Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'society'.
Apparently in our culture, artists are given a great deal more sanction by the public to be egregriously and unapologetically selfish and egoistic than are businessmen who would be publicly skewered and shamed for taking the same actions. There would even be calls for resignation and boycotts. Can you imagine a prominent businessman chauffeured into work in a Bentley, wearing a flamboyant suit, diamond luxury watch and gold chain while being escorted out of his luxury vehicle by two buxom, beautiful women? A rapper doing this wouldn't bat an eye, but it'd make front page news and be called a scandal if it were Mark Zuckerberg. This may seem like a silly example, but it illustrates the stark difference in treatment two different types of rich people receive. One is given the full go-ahead sanction, the other is pilloried. Artists, musicians (especially rappers), but also actors, comedians, and other entertainers are allowed to say and do virtually whatever they want with very little public repercussion or people will just look the other way and excuse them. In fact, the end result of their so called controversies, is usually just getting more attention and fame. My question is, why does the public even make this silly distinction? And what does it say about their premises/motivations?
Continuing somewhat on my earlier theme in another thread, I made one interesting connection. Charisma and (the virtue) visibility often spring from and re-inforce one another. Referencing wikipedia it seems like it does'nt have much to offer in the way of formal, valid definition of charisma other than a mystical one (or a vague secular one offered by a long dead sociologist). The implication is that people are not exactly sure and can't pinpoint exactly what charisma actually is. A fuller discussion and description of visibility specifically, is available here. After thinking about it, I've come up with a "provisional" definition that fits my observations reasonably: "The ability to confer a feeling of happiness upon others by their presence or speech". By this definition, when we think about the most charming individuals in our society, immediately the some of the most socially visible individuals come to the front of our minds, i.e. politicians, actors, fortune 500 ceo's, famous writers etc. But the (interesting) question is, did their visibility come first or their charm? Do they "become" more charming as a result of being more visible (i.e. by "perception")? I may bring up more/ongoing questions as they come. Thoughts?