Do we have the right to poke someone else's past, or should we let it rest?
There is an interesting ethical dilemma in the MJ fandom that, as I noticed, often causes disagreements among fans or even whole fan communities. It showed up again in the comments yesterday, and I think it deserves a discussion of its own.
The thing is, there are two main “poles” of attitude to Michael in the fandom. Some people are interested in Michael’s personality, fascinated by it, sometimes to the point of obsession, and are on a mission to learn as much as possible about him, get into his head, clear up the shadowed areas of his life and complete the "puzzle" that was Michael Jackson. Other fans have a very personal attachment to Michael and think of him almost as a friend or a family member. They tend to be very protective of his feelings and his privacy, and therefore withdraw from and often disapprove of any sort of speculation. Neither of the sides is wrong. Both have valid points. The problem is, however, they are often mutually exclusive. It's hard to be in the middle, you have to choose one or the other.
I’ll give you some examples off the top of my head:
Take his unreleased material. On one hand, it’s a part of history, it's a cultural treasure, we need every last demo, are you kidding me, it's Michael fucking Jackson's music RELEASE EVERYTHING NAO!
On the other hand, Michael chose not to release those tracks, which obviously means he thought they weren’t good enough. Now we/the estate/Sony go against his will and benefit from the fact that he can't have a say in his own business anymore.
Same with the private tapes/interviews. Shmuley tapes, for example, are invaluable, but at the same time he came off as a jerk because he released them against Michael's wish. Glenda tapes provide an exclusive glimpse into the real man; and yet we feel sorry that they have been leaked.
His resting place. I understand the feelings of the family. And yes, Michael deserves privacy, deserves to rest in peace, and the family deserves to be alone with him. But at the same time, people of this scale don't belong to just their families anymore. In a sense, they belong to the world, to the culture, and it feels unfair that the family robs other people of the opportunity to pay respects to Michael. I'm sure there are people among his fans, who loved him no less than his family. And they are left out why? Because he didn't know them personally? But they knew him.
Discussions of vitiligo/lupus/surgeries. On one hand, there's so much misconception about his health out there, that it makes you want to rub the truths into people’s faces and finally set the record straight. But at the same time we all know how private and self-conscious Michael was about these subjects: he would have hated them to be out and openly discussed. And that's understandable - who would want their face and health to be scrutinized on message boards? Because of this, examinations of his health and appearance always make me feel a little uncomfortable.
And so on, and so forth - the question “should or shouldn’t we?” applies to all aspects of his persona and legacy. There're always two sides of the coin.
Ultimately, it applies to every discussion we're having here. How do you understand words "Don't pass judgment on another person unless you talked to them one on one"? That's what Michael always asked of his fans. Does this mean "Don't consider another person to be bad" or does this mean "Don't make conclusions of any sort about someone you personally don't know"? I think it's the latter. It is what Michael talked about in that recently surfaced Bashir outtake: "And they watch, and they judge... It's always 'Why? Why? Why?'" We are doing just that, aren't we? Trying to figure him out and having our theories about why he did this or that. Well, surprise: he didn't like it.
On the other hand, if you are a celebrity, people will inevitably discuss you. You may not like it, but this is how it works. And it doesn't automatically make the public bad, cruel or inconsiderate. People are curious by nature and they want to know more - you just have to deal with it.
But then again, shouldn't we as fans show more respect to his feelings?
But on the other hand, it's what the fandom is all about: a discussion. It's about sharing thoughts, observations, impressions, and yes, it ends up to be judgment, because we all have opinions about him and his successes and mistakes.
But do we then qualify as supporters?...
Etc. You get the idea.
Due to my nature, I gravitate more towards the curious/obsessive pole, but I can't completely ignore the second POV either. In any fandom related to a book/movie/TV show I have no ethical problems discussing everything, dragging out dirty laundry, reading the nastiest fanfiction, etc. But in case of a real human being it's different. You have to draw the line somewhere. And I feel conflicted: sometimes too curious and sometimes too defensive. I don't have a definite answer to these questions.
How do you answer them? Where do you stand?
FYT spent on this rambling:
The thing is, there are two main “poles” of attitude to Michael in the fandom. Some people are interested in Michael’s personality, fascinated by it, sometimes to the point of obsession, and are on a mission to learn as much as possible about him, get into his head, clear up the shadowed areas of his life and complete the "puzzle" that was Michael Jackson. Other fans have a very personal attachment to Michael and think of him almost as a friend or a family member. They tend to be very protective of his feelings and his privacy, and therefore withdraw from and often disapprove of any sort of speculation. Neither of the sides is wrong. Both have valid points. The problem is, however, they are often mutually exclusive. It's hard to be in the middle, you have to choose one or the other.
I’ll give you some examples off the top of my head:
Take his unreleased material. On one hand, it’s a part of history, it's a cultural treasure, we need every last demo, are you kidding me, it's Michael fucking Jackson's music RELEASE EVERYTHING NAO!
On the other hand, Michael chose not to release those tracks, which obviously means he thought they weren’t good enough. Now we/the estate/Sony go against his will and benefit from the fact that he can't have a say in his own business anymore.
Same with the private tapes/interviews. Shmuley tapes, for example, are invaluable, but at the same time he came off as a jerk because he released them against Michael's wish. Glenda tapes provide an exclusive glimpse into the real man; and yet we feel sorry that they have been leaked.
His resting place. I understand the feelings of the family. And yes, Michael deserves privacy, deserves to rest in peace, and the family deserves to be alone with him. But at the same time, people of this scale don't belong to just their families anymore. In a sense, they belong to the world, to the culture, and it feels unfair that the family robs other people of the opportunity to pay respects to Michael. I'm sure there are people among his fans, who loved him no less than his family. And they are left out why? Because he didn't know them personally? But they knew him.
Discussions of vitiligo/lupus/surgeries. On one hand, there's so much misconception about his health out there, that it makes you want to rub the truths into people’s faces and finally set the record straight. But at the same time we all know how private and self-conscious Michael was about these subjects: he would have hated them to be out and openly discussed. And that's understandable - who would want their face and health to be scrutinized on message boards? Because of this, examinations of his health and appearance always make me feel a little uncomfortable.
And so on, and so forth - the question “should or shouldn’t we?” applies to all aspects of his persona and legacy. There're always two sides of the coin.
Ultimately, it applies to every discussion we're having here. How do you understand words "Don't pass judgment on another person unless you talked to them one on one"? That's what Michael always asked of his fans. Does this mean "Don't consider another person to be bad" or does this mean "Don't make conclusions of any sort about someone you personally don't know"? I think it's the latter. It is what Michael talked about in that recently surfaced Bashir outtake: "And they watch, and they judge... It's always 'Why? Why? Why?'" We are doing just that, aren't we? Trying to figure him out and having our theories about why he did this or that. Well, surprise: he didn't like it.
On the other hand, if you are a celebrity, people will inevitably discuss you. You may not like it, but this is how it works. And it doesn't automatically make the public bad, cruel or inconsiderate. People are curious by nature and they want to know more - you just have to deal with it.
But then again, shouldn't we as fans show more respect to his feelings?
But on the other hand, it's what the fandom is all about: a discussion. It's about sharing thoughts, observations, impressions, and yes, it ends up to be judgment, because we all have opinions about him and his successes and mistakes.
But do we then qualify as supporters?...
Etc. You get the idea.
Due to my nature, I gravitate more towards the curious/obsessive pole, but I can't completely ignore the second POV either. In any fandom related to a book/movie/TV show I have no ethical problems discussing everything, dragging out dirty laundry, reading the nastiest fanfiction, etc. But in case of a real human being it's different. You have to draw the line somewhere. And I feel conflicted: sometimes too curious and sometimes too defensive. I don't have a definite answer to these questions.
How do you answer them? Where do you stand?
FYT spent on this rambling: