I work in an office that’s seldom dull. Frustrating and stressful at times, but not dull. Most days, something like the World Beard Championships comes to our attention, to be discussed, lauded or excoriated, and eventually dismissed. The other day, flush with my blog-starting plans and drunk on the idea of becoming some sort of (extremely) minor cultural critic, it occurred to me that I should start rating things like the aforementioned Championships according to my perception of their effect on society. With my generally negative views on our civilization’s trajectory, I first considered only rating negative influences, but on running it by John, he suggested rating positives as well. Thus, the Ratings were born.
A quick note on methodology: The Ratings will address cultural phenomena, and rate them on a scale from -10 to +10 based on their contribution (causal or symptomatic) to the decline or continuation of Western civilization, as understood by the raters. Currently, we’re rating things as they occur to us, but we’re open to suggestions. Ratings and reasoning are determined in collaboration between the raters, but I’m doing the actual writing (in case anyone cared). Theoretically, the Ratings will appear each Friday. We’ll see how that goes.
Here’s the scale:
-10: Western civilization is through. Well, at least the handbasket is nice.
0: No effect. All hail the status quo.
+10: 141 million people watched the Super Bowl. Things can’t be going that badly.
With the introductions out of the way, here’s the first set of Ratings:
World Beard Championships
For: There’s a certain amount of whimsy that’s good for a society, and if you can show me anything more whimsical than this that doesn’t involve unicorns or fairy princesses, I’ll fax you a Twinkie.
Against: Too much whimsy borders on decadence. If everyone knew someone who was entered in this, I’d worry.
Rating: +1
World Wrestling Entertainment
For: There’s a long tradition of combat (even staged combat) as entertainment, from the funeral games of Achilles to the Roman gladiators. As an amateur classicist myself, that scores it some points.
Against: The flip side of the above: In the days of the Roman republic, gladiatorial combats were held on special occasions only, and were seldom fought to the death. In the empire, the combats increased in violence and extravagance as Rome slid into autocracy and decline. The parallels are troubling.
Rating: -4
Oprah’s Book Club
For: More people reading is almost always good. Plus, naming East of Eden as the first book in the her classics-focused lineup scores big points with these Steinbeck-philic raters.
Against: There’s a case to be made that Oprah isn’t the best ambassador for increased literacy, and that her popularity with her audience gives her endorsements an undue influence. In fairness, though, that charge could be leveled against many critics.
Rating: +6