Moral Police?
So what do you think of this? And this?
teeheehee (for the second one).
Ok, so this post is really about the moral police and who creates what standards and who judges whom in society. The above links are related to Xiaxue no longer being the brand ambassadress of a nail salon, and about Kate Moss being kicked out by the companies she was amabassadress for because she was caught doing coke. What do you think about stuff like that? Ok, so they were under pressure for completely different reasons.... Xiaxue for commenting about disabled toilets of all things and how she likes to use them *rolls eyes* and Kate, well, for doing coke which is pretty much considered illegal everywhere I think. Maybe I seem inconsiderate because there arent even any facilities for disabled people in India??? It is sad though, because they really do have no lives here and looked upon with pity or as slightly alien beings. And of course that doesnt count for old people in wheelchairs, who are only expected to be religious and to want to go to temples and bhajan sessions all the time. Stereotypes suck. We're all guilty (if there's such a thing) of using disabled toilets, i for one, love the big space as well, and i too have never encountered any disabled people using them at the time i wanted to. So. Of course we should have basic human respect for people and consideration for their needs, especially when ours are not being trampled upon (and how often do disabled people come in our way, tell me?), but I don't think its a big deal if we use a nicer facility if it's not in use by those it was meant for.
Anyway, I think this post is pertinent because we make judgements about things and people everyday, whether its 'harmless' observations or gossip (nothing you tell another is ever harmless apparently - you never know when what you say will be misinterpreted unfortunately), or decisions about consumption or whatever. Would you buy a product if it were endorsed by someone you disapprove of? I dont know... i cant decide... depends on how much i like the product!
I really do feel that there's all this corporate social responsibility that companies should adhere to in their operations like promoting environmental sustainability and all that, but I'm not sure if it should extend to ambassadors, especially those contracted for a certain period of time. Of course, if Naomi Campbell were to suddenly endorse clothes made from natural fibre instead of the fur she evidently prefers, I'd raise my eyebrows but acknowledge that she's probably doing it for the money/prestige. The reason she is one of the supermodels who hasn't partnered with the SPCA or PETA or whatever is statement enough about her beliefs. But simply because she likes fur doesnt mean that she wouldnt wear natural fibres either if it were considered cool suddenly (and it is being, so watch out!). I don't know, its complex. A watch model for example, like Aishwarya Rai or Shah Rukh Khan or Pierce Brosnan or whoever, for Longines, TagHeuer and Rolex respectively, are ambassadors because they are considered performers, achievers in their respective fields. If they are taking steroids or drugs to enhance their performance unfairly, then yes maybe they are not suitable for the image the brand wishes to promote, which is essentially performance of the highest standard undertaken by exacting humans who do not compromise. Drugs are essentially, compromises. Compromises because individuals taking them to enhance performance (or their state of mind, for recreational drug users) have lost faith in their body to naturally go the extra mile. For performance, for sensation, for satisfaction. Which is sad, because I believe that the body, in itself, in its entirety, is the greatest instrument we have by which to experience life. But more on that later. (I definitely will say that i believe that we as a species have lost faith in nature which has helped us survive for millenia. Call me fatalistic or a naysayer or whatever, but I really do believe that the more we mess with nature, She will rise and take her revenge. - Yes, She with a capital as in the queen of the Rider Haggard novel, she as in Durga/Kali, Prithvi, Hera, Ishtar. The mother and the destroyer. And that's what she has been doing in bits and pieces. And you know what, we, humankind, deserve every bit of it).
Anyway, back to congruent principles. If the person's public behaviour is not compatible with what the brand has to offer, then yes, the brand should be able to make the decision to renegotiate the contract or declare it null and void. But what about private behaviour? There's such a fine line between privacy and personal space and how a public persona should be considered a role model also on the basis of his/her private life. I don't know... don't you think thats a huge and unfair responsibility to put on anyone's shoulders. Celebrities as it is have to deal with the limelight ALL the time - they can rarely enjoy a private dinner with friends/family without being approached by fans, if not hounded by paparazzi. Of course, that doesn't mean that the common man has any less stress in term sof quantity or importance - the grass always seems greener on the other side and we are frequently, if not always, biased towards ourselves. I'm still not sure where I stand on this - trying to sort it out in my head.
Okay, so drugs are illegal. Why? I imagine probably due to some sort of economic/political thing to do with relations between countries and exports. I don't think anything can be that addictive, It's all in the mind. Why do women love chocolate so much? Hormonal, probably.... but on an average more than men? If someone is a chocolate addict is that okay because it seems like such an innocuous frivolity? There's a fine line between enjoyment and addiction. Alcohol is legal. But there's that fine line that one doesn't realise one is crossing when one becomes addicted to it. Any addiction detrimentally affects one's health and one's relations with one's near and dear ones through a variety of insidious ways.
Why ARE drugs illegal? Because they're bad for you? Too much of anything is bad. Because you can spend a disproportionate amount of your finances on them and less on other more 'productive' goods and services in the economy? Because it encourages crime as the supposed need for a drug, which is an expensive commodity, requires constant financing? Why doesn't the law weed out far more dangerous addicts to legal substances as well? (Damn, there are so many of us addicted to power, and there have been those who have killed for it!) Those addicts whose crimes don't affect the average anonymous stranger on the road but those living within his own home? Violence towards one's spouse and children and parents, petty thefts from home, affairs, gambling, other forms of 'vice'? My point is, where does law end and personal responsibility begin? There is so much wrong with society in terms of the little personal frequencies of daily desrespect towards one's fellow beings that they never reach the attention of the law. We tend to tolerate, condone, ignore. We would need a million more courts for these.
The point is, what I think is realistic is that I, as a a role model, should only be responsible for what I am doing at work. Once I am out of the office, I am not responsible to anyone for the way I conduct my personal life. I think the same should go for models, actors, journalists, whoever. But you know what, that argument doesn't make sense either. In that case, the only role models kids would have would be boring people who, for all you know, haven't made a significant impact on the world to be famous or glamourous. And kids are so star and glamour struck these days. It really seems to to be all about the easy money and effectively milking 15 seconds of fame while making as little effort as possible. That's why we have had no icons in the past decade except for the glam types. I'm thinking of someone who's thinking of Mick Jagger :) We need to find someone who has a wonderful public as well as private life. It will be like looking for a needle in a haystack. I had an interesting conversation with someone once about tompromises public personae have to make in their private lives and vice versa. It's really a personal decision to make a trade-off between making a difference in one's private sphere of friends and relatives, or going and attempting to make a change in the world. Both are equally noble, and I guess it really depends on one's preference, what one is cut out for.
How about if the 'dysfunctionalities' (i hate this word, who the HELLL defines normal anyway? God help us if it becomes the extremist factions in our society, which it seems to be)you want to display are limited to the four walls of your home? This again brings into question the innumerable violences that are committed against families in our own society, so there needs to be another solution.
You know, it sounds like I'm for the use of drugs. I'm not. I'm not against anything just because some rich old men or some holier-than-thou no-lifers decided it is illegal. I seriously want to think about this. I think rather than opining against a mere specificity, I'm against addiction, the principle itself.
Moreover, how is one celebrity's (or a whole lot of people's) use of cocaine going to affect you in a completely different country? You will argue that the pictures and the information is there for your hapless impressionable children to see. TRUST me, we are not all that hapless and impressionable. Much of what influences us is due to the choices we make. The information wouldn't be available if it hadn't been published in the first place. Who is that journalist, or we for that matter, to make a moral judgement on someone who is a victim, probably of circumstances, but also of her own lack of will? I'm not trying to shift the blame here. There's a fine line between helping someone and interfering. And on a published level, there's no such thing as HELP. By pointing fingers at Kate Moss, we haven't helped her in any way. We've only managed to cut off some sources of income. That isn't going to help her addiction any. It's only, probably, going to increase it. This should be happening on a personal level between her family and her. All we have done is displayed our schadenfreude... our enjoyment of other's ill luck. That's why gosssip mags, tabloids, literally RAGS, filled with pathetic quality writing and trashy pictures are the rage among people worldwide. It's DISGUSTING. How can someone's bad luck possibly make one feel better? Why don't we spend our time better looking after the shit going on in our own lives and not point fingers at others? You know, i never understood that phrase "Don't point your finger at others; there are four pointing back at you" till it actually happened to me.
(There actually was a time when I wouldn't buy anything Made in China because I was an active member of Students for a Free Tibet. I still support the cause, but what can I, as an individual do? Even if there had been a significant collective boycott, the people of China would have been affected. Does the average person in China think about Tibet? It's a world foreign to him/her, far removed from the travails of his/her daily existence. If these people were earning no income, would they rise in revolt against their government and demand that Tibet be freed for the sake of their lovelihood? How long would the process take? Is it fair? The poor Tibetans in India have no homeland and like any forced refugees, harbour an intense longing for it. How can we help them in these circumstances? How can we sustain one by hurting another? Yet it has to be done unfortunately, in private and in public sometimes. Now, I don't look at labels, but I still hope. As do the hundreds of thousands of expats worldwide *sigh*)
Should we condone the addiction itself? No comment. Should we condone the negative effects on oneself that the addiction manifests itself through? That is only up to the family and it's selected confidants to decide. Trust me, the average person certainly couldn't care less if Kate Moss loves or dies due to her addiction. In the end, her family is going to be left alone, mourning. Where are the rest of us going to be then, huh? Simply idly gossiping about it for a couple of days and then going on with our daily lives. Should we condone the negative effects of addiction on others? When it manifests itself as violence, as crime? Certainly NOT. But what has this silly skinny girl done besides snort and pout? If she gets a mentallly retarded child that's HER problem. If she wants to kill herself on an overdose, that's her problem. She has a right to decide how she wants to live her life. No one has deprived us of the right to make that decision for ours either.
All I'm saying is don't discriminate between various forms of addiction. And Don't point fingers. Make a change in your own life if you want to improve its quality. I'll put up an entry on this later!
************************************************************************************
teeheehee (for the second one).
Ok, so this post is really about the moral police and who creates what standards and who judges whom in society. The above links are related to Xiaxue no longer being the brand ambassadress of a nail salon, and about Kate Moss being kicked out by the companies she was amabassadress for because she was caught doing coke. What do you think about stuff like that? Ok, so they were under pressure for completely different reasons.... Xiaxue for commenting about disabled toilets of all things and how she likes to use them *rolls eyes* and Kate, well, for doing coke which is pretty much considered illegal everywhere I think. Maybe I seem inconsiderate because there arent even any facilities for disabled people in India??? It is sad though, because they really do have no lives here and looked upon with pity or as slightly alien beings. And of course that doesnt count for old people in wheelchairs, who are only expected to be religious and to want to go to temples and bhajan sessions all the time. Stereotypes suck. We're all guilty (if there's such a thing) of using disabled toilets, i for one, love the big space as well, and i too have never encountered any disabled people using them at the time i wanted to. So. Of course we should have basic human respect for people and consideration for their needs, especially when ours are not being trampled upon (and how often do disabled people come in our way, tell me?), but I don't think its a big deal if we use a nicer facility if it's not in use by those it was meant for.
Anyway, I think this post is pertinent because we make judgements about things and people everyday, whether its 'harmless' observations or gossip (nothing you tell another is ever harmless apparently - you never know when what you say will be misinterpreted unfortunately), or decisions about consumption or whatever. Would you buy a product if it were endorsed by someone you disapprove of? I dont know... i cant decide... depends on how much i like the product!
I really do feel that there's all this corporate social responsibility that companies should adhere to in their operations like promoting environmental sustainability and all that, but I'm not sure if it should extend to ambassadors, especially those contracted for a certain period of time. Of course, if Naomi Campbell were to suddenly endorse clothes made from natural fibre instead of the fur she evidently prefers, I'd raise my eyebrows but acknowledge that she's probably doing it for the money/prestige. The reason she is one of the supermodels who hasn't partnered with the SPCA or PETA or whatever is statement enough about her beliefs. But simply because she likes fur doesnt mean that she wouldnt wear natural fibres either if it were considered cool suddenly (and it is being, so watch out!). I don't know, its complex. A watch model for example, like Aishwarya Rai or Shah Rukh Khan or Pierce Brosnan or whoever, for Longines, TagHeuer and Rolex respectively, are ambassadors because they are considered performers, achievers in their respective fields. If they are taking steroids or drugs to enhance their performance unfairly, then yes maybe they are not suitable for the image the brand wishes to promote, which is essentially performance of the highest standard undertaken by exacting humans who do not compromise. Drugs are essentially, compromises. Compromises because individuals taking them to enhance performance (or their state of mind, for recreational drug users) have lost faith in their body to naturally go the extra mile. For performance, for sensation, for satisfaction. Which is sad, because I believe that the body, in itself, in its entirety, is the greatest instrument we have by which to experience life. But more on that later. (I definitely will say that i believe that we as a species have lost faith in nature which has helped us survive for millenia. Call me fatalistic or a naysayer or whatever, but I really do believe that the more we mess with nature, She will rise and take her revenge. - Yes, She with a capital as in the queen of the Rider Haggard novel, she as in Durga/Kali, Prithvi, Hera, Ishtar. The mother and the destroyer. And that's what she has been doing in bits and pieces. And you know what, we, humankind, deserve every bit of it).
Anyway, back to congruent principles. If the person's public behaviour is not compatible with what the brand has to offer, then yes, the brand should be able to make the decision to renegotiate the contract or declare it null and void. But what about private behaviour? There's such a fine line between privacy and personal space and how a public persona should be considered a role model also on the basis of his/her private life. I don't know... don't you think thats a huge and unfair responsibility to put on anyone's shoulders. Celebrities as it is have to deal with the limelight ALL the time - they can rarely enjoy a private dinner with friends/family without being approached by fans, if not hounded by paparazzi. Of course, that doesn't mean that the common man has any less stress in term sof quantity or importance - the grass always seems greener on the other side and we are frequently, if not always, biased towards ourselves. I'm still not sure where I stand on this - trying to sort it out in my head.
Okay, so drugs are illegal. Why? I imagine probably due to some sort of economic/political thing to do with relations between countries and exports. I don't think anything can be that addictive, It's all in the mind. Why do women love chocolate so much? Hormonal, probably.... but on an average more than men? If someone is a chocolate addict is that okay because it seems like such an innocuous frivolity? There's a fine line between enjoyment and addiction. Alcohol is legal. But there's that fine line that one doesn't realise one is crossing when one becomes addicted to it. Any addiction detrimentally affects one's health and one's relations with one's near and dear ones through a variety of insidious ways.
Why ARE drugs illegal? Because they're bad for you? Too much of anything is bad. Because you can spend a disproportionate amount of your finances on them and less on other more 'productive' goods and services in the economy? Because it encourages crime as the supposed need for a drug, which is an expensive commodity, requires constant financing? Why doesn't the law weed out far more dangerous addicts to legal substances as well? (Damn, there are so many of us addicted to power, and there have been those who have killed for it!) Those addicts whose crimes don't affect the average anonymous stranger on the road but those living within his own home? Violence towards one's spouse and children and parents, petty thefts from home, affairs, gambling, other forms of 'vice'? My point is, where does law end and personal responsibility begin? There is so much wrong with society in terms of the little personal frequencies of daily desrespect towards one's fellow beings that they never reach the attention of the law. We tend to tolerate, condone, ignore. We would need a million more courts for these.
The point is, what I think is realistic is that I, as a a role model, should only be responsible for what I am doing at work. Once I am out of the office, I am not responsible to anyone for the way I conduct my personal life. I think the same should go for models, actors, journalists, whoever. But you know what, that argument doesn't make sense either. In that case, the only role models kids would have would be boring people who, for all you know, haven't made a significant impact on the world to be famous or glamourous. And kids are so star and glamour struck these days. It really seems to to be all about the easy money and effectively milking 15 seconds of fame while making as little effort as possible. That's why we have had no icons in the past decade except for the glam types. I'm thinking of someone who's thinking of Mick Jagger :) We need to find someone who has a wonderful public as well as private life. It will be like looking for a needle in a haystack. I had an interesting conversation with someone once about tompromises public personae have to make in their private lives and vice versa. It's really a personal decision to make a trade-off between making a difference in one's private sphere of friends and relatives, or going and attempting to make a change in the world. Both are equally noble, and I guess it really depends on one's preference, what one is cut out for.
How about if the 'dysfunctionalities' (i hate this word, who the HELLL defines normal anyway? God help us if it becomes the extremist factions in our society, which it seems to be)you want to display are limited to the four walls of your home? This again brings into question the innumerable violences that are committed against families in our own society, so there needs to be another solution.
You know, it sounds like I'm for the use of drugs. I'm not. I'm not against anything just because some rich old men or some holier-than-thou no-lifers decided it is illegal. I seriously want to think about this. I think rather than opining against a mere specificity, I'm against addiction, the principle itself.
Moreover, how is one celebrity's (or a whole lot of people's) use of cocaine going to affect you in a completely different country? You will argue that the pictures and the information is there for your hapless impressionable children to see. TRUST me, we are not all that hapless and impressionable. Much of what influences us is due to the choices we make. The information wouldn't be available if it hadn't been published in the first place. Who is that journalist, or we for that matter, to make a moral judgement on someone who is a victim, probably of circumstances, but also of her own lack of will? I'm not trying to shift the blame here. There's a fine line between helping someone and interfering. And on a published level, there's no such thing as HELP. By pointing fingers at Kate Moss, we haven't helped her in any way. We've only managed to cut off some sources of income. That isn't going to help her addiction any. It's only, probably, going to increase it. This should be happening on a personal level between her family and her. All we have done is displayed our schadenfreude... our enjoyment of other's ill luck. That's why gosssip mags, tabloids, literally RAGS, filled with pathetic quality writing and trashy pictures are the rage among people worldwide. It's DISGUSTING. How can someone's bad luck possibly make one feel better? Why don't we spend our time better looking after the shit going on in our own lives and not point fingers at others? You know, i never understood that phrase "Don't point your finger at others; there are four pointing back at you" till it actually happened to me.
(There actually was a time when I wouldn't buy anything Made in China because I was an active member of Students for a Free Tibet. I still support the cause, but what can I, as an individual do? Even if there had been a significant collective boycott, the people of China would have been affected. Does the average person in China think about Tibet? It's a world foreign to him/her, far removed from the travails of his/her daily existence. If these people were earning no income, would they rise in revolt against their government and demand that Tibet be freed for the sake of their lovelihood? How long would the process take? Is it fair? The poor Tibetans in India have no homeland and like any forced refugees, harbour an intense longing for it. How can we help them in these circumstances? How can we sustain one by hurting another? Yet it has to be done unfortunately, in private and in public sometimes. Now, I don't look at labels, but I still hope. As do the hundreds of thousands of expats worldwide *sigh*)
Should we condone the addiction itself? No comment. Should we condone the negative effects on oneself that the addiction manifests itself through? That is only up to the family and it's selected confidants to decide. Trust me, the average person certainly couldn't care less if Kate Moss loves or dies due to her addiction. In the end, her family is going to be left alone, mourning. Where are the rest of us going to be then, huh? Simply idly gossiping about it for a couple of days and then going on with our daily lives. Should we condone the negative effects of addiction on others? When it manifests itself as violence, as crime? Certainly NOT. But what has this silly skinny girl done besides snort and pout? If she gets a mentallly retarded child that's HER problem. If she wants to kill herself on an overdose, that's her problem. She has a right to decide how she wants to live her life. No one has deprived us of the right to make that decision for ours either.
All I'm saying is don't discriminate between various forms of addiction. And Don't point fingers. Make a change in your own life if you want to improve its quality. I'll put up an entry on this later!
************************************************************************************
Please excuse me a moment while i rant and rave. I HATE MY HAIR. IM BECOMING A CLICHE. I NEED NEW OPINIONS AND NEW THOUGHTS AND NEW CONCERNS. Yesterday i met someone after ages and it was really nice to do so, but I felt like a bitter old hag in comparison and that made me feel AWFUL because I'm usually among the most cheerful, if scathing people in a group. Is it hormones? Is it some secret suppressed longing of some sort to have a different life that Im unwilling to confront? (Yes, I realise, with not much surprise, it is). I wish I were relaxing, that I didn't have to work, that all I could do was go to classes, dance, music, some language, learn art criticism, watch independent films and eat chocolate and not get fat). I NEED A NEW EXERCISE ROUTINE THAT FITS INTO MY SCHEDULE AND DOESNT NEED MUCH EXTRA EFFORT TO DO. I NEED SLEEP. AT LEAST TEN HOURS OF IT. I NEED MORE HOURS IN A DAY AND A LOT MORE STAMINA.
*Cant decide whether to scream or sigh*
I know what you're thinking. Welcome to your world, right?
Damn, they didn't teach us to be ready for routine!
************************************************************************************
All this brain sex with myself has made me hungry! Coffee time!
*Cant decide whether to scream or sigh*
I know what you're thinking. Welcome to your world, right?
Damn, they didn't teach us to be ready for routine!
************************************************************************************
All this brain sex with myself has made me hungry! Coffee time!
posted by Princess Joya | 5:06 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home