Censors and Censurers

The Roman Censors (always one of two officials, until Augustus established the Principate) were men of consular rank elected to their posts every four or five years.  "Elected" in this context refers to the often fierce and sometimes violent struggles involving money, pandering, favors granted and owed, family affiliation, military support and prowess which typified elections under the Republic; not all so different, come to think of it, from elections taking place now.

The Censors possessed a variety of powers, related to taxation and other matters, but what they are most known for now was their authority over public morality.  Perhaps the most famous of the Censors appears at the head of this post.  Behold Marcus Porcius Cato, the Elder, who is said to have been particularly diligent in ensuring that Roman virtues were practiced and respected.  He's also famous for ending his speeches in the Senate, regardless of their topics, with the assertion that "Carthage must be destroyed."  Judging from his bust, he seems to have been someone who didn't smile easily.

Our Great Republic is now replete with censors or wannabe censors, i.e. persons who eagerly and often point out what they consider the failings of others.  Unlike the Censors of ancient Rome, though, our modern censors are entirely self-appointed. Also unlike the ancient Censors, modern censors aren't required to engage in arguably useful public action, like assessing and collecting taxes and keeping track of population.  They're entirely free to assess blame and find fault with any person, something it's quite easy to do in this age of limitless expression.  Since "censor" in modern use refers to prohibiting or ending communication, however, our modern censors are more appropriately considered censurers.  They freely criticize and assess blame but lack the authority to silence communications, though they may, if influential, manage to shame or berate others into silence.

Censurers are, by nature and definition, busybodies.  They scour the news, forums, the Internet generally, and having spied something they believe inappropriate they hurry to point it out.  It doesn't matter that they aren't involved in a dispute or discussion, they will intrude in one merely for the sake of preaching, merely for the purpose of displaying their own righteousness.  They comment and meddle.  That is, after all, what a busybody does.  

There are of course professional censurers, who are paid to vilify those who don't accept their standards and beliefs.  But compensation isn't required for a censurer to censure given our technology, which allows any one of us to pontificate and abuse publically and frequently.  

There have always been people who, unsolicited, intrude and meddle in the affairs of others, who gossip, criticize, are loudly self-righteous, who are preachers, who are Pharisees (which is to say "holier than thou").  The busybody is sometimes an object of contempt or laughter--there seems to be one in most every sitcom, usually a neighbor.  

There seems to be something in our nature which induces us to pry into the affairs of others and smugly degrade them.  It requires a meanness and pettiness of soul, and great self-regard, but these are characteristics which are encouraged in these times, or at least certainly tolerated, and are ubiquitous as they may be indulged in at any time.

Censurers are therefore dangerous, now.  They may remain objects of contempt but can do much damage to free expression and conduct, and cannot be effectively punished.  

Courage, Athletics and Mental Health

Another Olympics has come and gone.  Controversy of some kind seems to have become part of the experience of the games, and in the case of this one that controversy, at least here in God's Favorite Country, involves the decision of one participant to decline from participating in certain events.  But it appears that it's the reasons she gave for her decision that some find offensive rather than the decision itself.

I speculate that the self-appointed guardians of morality we hear from regarding this decision would have been silent if a physical injury or condition was involved (at least in ancient Rome, Censors were magistrates appointed not by themselves, but by others).  Perhaps I give them too much credit, but I like to think they wouldn't have gotten quite so excited if a broken leg was given as a reason.  But alas, not physical, but emotional and what are called "mental" issues were invoked, and this aroused the Censors of this age.

There's no question that successful athletes have been considered heroes or heroic for a very long time.  Those who aren't successful generally are ignored at best, mocked at worst.  That those who applaud these heroes or mock those who lose are generally themselves entirely lacking as athletes of any kind presents some interesting questions, but those questions will have to be the subjects of another post.

It strikes me that the view that athletes are to struggle on regardless of pain or injury is in some sense romantic, or a kind of expression of perceived masculine virtues--a sort of comparison along the lines of that parodied in SNL's Quien es Mas Macho.  I think this may be due, in part, to the tendency to think of sport as a sort of war.  Our British cousins are famous, or infamous, for claiming that team sports constitute outstanding preparation for war, and perhaps that has something to do with it.  There was a time when it was claimed that battles fought in war were won on the Playing Fields of Eton.  Those playing fields and others, though, were played in by the rich and aristocratic, and it's doubtful that they alone, or their schooldays, were responsible for any victory.    

There seems to be a difference between our glorification of team sports and the view of athletic heroism held in ancient times by the Greeks and Romans.  Individual achievement was glorified in the past, and as far as I'm aware, athletics were not deemed preparation for war in ancient times.  War was something fairly common then.  Training for war was a part of life for all citizens. It wasn't necessary to pretend to be at war as those of us who have not been at war enjoy doing now.

The case of Simone Biles is an interesting one.  She was, in fact, very successful before Tokyo.  There can be no question that she is lacking in ability, or that she doesn't have what it takes to be a great athlete.  One wonders how many medals are required to establish her qualifications, or to demonstrate she isn't "weak."  She had nothing left to prove and could have sat out these Olympics, I believe, without shame.

Nonetheless, her admission of doubts regarding her chances of success have been characterized as weakness; unworthiness, in fact.  Indeed, they've been claimed to be characteristic of our society.  Or, perhaps it's fairer to say that the reaction of some to her case is considered by others to indicate our nation and society are decadent or decayed.

It's apparent that some of our pundits are irritated that her admission of doubts is being praised by others, and particularly because the praise includes claims she is showing bravery and strength.  There is apparently nothing to be praised or honored in honesty in such a case, although given the negative reaction of the more reactionary among us, it may be said a certain bravery was required to make the admission.  Praising it or honoring it is said to encourage failure and lack of effort.  

The tendency of pundits and media to overstate, and especially to generalize, is clear.  It's what those paid to express outrage and emotion, to stir up interest and controversy, do--indeed, what they live for, and as such it's one of the many burdens we must carry throughout our lives given the fact that opinions are now ubiquitous regardless of their merit.  So, the praise given may well be excessive, as is the disfavor expressed.

But it's curious how inclined we are to ascribe qualities like courage, bravery, weakness, vacillation to others, especially when it comes to sports figures.  It's painfully clear that most of us are incapable of being professional athletes or those who perform at the higher levels.  Why then be critical of those of them who decide that it isn't worth their physical or mental health to continue to compete?  Why should they think it's worth their own harm to entertain us or indulge our voyeuristic or vicarious needs?

If it's appropriate to speak of the decadence or decay of our society, one would think that the fact we look to sports for examples of courage or moral strength would be a more compelling example of our degeneracy.  Is it only in athletics that we think those qualities obtain, or should be manifested?  Is their greatest expression pretending not to be concerned about mental or physical health?