting residents in order to keep them completely dispassionate, boring, blah. Bummer!