Years ago, I read a sarcastic essay. The specifics I remember not, but I do remember the first line about: When a boy hangs out with a girl on the street, and the girl intends to Jaywalk, the boy can either stops her, or go along and pulls her back when a car rushes by. It is much more likely that the latter choice will impress and move the girl.
It sounds silly, but I cannot deny there is an element of truth. When we do things, it does not matter how worthy they are, it matters (for publicity) how dramatic it is.
For the public, it is much better to rant against, ridicule and rebel against a government than work in the system and improve from within. Why? Rebellion is much more dramatic.
A state man is seldom acknowledged for keeping his country stable and thriving; we would rather give credit to someone who overthrow his own government. As for what happens afterwards, like is there a good government that takes over or is there just anarchy, we could not care less. (Personally, I abhor at the bloodiness of the French Revolution, rather than admire the courage of the people).
A movie about someone who does good job in good times, working relentlessly to prevent things getting out of control could not be exciting. We want to see things our of control and someone comes and bring it back to order.
Such worship of heroism will be counter-productive if it divert energy away from non-dramatic but helpful contributions (come on, working from within and reform gradually takes up patience and skills). What is more worrisome is it might probably distort incentives. Would someone or some country be tempted to create trouble so they could play a more dramatic role.
Drama, I love not.
No comments:
Post a Comment