Reading the Federalist Papers while watching reality TV is unlikely to provide profound insights. But skimming “Federalist #72" while simultaneously watching a hotel heiress milk a cow on Fox’s “The Simple Life" did cause me to draw a connection between the two. “Love of fame," claimed Alexander Hamilton, “(is) the ruling passion of the noblest minds." Obviously, this founding father never met anyone like Paris Hilton.
Hamilton, of course, wasn’t the only one who considered the quest for fame a noble task. Edmund Burke, the father of conservatism, considered the “passion for fame" to be “the instinct of all great souls." Fame, to these thinkers, was the dividend paid on accomplishment. Fame came only to those who had attained some form of achievement. Even the attainment of infamy requires one to take action.
But we live in an age that values shortcuts and egalitarianism. We have neither the patience nor the inclination to wait until we‘ve actually done something before we reap the benefits. Which is why we put such value on celebrity. Celebrity doesn’t place any demands on a person; it requires nothing but itself. “A celebrity," said social historian Daniel Boorstin, “is a person who is known for his well-knownness."
Which is why Ms. Hilton is the purest of celebrities. She has no talents or skills to her credit. She appears to be, at best, of average intelligence and beauty. And while she has money, her trust fund is hardly awe-inspiring, at least by current standards of wealth. She has, in fact, nothing that would cause her to warrant notoriety. Hilton is famous simply because she is famous.
In his book “What Price Fame", Volokh blogger Tyler Cowen finds some value in this separation of fame and merit. But I think the commercialization of fame is problematic. The primary danger of this type of celebrity is that fame is seductive. Despite our best efforts, we are drawn to those who are famous. As Boorstein notes:
Celebrity-worship and hero-worship should not be confused. Yet we confuse them every day, and by doing so we come dangerously close to depriving ourselves of all real models. We lose sight of the men and women who do not simply seem great because they are famous but are famous because they are great. We come closer and closer to degrading all fame into notoriety.
An even greater danger, in my opinion, is “anti-hero worship" and Hilton represents the archetypical anti-hero celebrity. We take great delight in mocking her vanity, in snickering at her cluelessness, in seeing her degraded by public sex scandal. Her wealth shields her from the consequences of her actions so we feel no guilt in her gaping at her downfall. Yet we can take malicious satisfaction in knowing that she will never accomplish anything of worth. She is a disposable commodity with a limited shelf life that can be tossed aside when we grow bored. We give her our attention but not our respect.
If this is fame, we tell ourselves, then we want no part of it. But by extinguishing this “passion of the noblest minds" are we losing something of value? Are we dampening the drive of those who would be spurred to succeed by submitting to this desire?
We’ve developed an affirmative action program for fame that has leveled the playing field but has removed its nobility. Our celebrity creating media can produce a Paris Hilton in a matter of weeks. But in doing so have we stifled the “ruling passion" that can create an Alexander Hamilton?
1
That reminds me of a funny line from a female comic who stated, "Congratulations to Paris Hilton for breaking down societal barriers. She's proven that no matter how much money you have you can still be white trash."
posted on 12.23.2004 12:57 PM2
Some people have the right idea: http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/264804p-226754c.html Here's one columnist who is not going to mention her again.
posted on 12.23.2004 2:11 PM3
Fame, to these thinkers, was the dividend paid on accomplishment. Fame came only to those who had attained some form of achievement.
Thank you for the reminder, Joe.
posted on 12.23.2004 4:11 PM4
I was at the Irvine Improv last Friday night. The warmup act was this Sicilian woman who was doing a monologue on "whores" and came up with:
"Paris Hilton is proof you don't need to be poor to be white trash."
posted on 12.23.2004 6:37 PM5
Joe, it's pieces like these that make you an indispensible read. Well done. Very well done.
posted on 12.23.2004 8:31 PM6
In the classical world the desire to live "on the lips of men" as a reward for courage in battle was a type of immortality. francis Fukyama also says that desire for fame and economic necessity are the two driving forces of history. the whole idea of a mans honor and status finding ones proper and honored place in the group I think are important determinants of bahaviour. tom wolfe has always argued this and does again in his new novel. what i am seking is a christian to baptize this idea--how does it fit with dying to your self humility etc. Is that final moment of honor the recognition by Christ that we are His part of this ubiquitous drive in man? dpence
posted on 12.24.2004 8:58 AM7
In the classical world the desire to live "on the lips of men" as a reward for courage in battle was a type of immortality. francis Fukyama also says that desire for fame and economic necessity are the two driving forces of history. the whole idea of a mans honor and status finding ones proper and honored place in the group I think are important determinants of bahaviour. tom wolfe has always argued this and does again in his new novel. what i am seking is a christian to baptize this idea--how does it fit with dying to your self humility etc. Is that final moment of honor the recognition by Christ that we are His part of this ubiquitous drive in man? dpence
posted on 12.24.2004 8:58 AM8
...a hotel heiress milk a cow on Fox’s “The Simple Life”...
It amazes me that despite the huge number of hours people work each week, despite the alienation felt in numerous marriages, despite the very real problems of homelessness, crime, and poverty, despite all of the problems we have, despite all of the alternative pleasurable things one could do, somebody might actually watch a Fox program besides "The Simpsons."
“A celebrity,” said social historian Daniel Boorstin, “is a person who is known for his well-knownness.”
Actually, I think it was - I'm not kidding- gossip columnists who made up that line, and it was originally about either Pia Zadora (sp?) or Michael Alig.
...Hilton represents the archetypical anti-hero celebrity. We take great delight in mocking her vanity, in snickering at her cluelessness, in seeing her degraded by public sex scandal. Her wealth shields her from the consequences of her actions so we feel no guilt in her gaping at her downfall. Yet we can take malicious satisfaction in knowing that she will never accomplish anything of worth. She is a disposable commodity with a limited shelf life that can be tossed aside when we grow bored. We give her our attention but not our respect.
Welcome to "how the world views America, dude."
We take great delight in mocking America's vanity, in snickering at America's cluelessness, in seeing her degraded by public scandals- especially when they invent a sex scandal. America[s wealth shields her from the consequences of her actions so we feel no guilt in her gaping at her downfall. Yet we can take malicious satisfaction in knowing that she will never accomplish anything of worth. She is a disposable commodity with a limited shelf life that can be tossed aside when we grow bored. We give her our attention but not our respect.
9
somebody might actually watch a Fox program besides "The Simpsons."
Don't forget "Malcolm in the Middle" and "24" (though season 3 was not a good as the first 2).
10
Excellent post, Joe.
*****
Mumon, your lurchings never cease to amaze.
posted on 12.24.2004 12:56 PM11
Nobility might breed a love of fame, but I don't think it is a prerequisite for loving fame.
posted on 12.26.2004 5:21 AM12
great post joe.
i realize i'm reading this one late, so i'm unlikely to get an answer to my question:
what is kevin W amazed at?? mumon's "lurching"?
seems to me (american born, but euro parents and euro connected, and probably eurotrash) that mumon is right.
i totally agree with joe's line of thought, and mumon seems to appropriately see that this line is clear to people outside the states.
why is this "lurching"? i don't understand Kevin W's point.
c
13
seems to me (american born, but euro parents and euro connected, and probably eurotrash) that mumon is right.
Well, he may be correct, but the difference here is that our view of Paris is highly accurate and appropriate and other countries views of us are typically inappropriate and based mostly on jealousy and arrogance. This is especially true in the case of Old Europe, which used to be the pinnacle of human sophistication, now a land of decline and decay.
Meanwhile, America has accomplished many things in our short stint here on earth: We started that whole democracy thing you might have heard about, we helped to end slavery and give women and minorities the right to vote, we got rid of communism, Hitler, The Taliban, Saddam, we send more financial aid than any other country, we defend the weak and powerless and we spread freedom and democracy around the globe, even at the cost of our money and our blood. America has accomplished quite a bit. Paris Hilton made a sex tape.
And if somebody thinks America is just going to crumble and die having done nothing of value, he's the biggest fool ever. Capitalism and Democracy are what make countries last and survive. We'll still be here long after socialism ravages any country stupid enough to believe the lie.
Even the America-haters in the crowd have to admit that America has accomplished a lot of good in her lifetime.
posted on 12.27.2004 11:09 AM14
Bill O'Reilly said on his radio show that he saw her in a Airport. She did not recognize him. He got to observe her for a awhile. He said "she's not faking, she really is that stupid"
Joe why were you watching that show anyway?
posted on 12.27.2004 11:47 AM15
Happy to help.
My comment regarding mumon's "lurching" has nothing to do with whether he is right or wrong on anything, but his persistent inability to stay on topic. Name it, any topic, any thread, anywhere, and it turns into an anti-Bush or anti-American screed.
Stay tuned, and see for yourself.
posted on 12.28.2004 12:11 AM