Michael Jackson & Proper Emotion - Response 2

So today was a wonderful day! I received the best news today. Hasinah's visa has been granted! I have been so hopefully that this would be the outcome and the excitement and relief I felt when I heard was immense. I really don't know what I would have done if I was to lose my friend to the other side of the world. So now the aim is to make The House of H & S a reality!

Today was also the first dance lesson of 2011. Oh how I have missed it! The atmosphere of Pineapple, the camaraderie with my classmates and the ringleader - King himself! It was great to get back into it and with one of my favourites, Jam! It was a great workout and I can not wait for many more enjoyable classes.

Now as you may have read Hasinah recently wrote a blog which included an article 'Michael Jackson and Proper Emotions'. I wrote a response to this and Hasinah has replied. It was great to hear her view and it made me think again.

Below is my response to the latest reply about the article. Alas it was yet again too long for Hasinah's comments box so I thought I would post it here.


Further response to article

It was very interesting to read your response. I still have a problem with the fact that people who felt any degree of grief over the death of Michael Jackson are seen to be overreacting. At what degree does people grief become overreacting? Of course the people that killed themselves can be deemed by almost everyone as overreacting but what are the definitions for the rest of the people? Are there acceptable degrees of grief? What is the tipping point?

I still feel that instead of looking at the factors of why people feel the emotions they do that instead it is a case of the author not feeling the same way and therefore stating that anyone who does feel grief is overreacting. As the author does not understand why anyone would feel that way he can not relate to it. Therefore if he can not understand and decode it then it must be an overreaction. It is again the topic of your views and outlook are created by the experiences you have as this is how you make understanding. But what then makes you the expert therefore granting you rights to claim other people's emotions are wrong? It almost seems as if he needs grief to be quantifiable and be able to be charted against grieving emotions compared to the persons closeness to the situation. But grief is an emotion and all emotions are subjective and there is no way to quantify them. So really the only way to know if someone is overreacting is to understand their perspective as to WHY they feel this way. As emotions are not a science (of course emotions are created by chemicals in the brain) but feelings are unique to every single person and actually the concept of emotions is abstract. Such as when we discussed what is love? Every single person who explain it in a different way. This is the same with all emotions so how can the author cast aspersions onto people in regard to something that is so subjective?

It is bombastic to claim that anyone that feels grief at all it wrong. And why do certain people feel they have authority over what is correct to feel and not? As I mentioned the author will hold some things in esteem which I would totally disregard but I am not the one to judge him for this.

 Lest we forget Jackson is not the only person to have a public outpouring of grief. So if millions of people do it are they all wrong, yet the author is right? What qualifications does he have to make this judgement and to belittle people who feel these emotions?


My emotional response to the passing of Michael Jackson

I did not bring into my response personal feeling as it is not appropriate but as I don't feel the point was put across I will discuss my personal emotions over the loss of Jackson.

I personal felt, and still feel to some degree, what can be defined as grief over the passing of Michael Jackson. I was not a 'superfan' I just loved MJ's music and moves. I never had any merchandise, never read any articles, never followed what he was doing professionally or personally unless a single or album was out. But Michael Jackson was a constant throughout my life. My household was never musical, the radio never played, but the only albums we ever played in the household was Michael Jackson. Lest we forget that Jackson's career started when my mother was a girl watching The Jackson 5 with my grandmother.

In my childhood everyone wanted to be Michael Jackson. There was a magical quality to this man who's talents knew no abounds. Just when you thought you had seen it all MJ would pull something new and sensational out the bag. He was still thrilling people in the This Is It rehearsals, until the few hours before his death. In my primary school dances the highlight was always when Michael Jackson would come on and the whole school stopped to surround a boy named Freedom as we watched as he performed the entrancing and magical movements of Michael Jackson.

I will admit in the years after the 'History' album I lost interest somewhat. I didn't follow was was going on. This changed once I heard in 2008 that at some point Michael Jackson would be doing a residency at the O2. I knew I would do anything to get to see what would be the greatest show on earth by the best performer in the world. That inner child wanted it's childhood fantasy accomplished. I knew I would be dazzled and the thought of the atmosphere in that arena with 20,000 watching Jackson perform is still enough to give me goosebumps. Alas this was never to be.

On hearing of MJ's passing the first few days I was filled with a sense of wonderment of just what an incredible impact he had had on people. On 26th June 2009 every single shop, car and headphone was blasting out Jackson classics. It was such a great emotion to know we were all celebrating a life that we had received such pleasure and entertainment from.

In the few weeks afterward was when I started to feel grief. Grief for the loss of great talent. Sadness for a man that never really got to feel true happiness and satisfaction. A man who seemed to have it all but still carried an overwhelming sense of sadness and loneliness about him. Heartache for his children, far to young to lose their only parent. And a sadness for the loss of my childhood.

To me Michael Jackson is much more than a great singer and performer. He was the best. He is what everyone strives to be. He made songs that touched the soul, his moves defied logic and caused that childlike feeling of excitement of when we see something magical, his humanitarian work and altruism is inspirational and reminds me that I am not what life is all about - to look outside myself, help others and remember L.O.V.E. He overcame adversity again and again. He is the prime example of an underdog, a figure that people always stand behind. He conducted himself with grace and dignity no matter what was thrown at him. And most importantly he brought people together. He broke down barriers not just in music and dance but in society, in race relations, in environmental issues. He taught me how to be a better person. He was the last fantastical figure of my childhood that remained, unlike santa or faeries who disappeared long ago, and now that image was shattered as I realised he wasn't invincible, he was flesh and blood like the rest of us and ultimately perishable. And that is why I grieve for Michael Jackson. 

Conclusion

People may feel I overreact when I say I grieve for him. But it is much more than just the person or his image. I grieve for my lost childhood and all the wonderment and feelings of possibility he game me. I don't even think it is the person Michael Jackson we grieve. It is the idea of Michael Jackson and all that that image stands for,  the emotions we had personally attached to this ideal and the loss of all of these factors. And that is why I think people grieve for Michael Jackson.

Emotions are irrational and this is why I don't think you can quantify them and decide that any degree of grieving is irrational. Unless you understand someone's story, and even once you do, what qualifies you to condemn that person's emotions?

 Here are some links to some articles I read after the passing of Jackson. The first one I think sums up how a lot of people I know felt. As i mentioned before a lot of people grew up with MJ as a constant presence in their life, which explains why people had an affinity towards him. This article discusses this.

There were some quotes in that article that really touched me.

"The thought of Michael Joseph Jackson not being alive is completely implausible....I then heard a woman ask to no one in particular if we had heard that Michael Jackson had died. The entire subway car gasped, and it seemed the same feeling that had taken over my body minutes earlier had found new destinations of flesh and soul to take hold of....one thing remains consistent from generation to generation; we aren't supposed to live in a world without Michael Jackson."

"In a strange way, Michael's death has made him human again. In his passing, we were able to see the great son, brother, father and humanitarian that Michael had evolved into during his short 50 years on this earth...A year later, we see Michael in a different light; a light that has shunned hypocritical finger pointing and embraced an everlasting bond that will always be shared through his music."

And  this article discusses childhood and the fact that all around the world people felt the same towards Jackson, creating a common link that enabled people all around the world to join.

  _______________________________________

Well that was a long entry! It would be great to hear other people's opinions on the article and response.

Until next time I wish you much happiness,

Sophie

"When you are sorrowful look again in your heart, and you shall see that in truth you are weeping for that which has been your delight". ~Kahlil Gibran

"Sorrow makes us all children again - destroys all differences of intellect. The wisest know nothing". ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

Response to 'Michael Jackson & Proper Emotions'

A good friend of my recently posted a blog which included an article 'Michael Jackson & Proper Emotions'. As a Michael Jackson fan I was intrigued to read the authors view on what he feels as proper and improper responses to Jackson's death.

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.