Cover Up

THE CONCEPT OF DECENCY

“Decency, n. – Propriety of behaviour; what is required by good taste & delicacy; avoidance of undue exposure of person.” (The Concise Oxford Dictionary)

: Avasto (July 5, 1:52PM) – “Apparently he went through an A&W and a Timmie drive-thru in the same day wearing nothing but a smile.”

: “To hear then prepare of the Discipline rare
Which flourished in Athens of yore,
When Honour and Truth were in fashion with youth
And sobriety bloomed on our shore.”

Aristophanes -“The Birds”

“Cover Up” raises some interesting philosophical questions, the central one of course being, “What constitutes decency?” To say that it involves propriety, good taste, delicacy, and so on simply drives the question back one step since one has to define those terms. So where do we go from here?

There appears to be two views on the issue which spring from differing conceptions as to the nature of society. For the “naturalist” any restraints on freedom of expression constitute the crushing weight of an artificial conformism, an intolerable suppression of the expression of one’s individuality, in the present instance in the name of some anachronistic concept of “decency.” But are there limits to that freedom of expression and if so, on what grounds would the naturalist construct them? One wonders, for example, on what grounds Avasto would criticize the naked individual in the drive-thru at the A&W? Maybe she wouldn’t but then again maybe Avasto, like Arisophanes, is a cultural consevative.

By a stroke of luck I happen to have written a Master’s thesis on Aristophanes (“The Conservative Element in the Educational Thought of Aristophanes,” McGill University) which explored just this question. The quotation is from his “The Birds” – an attack (suprisingly from the present perspective since he is revered by all) on Socrates – and reflects his view that it was not some concept of “physis” (Nature) which was foundational to society but rather the “nomoi” (the Laws) – those cultural constructs which constituted the cement binding society together. Without such Laws regulating things like decency, for example, society would simply fly apart under the centrifugal forces of an unrestrained self-assertion. Socrates, for Aristophanes, was one of these naturalists. By his continual questioning aimed at the justification of one’s views, Socrates would undermine the foundations upon which Athenian society rested and, as a consequence, fully deserved his execution in 399BC for “the corruption of the young.”

So, what does constitute the concept of decency? Well, um, it all depends upon the way you view the relation of the individual and society…

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: Avasto (July 6, 12:52PM) – Sorry for the gender error. I never seem to get them right. Anyway your reply, like the others, missed the point I was trying to make but sadly, I seem to have failed.

My point was that it is not a matter of personal reactions to the naked man in the drive-through or even to one’s own nudity. It was philosophical, i.e., the conflicting views regarding the justification -or the lack of it – of restricting behaviour based upon the concept of decency (in this particular case).

The philosophical Naturalist believes that all social constraints are artificial and have no legitimate force in determining behaviour. A more modern example would be Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “noble savage,” one who lived in a “state of nature” before being corrupted, accordinbg to Rousseau, by oppressive social customs and traditions. The expression, “Do your own thing,” “Be true to yourself,” and so on reflect this philosophical position (at least superficially).

For a philosophical Social Conservative like Aristophanes, on the other hand, there is no such “state of nature,” no such substratum existing beyond or beneath society and upon which it rests. As a consequence, man is wholly constituted by his enveloping customs and traditions. (I used the term “Laws” as a translation of “nomoi” but the Athenians did not have our narrow legalistic concept of law. For them the term “nomoi” would have included precisely those customs and traditions which the Naturalist, the one appealing to “physis,” would have rejected.)

Yes, your views do make you a cultural conservative since your behaviour is directed not from within but from without. Nothing wrong with that. Society would collapse if we all lived in the “state of nature.” But the guy in the drive-through might have been directed by his “inner nature,” by the forces of “physis” as they exist prior to civilization. Too bad you didn’t get a chance to ask.

: Not a Nice Girl (2:10PM) – Like many others on this thread, she appears to be a cultural Naturalist – wear what you want or, if you prefer, nothing at all. But one wonders if she and the others would maintain their position if pressed.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

“BITCH” AS A MORALITY PLAY

: Life Sucks (July 6, 8:30PM) – Yes, Aristophanes would agree with you that “The norm for most is not the norm for all,” but he was concerned only with Athenian society and not with the others. (Forget the Bushmen.) But your post does reflect the strength of our own social mores, particularly in the case of public nudity or “decency” as it appears in the current context. Sucks, Aristophanes would have been proud of you.

: Troondonk (9:32PM) – The force of our cultural abhorrence of public nudity comes through loud and clear. Modesty (another term for “decency”) might have originated with religious fundamentalism – I suppose the idea was to restrict the practice of random copulation – but the fact is that it remains a powerful force in our own culture. Aristophanes would be pleased with you too, Troon. He might, however, have been perplexed by your claim that you might be a “philosophical naturalist.” The reason is not because of your laissez-faire take on public nudity since it seems to be more of an aesthetic than a moral consideration for you. It is because, according to Aristophanes, philosophical naturalism, if taken seriously, threatens the foundations of society.

Philosophy, in its continual inquiring into the nature of transcendental truth, holds custom and tradition at “arm’s length.” In other words, it “objectifies” culture, that which is taken for granted by the group. That is why Aristophanes was against it. He wasn’t just a grump but realized that philosophy worked as an anodyne on the body social, initially debilitating it and eventually destroying social cohesion. But “physis” or naturalism is not confined to philosophy. Think of the great artists and scientistst who were great by virtue of the fact that they “cast off the bonds of convention” to pursue their visions. Of course, also think of the criminal class who also embody “physis” in that they set themselves not just apart from society but actively against its received customs and traditions.

Some might think that the example of Aristophanes was so ancient as to be irrelevant, but not so. The current “nature/nurture” controversy – is man a product of his fundamental “nature” or, rather, is he a cultural construct, a product of “nurture?” – is still a live one.

But one doesn’t have to even go that far. The website “Bitch” itself can be seen as a morality play in which the Bitchers, who invariably pose a moral problem even if it is only at the level of etiquette, are held to account by what would have been the “chorus” in Athenian drama. The Bitchers might, but usually do not, receive the applause of the Commenters. On the contrary, they are often torn to bits. (All very Athenian.)

As a matter of interest I glanced at a few of the Bitches posted on Wednesday, July 6. The topics ranged from the (unusual) charge of the violation of the proper criteria of art (“Common Roadside Gallery”) to the (more common) outrages regarding driving etiquette (“Parking Etiquette,” “Circle Gets a Square,” “Circle Gets the Square”) and so on. The point is that Aristophanes’ views of the necessary role of custom and tradition in society are still very much with us and violators of our cultural norms will be swiftly brought to account. Sometimes I feel like giving the Commenters a round of applause as they rise up in righteous indignation against perceived violations of our “nomoi.”

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!