A Culture Of Idols
Published June 16, 2005
There was an interesting question posed in today's Toronto Globe and Mail by their Television critic John Doyle. In his analysis of the media coverage of the Michael Jackson trial he said that the real story had been missed. The fans behind the man.
He posed two questions. First, why are people are so obsessed with him to the point of treating him like the leader of a cult? He described some of their behaviour during the announcement of the verdicts and it was disturbing. The woman who released a white dove for each non-guilty being the most extreme of the "We love you Michael" placard carrying crowd.
Secondly he asked are they versions of us? He recounted attending a premiere for a Hollywood movie and being more fascinated with the onlookers then the stars. Waving signs avowing undying devotion to people who they are never likely to meet or know beyond the second hand reports of the tabloid press or carefully worded statements issued by their publicists.
The phenomenon of impersonal adoration stretches far and wide through contemporary life. Sports figures, rock stars, film and television personalities, and other public figures are all idolized to various degrees. Notoriety, instead of deterring, seems to only add to the fascination, one only need to look at Madonna and Dennis Rodman to see mild examples of that.
These people are set apart from us through their associations with things that we consider glamorous or their ability to do something better then the normal person. Professional athletes play the same games that most of us have at some point in our lives, but at a level far beyond our abilities. Because they are "better" than us we award them respect and honour their achievements by putting them on pedestals.
When I was an actor I remember working with a director who commented that Bruce Springsteen, and by implication all stars, was the modern equivalent of a shaman. He could walk into any room anywhere and immediately become the centre of attention. In a stadium full of 60,000 people he only has to walk on stage and he is the focal point for all that energy.
I believe this is not a reflection of talent but rather power given to these people by us through their being a point of attraction. We have invested certain positions in society with power. Actors, rock stars, television personalities, business leaders and politicians are designated as important through our acquiescence. If we did not respond they would have no actual impact.
These tendencies are exploited by all concerned. From advertising agencies to political advisors there are those whose sole function is to constantly remind us of how important these positions are. These label promoters have seen their importance increase ten fold in our world where style has supplanted substance. When judgements are made on appearances those who fall into familiar categories come out ahead every time.
Richard Marcus is a long-haired Canadian iconoclast who writes reviews and opines on the world as he sees it at Leap In The Dark and Epic India Magazine.
- A Culture Of Idols
- Published: June 16, 2005
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Culture
- Filed Under: Culture: Media, Culture: Society
- Writer: Richard Marcus
- Richard Marcus's BC Writer page
- Richard Marcus's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Actually, as primates/homonids we're hard-wired emotionally to follow & submit to anyone able to demonstrate 'Alpha' status, which would include celebrities, since our sub-level emotional responses don't draw a distinction between alpha by celebrity as opposed to alpha by any other acclimation. And yeah, archeology records celebrities/stars/idols as far back as records exist. People probably went berserk over Narmer or Huangdi 8,000 years ago when they paraded back from battle with the tribe down the road.
In our monotheistic society, with no other idols to worship, we have created secular icons. - fair point in one sense, yet in another, you completely and wilfully, for the purposes of your argument perhaps, ignore the manifold pluralisms of Western society.
Duck! I see a horde of Ganesha-worshippers coming yr way:)
Nancy writes: "People probably went berserk over Narmer or Huangdi 8,000 years ago when they paraded back from battle with the tribe down the road."
Reply: No doubt! But, even in the earliest days, those folks celebrated kinsmen or conquerors that had "skills." [Now, admittedly, mass beheadings and impaling people on pikes is a learned skill, but it is a skill.]
Today, we will "celebrate" anyone who gets in our line of sight, regardless (seemingly) how they got there.
Cheers,
Ron
A herd of Ganesha worshipers?!! So that's why the ground is shaking!! To be honest Aaman I must confess to blinkered Western eyes when it came to that. Surrounded by reminders of only the big three one tends to only think of them in context of cultural influence in North America.
Come to think of it since this problem is pervasive the world over, including non monothestic societies like India, the point seems to be losing validity when applied universaly.
But since some of the first founders of European colonies in the Americas were Puritans seeking escape from graven images and icons, whose to say how deeply ingrained those beliefs have rooted here?
People other places can come up with theories that explain away irrational behaviour based on their societies, I can only speak about what I think I know.
In the meantime, gotta go, dodging elephants can't be done sitting down
gypsyman
Well, I guess if you're going to justify idolizing such as Paris H., one could postulate that it takes a certain kind of skill to squirm around in 6" high heels and a negligible bathing suit, writhing on the floor and rubbing up against a hose and a car while opening your mouth wide enough to ingest a giant hamburger, without laughing fit to choke. Or inspire others to reactions other than laughing fit to choke.
Nancy, you wrote
"our sub-level emotional responses don't draw a distinction between alpha by celebrity as opposed to alpha by any other acclimation".
I'm just wondering if this is your opinion or a known fact. Just curious...
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/31101)
gypseyman writes: "Secondly he asked are they versions of us? He recounted attending a premier for a Hollywood movie and being more fascinated with the onlookers then the stars."
Reply: That would certainly be my view if (long, long chance) I would ever find myself in such a circumstance. The thing about this whole "fame" idea to me is not so much that we have "stars" - we have always had "stars." It's that it no longer requires actual talent or skill to be one. It only requires a skilled publicitist. That is what disturbs me most.
Watching Turner Classic Movies as I do, I have seen newsreels of movie premiers in the 30s and 40s. They were truly mob scenes with 250,000 people not unusual. We have always "worshipped" at the feet of talent. Now, however, fame is defined not by talent or skills but, apparently, by how many times you can appear on TV. That, friends, is not my definition of talent.
Cheers,
Ron