Thursday, September 16, 2010

Does the sole lack of evil make it wholesome?

If something does not have anything bad, does that inherently make it good?

In my recent studies I found an article by a BYU Professor, Travis T Anderson, who hits on the core concept of this blog.  This draws back a week or so to our discussions on humanism, but I found it far to relevant to overlook.  In his essay he brings to light some of the core concepts of finding things which are truly wholesome and virtuous.


He begins his article with a story from his own life and a question on what really makes something "wholesome."


"Not long ago, kids in tow, I burst in unannounced on my parents and found them absorbed in some ubiquitous TV sitcom. While we peeled off our coats and the kids started chasing each other around the house, I jokingly chided my mom for wasting her time on such mindless drivel. In reply, she playfully denounced my elitist taste and defended her show as “good, wholesome entertainment.” Well, it may indeed have been entertaining. And being a show that originally aired back in the early eighties and even then was aimed at an older demographic, it was relatively free of the profanity, sexuality, vulgarity, and similar material that almost routinely taints current TV programming. What caught my attention, however, was my mom’s use of the word “wholesome,” which seemed oddly inappropriate with reference to such a program. Innocuous, maybe. But wholesome?"

He goes on a little further to break down the description the world wholesome has taken up in society.


"I noticed with a certain degree of interest that the word “wholesome” is not only used fairly frequently in our culture, but used in a strange sort of way—precisely as my mother used it that evening. I don’t doubt that most of us understand the word properly means something nutritious or edifying, something that actually nourishes soul or body. What I find curious is that the word is so often used in an altogether dif­ferent sense, referring simply to something without objectionable content."

He then goes on for pages discussing how we have put up a false reverse standard.  We look at all forms of art and music from the perspective or measurement based on the amount of evil it contains, instead of looking at how much good it contains.  And then we make the judgement that something is good, simply because it is not bad.  However, there are many things that are not bad that really don't add value to our life.

One last strong point that I cannot fail to mention is his analysis of Education and Entertainment.  Citing Aristotle and other great thinkers he explains that Education in its nature is wholesome while Entertainment, in its very nature, is not.


I would highly recommend reading this entire article or at bare minimum reading the first few pages and the last.  You can get a free copy of the entire article here.

2 comments:

  1. James, I agree. I think many times our definition of "good" or "wholesome" translates to mean something containing no objectionable content. However, I would also venture to say that unfortunately sometimes that definition of "good" extends to not having very much objectionable content.

    I also agree that the lack of objectionable material does not a media "wholesome". I feel like there are degrees of quality of media. There is medaia that is just to entertain and other media to inspire. I think media choice is a great example of "good, better, best".

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm glad you discovered Travis's article. It's part of a special issue of BYU Studies devoted to Mormon film that Randy Astle and I edited in 2007. You might enjoy some of the other articles in there, too, that deal with aesthetics and ethics (such as the one about spectatorship from Sharon Swenson).

    ReplyDelete