|
The Eyes Have It According to a Reuters report for April 7, there is a new cosmetic procedure likely to sweep across the western world in the weeks ahead. It is, of all things, "eyeball jewelry." Ophthalmic surgeons in Rotterdam were able to implant small pieces of jewelry -- about 3.5 mm wide -- into the mucous membrane of the eyes of seven subjects. Such aesthetic marvels as a sparkling half-moon or a silver heart can basically be stuck right into the whites of the eyes. According to the director of the Netherlands Institute for Innovative Ocular Surgery, "It is a little more subtle than (body) piercing. It is a bit of a fun thing and a very personal thing for people." For others of us, such practices are perplexing. Why are people receptive to such extreme experimentations? What impels them to lacerate themselves, to pierce their tongue, their nose, their navel, and even parts below the waistline? The cosmopolitan among us know that it is not sophisticated to make snap value judgments. We know that only philistines seek to "impose their views on others" and that only scolds look scornfully upon lifestyles they don't understand. Tolerance, after all, can only be said to exist when people hold their tongue in the face of that which is offensive or displeasing to them. "I will tolerate it" means "I don't like it, but I will live with it." Am I being a scold when I say cosmetic eye surgery is abominable -- or speaking even more broadly, that all such cosmetic procedures are abominable, a symptom of a wayward culture? I suppose some would say yes; others would say the only thing that can be "wrong" about it is a botched job. So if a woman gets breast implants, there's nothing "wrong" either with the milieu that pressures her in that direction or with the woman herself for making such a choice. The only "wrong," on this view, would be a surgeon doing less than masterly work or the manufacturer making a defective implant. Most of us would agree that certain actions, far from being tolerated, should either be rebuked or punished -- the range encompassing at a minimum acts that are injurious to others. Beyond this narrow range, this utilitarian standard, lies much uncertainty. So many political disputes arise because of this issue of latitude. Consider just the examples below: § Many cannot countenance the idea of gay marriage. Gay marriage for them is "wrong" somehow. It crosses some threshold beyond which passive acceptance is unjustifiable, and to them a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage doesn't sound so bad. Others scratch their head and blithely ask, "So what? If gays want to get married, what's the big deal? Let them get married." § There are those who find the content of TV programming to be obnoxious, obscene, degrading, and shallow, and who even welcome punitive governmental action to dissuade networks from producing the stuff. There are others who are more put off by this censorious attitude than by TV programming itself, and who are wont always to reply, "If you don't like it, change the channel, or turn the TV off." § Some social critics, such as the authors of Affluenza, criticize society at large for hyping the value of wealth, for commercializing every nook and cranny of modern life, and for undermining other ends, such as communal bonds and citizenship. This criticism itself is a value judgment. Shouldn't those ever eager to preach the gospel of tolerance take these authors to task for being intolerant themselves? How is their value judgment any better than that of, say, "family values" advocates or those advocating a ban on gay marriage? Are there good criteria for deciding when a value judgment is desirable and when it is intolerant and bad? What are they?
|
