Discretion Advised

A perfect world does not, by definition, contain anything bad, and since vices are inherently bad, it follows that in a perfect world there would be no vice. This is the ideal city Plato wishes to create in the Republic. However, vice is a fact of life, both in our world, and in the world in which Plato’s theoretical city is founded. In order to abolish such vice, Plato suggests sanctions regulating citizens’ exposure to content which contains representations of vice. He claims that a man’s actions are based on his observation of the actions of others, stating, “for it is given, I think, only to a few to figure out that the conduct of other people must necessarily influence our own” (Aesthetics 31). One does what one sees others do. Authentic actions observed in others are not the only source of one’s inspiration. Plato contends that dramatic performances as well as all other art, which he collectively considers imitative, influences a person just as strongly. Plato realizes, “the irritable character furnishes a great variety of materials for imitation,” (30) hence such a character is more likely to be dramatically represented. He fears that exposure to works that present such undesirable characters will in turn lead to the development of the same qualities in the populace. On these grounds he concludes, “be justified in refusing to admit [the poet] into a city that is going to be well-governed, because he excites and feeds and strengthens this worthless part of the soul, and thus destroys the rational part” (31). The poet must be censured because his poetry only pollutes the mind with filthy ideas that will influence one’s character for the worst.

While Plato makes a valid point, his idea of censorship appears excessive. We are born helpless, it seems, impressionable babes and we must rely solely on observation to begin making sense of the world. No doctrine of good and evil, virtue and vice behooves us until a parent or guardian, after tangible demonstration (punishment, praise), instills such notions in us. We do not walk out of the womb, as is seen in other creatures; rather we gradually grow accustomed to the world solely by our existing in it. It is for this reason--our initial susceptibility to influence, regardless its quality--which makes pertinent a regulation of exposure. Parents must create an atmosphere conducive to good habits. It is the success at fostering proper judgment in the lad that will grant him the means to determine for himself how to interpret various influences. This is the point of contention. How capable are we, in our personal judgment, to discern good from bad, and especially when it is presented ambiguously in the trash that is pop culture? And further still, how much can we depend on our own judgment, even if we consider it good judgment, to filter out garbage presented in both trend and popular opinion as an accepted norm? This begs the question, what capacity for personal judgment do we actually have if this judgment is itself a product relative to its environment? For example, one person might judge another to be a bad person solely because the latter uses marijuana. Such a judgment relies solely on the influence of an environment in which pot is frowned upon. So it seems that even while we may have a capacity for judgment, not even this is safe from the corruption of influences it is supposed to discern.

So, Plato, I’ll grant you that humans, regardless their disposition or the strength thereof, are irrefutably influenced by their environment, since it seems even our very own judgment derives from the context of real events. If it is the case that we derive our dispositions to judgment from our environment, then, as active participating members of this environment, our judgments should reflect the entire extent of our understanding of our world. That is to say, watching a trashy television program should only influence me in relation to what I have already experienced in the world. Just because I watch Jersey Shore doesn’t mean I’m automatically going to imitate The Situation. I have had enough other influences to balance this one out. However, this is not the case with children who are still impressionable because they have yet to gain a more complete understanding of the world. A child playing a violent videogame—and there are some violent ones out there—will simply not possess the same capacity as an adult for distinguishing reality from its virtual representation.

While representations of life—movies, videogames, epic poetry—influence our experience of the world, Plato seems to exaggerate their magnitude in relation to our lives. Exposure to filth, imitative or otherwise, does not necessitate reciprocation on our part. Our judgment, limited as it may be, does not automatically conclude, “Monkey see, monkey do.” It is completely within our capacity to extrapolate from observation, “Monkey see, and monkey think better of.” It is exactly one’s exposure to the contrary of what he intuits to be right that allows for a personal development of proper judgment. If one is sheltered from vice his whole life, what is he to make of it when it inevitable crosses his path? In a world of inherent vice, censorship only begets ignorance. Instead, the responsibility falls on the parents, guardians, teachers, and mentors to educate impressionable children on the correct way of discerning what the latter are exposed to.

It is not the representation of vice itself, but the context in which this representation is observed which determines its influence. Motion picture ratings for recommended audiences attest to this. A film certified PG suggests parental guidance regarding young viewers. Certain content of this movie is best interpreted under the guidance of an adult. Regarding the particular case involving fines imposed on stores selling videogames to minors, I feel this is less a case of censorship than one of responsibility. The games contain mature content targeted toward audiences that (hopefully) know how to keep their videogame experience in context. Game stores that do not regulate such sales risk polluting impressionable minds with content the latter will not necessarily know how to evaluate properly. I find no objection to minors playing explicit games, given they know enough about the real world as to not let themselves be influenced by such. It is the impressionable youth with their soft, undeveloped skulls with whom we need be concerned. Even then, exposure to vice only amounts to reciprocation if such exposure is not conditioned to be channeled properly through discretion.