Fame, Power and Wealth
Fame, Power and Wealth
Having for some time being involved in research about power, I keep running into wealth and fame. Wealth is
understandable since wealth generates power and power often leads to wealth. They really do go hand and
hand and there is no mystery to the relationship. But what of fame?
In an article entitled “People who put their trust in human power delude themselves” (JewishWorldReview.
com, Dec. 19, 2007, 10 Teves, 5768), Paul Johnson makes the point that power is transient and that those
who wield it are ultimately impotent. Using power wielders such as Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon he chronicles
how quickly power passed through their hands. I was unconvinced, as the power I have been contemplating
is less monumental than that which he discusses. There are, after all, many levels of power - my point, not
his – and it seems to me that people who achieve nominal levels of power use it quite comfortably and
effectively to their satisfaction, often throughout their lives. But then what he referred to, I believe, is more
related to the shortness of life and the fact that however much power (or wealth) one achieves, one cannot
take it with him. And this is what leads to fame and the next article.
Written by Benedict Carey for the New York Times, it was entitled “The Fame Motive” (NY Times.com, August
22, 2006), it explores two levels of fame: the urge to achieve social distinction and a subconscious but acute
appreciation of mortality. Are they the same? Related perhaps, but not the same?
Why do people pursue power? I have concluded they do so to achieve wealth in order to live lavishly, to be
able to get things done they want to get done, to keep other people from getting things done they want to get
done (for both good and for ill, and for both of which wealth helps a great deal), security – to protect ones’ self,
and the pure bullying enjoyment of it. Clearly they all begin to run together, and it is easy to get bogged down
in the wealth that often enables or motivates it, or both. But drop a level lower and you realize that there are
many other aspects of power – aspects that transcend wealth – that are more humble: some people just like
to have their way and seek power for that purpose, and some want it to secure that which we call respect –
defined in many different ways by different people.
So what of fame? Acute appreciation of mortality can derive from power. If one wants to be remembered
beyond his lifetime, wealth and power are two ways of getting there. Either can get one’s name on a building,
street or statue, and either can lead to remembrance that transcends mortality – at least for a time. Serious
fame can generate the same result, particularly in our entertainment mesmerized culture. But achieving
social distinction is closely akin to power (and wealth) is it not? I would have thought so. But there is
apparently a new motive afoot: Carey suggests that “millions of ambitious people…want to swivel necks, to
light a flare in others’ eyes, to walk into a crowded room and feel the conversation stop.” This is a different
kind of power, and though it might be closely associated with influence – and wealth – apparently for some it
is motive enough.
“To be widely known to strangers…rooted in a desire for social acceptance.” Consider the fool who eats the
most hotdogs in a minute to get his name in the record book; he is famous until someone else eats one
more in the same time period. Famous to whom? Presumably to everyone aware of his feat, whoever that
might be. Or the apparently overwhelming desire to be seen on television, even if it’s just waving arms at the
camera. Fleeting fame – very, very fleeting – to friends who might have observed it, or been told about it?
Studies cited suggest that between thirty and forty percent of people either have at least a temporary fantasy
of “enjoying some passing dose of fame” or actually hoping they will achieve “being famous.” For teenagers
the rates are even higher, and many actually expect to achieve it during their lifetimes; is it the same as
popularity? Or more?
Is that the explanation for the strange but powerful popularity of U-Tube and Facebook? “We need,” says
University of Arizona psychologist, “to feel like we are more than just material animals fated only to
obliteration upon death.” Really? Perhaps on the mortality level, but on the social acceptance level?
Unfortunately, Carey informs us, such a goal, dependent upon the judgment of others is psychologically
treacherous.” So why do people pursue such? And so many? Is it a drive similar to greed? Is it
narcissism? What strange things drive us through life; what strange creatures we are. How incredibly
important it is for us to have some reason to think we are somehow important – and not only to think it but to
demonstrate it for others to see. Perhaps that is why well over fifty percent of us consider ourselves above
average – the Lake Wobegone syndrome.
One might ask how much the self esteem movement has contributed to all this, but the statistics are
apparently similar in countries other than ours which has not been so ridiculously bitten by it. Conceit?
Another related word. Egocentric? And how do power, wealth and fame play together? I am not offering
solutions; I am sitting in awe of the drive they generate. And how many are bitten by each? I know, my naiveté
stands out brazenly; but up to forty percent of people wanting to be famous? Why? Do they associate it with
wealth and power? Certainly that must be part of it, and I can understand that better; the rest, however,
eludes me.
It definitely makes it difficult to assign motives; but maybe that’s because they are never simple.
Having for some time being involved in research about power, I keep running into wealth and fame. Wealth is
understandable since wealth generates power and power often leads to wealth. They really do go hand and
hand and there is no mystery to the relationship. But what of fame?
In an article entitled “People who put their trust in human power delude themselves” (JewishWorldReview.
com, Dec. 19, 2007, 10 Teves, 5768), Paul Johnson makes the point that power is transient and that those
who wield it are ultimately impotent. Using power wielders such as Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon he chronicles
how quickly power passed through their hands. I was unconvinced, as the power I have been contemplating
is less monumental than that which he discusses. There are, after all, many levels of power - my point, not
his – and it seems to me that people who achieve nominal levels of power use it quite comfortably and
effectively to their satisfaction, often throughout their lives. But then what he referred to, I believe, is more
related to the shortness of life and the fact that however much power (or wealth) one achieves, one cannot
take it with him. And this is what leads to fame and the next article.
Written by Benedict Carey for the New York Times, it was entitled “The Fame Motive” (NY Times.com, August
22, 2006), it explores two levels of fame: the urge to achieve social distinction and a subconscious but acute
appreciation of mortality. Are they the same? Related perhaps, but not the same?
Why do people pursue power? I have concluded they do so to achieve wealth in order to live lavishly, to be
able to get things done they want to get done, to keep other people from getting things done they want to get
done (for both good and for ill, and for both of which wealth helps a great deal), security – to protect ones’ self,
and the pure bullying enjoyment of it. Clearly they all begin to run together, and it is easy to get bogged down
in the wealth that often enables or motivates it, or both. But drop a level lower and you realize that there are
many other aspects of power – aspects that transcend wealth – that are more humble: some people just like
to have their way and seek power for that purpose, and some want it to secure that which we call respect –
defined in many different ways by different people.
So what of fame? Acute appreciation of mortality can derive from power. If one wants to be remembered
beyond his lifetime, wealth and power are two ways of getting there. Either can get one’s name on a building,
street or statue, and either can lead to remembrance that transcends mortality – at least for a time. Serious
fame can generate the same result, particularly in our entertainment mesmerized culture. But achieving
social distinction is closely akin to power (and wealth) is it not? I would have thought so. But there is
apparently a new motive afoot: Carey suggests that “millions of ambitious people…want to swivel necks, to
light a flare in others’ eyes, to walk into a crowded room and feel the conversation stop.” This is a different
kind of power, and though it might be closely associated with influence – and wealth – apparently for some it
is motive enough.
“To be widely known to strangers…rooted in a desire for social acceptance.” Consider the fool who eats the
most hotdogs in a minute to get his name in the record book; he is famous until someone else eats one
more in the same time period. Famous to whom? Presumably to everyone aware of his feat, whoever that
might be. Or the apparently overwhelming desire to be seen on television, even if it’s just waving arms at the
camera. Fleeting fame – very, very fleeting – to friends who might have observed it, or been told about it?
Studies cited suggest that between thirty and forty percent of people either have at least a temporary fantasy
of “enjoying some passing dose of fame” or actually hoping they will achieve “being famous.” For teenagers
the rates are even higher, and many actually expect to achieve it during their lifetimes; is it the same as
popularity? Or more?
Is that the explanation for the strange but powerful popularity of U-Tube and Facebook? “We need,” says
University of Arizona psychologist, “to feel like we are more than just material animals fated only to
obliteration upon death.” Really? Perhaps on the mortality level, but on the social acceptance level?
Unfortunately, Carey informs us, such a goal, dependent upon the judgment of others is psychologically
treacherous.” So why do people pursue such? And so many? Is it a drive similar to greed? Is it
narcissism? What strange things drive us through life; what strange creatures we are. How incredibly
important it is for us to have some reason to think we are somehow important – and not only to think it but to
demonstrate it for others to see. Perhaps that is why well over fifty percent of us consider ourselves above
average – the Lake Wobegone syndrome.
One might ask how much the self esteem movement has contributed to all this, but the statistics are
apparently similar in countries other than ours which has not been so ridiculously bitten by it. Conceit?
Another related word. Egocentric? And how do power, wealth and fame play together? I am not offering
solutions; I am sitting in awe of the drive they generate. And how many are bitten by each? I know, my naiveté
stands out brazenly; but up to forty percent of people wanting to be famous? Why? Do they associate it with
wealth and power? Certainly that must be part of it, and I can understand that better; the rest, however,
eludes me.
It definitely makes it difficult to assign motives; but maybe that’s because they are never simple.