By now, the public indignation has died down and grown accustomed to the idea a show-biz immigrant is governing the affairs in the most important federal state of the most important world power. America is just not Old Europe, things like that belong to the curiosities of the American Way of Life with its myth of the transformation of dishwashers to millionaires, we notice shrugging our shoulders, relieved to be indifferent. Besides, he was not elected President and will not be. What is all the fuss about? After all, Reagan was re-elected, too. It is true, the governor is authorized to sign death sentences, but as a matter of fact he mostly does so during election campaigns. And what about Italy? We have accepted a would-be pop-singer as the head of government whose interest in power even his harshest critics cannot deny - maybe not in the public TV, but let us leave it at that.
Conservative objectors to that clear entanglement of entertainment and politics insist on the nagging question of how qualified these political climbers from the sidelines are. What do these conquerors have to show besides their TV compatible appearance (which need not have anything to do with aesthetical pleasure – neither in California nor in Italy) and a cheerful disinterest in hard political issues? But these objectors forget former American elections were solely decided by the candidates' elegant appearance, too. For instance, Nixon's stubble could not compete with Kennedy's wife or Clinton did blow the sax convincingly. In other words: They maintain a classical notion of the public which can be found in the good old textbooks on state philosophy. It is high time we enlighten the enlightened. After all, public does not mean anymore insightful private persons debating political issues the souvereign has already decided upon in intelligent newspapers, but insightless spectators and readers guessing who is credibly representing democracy's interest. Professional politicians are dependent on the public's thumb.
The evolution of Western democracies involved the public domain expanding in relation to the increasing specialization of disciplines. The public in a way recombines the partial social elements which have emerged from the dissolution of the whole. As a consequence, it has not been a term for a long time which only complies the politically interested without a mandate. Whatever is discussed and decided within the important functional domains has the same impact on it, be it art, sports, education, religion, economy, administration, politics or the media. And since politics is no longer the only issue of public perception, we do not talk exclusively about politicians anymore.
A case in point for this development: public figures. While in the old times great statesmen or heads of government fell in that category, giving the media cause to report, nowadays it is almost the other way round – the media appetite for filling the newspaper columns and programmes with public figures is insatiable. Politicians have only a decreasing share in it. So today it does not play any part at all in what respect someone is a public figure. The main thing is to talk about it. Or to buy the newspaper. Or to tune in to it.
This means two different kinds: for one thing the media have public figures on spec ready to report about. This is called event culture and comlies chat shows, talent contests, container programmes. For another the politicians feel compelled to expand their declining share in publicity by active participation in non-political programmes for their own goals, thus doing the political system a disservice. No wonder politics and entertainment are diffusing. That is why, not only politicians can enter entertainment programmes, but also entertainers can enter politics.
Why did the public cease to separate these domains? Because it cannot, for public coverage ignores the differences. So when we try to insist there must be reasons of competence if someone is qualified for a political position, the public as a functional system of its own can only respond that might be the case - but it cannot decide that. Otherwise every voter would be a politcian.
To keep funcioning, the public can only stick to its own perception: image instead of qualification, publicity instead of argument. The public treats everybody equally, be it arguing politicians, quarrelling teenage mothers or ex wives. So it is the public indifference which explains why we expect cowboy actors or film terminators to do a good political job. That kind of drive displayed in movie roles is projected onto the actor's image maintained even when changing their function, becoming a politician. What worked so well in the films, should work elsewhere, too.
Media researchers analyzing public opinion have known this phenomenon for years, calling it the 'halo effect'. The impression a person makes on the public might shine so brightly that it can be used for other aspects, too. When it is only repeated often enough, people will only remember if a public figure is provocative, conciliatory, brisk or reticient, not if he or she is it being a politician, entertainer, business manager or athlete. As soon as such a figure changes the domain, he or she will take his or her image with him or her. That is why a rough football player is expected to have his way in lengthy commitee meetings, a political doer to make enterprises pull their socks up or an actor specialized in honest characters to be trustworthy. As the public neglects these domains, it merely distinguishes between positive and negative. Who is competent in X must be competent in Y. (Leaving aside cases in German history, for instance the President of the Empire Hindenburg - mark that: directly elected by the German people!)
An especially bright shining halo even allows neutral figures to bask in its reflection. The author therefore recommends the term seam effect (inspired by the New Testament). It implies an event no matter how boring or predictable it is (for instance guild, association or company ceremonies) can be upvalued by a much sought after halo bearer who acts as a guest of honour delivering a jovial speech.
Needless to say, this goes for regional or local publics, too. This way we can explain the accumulation of offices. An honorary post or the chair of the rabbit breeders' association here, the respect of the fellow card players there. Still, the direct communicative contact involves we sometimes take into account we have been directly and personally lied in the face. For that reason we cannot rule out the question if an expert in engineering is really able to be a marriage guidance counsellor. But we might buy it from a public figure, for why should he or she talk about things he or she has no idea of? Such a person will never get the opportunity to speak in our quality oriented media world which feels obliged to the ideal of enlightenment, will he or she not? For exactly that reason blonde fashion models reflect upon national pride, football players castigate the shortcomings of the welfare state or idols feel compelled to deny political ambitions.
Conservative objectors to that clear entanglement of entertainment and politics insist on the nagging question of how qualified these political climbers from the sidelines are. What do these conquerors have to show besides their TV compatible appearance (which need not have anything to do with aesthetical pleasure – neither in California nor in Italy) and a cheerful disinterest in hard political issues? But these objectors forget former American elections were solely decided by the candidates' elegant appearance, too. For instance, Nixon's stubble could not compete with Kennedy's wife or Clinton did blow the sax convincingly. In other words: They maintain a classical notion of the public which can be found in the good old textbooks on state philosophy. It is high time we enlighten the enlightened. After all, public does not mean anymore insightful private persons debating political issues the souvereign has already decided upon in intelligent newspapers, but insightless spectators and readers guessing who is credibly representing democracy's interest. Professional politicians are dependent on the public's thumb.
The evolution of Western democracies involved the public domain expanding in relation to the increasing specialization of disciplines. The public in a way recombines the partial social elements which have emerged from the dissolution of the whole. As a consequence, it has not been a term for a long time which only complies the politically interested without a mandate. Whatever is discussed and decided within the important functional domains has the same impact on it, be it art, sports, education, religion, economy, administration, politics or the media. And since politics is no longer the only issue of public perception, we do not talk exclusively about politicians anymore.
A case in point for this development: public figures. While in the old times great statesmen or heads of government fell in that category, giving the media cause to report, nowadays it is almost the other way round – the media appetite for filling the newspaper columns and programmes with public figures is insatiable. Politicians have only a decreasing share in it. So today it does not play any part at all in what respect someone is a public figure. The main thing is to talk about it. Or to buy the newspaper. Or to tune in to it.
This means two different kinds: for one thing the media have public figures on spec ready to report about. This is called event culture and comlies chat shows, talent contests, container programmes. For another the politicians feel compelled to expand their declining share in publicity by active participation in non-political programmes for their own goals, thus doing the political system a disservice. No wonder politics and entertainment are diffusing. That is why, not only politicians can enter entertainment programmes, but also entertainers can enter politics.
Why did the public cease to separate these domains? Because it cannot, for public coverage ignores the differences. So when we try to insist there must be reasons of competence if someone is qualified for a political position, the public as a functional system of its own can only respond that might be the case - but it cannot decide that. Otherwise every voter would be a politcian.
To keep funcioning, the public can only stick to its own perception: image instead of qualification, publicity instead of argument. The public treats everybody equally, be it arguing politicians, quarrelling teenage mothers or ex wives. So it is the public indifference which explains why we expect cowboy actors or film terminators to do a good political job. That kind of drive displayed in movie roles is projected onto the actor's image maintained even when changing their function, becoming a politician. What worked so well in the films, should work elsewhere, too.
Media researchers analyzing public opinion have known this phenomenon for years, calling it the 'halo effect'. The impression a person makes on the public might shine so brightly that it can be used for other aspects, too. When it is only repeated often enough, people will only remember if a public figure is provocative, conciliatory, brisk or reticient, not if he or she is it being a politician, entertainer, business manager or athlete. As soon as such a figure changes the domain, he or she will take his or her image with him or her. That is why a rough football player is expected to have his way in lengthy commitee meetings, a political doer to make enterprises pull their socks up or an actor specialized in honest characters to be trustworthy. As the public neglects these domains, it merely distinguishes between positive and negative. Who is competent in X must be competent in Y. (Leaving aside cases in German history, for instance the President of the Empire Hindenburg - mark that: directly elected by the German people!)
An especially bright shining halo even allows neutral figures to bask in its reflection. The author therefore recommends the term seam effect (inspired by the New Testament). It implies an event no matter how boring or predictable it is (for instance guild, association or company ceremonies) can be upvalued by a much sought after halo bearer who acts as a guest of honour delivering a jovial speech.
Needless to say, this goes for regional or local publics, too. This way we can explain the accumulation of offices. An honorary post or the chair of the rabbit breeders' association here, the respect of the fellow card players there. Still, the direct communicative contact involves we sometimes take into account we have been directly and personally lied in the face. For that reason we cannot rule out the question if an expert in engineering is really able to be a marriage guidance counsellor. But we might buy it from a public figure, for why should he or she talk about things he or she has no idea of? Such a person will never get the opportunity to speak in our quality oriented media world which feels obliged to the ideal of enlightenment, will he or she not? For exactly that reason blonde fashion models reflect upon national pride, football players castigate the shortcomings of the welfare state or idols feel compelled to deny political ambitions.
No comments:
Post a Comment