One of the numerous values that I've come to cherish is a simple understanding that in academics, there is a multiplicity of viewpoints from which we can make sense of the world around us, and as such, this world does not dance to the beat of just one drum.

When Esther Tyson labels a song such as Rampin' Shop as filth, I automatically assume that she could not possibly be alluding to the lyrical witticism employed, the vivacity of the visual imagery created, or the infectiously gripping melodious effects of the entire song which is what heavily plays into the public's craving for its airing and not some grand conspiracy on the part of our media personalities.

Are we prepared to be as creative as Vybz Kartel et al in countering the lyrics that we abhor, or are we satisfied with blaming dancehall music for our failure to succeed in instilling our "worthy values" in our children? So I guess it all boils down to subject matter.

FIGURE OF MORAL AUTHORITY

Now I wished Tyson had picked on a different song (perhaps one glorifying criminal activity and senseless violence) to form the central basis of her advocacy for extreme forms of censorship on minds such as Vybz Kartel's. Having done so, it would not have made a rebuttal any harder but at least she would have come across (to me, that is) more as a genuine agent of social progress and development rather than a self-righteous individual looking to stand out as some figure of moral authority or as a paragon of social decency.

In essence, Rampin' Shop is simply about sex, a topic that has been discussed, probed and experienced since time immemorial. I've been told that God sanctioned it for man and woman, Plato endorsed it for breeding purposes and John Donne just simply couldn't get enough. So when a song is termed 'filth' presumably because sex is at its core, do we mean that the subject of sex is not to be explored in artistic expression for a mature audience? Should we expunge all texts and literature on sex from bookshops and slash the study of the reproductive system from biology curricula in schools? Of course not!

Part of the reason for Tyson's outrage (and this is perhaps where she garners most sympathies from her supporters) is that the "filth" is disseminated on a broad scale with the young and impressionable being swept up in the mix. Of course, we want the youth of this country to espouse good values and morals for the health and development of society but severe censorship is not the answer in a civilised, globalised and technologically driven world.

Sheltered and protected

'Filth' can come from just about anywhere and at anytime and what we really need to make sure is that we are not raising mindless cogs dependent on a perpetual need to be sheltered and protected. What we need to ensure is that we never try to mitigate, absolve or underestimate the duties and responsibilities of parents and teachers.

Too much sheltering can always lead to what I term the preacher's daughter syndrome (which usually ends up in a burst of rebellious lasciviousness) or the judge's son syndrome (engendering pathological criminal tendencies). We need to understand that temptations of all kinds will continually challenge us and the emphasis should be on developing principled adolescents rather than cognitively crippled ones.

In closing, I'll refer to a real-life example of one of my points. Because Tyson frequently employs a religious perspective to justify her stance on various issues, my best friend usually skips her columns. Unlike him, however, I am always open to reading her opinions, despite my occasional disagreement with her sentiments. It's the same choice that Tyson and others have, as they choose to be entertained by various genres of music.

I am, etc.,

MARK-PAUL COWAN

blaze509@hotmail.com