Many movies, TV shows and novels focus on both kinds of celebrities. These productions highlight the often-melodramatic tragedy associated with accidental fame, as well as the trade-offs and dilemmas associated with intentional fame. As a society, we seem to be enthralled with both these forms of fame. We feel great compassion for the accidental celebrities—yet we gobble up stories about their lives. We show distain for the movie star or rock star who abandons family and all sense of personal virtual to pursue fame—yet we can’t get enough of these Faustian tales of betrayal and remorse.
The issue of fame as a trade off with lost privacy is of concern not just people who become public celebrities. It also concerns leaders in organizations. There is often a comparable dilemma and trade-off among those who choose to assume positions of formal (or informal) power. While these men and women often live with the fiction that they will achieve more freedom and more control over their life when they become leaders, the opposite is often the case. Like the accidental and intentional celebrities, they sacrifice a major portion of their private life and their control over events in their life as they gain more power.
On Shooting an Elephant
This point is made in a poignant manner by George Orwell (of “1984” fame) in his short story, On Shooting an Elephant.[i] Orwell’s story concerns a British gentleman who served as a government official in an Indian village during the time when England ruled India (the British Empire). This man is faced with the task of shooting a rogue elephant who was terrorizing villagers. He didn’t want to shoot the elephant—but realized that he must kill the beast if he is to preserve his authority in the village.
At this moment, our British protagonist realized that he had very little freedom and that he had to respond to external expectations (Quad One-External) if he was to retain his power in the community. Orwell offers this cautionary tale as a way of illustrating not only the corrupting nature of foreign occupation, but also the potentially restricting (and corrupting) nature of any form of leadership. This is not just a story about Indian culture. In many societies, power and role are assigned by the community (external locus of control)—even in the Western world.
