Murtaza Hussain
@mazmhussain
Historically one of the prerogatives of the wealthy and powerful was that they were inaccessible to the public. This remoteness increased their mystique and also promoted the cultivation of idealized personas to be kept for posterity. Social media has really changed this. Hearing and seeing a person’s unmediated daily stream of thoughts amply demonstrates how even the richest and most celebrated amongst us are only “all too human.” Can you imagine if social media had existed in the time of Edison, let alone Aristotle? Perhaps they would have been fine, but they may have also left us a record of cringeworthy, embarrassing, or inaccurate statements that at the very least complicated our impression of them. I actually welcome the egalitarian nature of social media but have noticed the manner in which it disenchants the image of certain famous individuals who use it poorly. The smartest people use it sparingly and consciously, or simply remain aloof from the public in the style of the aristocracy of old.
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
Snibb123.eth
@snibb123
Wasn’t this always the case in America, or at least more so? Perhaps not in the guided age, but generally? After all, the social gospel had even the mightiest Rockefellers building public libraries.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Snibb123.eth
@snibb123
I guess possibly not though. Suburbs were designed for exclusion.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Murtaza Hussain
@mazmhussain
I think very different; in the sense that these displays of public attention and indulgence were highly scripted and managed specifically to curate the reputation of the person involved. It’s not that we had zero personal access to them but we had very little. Now we have too much access to some people.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction