When something extraordinary is invented, created, becomes popular, we are inherently intrigued by its maker. They've got to be a genius, someone amazing, to have done something that the common man can't. Or perhaps they'll end up being someone similar to us, have the same interests, someone we can connect with on a celebrity-commoner level.
Or maybe we're just plain nosy. Or looking to see if we can marry said person and absorb their wealth and fame.
I realize that I have taken a very cynical outlook on this but it's a thought that has been troubling me. Why do we read/write autobiographies? Make biofilms? Dedicate front pages? This is easier to answer. I would say that we are genuinely interested in the person who has made the genuinely interesting thing that we use.
But why we do presume to formulate our own opinions about these people? I mean, c'mon, I can say that I hate Taylor Swift but I don't know her, have never met her, don't know anyone who knows her...so I take it back. I don't hate her. How can I hate someone I don't know?
I'll play devil's advocate: we read things about Steve Jobs that made us hate him. He's a jerk to people, he screwed his friends over, neglected his daughter in her youth. BUT WE CAN'T REALLY SAY WE HATE HIM. Or that he's a jerk. First, we're taking a bunch of different people's word for it, who we DON'T KNOW and second, WE HAVE NEVER MET OR INTERACTED WITH STEVE JOBS.
Same goes for Mark Zuckerberg.
It makes sense, that with the limited information that we do have (presented to us by someone else who we inherently trust), we use to form opinions. But why do we go so far as to try to analyze the person? To really figure out if it was abandonment issues or nerd status? Here's the research question: Why do want, and why do we get, so involved in other people's lives?
Obviously this question can extend to celebrities as well. Look at 'People' magazine. And these iconic geniuses of inventions are too, celebrities. But when we go so in depth in studying them...isn't the just the same as studying Kim Kardashian?
I would like to state that I may regret this post in a few hours, a few days....not a few weeks because I'll have graduated by then. And I sincerely hope I have not offended anyone, especially not Prof. Smith!
I'll readily admit that I ate up Jobs' biography, I thought it was incredibly interesting and I really like 'The Social Network' and am intrigued by Mark Zuckerberg. So I'm asking this question to myself, as well.
I think I'm on the same page, particularly when trying to analyze people that we really have a limited perspective on (those were some of the portions of discussions I started tuning out...heh). In the case of people like Zuckerberg, Jobs, and people like Einstein, Charles Dickens, etc, I think we are drawn to them because of their newness and genius. They have done things that amaze or intrigue us in some way or we admire them (ie. I would read a Charles Dickens autobio if there were one - I love his books and would love to hear where he's coming from!). Especially in the case of Jobs, I think a lot of people want also to know what his "secret" was - how he became so successful, and try to apply it to their own lives.
ReplyDeleteBut I agree that despite these intrigues, we're all too apt to make judgment calls and makes claims as if we were there. Maybe it's especially tempting to do so for Zuckerberg as the creator of Facebook - it seems like he puts a lot of himself out in the open (that's the point, right?), but really he's pretty cryptic.
It's interesting how some of the analysis of corporations mirrors some the analysis (or problems with analysis) of books. For many teachers of literature there is a certain taboo in talking about biography instead of the work, and in thinking about corporations we run into the same question: should we consider the life. But these companies to some degree trade on the life of their founders.. like a rock band that has a colorful lead singer..
ReplyDelete