Here is my response to the article.
The Michael Jackson & Proper Emotions article was interesting but there are quite a few points I have a problem with. As the author points out attaching emotions to a constructed image of a person, not the real person, is as ludicrous as attaching emotions to an object such as jewellery. But people still do this. It doesn't matter if it is right or wrong but the majority of humans attach emotions to things which are valueless.
If the author is correct in his thinking than it it is just as ludacrise to live your life by some philosophy you have read or a faith you follow. Essentially everything is meaningless and humans, because we operate on emotions and thoughts and not just instict like animals, attach emotions and thoughts onto things to be able to make sense of the world, or to make ourselves feel better. Humans attatch their own meaning onto everything themselves, so one persons thoughts can not be deemed inappropriate by another, who will also attach emotions onto an object or being that someone else will deem inappropriate. Something that the author holds in great esteem I may view as valueless. But who is the ultimate correct judge on the actual value of said item? When you really think about it everything in life is subjective so there is never any absolute right or wrong answer.
This is not just something humans do out of instinct. This is bred by our upbringing. In the West we are indoctriated from birth by schools, governments, the media that all our aspriations and our meaning in life it to achieve as much material wealth and financial gain as possible. This is one reason humans attach emotions to objects. We have been brought up to give these objects value and meaning. This is the very heart at what advertising is about.
And in such a competitive environment human very quickly become egocentric and forget their primal connection to each other. This is why I think people invest heavy amounts of emotions onto people who remind them of this and this gives them something to aspire to, to make them feel more 'human' again.
For me the image that was projected of Michael Jackson was one of kindness, humbleness, altruism, genius talent, grace and dignity. An image most people would like to aspire to, or traits that are deemed in society as good. And I think this is why people felt such emotion towards him. He was a great role model in a time of much destruction - be it destruction of society, the planet or of each other. He reminded people to not think of themselves but look at the bigger picture and remember to look after others and the planet. And I feel that there is nothing wrong with wanting to aspire to this as there is no real difference between this and what religious followers partake in. The only difference is that society tell us it is acceptable to follow a religious mantra and regime of living but it is not acceptable to apply a similar thought process onto something that is not holy and deemed by 'god'.
But the very concept of god and religion is abstract itself. And who is actually capable of dictating what is true and good or false and bad when it comes to human thinking? After all ancient Greek religion is now termed mythology as 'they' (whoever they are) deemed it is not realistic or rational yet modern religion is seen to be these things. But what really is the true difference? Why is a god of thunder like Zeus any different to 'God', 'Allah' or 'Krishna'? To me it is no more ludicrous to believe in a god than it is to believe in unicorns or the values that 'Michael Jackson' (I this as the Michael Jackson the public know is not the man himself. But we are not talking about the actual man instead we discuss the public image and what this means to people as this is the only Michael Jackson we know of) embodied.
For some people Jackson would have been a constant in their life and when everything else was bad they still had this man who's nature and philosophy on life was inspirational and aspirational and as he is unspeaking he is therefore unjudging. But isn't this actually what a god is? A constant 'being' that guides you to live a better life by a written mantra on how to live a good and happy life. A 'being' who is unjudging and always there? The only difference is what society deems is acceptable and unacceptable.
I would like to point out that I do not see Jackson as some sort of god-like figure but as per my previous point I don't think that attaching those emotions to the image of Jackson is any more ridiculous that attaching emotions to a god. Both are just constructs humans have created to make sense of their perception of the world.
And how many of us truly know someone. Everyone portrays themselves in a certain light and this is projected in different ways to different people. For example you will act one way with your mother, another way with your friends and another way with colleagues. And there are very few humans that actually lay themselves bare and show their true selves. Those who do are actually something quite beautiful. And a celebrity is just a spotlighted version of this. Of course they have a media image to make them look good, but what person out there doesn't portray themselves as good?
Also you can never judge a persons emotions until you know why they feel the way they do. Every person's views are dependant on what they have experienced in life. So the author may not attach much emotion onto objects or people he does not know but other people are more sensitive and emotive and may have a reason behind why they are like that. As the author knows nothing of their experience then it is very unfair to tarnish everyone with the same brush and ultimately dismiss every one of their feelings or thoughts.
And I am not denying the fact that people do over react. There is something back Jackson that enables these 'superfans', for lack of a better word, who give up their lives to follow the man. We all know this is not normal, rational behaviour. But I would be more interested in understanding the psychology and experiences of these people rather than automatically dismissing them.
And the fact that a lot of people were saddened by the loss of Jackson more than they would when other celebrities die is testament to the man. After all he is lauded as someone who united people, broke down barriers and revolutionised the entertainment industry. He is a key cultural figure of our times and this is partly the reason I feel there was such a public reaction to his passing. After all it is very few that are mourned by a nation, or in this case the world. And often they are people of great accomplishment on speaking on peace, altruism and equality. Only people like Princess Diana, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr, and the Kennedy's experience this outpouring. Which shows that human's respond to the loss of these figure with grief as they are more 'grieving' for what the person stood for not the person themselves. People identified that what these people stood for were good and something to aspire to. It is important to realise a person can be separated from themselves. Michael Jackson, the public figure is not Michael Jackson the private figure. No one can judge the man himself and not many people, and quite possible no one, knows the real Michael Jackson. And lest we forget that people are constructs of their circumstance and experiences. If you look at elevated figures in history like Michael Jackson and Martin Luther King their upbringings and experiences are not dissimilar to people such a Hitler. Yet it was only the way that they dealt with these experiences and how these experiences shaped their world view and philosophy that separates them. And this is the reason why it is important to remember to look into the fact that people are constructs of their experiences and their emotions are dictated by that. So as the saying goes 'don't judge another until you've walked a mile in his shoes'.
I fear I have made my response longer than the actual article but I felt it was something I wanted to give my self-constructed, experience lead opinion as well. After all I am only human.
No comments:
Post a Comment