I've been thinking about Ryan's remarks on celebrity [check out Ryan's clarification of his point]. Elements of celebrity that are appealing include money, doing what one wants, and, "being almost like a kid again" (I think that is pretty close to a direct quote). In a way, then, the desire for celebrity is a desire for freedom (autonomy). It is also a desire for recognition (to be known to others).
Is it possible that the desire for recognition ends up trumping the desire for freedom? Or that the desire for recognition functions in such a way that it can be manipulated and so substitute for or displace the desire for freedom (we might think here about the entrepreneurs quoted in the Friedman article; as they explain, successful social media uses people's desire for affirmation, people's need to prove they exist).
What if we focus on the desire for freedom? Bifo describes the desire for freedom as a refusal for work: "I don't want to go to work because I prefer to sleep."
Might then the celebrity form be a form of our alienation, our unfreedom? If we were free to sleep when we wanted, free not to work, would we be likely to fantasize about the freedom of a select few?
Desire for recognition would displace freedom. Both can not be achieved with out displacing one desire for the other. To be recognized requires devotion and passion to relinquish freedoms of self for others. To be free is not to do work, but play.
ReplyDeleteIs Paris Hilton free? No, I am more free than Paris Hilton. Paris Hilton is trapped in society by her recognized looks and name. Her attitude is one of not play but of active deception to escape her own unhappiness. These activities involve alcohol, sex, drugs, money, and other recklessness. She is not free, because she is known and watched by all those surveying her, the press and people with fetishes for her.
If you want to be free, move off the grid. Live as a farmer, be self sustainable, and join one of those small agricultural communities in VT or elsewhere.
If you want to be recognized, you can not be free, but must sell your soul. Society and culture will develop a fetish and eat you alive. Mass society is a hungary tiger. An individual is mature antelope. Do you really want to be antelope?
Celebrity is therefore a form of alienation and unfreedom.
There are now 2 people in the class who want to be celebrities, hopefully they are reading this counter to the celebrity fetish.
Celebrity is therefore a form of alienation and unfreedom. Yet seen through the media as something special.
ReplyDeleteThere are some better celebrities out there. These individuals maintain as much of a normal life as they can and remain out of the Lime light. None come to mind at the moment, but they may exist.
Dreams fall short in reality, so do not shoot for the stars but for the next stone to step on.
I wonder whether it is necessarily true that one desire (recognition or freedom) necessarily must displace another. So are there forms of freedom and/or forms of recognition that enable or enrich the other? A parent's recognition of a child can enable the child to become brave and confident enough to take risk, to break the apron strings. Loving and being loved by another person can open up and expand one's relation to the world in a way that feels new and liberating. And play, too, can be enhanced by the recognition of others--each enjoy the cool, funny, joyful actions of the other.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first started blogging (over 6 years), recognition from a year few strangers inspired/pushed/incited me to think and write more and differently. I would say that this experience was liberating/freeing.
Is the farmer free? Or maybe we should consider the senses in which the farmer is free. Additionally, are there senses in which going off the grid is a fantasy that enables us to stay where we are: it's all or nothing, either constant media or no media.
ReplyDeleteAnd with recognition: maybe it makes sense to think of different fields, circles, relations of recognition rather than all or nothing.
Were are comparing apples to oranges here. A celebrity a farmer a child and a parent. Going forward by going backwards.
ReplyDeleteFor a child parent relationship, recgonition can open up freedom.
The relationship could reach mutual understanding and trust.
It can also close freedom if the child recgonizes their parents are lying to them. The insecure naive child has in times closed itself off with alienation and risk taking. In this last case a negative recognition is reached. Neither is a celebrity.
Living off the grid is not a fantasy for everyone and for some it is a reality. Living outside of the US, living away from it's media etc can be achieved in remote towns outside of the US.
A farmer is not free, he or she is confined to the land's demands. But a farmer can be free of society. Groups like Amish and Menonit have separates them selfsame from society. They are free and they are not free depending on the point of view taken. They have created their own rules and live by them. More so than Genevans who rely on the city government.
There is a lot involved for someone to become a celebrity. There are different routes for different folks.
We are not celebrities so we do not know what there life is like, we are showen a carefully constructed image of their life. Or at other times not so constructed but spontaneous pictures of their bellies hanging out at the beach or the sidewalk etc. People mag tries to make these celebs accessible to the masses.
Of course some recognition inspires us to do more. Or less if it is negatively received. Likewise celebs live on by this reciprocity. But celebs life remains controlled by the society that receives and excepts them. Does it? The masses except Gaga and her outfits or does she force them on us. Well if we didn't like it we would not pay attention. But we do recognize her and believe in her. It's a cycle.
This discussion can not be drawn along such lines, because it is more complex and dynamic than we imagine.
It is however a misconception and sad reality that we do not pocess the ability to reach star status through idolizing a star. Come one stars are original different slightly off being normal. They pocess a drive and focus that we do not have, thats why they are stars and we are not. As soon as we create such a fantasy for ourselves, we displace our freedom and focus.
Someone give me a quote out of Feakonmics. Many examples can be found that demonstrate the minute likely hood that any of will be super rich or super celebrity. We are part of a mass flow of people being channeled through a milieu of information.
Society is trapped by automatisms that rule individual choices: technological, financial, and psyic automatisms transform the multitude into a swarm.
We have so many choices and so little freedom with in the choice made that we are unhappy with any choice we make. Recognition by other humans reminds we are human and we like this. Our desire for connections with others has increased as demonstrated by Facebook and Twitter. Thanks to technics, the will to power has produced the instruments for its own end and the end of human freedom. In so much as freedom is channeled through that which technology does work for us, canceling our freedom to do that work, while providing us time for freedom while that work gets done by that technology.
It would have been better if I had not used the word 'recognition' and had instead used Bifo's terms of connection (mechanical, algorithmic, formulation) and conjunction (asymmetric, differentiated, an encounter with the otherness of the other person). These terms might better express the connection between recognition of celebrities and recognition in social networks. So, these would exemplify connection and not conjunction which takes more time, multiple-senses, can't be reduced to quick and easy formats such as liking something or getting 140 character updates.
ReplyDeleteAgreed
ReplyDelete