 |
| Bark! |
 |
| Unidentified mushroom . . . Do Not Eat! |
Although there's considerable speculation about whom Ben Franklin was quoting in his version of the moderation epigram, the
sentiment has probably been around at least as far back as the Roman dramatist
Publius Terentius Afer, 190 – 159 B.C. It's resurrected at times when alcohol is
being consumed by people who still feel a tad bit guilty about cocktails and
wine, or about gourmet feasting. “It's OK if you don't overdo it,” seems to be
the thrust under these circumstances.
Somewhere
between the two poles of any indulgence lies the kingdom of moderation. Between
the drunk and the abstainer, one finds the moderate
user, the one who claims that he only has one glass a day with dinner, for
instance. Somewhere between the anorexic and the glutton, you'll find the moderate
consumer of food, the one who eschews a second dessert, desirable though it may
be.
There's no
arguing the observation that life at the poles can be treacherous. The
experimental rat who's been rigged up to experience sexual release whenever he
pushes a button will do so repeatedly and continuously until he starves to
death. I've been told that certain gambling addicts have worn diapers to the
casino so they don't need bathroom breaks while they repeatedly push the VLT
buttons like masturbating rats. Next to life at the poles, moderation
can look pretty good.
Our culture
teaches us, however, that there must be a right answer for everything, and that
value militates against the moderation principle. In my growing-up days,
the right answer for dancing, drinking, swearing, movies, gambling, was JUST
DON'T. The abstinence pole. The right/wrong determination was on a toggle
switch. No space contemplated between the poles.
Ben
Franklin be hanged: moderation is manufactured in the devil's workshop.
Moderation is that wishy-washy space where liberals and humanists live, the
freaks who think laws are there to be tested and broken at will.
Between the
rabid socialist and the convinced capitalist there exists a moderate space,
and it's always beneficial to think of the choices made in the public sphere
with that in mind. If environmental conservation and resource
exploitation are two poles of a set of choices, is the “right answer”
somewhere in the moderation space between the two, and if so, where in
that space does it lie? The moderation space can, of course, be vast: compared
to the drunk and the abstainer, most of the world lives at varying places
between; where someone lives in that space is a matter of thought, will and
choice.
Politically,
the moderate space needs keen
thinkers, activist organization and determination to find the balanced places: not zero, not ten, but four--possibly--or six.
I think
we're all a bit tired of flailing at the poles.
As a
footnote, I would argue that Franklin threw in the “even moderation” part of
his epigram as a joke only; moderation is a noun and to “do” it, an active verb
is needed. Grammatically, you can “exercise” moderation moderately, I suppose,
or you can be a “moderate moderate” but that would be a frivolous redundancy at
best.
And as a
footnote to the footnote, Ben Franklin is also purported to have said:
“Who is wise?
He who learns from everyone.
Who is powerful?
He that governs his passions.
Who is rich?
He that is content.
Who is that?
Nobody.”
Maybe
moderation, too, is a pipe dream.
No comments:
Post a Comment