When there is a large investment of emotional energy into someone the prospect of turning your back on them is nest to impossible. Having deluded themselves into believing in their objects infallibility rejection would be tantamount to rejecting themselves. Just as bad, if not worse, their turnaround would make them look so foolish that the ridicule faced from loyalty would be minor when compared to the lose of face in admitting your were mistaken.
Although there may be a little of the former in Michael Jackson’s case I believe the majority of those who are hanging on fall into the latter camp. If they denied him now they would be denying themselves. I do not believe that any person who’s character allowed them to identify that deeply with someone for what they do has the strength of will to admit their own fallibility.
It is not so much a matter of whether or not these people are us, as Mr. Doyle asked in his article, because there is no denying that they are an accurate reflection of a pattern of behaviour that is prevalent in our world. What we need to ask is to what extent are we like them. I am not surprised in the least that the media would ignore the story of Mr. Jackson’s fans. To go there would force them to analysis there own role in the creation of and sustenance of the star system. They are not about to bite the hand that feeds them.
Article comments
1 - dietdoc
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
2 - Nancy
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.
3 - Aaman
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:)
4 - dietdoc
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
5 - Richard Marcus
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
6 - Nancy
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.
7 - ruby
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...