A lot of times the celebrity is nonplussed at being judged harshly in these more political matters. I actually have a great deal of sympathy for this position in other areas but not as much in the political realm. Precisely because too much is at stake here. It is true that celebrities deal with media and public pressures in ways the rest of us cannot even begin to imagine. Life inside the 'goldfish bowl' isn't always, or even often, fun! The media forms a beast too willing to devour the celebrity whether the stance is one of adulation or severe criticism. The public isn't too far behind. And so as at a very human level one can certainly understand a great deal of celebrity grievance. One definitely cannot adopt an easy position of judgment in any sense. And very many media pieces, even serious ones, commit this error. Ethical questions can additionally be raised about the writings.

However the obvious point that must be made here is that the celebrity makes this Faustian pact at the very beginning. The celebrity is not ultimately a victim somehow forced to suffer through his or her success/fame. This is the deal one signs onto and it is not very likely that given another chance 99% of people wouldn't re-sign the very same contracts for their lives. Much as those on the outside constantly launching into platitudes about celebrities (whether in the media or in the 'paying public') would also do the same in a second. So yes there is a great deal of hypocrisy but there is also a naivete expressed by the celebrity that is either completely insincere or worse still reveals remarkable levels of awareness on the part of the subject.

In political matters though the stakes are much higher. One is no longer in the realm of the personal. 'Going with the flow' is therefore a much more troubling, problematic, even dangerous attitude to have. There are good reasons for doing so, I got into some of this the other day. But again one does not get a great name in life free of charge! There is a greater burden that falls on one. Not because the moral or ethical calculus of life changes with one's station but that the consequences of one's choices are greatly magnified. Those choices are not just 'personal' ones because one IS a public figure. One cannot oscillate between the public and the private. In other words, be the former when it's about creating a career or nurturing it and so forth and suddenly the latter when one is questioned about one's decisions. The media-mob beast is what one chooses to traffic with as a choice! This doesn't mean one cannot criticize the beast or be genuinely wounded by it on very many occasions but one is not 'other' to that beast. One is part of a structure that creates both entities. There is no way to become a public figure in any field without also trading with that beast. This IS the Faustian bargain. A celebrity can mourn the shrinking of his or her private space at a very human level and justifiably so but the same 'defense' is simply not available when it pertains to one's public role.

One does not engage with politicians simply as a private figure. In fact the celebrity of each is the very reason that the interaction takes place to begin with! Similarly it is hopelessly obscurantist (if not obtuse) to think that these interactions ought not to possess any greater meaning. That these be treated only as personal associations because one after all isn't a politician. But the problem is that the very basis of those associations is the cultural capital each side holds and the economy that takes place between the two for reasons presumably beneficial to each. Publicly or privately. So even when Bal Thackeray helps someone with a medical emergency or what have you he is able to bring about these resources (often of the state) precisely because of his standing as a public figure. This is not just a personal interaction. It implicates the public life of the beneficiary. Much as on the other side the same thing happens. presumably Thackeray did not move heaven and earth for just anyone!

Finally the excuse that one is as a public figure part of a cesspool that one has to survive in despite one's noblest intentions is not entirely convincing. It is true that there are 'better' or 'good' people even in cesspools that do remarkable things in various ways. Often, if not exclusively, at a personal level. It is also accurate to state that one cannot single-handed bring about revolutions! But whether it is the politician or the actor one is not really forced to be part of that world. It is once again one's choice. This doesn't mean one doesn't deserve sympathy for the trials involved with leading this life but it is not a hand that one was dealt by fate and which one had to go along with. One 'becomes' a politician, one 'becomes' an actor. It if it a cesspool (i.e. if one is using that excuse) one chose to step into it. And one would step into it again given another stab at it! But also if one follows this logic pretty much everyone is blameless. Except for the very worst offenders on a moral or ethical level everyone is just trying to get along! Even media figures cannot really be blamed then. Because they too are just doing their job on pretty much the only terms that are granted to them (being confrontational, controversial and so on).

Despite all this the impulse of self-preservation is a very human one. As I've often said those of us on the outside cannot dare judge anyone on this matter because with far lower stakes and far less on the line we act on exactly the same impulses. We reveal all the same weaknesses and failures. All of this isn't then about somehow judging the celebrity. It is however about telling the celebrity - thou doth protest too much!

We are all 'responsible', public figures or not. But as public figures our words and actions simply carry greater weight. The consequences are infinitely greater. This doesn't lessen the call of responsibility in any sense on those of us on the outside but it raises the bar greatly on those on the inside and as a pragmatic matter. It's not a question of beliefs and intentions here, simply one of practical consequences.

The easiest state to slip into in life is one of complicity. whether one is a public figure or otherwise. In our relationships with our families and friends we are complicit because we very often subvert our otherwise sincere values to serve this 'bond'. In our professional roles we often do the very same. The public figure, in a position with greater opportunity and influence, does the same with other public figures. The reasons aren't for the most part sinister or even intentionally cynical ones. It is just a comfortable position one slips into often without realizing it. One becomes naturalized to it. It is so when we deal with family and friends, it is so elsewhere. One day when we are reminded of this truth we are genuinely puzzled.. because we have always found it easier to get along..

But there are points when one ought to draw the line. It is not just a relativistic universe of unknowing. Some family and friends are more problematic than others, some professional associations more troubling than others, some more dangerous in every sense. One does not only endorse by way of actively participating in something. One also does so by not objecting..

No one can decide for another what the appropriate cost of an 'objection' is.. one can only do this for oneself.. but as one decides there are often many others who keep paying the price...

I shall not repeat dates and names here..

Reply · Report Post