THE DEADLY SINS
ENVY
by
GEOFF OLSON
______________________
Every
time a friend succeeds, a little something in me dies.
Gore Vidal
In
the Middle Ages, the corrosive emotion of envy was an obvious
choice for Pope Gregory’s list of seven deadly sins. Yet
it is qualitatively different from the other scourges of the
spirit. Unlike anger, pride, lust, gluttony, greed, or sloth,
envy never gives the illusion of short-term pleasure. From the
moment it starts, envy only brings anguish and sorrow.
We
are flooded daily with mass media images of beautiful people
having expensive fun in magnificent surroundings. Of all the
Deadly Spins -- desires once considered sins and now spun into
beneficent forces by modern marketers -- envy moves the most
products. The nagging sense of not measuring up to the super-beautiful,
super-rich standard set by popular culture festers away under
the collective consciousness like an unlanced boil, driving
us into the market for some fashionable fix.
The
disease has even inflamed modern relationships. A study conducted
recently on the dating preferences of men and women found that
the expected minimum for physical beauty has risen over the
past two decades. Younger generations expect more in a partner
in terms of appearance.
Is
this because of all the perfectly symmetrical faces, with their
indices of glowing genetic health, staring out at us seductively
from magazine racks and TVs, or projected to godlike dimensions
on the movie screen? The authors of the study suggest this is
indeed the case. The multiplication of these media images means
there are greater numbers of young men and women who will no
longer accept average looks. They want to re-imagine themselves
as desirable hotties -- and if they sometimes doubt they meet
the pop culture gold standard themselves, they can at least
demand it from a partner.
What
animates this attitude isn’t so much beauty per se, as
the fact that the famous are generally much better looking than
the non-famous. The train is fame; movie-star looks are the
caboose. On the popular singles website nerve.com, dating singles
get to respond to the category, “what celebrity I resemble
the most.” Respondents offer “Meg Ryan type,”
“Russell Crowe look-alike,” and the occasional modest
comparison to a lesser star not considered conventionally beautiful.
Celebrity is increasingly the baseline comparison for ourselves
and others.
The
envy industry is everywhere these days, but one area of the
world stands out. According to Salon contributor Cintra
Wilson, the event horizon of this spiritual black hole is found
in Los Angeles, and the singularity where reality ceases entirely
is Hollywood. Wilson is arguably the most savage critic of the
celebrity-seeking mindset. Her book, A Massive Swelling:
Celebrity Re-Examined As a Grotesque, Crippling Disease,
effectively eviscerates the Californication of the North American
self-concept, along with the “kind of screaming pink self-loathing
that burns supersonically through all psyches in LA like a dated
racing stripe.”
Wilson
moved to Los Angeles in 1995, with the intent to creatively
carve out another aperture in its commodified culture. “What
better place to go than a city that orchestrates all the attitudes
I hate the most about the American mentality?” she wrote.
“I thought I would fiddle like Nero with my nourishing
little artistic pursuits while Babylon burned.”
She
discovered an urban environment so consumed by envy that its
adherents were occasionally disabled by it -- literally. In
one passage, she describes the most relentlessly self-advancing
among the LA acting set: Hollywood extras.
“These
types of actors are also the people who will go horribly crazy
if somebody they know, or vaguely know, gets famous. They have
to take to their beds, it’s that bad, their lives are
over, they are in Hell. They sink into a self-loathing depression
that lasts years, and it’s all they can think about: “That
fucking bitch is famous and I’m not?!? God loves Hitler
more than he loves ME!!!”
The
deadly spin of envy is fed by the sense of entitlement that
runs rampant through the US mindset, according to Wilson. “If
a person in this day and age has two cents’ worth of talent,
it is considered his sacred obligation to Go for the Gold, or
try and grab the big brass monkey ring, and otherwise make six
to 10 demoralizing career-and-connection-oriented phone calls
a day, perform painful Top 40 hits at all the high-school graduations
and bar mitzvahs, pay hundreds of dollars for eight by ten photographs
of themselves looking like sexually available newscasters, and
audition with seething positive energy for every Exlax commercial
that comes down the pike, until the day that the opportunity
for Fame reveals itself like a pinpoint of light down the throat
of a large python.”
This
doesn’t just hold in the entertainment profession. The
LA zeitgeist has been packaged, shrink-wrapped and stamped for
export to the rest of the US, and the global market. Once the
box is opened, the contents skitters away like the face-sucking
critter in Alien, dripping acid on every field of endeavour,
from journalism to science.
I once
received an invitation by a media figure in Vancouver to attend
a lunch hour gathering of successful artists, writers and musicians.
I attended a few times, but the vibe was all wrong. The chumminess
felt disingenuous. At one of these lunches, the host leaned
over and told me in a hushed voice the reason for my invite:
“you never know who’s going to be famous next.”
The invite apparently had little to do with my work. It was
about the buzz that was beginning to attend my name. Unfortunately
for the collector of soon-to-be-celebs, whatever the local buzz,
I had failed to rise into the air-raid siren of national fame.
This
brings us to the ambivalence that celebrity feeds. We both love
and hate celebrities, precisely for having all the things we
don’t, chief among them the constant attention of millions.
So we like nothing more than demonstrations that the famous
are just like us, or worse. Yet the nimbus of really big-money
celebrity comes without a dimmer switch; it can’t be turned
off. No matter how nutty Marlon Brando got in his old age, he
hung on to his cachet. Bob Dylan can knock off any ill-conceived
tune he wants, but it will not cast a shadow backward on his
myth.
In
the course of a career suicide, the mega-wattage of fame may
even brighten into full-on infamy, which is even more blinding.
Robert Downey Jr.’s successive attempts at druggy self-sabotage
did not remove him from the Hollywood A-List (at least not until
he was actually jailed and unavailable). In LA, a chemical dependency
or some other spectacularly bad behaviour is not a source of
disapproval from polite society, as it would be for the rest
of us. It’s the source of a book contract, or a series
of teary “I’m-a-victim-too” appearances on
Oprah or Barbara Walters.
“The
implication of Fame in this value-warped society is: you’ve
made it,” writes Wilson in A Massive Swelling.
“You and your talents are so bright, you are somehow physically
and spiritually light-years beyond all us bone-sucking hacks.
I yowl in disgust at this bias.” The acidic author counsels
against thinking of fame as some glorious blessing bestowed
on the lucky few, who then demand our fealty. “Let us
not worship these people, for it is like bowing down to a two-headed
calf: unholy and weird.”
A CULTURAL
EBOLA VIRUS
A teacher
friend once told me he discovered that 30-some students at the
high school where he taught had a regular cocaine habit. The
surprising aspect: the female users were primarily taking the
drug to keep thin rather than get high.
Bizarre,
but not a total mystery. Many healthy young women find their
bodies spectacularly shabby in comparison to the skeletal standard
offered by Hollywood starlets, magazine models and runway wraiths.
They envy the professional anorexic’s life-negating perfection,
which has been cross-referenced with all sorts of media-mediated
baggage: wealth, style, status and power.
Of
the seven deadly spins -- gluttony, sloth, lust, greed, anger,
envy, pride -- the most self-corrosive is envy.
“It
is certain that envy is the worst sin that is, for all other
sins are sins only against one virtue, whereas envy is against
all virtue and against all goodness,” wrote Chaucer in
The Canterbury Tales. “For envy is bitter about
all the good things that belong to another, and in this way,
it is different from all other sins. For almost all other sins
give some sort of pleasure in themselves, save only envy, which
always has in itself anguish and sorrow.”
Envy
has probably been with humanity at least since the emergence
of consciousness itself; the difference today is its cultural
scale. It’s become more than Chaucer’s bitterness
“about all the good things that belong to another.”
Envy is turbocharged by the consumer market’s capacity
to traffic in images, in a manner far beyond the grainy black-and-white
halftones of only half a century ago. “In no other form
of society in history has there been such a concentration of
images, such a density of visual messages,” writes art
critic John Berger. The visual landscape is the hook for the
forces of publicity:
“Within
publicity, choices are offered between this cream and that cream,
that car and this car, but publicity as a system only makes
a single proposal. It proposes to each of us that we transform
ourselves or our lives by buying something more. Publicity persuades
us of such a transformation by showing us people who have apparently
been transformed and are, as a result, enviable. The state of
being envied is what constitutes glamour, and publicity is the
process of manufacturing glamour. The publicity image steals
our love of ourselves as we are and offers it back to us for
the price of the product.”
Most
adults have some intellectual defences against this paper-thin
paradigm. But children and adolescents have few or none, and
today face a marketing onslaught sharpened like stilettos by
focus groups, psychographics and all the other dark arts of
spin. (In fact, with the exception of items such as cars and
dwellings, many advertisers no longer flog product to the over-35
demographic. Studies show you can only build brand loyalty by
targeting the five to 15 set.)
Envy
compels the young consumer of pop-culture towards the camera’s
eye, in search of envy’s Holy Grail: fame. So-called reality
TV shows trade on this mostly empty promise, with young unknowns
hoodwinked into thinking they can be “famous for being
famous.”
Even
for those who aren’t actively seeking celebrity, the camera-conscious
zeitgeist compels them to think of themselves, if only subliminally,
as starring in their own productions. In his book Life:
The Movie, movie critic Neil Gabler claims the US entertainment
industry has democratized the idea of celebrity, extending the
idea of performance into daily life:
“Over
the years our movie going and television watching has been impregnating
the American consciousness with the contentions and aesthetics
of entertainment, until we have become performers ourselves,
performing our own lives out of the shards of movies. One might
even think of American life, including quotidian American life,
as a vast production in which virtually every object is a prop,
every space is a set, every person is an actor and every experience
is a scene in a continuing narrative.”
Nearly
50 years ago, sociologist David Riesman identified the emergence
of a new type of social character in the US that he called “other-directed”
– by which he meant, essentially, that one’s goals
were directed toward satisfying the expectations of others.
In other words, an audience. By definition, other-directed Americans
were conscious of performance -- a self-consciousness that led
another sociologist, Erving Goffman, to conclude that in the
20th century, “life itself is a dramatically enacted thing.”
Place
the cultural DNA of “other-directness” into the
petri dish of the US entertainment industry, and voila:
you have the cult of celebrity, with envy fueling a continually
frustrated search for identity. A sense of discontent is central
to the revenue flow. From the tabloid rack to the cosmetic counter
to the television celebrity profile, there’s big box office
in subtly pushing the consumer toward dissatisfaction with his
or her appearance, lifestyle and identity. Writes Gabler: “Acting
like a cultural Ebola virus, entertainment has even invaded
organisms no one would ever have imagined could provide amusement.”
He points to the strange case of Dr. Timothy Leary, the ex-Harvard
professor and sixties icon, who “turned his death into
entertainment by using his computer web page to chronicle his
deterioration from prostate cancer, a show which ended with
a video of him drinking a toxic cocktail in what he called a
‘visible, interactive suicide.’ ”
In
modern day North America, celebrity and envy are joined at the
hip: the Siamese twins of the corporate-sponsored social contract.
According to US media critic Todd Gitlin, “to speak of
a culture of celebrity nowadays is nearly to commit a redundancy.”
Instant stardom has become the all-purpose spray-on, to be liberally
applied on everything from products to politicians, for a branded,
otherworldly glow.
To
Cintra Wilson, sometime screenwriter and former LA resident,
this culture of fawning obsession over superstars has become
the secular religion of our time, one filled with false messiahs
and empty rituals: “It is generally not the icons themselves
that I jolly and assail; it’s the huge tumescent aura
of Otherness, the grandiose Largitutude and supermagnified glamour
of these deranged old musicians and dumb pretty kids and Sacred
Cow Ornamental personages that I attack.”
Wilson
insists the machinery of fame, with its promise of global attention
and big bucks, can reduce real talents to camera-hungry hacks,
and the rest of us to hungry ghosts at a banquet where we will
never find a seat. In a media-mediated world where you can never
be too rich or too thin, it’s no surprise that some young
outsiders will reduce themselves to drug-taking wraiths in an
effort to reach an illusory ideal.
In
the forward to A Massive Swelling, the author smashes
celebrity’s hall of mirrors into shards and exposes the
little person behind the curtain:
“I
attack the maddening blizzard of tinsel scattered in the icons’
wake: the tidal waves of false awe glaring off their shiny suits.
I swipe at the lurid neon head of the amplified celebrity wizard
and not the frail, dumpy little nebbish behind the big screen
of fire, because deep down we’re all delicate and pitiable
inside. I believe that deep down, everyone is fundamentally
an OK Joe deserving of your civility and compassion, even the
ones I really hate, like Richard Dreyfus.”
Related
Articles
IN
PRAISE OF ENVY
GLUTTONY
SLOTH
Geoff
Olson is a Vancouver-based writer and political cartoonist.