|
MICHAEL JACKSON: ANOTHER SEDUCTION
by J. A. QUAYTMAN
In
the last issue of Arts & Opinion, Robert J. Lewis,
in his editorial
Michael Jackson: Manchild in a Promised Land,
defends Michael's relationships with children, arguing the latter
is himself a child, who, in order to place himself irrevocably
above all suspicion, should voluntarily submit to neutering.
J. A. Quaytman rejects Lewis' defense, and insists that the
adult Michael Jackson is responsible for his actions. Note:
On June 13, 2005, the courts found Michael not guilty of the
charges brought against him.
Dr.
J. A. Quaytman is a licensed clinical psychologist who teaches
at California State University. She has worked in the field
for over 30 years and has a private practice in northern California.
Her specialities include psychological trauma, substance abuse/dependence
and family dysfunction.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
By
the end of your editorial, Mr. Lewis, Michael Jackson: Manchild
in a Promised Land, I found myself muttering at the mischief-maker
behind the enticing language. Your initial, sympathetic paragraphs
describing the tragedy of this man’s early life, as well
as your rather logical assumptions about his defense mechanisms
drew me in, as I suspect it would many a reader. But before
I knew it, an abyss loomed before me, appearing so abruptly,
I could barely stop myself from sliding down its inviting slope
into the huge maw. But why should I shudder and step back from
endorsing your empathic portrayal of this sad but compelling
modern icon? The river of your discourse appeared sufficiently
deep, but I began to fear it a deceptive illusion, with jagged
and dangerous rocks hidden just beneath its surface. Were you
playing the role of l’agent provocateur? If so,
you did, indeed, succeed, for I was ‘hooked’ like
some trout in the deeper points of that stream’s meandering
course.
Your
interpretation of Michael Jackson’s behavior as that of
a tormented, helpless soul trapped in a permanent childhood
was engaging. And your tone, just short of shrill, appropriately
exhorted us against employing a double standard of justice for
Jackson, an understandable position, given the politics of today.
However, you danced dangerously on the precipice of advocating
a similar double standard regarding this ‘manchild’s
responsibility for his actions -- thus, my uneasiness at your
presentation. The questions you touched on, however, continue
to provoke controversy in the psychological community and are,
perhaps, worthy of mention.
Freud’s
axiom, “There is no time in the psyche,” came to
mind when you compared Mr. Jackson’s behavior to that
of children incapable of hiding their feelings and wishes. Has
this teen idol, now well into his adulthood, magically achieved
the permanent, personal identity of an eternal child? It’s
possible, given the tendency of the psyche to view itself as
a timeless entity; and this protective mechanism is universal,
if Erikson’s theory is to be embraced. Mr. Jackson’s
talents and willingness to enter the heady world of stardom
certainly gained him the protection of wealth (and all it can
purchase) to construct and maintain this artificial state. However,
in a reasonably adjusted personality, the continual presence
of the ‘Id’ is balanced with the simultaneous awareness
of various life stages, their differing requirements, and the
inevitability of aging and death. But the deeper the wounds
of childhood, the greater the interruption in the normal development
of basic social and cognitive skills, rendering the individual
inept in various areas of functioning. And when the basic attachment
needs of the child remain unmet into adulthood, the passage
of time truly does become distorted. Then the delicate juggling
act of balancing these equally essential, but opposing forces
fails, and the pieces fall, willy-nilly, to the ground. W. Robert
Beavers refers to this anomaly as a “loss of time binding,”
and attributes that dysfunction to any number of failures in
the family, particularly the parental unit. Indeed, according
to the current literature, those of our species who cannot live
within the bounds of socially (and often legally) acceptable
behavior have a significant level of emotional immaturity. And
this is as true for the sexual disorders known as the ‘paraphilias’
as it is for the more obvious forms of aggression.
This
immaturity is also commonly connected with a deep terror of
rejection and abandonment, and those feelings frequently are
expressed in the behaviors described under the rubric of Body
Dysmorphic Disorder. Those types of behaviors include both an
obsessive type of criticism (in a sense, self-rejection) of
specific areas of the body, as well as numerous attempts to
alter the supposed defects. And you infer many of those symptoms
in your description of the numerous surgeries Mr. Jackson has
undergone in his quest for his ‘true’ identity.
But your ‘tongue in cheek’ suggestion that Mr. Jackson
subject himself to being neutered, and that such an act would
be Mr. Jackson’s ultimate “confession,” is
clearly both outrageous and provocative. Are you advocating
ad extremis, some type of rebound to a more reasonable
position on the topic?
Nevertheless, the psychological distortions and emotional distress
of these types of disorders are treatable in many, but not all,
instances, according to current outcome studies. This then begs
the question:
Has
Mr. Jackson, with all his financial resources, sought the services
of a truly experienced therapist with expertise in these areas?
If
Mr. Jackson has not sought treatment, perhaps this is due to
his belief that it is the world, not he, which has the problem.
And, at first blush, your rhetoric implies that you agree with
such a conclusion. In the field of psychology, the term, ‘ego
syntonic,’ is used to describe symptoms or behaviors which
might be unacceptable to society, but which the individual exhibiting
them believes are perfectly normal, and does not wish to change.
In the case of privileged individuals with this type of profile,
they will often surround themselves with sycophants who support
the symptom bearer’s distortions for a variety of motives.
And such an entourage will often prevent or interrupt treatment
for those same symptoms. In cases where childhood abuse or neglect
is an underlying factor, it is as if the individual is saying:
“I won’t conform to the requirements of an adult
world, as the adult world did not recognize and respond to my
needs as a child.”
It
is also common for such individuals to have a secondary motive,
the fear of losing their status, their uniqueness, should they
receive treatment. Will they lose their ‘edge’ or
the paradoxical appeal their odd appearance or behavior has
for the ordinary teen/adult who buys their records and attends
their concerts? Is the avoidance of treatment as much dictated
by consciously based motivations as it is by some unconscious
and terrible trauma? Again, this type of response is indicative
of the immaturity of the individual, their need to place their
own pleasure above the comfort or even the rights of another.
The individual’s fans may also fear the loss of their
icon, and the mesmerizing distraction that idol offers them.
Of course, I cannot assert that any or all of these potential
scenarios are true in Mr. Jackson’s case.
On
the flip side, the ‘devil’s advocate’ position
argues that Mr. Jackson has the right to maintain any attitudes
or behaviors, regardless of their deviation from the norm, as
long as he does not infringe on the rights of others. And you
clearly point to that right when you cite the court’s
“not guilty” verdict in the case of the 11 year
old boy whose parents brought charges against Mr. Jackson. Again
you urge us to avoid trying this man in the court of public
opinion on the basis of his bizarre lifestyle, as he has not
been held legally accountable for harming the child in question.
But, once more, you also appear to be needling us. Are you giving
voice to those individuals who have been seduced by a culture
of the abandoned, the abused or the misunderstood -- those souls
who for any number of reasons refuse to board the train of the
mundane, the average? Are your thoughts those of the everyday
citizen hypnotized by such a culture, living vicariously through
the lives of those who somehow escape the drudgery, the angst,
imposed on us by the threat of sanction? Of course these apparently
disparate cultures -- the pedestrian and the bizarre -- have
a certain symbiotic need for each other. And we should delight
in the lengthy list of artists, musicians, and writers who provide
the contrapuntal rhythms, the lush obligatos, behind
the frequently mediocre melody of daily existence. These muses
enliven our world and prompt us to stretch our range of possibilities.
And certainly Mr. Jackson, at least at one point in time, produced
some of the most ingenious and compelling music of the pop genre.
The artistic segment of our species, albeit a minority, acts
as a catalyst for evolutionary change in the psychological,
behavioral, spiritual and legal realms of human society. And
it is likely that the ability of such outstanding artists to
viscerally resonate with their audience is due to a deep acquaintance
with psychic pain. Thus, your reference to Tennessee Williams’
stark but eloquent line, “there’s not enough kindness
in the world.”
Of
course you admire this ‘manchild’s candor, his disarming
willingness to place himself in the brutal light of public scrutiny,
in contrast with the purposeful obfuscation and duplicity of
many a leading cleric or politician. Yes, I agree his behavior
is likely the cry of the cheated child, demanding the rest of
what he deserved but never received. Mr. Jackson’s vocal
tone alone produces an impression of the uncertain sexuality
of childhood, not to mention his ranch named Neverland. How
plain can it be? But the physical domain he has built, supposedly
to seal out the world of the adult he fears, belies his thinly
veiled attempts to recruit the attention of the father figure
society represents. Mr. Jackson’s candid and apparently
innocent disclosures can actually be interpreted as a desperate
act to obtain that parental attention, in hopes of finding the
unconditional love he seeks. If that is the case, Mr. Jackson
is demanding that society, the generic father figure, accept
any and all of ‘manchild’s' actions, and any censure
on society’s part confirms his sense of complete abandonment.
Thus, if true, he would be rejecting any outside attempts to
discipline him, despite his unconscious awareness of the necessity
of that input for his on-going growth. This all too human, intra-psychic
conflict naturally pulls at the unconscious longings in us all.
However,
I still squirmed. Isn’t one of the costs of adulthood,
with its privileges and perks, the need to both understand and
tame the tantrums of the ‘inner child’ (to quote
Bradshaw) when it collides with the crises, disappointments
or fears from which none of us is exempt? Isn’t this a
basic tenet of any society that does not advocate anarchy? Yes,
regardless of the truth of the allegations leveled against his
father, obviously there were tremendous deficits in Mr. Jackson’s
childhood against which he continues to rail. But are you asking
us to give him a ‘pass’ (no double entendre intended)
because of this? What about the thousands of prisoners currently
‘doing time,’ serving life sentences or even on
death row who surely have experienced similar (or worse) deficits
-- are we to give them a pass, too? In reality, I suspect that
you were presenting us, once again, with the paradox that is
a ‘free’ society: democracy, not only has a cost,
it produces riddles which stump the most enlightened of sages.
At
this juncture I could rant on about the difference between ‘retributive’
and ‘rehabilitative’ justice, that our penal system
is geared toward the former, not the latter. But suffice it
to say we refuse to spend tax dollars on rehabilitating the
immature progeny of poorly prepared parents. Nor do we require
training or a license to become parents at this evolutionary
point in our society. And I know as I write these words, the
faces of Libertarians, Democrats, independents and Republicans
are expressing horror at the thought. Nevertheless, we can’t
have it both ways. If we wish to uphold civil liberties such
as the inalienable right to bear children and construct families
without governmental interference, we as a society will bear
the burden of those who take on these roles without sufficient
insight or the proper emotional equipment. We will continue
to have trials about sexual and physical abuse, and those individuals
not having a strong financial position or the status of ‘star’
will receive the sternest punishment. For in America, the visual
acuity of justice is a function of one’s bank balance.
So, despite my sympathy for Michael Jackson’s apparent
self-loathing and the source of that injury, he is relatively
fortunate when compared with the millions of others in our country
who carry similar scars but lack the compensatory advantages
of wealth or status.
Perhaps
the most disturbing intimation in your discourse is that Mr.
Jackson should be regarded as a symbol of the masses oppressed
by unreasonable social restrictions, that his symptoms are merely
a joyful rebellion to be encouraged in the classic struggle
towards equal protection under the law. Certainly, successful
role models for individuals from classes ‘outside the
pale’ (e.g. racial/religious minorities, women, the LGTB
community) are to be applauded as their cause pushes us closer
to the ideal of a just society. But the inference in some of
your statements was that Mr. Jackson’s admitted practice
of sleeping with children was to be understood -- given his
“mentality of an 11-year-old,” -- and accepted.
Were you, once again, rubbing our noses in the omnipresent drek
that is always a by-product of any evolving society? Mr. Jackson
is not 11 years old, and him bringing a real child into
his bed (or, worse, the child being offered up by a clearly
disturbed parent) continues the cycle of abuse. And your obvious
sympathy for Mr. Jackson’s perilous childhood seems curiously
absent when you casually present his bedroom behavior with the
hapless child as that of “two 11 year olds fooling around
sexually.” By the very nature of his or her dependent
status, a child cannot freely consent to such activity. Children
are at the mercy of the adults in their world, some of whom
do not protect the minor, despite the presence of laws designed
for that purpose. Whether or not the 11 year old boy, the real
victim of this dollar driven spectacle, was sexually violated,
his psychological search for the ‘self’ will be
negatively affected by this tragedy for many years to come.
Your apparent zeal in defending the rights of one man frozen
in a traumatic childhood, asks us to ignore the impact of his
actions on a child of today, unless you are, again, prodding
us to wrestle with the conundrum Mr. Jackson’s life presents.
If we allow ourselves to be seduced by the pain and genius of
this ‘manchild,’ we may seed the ground with yet
another generation of perpetual children. Is such an eternal
child always innocent by reason of his deprived, painful beginnings?
Can he, can we, justify any and all collateral damage scattered
in the wake of that blazing comet?
Reader
feedback HERE.
Click
HERE
for the original article.
|
|
|