The self-made myth of Michael jackson

Paul Raven @ 28-04-2010

Jackson/Monroe/Warhol mashup posterI’ve never been a fan of Michael Jackson’s music, but I have something of a fascination with his status as a larger- (and weirder-) than-life public figure… a status that his recent death will probably do little to dull, at least in the relatively near-term, and possibly forever. [image by 416style]

As such, I heartily recommend you read this piece by Brian Dillon at The Guardian: “Michael Jackson: king of hypochondria” raises the point that some of the earliest weird tales about Whacko Jacko were in fact created (or at least authorised) by Jackson himself.

When pictures of his visit to the hospital for that purpose made their way to the National Enquirer, Jackson seems to have seen an opportunity to make himself appear more enigmatic in the public mind. It was a curious change in attitude, considering his previous anguished responses to rumours about his personal life: his alleged homosexuality, his supposed decision to have a sex change in the late 70s and the initial media reports that his obvious recourse to plastic surgery was spurred by a desire to look like his mentor Diana Ross. Whatever led Jackson to court notoriety now, the ruse certainly worked; it prompted just the first and perhaps least disturbing of the many bizarre stories that would emerge about him in the years to come.

Though it was not true, the “oxygen tent” story now seems to presage so much about Jackson’s decline that it is hard not to read the image that accompanied it as an emblem of his eventual predicament: reclusive, ailing and unable to reverse his toxic reputation for eccentricity and worse. For the young man in the photograph – whose skin is still brown, whose face has changed since his early 20s but not yet taken on the inhuman aspect of his middle age, whose dancer’s body is not yet emaciated – already resembles nothing so much as a sacred or royal corpse.

Almost every book I’ve read on postmodernism cites Madonna as the quintessential self-made multi-myth, shrugging symbolic identities on and off in order to surf the Zeitgeist and keep the punters interested. That’s somewhat similar to David Bowie’s perpetual reinvention of himself as a symbol (of himself, and of other things), though I’d suggest that Bowie was less interested in being a pop sensation than exploring new avenues that interested him, with a very variable success rate (Tin Machine, anyone?)…

But Jackson just kept grafting new bits on to the same image (literally as well as figuratively), and as such became something bigger than he or his organisation could truly control. I can’t help but feel that, as such, he somehow presaged the uncontrollable runaway meme phenomenons that are such a feature of global internet culture.

Furthermore, it makes him – to my mind at least – an intensely science fictional phenomenon, as well as a postmodern one (if there’s any serious difference between those two things, which I’m less and less sure of as the days go by). The story of Michael Jackson is inherently mediated by the preconceptions of the person reading him as a text, and by the choice of references they use in that reading. The “real” Michael Jackson eventually became such a tiny and insignificant part of the maelstrom of images and stories that surrounded him that he could probably have died long before he did without costing that story any weight or momentum.

There are so many riffs to play around Michael Jackson: riffs of identity-as-narrative (and narrative-as-identity), of the power of PR and dis/mythinformation, about our willingness to believe falsehoods if they tell us what we want to hear, about the increasingly intangible border between a product and its marketing, about becoming the story you tell about yourself, and about that story mutating once it’s too big to control, about self-fulfilling prophecies, about the lonely frightened people sat at the centre of the images we create of ourselves in the public sphere.

The story of Michael Jackson is a very sad one, however it’s told and whoever it’s told by… and it’s all the more sad because his story is, to a greater or lesser extent, our story too.

Be Sociable, Share!

6 Responses to “The self-made myth of Michael jackson”

  1. king rat says:

    So why do you think Bowie was experimenting with stuff that interested him, but Madonna was not? Have you ever chatted with either of them to determine their intent or are you just reading the tea leaves of their public personals?

  2. Paul Raven says:

    Oh, I’ll freely admit that’s my own guess-work there, and most definitely biased by my own preferences. In fact, I nearly said as such in parenthesis, but I thought the post was getting a little too parenthetical already. 🙂

  3. Chad says:

    I have to agree with article on the Madonna/Bowie debate. Madonna always seemed very calculating with her decisions. Of course, she could have actually been interested in some of her changes, but that always felt secondary. Bowie’s decisions always seemed more like this, “Ooh, shiny, let me try that. Not bad….Ooh, shiny, let me try this.”

    I’m not sure chatting with either of them would help if either one was making these decisions based on calculations. Why would they admit to that?

  4. King Rat says:

    “Why would they admit to it?” This is my point precisely. Unless one is a close friend of either of them, divining motivations is an exercise in exposing one’s own biases. It’s generally a bad idea to ascribe motivations absent really good information. It’s inconsequential here, but in other cases it ain’t. I’m glad Paul cops to it being really based on his own preferences.

  5. Chad says:

    Nothing wrong with making an analysis based on the facts at hand.

    I’m also not sure that they would even know the truth, so talking to them even if they told you their “truth” it might not be the real reason.

    Basically, I’m saing I’m fine with a rough analysis like this.

  6. Anonymous T says:

    Before I go into a panic attack, WHAT?! Are you crazy? I know this is your opinion, but my opinion tops the chart. Non of these things are true. They are not even accurate. These are stupid, proposterous rumors about him that really does not make sense. He’s is not a “Wacko-Jacko”, he is Michael J. Jackson and that only. Fans are already dissapointed that he is gone out of our lives, why dissapoint them with horric, unrealistic rumors that does not matter to the world, and will not matter. He is a huge important world icon, not a child molester,a gay man, and a wierdo who hates the color of skin and do things like hang his baby off a balcony for no reason. My opinion, may not matter to you or people who read this crap. But, it matters to the millions of people that has lost a part of their childhood. A part of their lives that they will never get back. I love Michael Jackson because he made me believe that children of the world will make a huge change. Now I’m grown up and made that change. I represent my school, A-B honor roll student. Why? Because he believed in me. Even if he doesn’t know me, he will always be like family to me.