Dignity traded for celebrity in the house of Big Brother; notesfrom

THERE'S an Indian aphorism that Anthony Burgess quotes which goes: "When lovers couple, even God averts His eyes." In Big Brother, inmate Penny Ellis has promised, jokingly, it is said, to have sex on air. I very much fear that the promise, sincere or otherwise, will ensure that there are plenty of eyes on the current Channel 4 series. In fact, the apparatus of this show is about progressive corruption of us all, participants and viewers. The cameras, the voyeurism, the quest for celebrity, the lure of money, the exhibitionism and the possibility of sexual display combine to create a momentum towards extreme behaviour and an appetite to watch it.

This show is not about winning money; it is about gaining celebrity and it is one of many such contemporary television programmes. But this particular show proves that, for some, fame has a greater value than dignity.

But, hey, relax; let's not put on a po-face about a piece of entertainment for the general public. What's the harm? The participants are adults, they know what they are in for and if it is a travesty of human dignity, it is a victimless travesty because they want to do it and we want to watch it.

Does anyone out there feel uneasy about all this?

What we feel to be legal and decent in society is regulated not by law but that other essential social component, dignity, and is a matter for self regulation. Dignity, after all, is bound up with personal choice and the rights of the individual. At this point we have to ask how important dignity might be. Is it simply a nice-to- have feature of society? If we decide to "do it in the road" as The Beatles recommended, then the indecent and illegal aspects come into play in court before the question of indignity is broached.

Oppressors usually try to remove dignity when subjugating victims; the shaven heads of the prison camps did not hurt - they demeaned. Dignity is about self- esteem and cohesive behaviour. So if entertainment such as Big Brother is based on the willingness of participants to jettison their own dignity, to create artificial relationships for the purpose of destroying them progressively, is that a proper subject for public entertainment?

Part of our duty in society is to protect one another. We have laws to ensure that, of course, but the unregulated part of our behaviour in society, the condition of dignity, persists simply because of our everyday determination to make it work. Behaviour is less about observing rules than observing courtesies; the value is in an elaborate display of restraint. Some token of my immediate interest is sacrificed to your greater comfort. It might be the opening of a door on your behalf or particular care with the wording of a letter. That is how a civilised society operates, but it is a fragile thing.

A former prime minister with big hair told us that society need not come into the equation - it didn't even exist. But even in the United States, where the rights of the individual are sacrosanct and libertarianism flourishes, courts have recognised that rights set up without limitations may have to be curbed when societal values come into play. The First Amendment protects free speech but an exception is made for mob violence or distributing obscenity, these exceptions have had to be created - and they are now accepted.

Current thinkers try to balance the American rights-based culture with appeals to social responsibility. The basic idea is that individuals do not exist autonomously and in isolation, but are shaped by the surrounding community. The extension of this thinking goes as follows: the acceptance or rejection by a society of an individual decision to sacrifice a basic value such as dignity impacts on the lives of everybody. That's why it matters if we simply look on as the dignity of one of our number is traded.

Civilisation has barely earned its name in the past 100 years. We have come to the very brink of anarchy in recent history. We know now that when people are in extremis their behaviour can deteriorate to the animal state but we also know that we can make law prevail and recover dignity.

If behaviour is reduced to inevitable outcomes and then animal levels, people can survive, but a worthwhile future depends on the restoration of selflessness and consideration, ambition and idealism. It may be a very tiny television show but it matters. We all play a part in deciding whether to support the Faustian pact of dignity for celebrity by becoming viewers.

How will we re-enchant our society if the deprivation of dignity is approved as entertainment? Big Brother is tacky not because of its prurience or breast squeezing but because it has persuaded people to exchange their privacy and dignity for celebrity. If everyone is for sale, what are we worth?

Copyright 2001
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.