Re-post from a few years ago...as if you couldn't tell by the references!
A lot of hay is made in the press over celebrity sexual transgressions. As Chris Rock said about the Monica Lewinsky scandal –“ CAN YOU IMAGINE BEING SO FAMOUS THAT SOMEONE WHO SUCKS YOUR D#$% BECOMES FAMOUS?” And indeed, this is what we see time and time again. We love building up our heroes but never as much as we relish tearing them down.
Our celebrity obsessed culture builds caricatures around successful athletes like Tiger Woods that are readily reinforced by his handlers. After all, Image is everything and being the best golfer in the world is not enough to secure the biggest money endorsements. One must also be the “every man” complete with good ethics and a “normal family life”. But what if the very thing that drove Woods to success also causes him to unconsciously disregard ethical standards?
Those who strive for power/success do it for the same primitive reasons as those who choose to play more conservative and safer roles - One either seeks safety in the pack or sets himself apart to lead it.
You’ve heard it time and again: A powerful man - politician, billionaire, actor or sports figure takes what would seem to be an unbelievably foolish turn to unethical behavior seemingly blind to the certainty that he will get caught. “WHAT WAS HE THINKING?” everyone asks. Whether its Eliot Spitzer or Tiger Woods everyone is “shocked” at the behavior of an intelligent man whose reputation is not only meticulously cultivated but whose power and wealth pivots on the public’s perception of their ethics and morality.
Is it possible that the psychological profile of the most successful people is actually one that is so unconcerned with the approval of others that it contradicts and potentially works to destroy the best efforts of their publicists and handlers?
Though personally unfamiliar with the details of their personal life stories I think it’s safe to assume that both Spitzer and Woods overcame many obstacles on their way to the top. At one point or another Spitzer was a young assistant DA fighting ruthlessly to convict, while Woods worked tirelessly on some aspect of his golf game that needed improvement. Just like you or I they had many people in their lives who told them to “take it easy” or “slow down” or “don’t ruffle any feathers”. Unconcerned with these voices, they strived from a deeply internal sense of motivation that seems to disregard and indeed silence the world around them in an almost pathological way.
Of course, for practical reasons they both needed to keep-up a certain public profile, as anyone does, to solidify their careers and position themselves for even greater success: Spitzer became the incorruptible “White Knight” of Wall Street and ran for Governor as that man – Woods became the superhuman who maintained the demeanor of an “approachable family man” in order to secure multimillion dollar endorsements (after all, what do Gillette razors have to do with golf?) Both were undoubtedly the best at what they did, but in our contemporary society this is clearly not enough, and it hasn’t been in recent memory.
So, my question is: Can someone simultaneously be the best at what they do and adhere to a socially approved moral standard? If ethics are the norms to which our cultural peers ask us to conform, wouldn’t someone have to at least be somewhat concerned about others opinions to behave ethically? This is not to say that one need be a sociopath to be highly successful—after all, Spitzer and Woods are not murderers or rapists. They were powerful men who were disloyal to their spouses due, at least in part, to that very success.
In the animal world, power is absolute. Animals have instincts but, Disney movies aside, lack ethics. When an alpha male or female controls a group of subordinates, there is no doubt that they dominate. The only protest comes when a beta animal directly challenges them in an attempt to fill their position.
As Mel Brooks’s character in History of the World Part 1 so eloquently put it “It’s good to be the king!" And human history is full of examples of conquerors crowning themselves king, enslaving the vanquished and dominating their society until challenged directly and violently. Its only in the last small chunk of history where we have, thankfully, made things more complex: Powerful people must also be “good” people or at least pretend to be in order to hold on to power– Simply dominating is not good enough. Our heroes and leaders need to “feel our pain” and show humility lest we reject them.
Exceptional people of talent, including Spitzer and Woods, need to constantly shut out the world of doubters and “realists” and essentially turn off the natural human need for approval. So, although I do not condone their behavior, from a sociological perspective, aren’t they just dominant people who, in their myopic pursuit of success, chose not to listen to the crowd?