(View entire post here)
We are overwhelmed in our time by images of suffering from far away - devastation unfolding in real time in digital resolution and Dolby sound, lives being ruined before our eyes - that we don't know what to do with, how to live with. It's a kind of relief then to turn to another genre of dramatic images that bombard us: the lives of celebrities, people who by contrast "have it all." We can admire their excess of beauty and fashion and parties and love affairs and then, when their marriages end or they head into treatment, we can follow their plight knowing that they require nothing of us, not even guilt. They have the resources and all the opportunity in the world to fix for themselves what has gone wrong.
All this is by way of saying that I don't worry overly about our cultural interest in celebrities per se. I understand and participate in it and suspect it is as old as time. But as I've watched Britney Spears unravel before our eyes, in real time, with no end in sight, I have begun to think it's time now for a pause, a moment of cultural soul-searching. I've been profoundly disturbed by the numerous reports I've heard - not in People or Us but in major news outlets - gleefully tallying all the money she continues to make for paparazzi and other people around her, noting with amusement that the profits only rise as she sinks to ever-lower depths.
In my book I recall a conversation I had a few years ago with Pankaj Mishra, an Indian journalist who traced the Buddha's legacy in history and across the world as a social thinker. Mishra himself is an intellectual and a skeptic and came to an interest in religion warily and indirectly. But when I pressed him about the rise of Buddhism and other contemplative religious practices in Hollywood in recent years, he refused to be critical. Stars, he said, have achieved the fame and wealth that our culture exalts and decrees as the pinnacle of success. Yet they discover, each in their own private places and struggles, that fame and wealth can accompany an utter void of meaning. Outward glory does not equal, and may in fact thwart, personal happiness. This simple insight, too, is as old as time.
Britney Spears, more than many celebrities, is our creation. She achieved stardom at an age when her sense of self, of what is good and right and meaningful in life, was completely determined by the adults and the culture around her. But the same machine that made her seems now exquisitely calibrated to destroy and discard her.
So though it might seem a stretch to add Britney's plight to our public list of "moral values" issues, I'm proposing we consider that she might belong there. I'd like to hear religious and spiritual leaders bold enough to call for compassion and introspection - or even for forgiveness for the sinner if even that is how she must be labeled. I wonder who or what could effect a stop to the paparazzi hounding of an already ruined person? Where are the voices genuinely concerned about the plight of her children, whose own personal devastation is also on display in real time, a matter of public spectacle through no fault of their own? What is it doing to our own children when we fail to think and speak about our collective complicity in the creation and downfall of a human being like Britney Spears?
When I write about why religion matters and how to talk about it, I am describing my own longing that diverse religious, ethical, spiritual and theological voices in our culture could gain a new weight and wisdom beyond the tired and polarizing issues and in moments like this.
View more information on Krista Tippett's Speaking of Faith
Krista Tippett,
Speaking of Faith,
religion,
spirituality,
ethics,
Britney Spears,
Penguin Books,
books















Books and blogging
So welcome to blogging. It looks like not many people have discovered you yet, tucked away in a commercial blog instead of an established high traffic site with a community of readers. I can't speak for anyone else, but when I discovered blogs about six or so years ago I let my periodical subscriptions lapse and basicall stopped buying books as well. There is so much content on line now that even a polymath can never embrace it all. I've been blogging over four years and all I have to show for it is a cyber scrapbook of stuff I want to keep. Every time I think I'm about to find a niche, something more interesting comes along and I get spread out even worse.
Count me as one of your fans. I have occasionally posted what I call "radio blogging" directing readers to your site to listen on line to something that caught my attention. I have no way to know whether or not that made any differnce but it gives me satisfaction. At the moment (today, in fact) I'm pushing youor book thanks to the efforts of someone named Sheena on the media team assigned to the task.
That promo comparing you with Bill Moyers doesn't strike me as it should. In my mind you are in the next generation of journalists, dealing with more contemporary issues and people. Moyers interactions with Joseph Campbell and others were immortal, but your talks with today's living thinkers and writers seem more timely to me. Yours is the post-911 era. The content of your work may be cerebral, but the consequences and mission are absolutely more practical than those of the Bill Moyers generation.
When military commanders use phrases like "hearts and minds" I want to believe...but as I watch in horror what they have actually done over the last four or five years I want to shake my head and forget what they said. The phrase turns out to have been nothing but another tool in the psyops box. The insights you take for granted on Speaking of Faith are as rare and fragile as the morning dew on a spider web.
Keep up the good work. (And forget about Britney and other celebs du jour. They come and go like the waterless clouds in Jude. Keep your eye on people like Wallis and the Warrens who are actually doing something to affect change. Yours is the kind of ministry that can be hijacked by pop stars and you're better than that. Keep looking for a common denominator, but it need not be the lowest common denominator. JMHO)