Modern media society does not teach us information (since they are so excessive they can only generate a deafening noise), but above all the increasing mingling of the public and the private. Private people imitate what they have publically seen on TV, celebrities behave to some extent privatly, that is jovially. Advice seekers are instructed to address public experts instead of their social surroundings. This way private problems are public(ized). At the same time actors, musicians and more and more politicians open their private doors for homestories' sake - so that to the public they can seem to be private. Nonsense at work that nonetheless works.
This is what makes modern images effective. They are the projection screen to keep the distant celebrities available, virtually transforming them into one's living-room. This makes the modern phenomenon we have never seen old acquaintances face to face. Therefore we just spend some thought that the candidate is leading a harmonious marriage, the pop singer performs any stupid song with some autobiographical traits, the screen star constantly bashes PC monsters, believing the camera is only accidental. Media researchers call that 'para-social interaction'; among other things it refers to the TV serial effect - for instance uninvitedly displaying one's eczemas to former stage performers or forcefully demanding they should fix their TV marriage which is going through a crisis. The point is it is increasingly difficult to separate media and everyday reality.
Media images' drawback is a correspondingly modern kind of behaviour - confused aficionados harass their favourite stars. Time and again the media (mostly those which have made a cult out of stars the most resolutely before) report spectacular judgements, especially in the USA, which prohibit the mislead admirators from approaching their objects of desire more than so and so many metres. Mr Chapman has set the role model.
The harasser's collective image refers to a fast food freak existing in his darkened room in the midst of meal remnants and newspaper clippings with each square centimetre plastered with the idol's posters - maybe equipped with one or two knives, since that idol constantly refuses to state officially he or she is married to the admirator. But by now that trend seems to have expanded to the private lives of those persons who are no public figures. It goes without saying there have always been admirators whose tenacity has transcended the time limit towards obtrusiveness, it is true; but the fact there is now a terminus technicus allows us to draw the conclusion today's media conditions have noticeably aggravated the phenomenon.
Working out the differences to traditional forms of harassment requires a short reflection upon individuality. Basically, harassment just means jeopardizing other people's autonomy (their right to live largely unmolestedly and fearlessly). Classical modern age characteristically holding individuality in high regards made that a vested right independent on religious commandments. But nowadays things are different. Individual autonomy has radicalized to such an extent that it is not the individual in general, but in particular, the Ego, which is courted - and demanded: whatever happens socially needs individual arguments. It has to pay the single person - and to motivate. Working in order to earn money - perhaps. But in any case for the joy of obligation. The individual is to embody his part, even though and just because he cannot do so, for a surplus will always remain. And because somehow this is suspected, hired psychologists are needed who are meant to pamper the individual until he meets with his limits. By closing the ranks with advertising it is suggested modern man can achieve anything he wants - but he is to want. Impossibility is impossible, as we have learnt by heart.
And if everything is possible, then it will go for selected fellow individuals’ liking, too. Simply a matter of will. Displaying presence. Living interest in how the other person spends his days. Looking for contact. After all, we are communicative, are we not? You'll be sorry if you are not. Dedication knows no limits, and that is why it will not be a surprise if people find themselves in the shrubbery in front of the diligently established impression management's addressee's house - maybe equipped with binoculars, or a stabbing device. We are special, which other people are to confirm. No matter how.
Western culture is permanent harassment, secreting obtrusiveness out of any social pores. The harassers might be that mad, because they are so resolutely typical. The victims cannot even resort to Diogenes's cask or Hölderlin's tower room.
This is what makes modern images effective. They are the projection screen to keep the distant celebrities available, virtually transforming them into one's living-room. This makes the modern phenomenon we have never seen old acquaintances face to face. Therefore we just spend some thought that the candidate is leading a harmonious marriage, the pop singer performs any stupid song with some autobiographical traits, the screen star constantly bashes PC monsters, believing the camera is only accidental. Media researchers call that 'para-social interaction'; among other things it refers to the TV serial effect - for instance uninvitedly displaying one's eczemas to former stage performers or forcefully demanding they should fix their TV marriage which is going through a crisis. The point is it is increasingly difficult to separate media and everyday reality.
Media images' drawback is a correspondingly modern kind of behaviour - confused aficionados harass their favourite stars. Time and again the media (mostly those which have made a cult out of stars the most resolutely before) report spectacular judgements, especially in the USA, which prohibit the mislead admirators from approaching their objects of desire more than so and so many metres. Mr Chapman has set the role model.
The harasser's collective image refers to a fast food freak existing in his darkened room in the midst of meal remnants and newspaper clippings with each square centimetre plastered with the idol's posters - maybe equipped with one or two knives, since that idol constantly refuses to state officially he or she is married to the admirator. But by now that trend seems to have expanded to the private lives of those persons who are no public figures. It goes without saying there have always been admirators whose tenacity has transcended the time limit towards obtrusiveness, it is true; but the fact there is now a terminus technicus allows us to draw the conclusion today's media conditions have noticeably aggravated the phenomenon.
Working out the differences to traditional forms of harassment requires a short reflection upon individuality. Basically, harassment just means jeopardizing other people's autonomy (their right to live largely unmolestedly and fearlessly). Classical modern age characteristically holding individuality in high regards made that a vested right independent on religious commandments. But nowadays things are different. Individual autonomy has radicalized to such an extent that it is not the individual in general, but in particular, the Ego, which is courted - and demanded: whatever happens socially needs individual arguments. It has to pay the single person - and to motivate. Working in order to earn money - perhaps. But in any case for the joy of obligation. The individual is to embody his part, even though and just because he cannot do so, for a surplus will always remain. And because somehow this is suspected, hired psychologists are needed who are meant to pamper the individual until he meets with his limits. By closing the ranks with advertising it is suggested modern man can achieve anything he wants - but he is to want. Impossibility is impossible, as we have learnt by heart.
And if everything is possible, then it will go for selected fellow individuals’ liking, too. Simply a matter of will. Displaying presence. Living interest in how the other person spends his days. Looking for contact. After all, we are communicative, are we not? You'll be sorry if you are not. Dedication knows no limits, and that is why it will not be a surprise if people find themselves in the shrubbery in front of the diligently established impression management's addressee's house - maybe equipped with binoculars, or a stabbing device. We are special, which other people are to confirm. No matter how.
Western culture is permanent harassment, secreting obtrusiveness out of any social pores. The harassers might be that mad, because they are so resolutely typical. The victims cannot even resort to Diogenes's cask or Hölderlin's tower room.
No comments:
Post a Comment