I’m as wowed by Susan Boyle as anyone, and I wish her continued success in the talent competition, but I’ve been bothered by thoughts similar to those that prompted Dennis Palumbo to ask, “What if Susan Boyle Couldn’t Sing?“
“The unspoken message of this whole episode is that, since Susan Boyle has a wonderful talent, we were wrong to judge her based on her looks and demeanor. Meaning what? That if she couldn’t sing so well, we were correct to judge her on that basis? That demeaning someone whose looks don’t match our impossible, media-reinforced standards of beauty is perfectly okay, unless some mitigating circumstance makes us re-think our opinion?”
Mr. Palumbo makes most of the points I would have made, and probably better than I would have made them. What I’d add is that one of the warped philosophies that support such prejudice is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism regards people as valuable insofar as they can produce and good or service useful to others. That includes entertainment.
Had Susan Boyle not sung well, the judges and audience would have continued to think poorly of her. Her “inner beauty” would be irrelevant because she would have failed to establish her worth. Unmarried, unemployed, unattractive, and untalented, she’d be of no use to them.
In truth, a person’s dignity is not derived from our social standing, our achievements, our wealth, our talents, or any other way society might consider us useful. Rather, it is not derived at all; it is inherent. Religious or not, few would argue against the Golden Rule, “Do to others as you would have them do to you” or “Do not so to others what you would not have them do to you”. Necessary prerequisites for this rule to work, however, are that we must regard other human beings first and foremost as persons with intrinsic dignity and never as objects to be used or means to ends.
If our societies have forgotten or rejected these foundational principles, God help us all, for some day we – or perhaps our progeny – may cease to be sufficiently useful to society. Then what?
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Google]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[LinkedIn]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/linkedin.png)
![[Reddit]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/reddit.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Twitter]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
Well said. I've been a bit uncomfortable with the attention this video has gotten, because while it has the laudable effect to taking to task those who believe the one must be physically beautiful in order to sing beautifully, it reinforces the belief that one must have entertainment value, or some other sort of financial value in the marketplace, to have value as a person.
The utilitarianism you speak of has always existed. Good people of all kinds have fought and still fight against it. This isn't to denigrate or pooh-pooh your observations, you make good points. But I feel we need to recognize that our fallen natures will always be with us, something to ALWAYS work against.
What's interesting to me are the judges. Has anyone besides me noticed that Simon isn't nearly as cruel on his own countrymen as he is on Americans. I have seen him absolutely annhillate folks trying out for American Idol. What also amazes me are the number of people who are terrible who try out. Why? Are they living in a dream world? I can see doing it just to say you did it with no expectation of making it, but some of the worst seem really shattered. What's up with that?Everybody has gifts. Looks and "idol" type talents aren't the best ones. The person who's an expert at charity wins hands down.
I am not sure I agree with Mr. Palumbo's points. I mean, if she couldn't sing, she wouldn't have been there. I have been pleasantly surprised many times by people with surprising talents, not necessarily of the entertainment variety. I will admit, quite readily, that I often do judge a book by it's cover. It is a weakness I beleive many of us have. We do our best to look beyond, but as a previous comment stated, our fallen natures are always with us. For me this performance doesn't perpetuate a belief that only entertainers have value; the performance reminded me to look beyond my initial impression and seek the inner beauty given by God to every human being. That may mean recognizing a woman's vocal talents, or a mother who is attentive and loving, a teacher with incredible patience, a gardener with a talented green thumb, etc. And if God gave her the pipes, well, let her sing!
“I mean, if she couldn’t sing, she wouldn’t have been there.”
Actually, that’s not true. Shows like X Factor/American Idol and UK’s/America’s Got Talent usually select the best of the best and the worst of the worst to televise. The awful performers are no doubt selected for mocking. Aside from simple observation of these shows, I know this to be true because a friend auditioned for American Idol and was told so.
“For me this performance doesn’t perpetuate a belief that only entertainers have value; the performance reminded me to look beyond my initial impression and seek the inner beauty given by God to every human being. That may mean recognizing a woman’s vocal talents, or a mother who is attentive and loving, a teacher with incredible patience, a gardener with a talented green thumb, etc.”
You’ve missed the point. Persons have value *even if they have no talents*. Looking past appearances is a good idea, but the point of what Palumbo and I wrote is that Boyle would still have inner beauty *even if she had no noticeable talent at all*.
“And if God gave her the pipes, well, let her sing!”
Both Palumbo and I would agree. I’m still cheering her on. Cheering for her isn’t mutually exclusive with asking “what if she couldn’t sing?”
Good point, and in the the premise that a human being is of worth with talent or not, you would certainly get no argument from this Catholic dad. Perhaps we disagree on the definition of talent; I look at that broadly, perhaps too broadly. Nonetheless, she has certainly caused many of us to check our consciences. I see value in that, perhaps more value than the voice she has been given.
Indeed,shows like Idol and Britain’s Got Talent do display contestants for mockery. Two problems with that: First, the poor soul is so hungry for attention that they would subject themselves to that, and second, so many just can’t seem to turn it off, judging by the popularity of this type of entertainment.
Anyhoo, as one who doesn’t watch much TV, I guess I didn’t share the discomfort with the video because it wasn’t seen in the same context; I do appreciate your point of view and extend thanks for your explanations!
Atom, I think there is much truth to what you say. It is a lot like when some of us on the pro-life side argue because you may be killing the next great scientist or artist or leader. While true, that is totally beside the point. We derive our worth in being not in doing. I think that is your point and is very true.
It is good that you remind us, because we can sometimes forget that everyone has value because they are a human being.
But it is good to glory in God’s gifts – especially when we were prejudiced by looks and then surprised by talent. I think that is one of God’s ways of making your point.
I agree with your using the story of Susan Boyle to expose society's consistent utilitarian view of humanity. Her greatest worth is her being created in the image of God, not any ability that she has. However, I think it is crucial in the utmost to be consistent and extend the recognition of intrinsic human worth to men also, who have suffered at least as much as Susan Boyle or women in general, from the utilitarian philosophy so prevalent in this age. How many men have bought into the lie that their worth is their weekly paycheck, or the accumulation thereof? or their athletic ability? or their ability to attract men and women for good or evil purposes? Stories of such men do not make the news like Susan Boyle unless their inordinate desires lead them to commit a heinous crime. Nor do their stories tug at the heartstrings like a Susan Boyle, but are they really any less tragic?
Amen to that, John!
"I think it is crucial in the utmost to be consistent and extend the recognition of intrinsic human worth to men also…"I'm in complete agreement with you. Does my post give the impression of being gynocentric?
No, and I see that I may have half-accused you of such in what I said. I think your post is timely and appropriate.I do however wonder whether there would be as many questions raised as to whether this person is simply being used if the singer were a man and not a woman. I wished to highlight how we recognize (correctly) that society frequently objectifies women, that is, uses women as only a means to an end; but that we very rarely seem to recognize how society uses men as simply a means to an end, even though I think it happens at least as much as women, though usually in different, but no less heinous, ways.