The Down of the Letdown, Essay Example

When the Stranger Is a Hero: The Down of the Letdown

On the face of it, the fact that moral lapses from public figures upset many is difficult to justify.  The reality is too plain; they are, everyone knows, human beings, and consequently as prone to mistakes and indulgences as any human being.  Nonetheless, and in incident after incident, the public expresses outrage when the celebrity goes “too far.”  There is almost a universal feeling of betrayal and, given the lapses frequently evident in ordinary society and from ordinary people, there then seems to be a strange dichotomy.  A double standard immediately arises, as when a Tiger Woods reveals a weakness common to many.  This standard, however, is not very inexplicable.  It exists, in fact, because of the nature of celebrity itself.  Whenever an individual attains fame, it is a process in which the public is heavily invested, because the fame is, in a sense, granted by a public that then expects certain levels of behavior.  It is the price attached to celebrity, and it is not one easily set aside.  The greater reality of such scandals, then, is that public figures let us down when they make poor moral choices because we automatically expect them to be better than we are.

This relationship factor in how a public figure is perceived is evident in virtually all instances of public “falls from grace,” and because of the odd nature of that relationship. Returning to Tiger Woods, it is certainly true that his skill was greatly responsible for his success.  In basic terms, he would have been unknown had he not displayed unusual talent at golf.  What is critical to remember, however, is that this talent itself does not create the celebrity.  The public does.  It elevates the achievement, which then elevates the man himself.  When someone like Woods triumphs on the golf course, he is embraced by the public in a way that pertains to himself as a man, and not merely an athlete.  Having done great things, he is perceived as inherently “great.”  He is, as so many athletes are, idealized beyond his accomplishments, because we as a society have decided that he must be better than we are.  All he need do, then, is live in a way reflecting what we consider the best behavior, and consistently.

This is why we can easily forgive someone we know for breaching ethical conduct, and not the public figure. Simply, we have few expectations of those we know.  We do not associate them with levels of greatness in any particular activity, and therefore there is no reason to believe that they are great in all ways.   It seems this attachment of high standards is almost a reflex of any kind of notoriety.  The fame, in fact, cannot be in place without it.  This is a kind of deal the public makes with its public figures; we will idolize you for what you do, but we demand that you earn this tribute.  You must demonstrate a kind of quality and character beyond the ordinary, because we have chosen to set you apart. It does not matter that only the athletic skill or acting talent is what generated the rise to celebrity. As the public figure exists as a fully dimensional being, so too is the fame dependent on that entire being.

If this describes a kind of hero worship, the reality is that the mechanism of such worship is so deeply embedded in society; it ignores many aspects of acknowledged reality. President Clinton, for example, nearly faced impeachment because of a sexual transgression. Most people, given time to reflect, would probably agree that this was a matter between the man and his wife. They might also concede that such behavior does not reflect intelligence or leadership capabilities. The outrage, however, remains moral, because we insist that virtue be a component in our leaders. This is understandable, and even logical in its way, but nonetheless incorrect. Most striking, in fact, is how the hero worship mentality plays into this extreme case precisely because of the levels of trust and expectation. On one level, we insist on a strong, powerful leader, even as we know that ordinary adherence to “niceness” and good behavior is not characteristic of men who rise to such positions of power.  It does not matter. With Clinton, and with any public figure so highly placed, we demand both a fierce and intimidating man in charge, and we also demand that he obey normal conventions.  Reality, as with Woods, does not apply because, ultimately, we want too much.

The same process of an automatic attachment of totality of expectation is evident in as strong a contrast to Clinton as can be imagined: reality television.  The public accepts that the people in these programs have made no mark or achievement.  It is understood that they are celebrities by virtue only of the camera being on them.  Nonetheless, the mechanism is triggered, in that the public continually expresses dismay over the poor behaviors of them.  There is absolutely no basis for thinking that these individuals are in any way superior to us, yet, because so many of us are watching them, we require superiority.  If demanding ethical standards of conduct from those who have only distinguished themselves through athletic competition is a strangely unreal extension, then this demand is surreal.  Weekly, reality programs follow ordinary people behaving badly, and just as reliably comes anger and disbelief from the public, all of which occurs only because, in watching them, we elevate them.  When all of this is considered, there is actually no mystery at all to why a Tiger Woods should generate so much hostility from infidelity.  Golf is unimportant, as is no career or achievement from a “real housewife.”  What matters is that they stand before us and must then earn the privilege by embodying true quality of character, which we ourselves need not exhibit.  The attention creates the need, and public figures let us down when they make bad  moral choices because we require them to be better than we are.