Better Things For Better Living

                                                                                  

Mark Rothko committed suicide.ⁱ So did Diane Arbus, Gorky, van Gogh, and Virginia Woolf. And George Sands was insane, along with Nietzsche, Nijinsky and, perhaps, Leo Tolstoi. Yet all were great artists. According to Plato, in Phaedrus, a “divine madness” is responsible for the productions of great artists.

Allen Ginsberg took hallucinogens. His “divine madness” was augmented by LSD. And other great artists have also taken drugs.ⁱⁱ Keith Haring, for example, and Cary Grant, Ronnie Gilbert and Aldous Huxley. If their art was thus improved, were they guilty of taking “performance-enhancement” medications? And if they took those medications, is their art in any way less valuable and enduring?

“Performance-enhancement” in sports is perceived as one of the great evils of our times. Most newsworthy nowadays is Lance Armstrong, who lost both medals and endorsements because of the scandal, but overall such behavior is best exemplified by Barry Bonds who, it is alleged, took steroids to build up his body and, with it, his home run production. He “cheated.”ⁱⁱⁱ For this he was condemned by Congress, team owners and other baseball officials. But, using an expression from another sport, perhaps we've jumped the gun. Perhaps our society is of two minds about such drugs and “cheating.”^iv

When preparing for the SAT's, numerous students take courses to improve their scores. Isn't that the academic equivalent of taking performance-enhancement drugs? Countless Hollywood stars undergo cosmetic surgery to help their careers. They, too, are enhancing their performance artificially. They, too, are “cheating.”

If a team prays together before a game, or a public figure smokes a cigarette to relax before an appearance, is that unjustified performance-enhancement?^v If, before a battle, an officer “psyches up” his forces, is he doing something wrong? If we have a drink or two at a cocktail party to help ourselves produce small talk and immunize us to that of others, have we broken some kind of social convention?

And when candidates prepare for a debate – when they practice their “spontaneous” responses to questions they expect, or to anticipated comments by their opponents – is that any different? But there I go again.

As a society, we're not sure. Milli Vanilli was drummed out of the entertainment industry for lip-syncing its own songs^vi while Deborah Kerr, Audrey Hepburn, Natalie Wood and Marilyn Monroe, among others, were praised for their wonderful performances even though Marni Nixon dubbed “their” musical numbers. And there is no question about Sid Caesar's comedic genius. We don't fault him for mouthing jokes by Mel Brooks, Woody Allen and others.

We live at a time when team owners offer huge salaries for stars who bring fans to the stadium. Records help to bring out the fans, and that's what's really important,^vii so whatever accomplishes that goal is justified. If steroids achieve it, owners will look the other way irrespective of long-term deleterious effects of the drugs. As long as it doesn't become public.

In the history of baseball for example, the ball itself was made more “bouncy” so as to go farther, designated hitters have been used to increase run production, and baseball stadiums have been designed to match the strengths of hitters, while players are chosen who will do well in a particular setting. That's the sport's way of improving performance, excitement, and attendance. Everybody does it.

Of course, “everybody does it” is not justification for doing wrong. But if, in fact, everybody does it, perhaps we should look again and reevaluate whether “it” really is wrong. Cosmetic surgery will not make a bad actress a good one, nor will steroids turn an average baseball player into a superstar.

Certainly those who perform exceptionally are exceptional, though artificial aids may enhance their glitter. When a superstar tries to improve his image to get more of the money that owners are throwing around, it is understandable. But we don't want our children to see our hypocrisy, so we castigate publicly what we simultaneously encourage. Perjury by anyone, including our heroes (in this case falsely denying the use of drugs – before Congress or the courts) is never permissible. We expect honesty of our superheroes, and justifiably so. But if one is faced with the possibility of losing his market value though, because society is looking for a scapegoat, falsification is understandable, even if inexcusable.

So is “performance-enhancement” acceptable? Maybe yes, maybe no. The answer isn't quite as obvious as we'd like to believe.

 

 

 

 

 

Next episode:  "Paying The Bills" -- Avoidable.

 

 

i      Look it up. The examples that follow, as well. I'm too tired to document all this.

ii     We can't sanction “immoral” behavior so we ignore it and focus on the results. At least most of the time. We sometimes reject the results of immorality and unethical behavior. It's high-minded, even if it's sometimes foolish. Indeed, it may be immoral to ignore the results of medical research performed unethically, when the use of those results would help people, although some consider that the “right” thing to do. But that's a subject for another time.

iii    Breaking the rules by sports figures is not permitted because it's so public. Gambling may be an important fund-raiser for casinos and governments but, as Pete Rose discovered, it's forbidden for athletes.

iv     Many of them, having “done” marijuana or other drugs in the past, sound silly criticizing the athletes, especially if the critics' children are aware of their past (or, perhaps, ongoing) behavior.

v      It's certainly bad for his health, but it may calm him down.

vi    Actually they were scorned because they were caught and their actions publicized, embarrassing everyone else.

vii   Money makes the world go 'round.