Comment (17)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
Technorati
diggWhen picture-perfect is flawed
To the organisers in Beijing, it was a detail, but lip-synching in the opening ceremony struck at the heart of the Olympic spirit.
So, the footage of
the "footprint" fireworks was digitally inserted in the TV
coverage of the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics. And Lin
Miaoke, the adorable nine-year-old "singer," was miming the
Ode to the Motherland, as seven-year-old Yang Peiyi's voice floated
over the 90,000-person crowd and was transmitted across the world.
Peiyi wasn't pretty enough; Miaoke's voice wasn't pure enough. So what's wrong with a combination that results in the best of both worlds? Why has this story made front-page headlines in western democracies and elicited so many strong negative reactions? Have we overreacted?
I believe the answer is no, and that our immediate reaction was based on a strong moral intuition that something was wrong. So far, however, we haven't fully identified what that is. To do so, we need to explore the ethical and values issues implicated in this incident. They include deception, integrity, authenticity, trust and the search for perfection.
But, first, a word of warning: There is almost certainly a cultural miscommunication or even clash in this situation. My guess is that it never occurred to the Chinese how their approach would be seen by people from other cultures.
Western democracies are intensely individualistic cultures. Indeed, the highly individualistic western approach is manifestly obvious in the media stories reporting this incident, whether in the New York Times or a local TV news report. The entire focus is on Peiyi and how cruel it was to tell her she wasn't pretty enough and how hurt she must have felt at being excluded -- which, I hasten to add, the journalists are right to recognize as a wrong.
In stark contrast, Chinese culture is an intensely collectivist one -- if two girls are more "perfect" than each alone, and that benefits the collectivity, the Motherland, go for it.
That difference means we need to cut the Chinese some slack in regard to this incident, not just to be fair to them, but also in our own long-term interests of trying to cross the divides between us, and certainly not to make them wider.
Deception is the central issue involved and deception is always ethically suspect. But does this deception really matter? Leaving aside the hurt to Yang Peiyi from being dumped at the last minute and her voice still being used (it's hard to imagine that the issue of consent to such use was even considered), seeing the opening ceremony as grand theatre would give the organizers permission to use techniques that allow the world audience to suspend its disbelief. So why were we so shocked?
Unlike the situation that prevails in relation to the theatre, we the audience did not agree to be deceived. The ethical problem is intentionally presenting as real something that is not real. That is to breach trust, and it is this breach that is at the heart of our concern.
The opening ceremony incidents might also have shocked us to a degree beyond what seems reasonable at first glance, because of their context: The deception contravened the very spirit of the Olympic Games -- the inspiration generated by the gathering of the "youth of the world," the noble aspirations, the no-cheating-with-drugs, "spirit of sport" ethos and its espoused values. It came across as cheating, as a breach of trust. Breaches of trust are often experienced as a betrayal; this was a betrayal of the Olympic spirit.
The word integrity frequently arises in discussions of trust. In 2005, integrity was the most frequently searched word in Webster's On-Line Dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary defines integrity, in a moral sense, to include: Soundness of moral principle; the character of uncorrupted virtue, esp. in relation to truth and fair dealing; uprightness, honesty, sincerity. This definition could be used as an advertisement for the spirit that is meant to inform the Olympics, cynical as we might sometimes be about the authenticity of such a statement in relation to a mega event with enormous commercial spin-offs.
Integrity is at the core of ethics and ethical conduct, and an essential condition precedent to implementing all of our most important personal and communal values. And integrity is the beating heart of democracy, justice, and respect for human rights. These are the values and principles on which, in western democracies, we build organizations, institutions, and the state itself. Without integrity, these values and principles cannot be implemented and they, and the institutions built on them, die.
The fact that much of the world is worried about justice, respect for human rights, and ethical conduct in China, and hopes one day to see democracy in that country, might also help to explain why there has been such a powerful negative reaction to what is, on its face, a minor deception in the opening ceremony.
Acting with integrity is also linked to maintaining social trust, a central component of what is being called "social capital" -- the accumulated common good that we need to maintain a healthy society of the kind that most of us would want to live in. A culture of social trust is difficult to establish, fragile, and easy to destroy. The espoused goal of the Olympics is to build worldwide social trust and certainly not to damage it, as the opening ceremonies incident might have done.
In general, we trust what we can perceive directly with our senses -- what we can see or hear or touch. But virtual reality means things that are not real can seem real to our senses and that has resulted in an overall loss of trust in society as a whole. If that loss is to be halted, it's especially important that the media can be trusted not to deceive their audiences. Both the miming incident and the "footprints" one need to be examined from this perspective -- although again, like the former, at first glance, the latter seems a minor liberty to take.
I've often mused on why seeing the original of a famous painting is not only different from, but much more exciting than seeing an exact copy. Or we can think about how antiques lose their value if they are refinished -- when the effects of the many human hands that have touched the antique have been erased, we consider that the antique is no longer authentic, no longer unique, no longer the "real thing"; its priceless intangible essence is gone. In fact, although in one sense we might regard refinished antiques as more perfect, less blemished, we value them less because in our touching them to alter them, they can no longer touch our imagination with the same profundity. Seeking the "perfect" little composite girl means the same is now true of the Beijing Opening Ceremony.
Then there is the question of authenticity: What is required for the Olympic Games to be authentic in their very essence, without which that essence is lost? One important element is that athletes must compete only on the basis of their own natural talent, unenhanced by prohibited means such as drugs. But the Games, as a whole, must also be authentic.
The opening ceremony faced the Chinese authorities with a choice between authenticity and perfection, as they saw it. Their choices were a) to go with authenticity at the expense of the perfect; b) to chose the "perfect" but to be transparent about it up front and disclose this choice; or c) to do what they did. Ethically, it was the wrong choice. Often, the search for perfection is just that.
Margaret Somerville
is director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill
University, and author of The Ethical Imagination: Journeys of the
Human Spirit.
Having followed this blog with interest, it seems to me, with all due respect, that the criteria to employ re the lip-synching and also the fake fireworks, should not be ethical ones, but aesthetic. These parts of the opening show were, in themselves, what could broadly be described as theatrical events. As such, surely they are either good or bad art, rather than moral or immoral art. (I thought they were fantastic!) They are not immoral because “fakery” was involved. Many musical and visual performances involve such technological enhancements.
What, I believe, does make sense to describe as moral or immoral, however, are the intentions of the directors of the show, e.g., to whitewash Chinese human rights violations. Of course, it is difficult to determine their interior states.
While not convinced that Professor Sommerville is wrong, this issue seems to me to be much more about art than about morality. Although not yet completely sure of my own reaction, I am puzzled that viewers were so upset by the lip synching as well as the fakery in the opening fireworks display.
However, these were artistic creations, not moral actions. Although I am still a bit disgruntled by, for one example among many, Glen Gould splicing different takes of his studio piano performances to produce the final product that he wanted, can’t the two situations above be seen in the same way?
They were both artistic creations produced for a specific purpose, that of beautifully and spectacularly inaugurating the Games.
Is there any more to them than that?
I think the offense comes from telling a little girl that she’s not pretty enough to be seen using the voice she probably worked very hard to develop. That was my first reaction. I was offended for the little girl. And I think it’s an indication of the inferior position held by girls in China.
Indeed, thank you Professor Somerville for advancing current academic ethical thought, as well as sharing your views among others not of that discipline. What suffering for those principle-based ethicists who must endure much struggle to co-exist in a world where pragmatism seems almost ‘de rigeur’.
In response to JWR: If one is a principle based ethicist (that is, one believes that there is some gounded truth and that some actions are inherently wrong), then good ends never justify unethical means (doing that which is inherently wrong).
If, in contrast, one is a utilutarian ethicist, there is nothing that is inherently wrong, it is always a question of whether the goods of the ends outweigh the harms and risks of the means. And if one is a moral relatavist, the decision in that regard is just a matter of personal preferences and values - that is, there is no grounded truth to guide decisions as to what is and is not ethical.
The division between principle based (or deontological)ethicists and utilitarion ethicists is arguably the most fundamental one in contemporary applied ethics. It’s at the heart of most of the conflict surrounding ethical issues that we see reported daily in the media, whether in relation to human embryo stem cell research, cloning, synthetic biology, euthanasia, abortion to name just some issues.
Interestingly, JWK’s statement: “The actions of the human race would suggest that, yes, the expectation of good ends may justify unethical means”, would not be acceptable to either “camp” - principle based or utilitarian ethicists. Principle based ethicists would reject it, in principle, as simply wrong ethically. Utilitarians would reject it on the grounds that if the good of the “good ends” outweighs the harm of the means, the means are not unethical.
Thanks for raising these issues - it’s very important that we understand where and why and how we disagree, if we are to avoid conflict and ever to get beyond our disagreements.
Margo Somerville
hmmm…
It seems like, it cuts both ways. All the more reason to strive for perfection; and not through deception.
Thank you, Margo!
ck :-)
In reply to Professor Somerville comments on my own, ‘good ends justify unethical means’...I would venture that it depends on the perspective of the promoter of those subjective ‘good ends’. The child who was attractive enough to be seen was unable to sing well enough to be heard, for the Chinese authorities. There have doubtless been many occasions in the past where the expectation of good ends have been used to justify unethical means. Witness the wilfull manipulation of photographs by some Reuters-sponsored contractors during the most recent Israel-Lebanese conflict.Photographs ‘doctored’ to make the damage look twice as bad as it was and so bring the end to hostilities closer, we are told.This is but one recent example of Western (Reuters, no less) sanctioned deception. The Chinese deception during the Olympic Games seems to have garnered, overall, Western approval in the sense that Jacques Rogge decribed the games as ‘exceptional’, nothwithstanding the deception. The outcome satisfied the host country’s need for ‘harmony’ and West’s appetite for entertainment was also met. The actions of the human race would suggest that, yes, the expectation of good ends may justify unethical means.
hmmm…
Finally, saw Peiyi’s face at Google. Oh c’mon, guys! Little girls will always be pretty; and will always grow to be beautiful ladies, especially in the eyes of their beholders; yes, even beyond Elena’s comment on the set of crooked teeth.
The fact is that, the olympics and its IOC are not exempt from any man-made problems, (i.e., bribery, scandals, politics, boycotts, doping, violence, and that’s to name a few). Olympic history is so riddled with many other nitpicking, too, (i.e., the rich west baskings in the glory that they can flex their “muscles” against the poor east; where even rich nations are shamed by poorer ones, at times, too); ...but that is not the point.
China tried; ...coming from communism, it’s a step, and that is good! The IOC is still learning, like all of us. We ought to cut them some slack, shouldn’t we? Like nothing in this world is really picture perfect; and at many times, flawed? hmmm, with photoshop, nowadays who knows; not even living in the west is a guarantee. We all hope that China and the IOC just wanted to entertain in a given space and time; and that, ...that was the original intention, and not to deceive, ...really, ...we hope. Otherwise, this article is just another nitpicking; and like gold’s glitter, will eventually, fade away.
;-)
I think the time we spend on this issue is important & worthwhile: the discussion is not about beauty, but about trust and authenticity. It helps us -as Prof. Somerville points out- to think that we are faced with different mentalities. I admire the hard work, discipline and artistic qualities displayed by the Chinese people in the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games. However, everyone agrees that authenticity and natural talents are at the core of the spirit of the Olympics and this is what probably hurt more in this situation. It is hard to build trust and it is so easy to lose it when you discover that there has been a breach to that trust. I was watching the closing ceremony yesterday and certainly I could not look at it with the same “innocent” eyes as the opening one.
Very good and timely article! Thank you Prof. Somerville for helping everyone ponder about the importance of trust, integrity and authenticity for the construction of a healthy society, either in the East or in the West.
JWR writes:
“How can there be deception if China is made to look good? It was the face of China that was on display and we all paid attention and were suitably impressed by the ‘performance’.”
This question seems to imply that good ends justify unethical means, that is, that deception is not deception if one has a worthy goal and achieves it. Or am I misunderstanding what is written?
Second, the basic question is, what was the nature of the “performance” to which “we all paid attention” and that impressed us, and was there deception that mattered with respect to it? That’s one of the issues I try to explore in my article.
PChung writes:
“The West seems to be overtly obsessed with this issue. ... What I am surprised with is that so much time and effort is spent on such issue.”
That’s the central issue I was trying to address - why was the West so caught up in this incident - and I was speculating on some possible explanations. I was NOT writing from a Chinese perspective about what might have caused this decision to use a “composite” little girl to be taken, except to the extent that I indicated it might have been an innocent mistake related to cultural assumptions.
One person emailed me accusing me of racism in relation to what I said about culture in that she said I had implied that deception is endemic to Chinese culture and people. For the record, I certainly do not believe that, and do not think my article either states or implies that (rather the contrary, in that I think, to repeat, that there was an innocent mistake that might have a cultural explanation) but I’m taking this opportunity to correct any such impression.
Lip-synching seams very insignificant compared to the over a million people who were forced from their homes so that we could sit back in the comfort of our arm chairs and enjoy the ‘show’.
It is not China that is to blame - but our entertainment machine - and our desires for ‘High Definition’ patriotism.
I could not agree more with JWR.
The West seems to be overtly obsessed with this issue. I have to say that all that Prof. Somerville has written is true. What I am surprised with is that so much time and effort is spent on such issue.
It is surprising that the same people who cries “foul” at this decision of the Chinese authorities are the same ones who gets “shocked” to see that their idolized hollywood stars are actually fat, or has had liposuction etc. Are the Western people the only ones who have the right to look pretty in front of the world?
I have a sense that Professor Somerville has some hesitation about whether the events she describes are an aberration of the ethics of the Olympic Games Organizing Committee or the Governemt of China. Who indeed would know? As I understand matters, at least it was a Chinese government official who disclosed the deception. If we believe that it was the wish of the organizers, whether ‘Olympics’ driven, or Chinese culture driven, to strive for maximum acceptance by the likely largely Western audience the one might say that the Western audience got what they have themselves previously invoked: a merge of choices to present one view of ‘perfection’, so-called. The ‘West’ has seen deception of this type before in the context of the ‘entertainment’ industry and surely both the Olympic Movement as well as the Chinese government know this: the former more than the latter in my estimation. To the surpise of no-one, I trust, the Western press has stoked the deception as though they themselves were immune from the practice too. Any informed observer of the Olympic Games would have some difficulty in teasing out the value attached to sport from the value attached to politics by those who drive the organisation. Similarly, the Chinese cultural imperative of ‘harmony’ permeates everything from top to bottom to the extent that every exchange is deserving of scrutiny. How can there be deception if China is made to look good? It was the face of China that was on display and we all paid attention and were suitably inpressed by the ‘performance’. The West seems to expect China to replicate western ways and when it does the criticism is both acute and elongated. How perverse it that?
Your article confirms my inner sense of discomfort and disappointment on learning of this deception. Now I have a clearer understanding of why I felt that and I have key points to make when I wish to explain my point of view. Thanks!
Why is anyone shocked that the Chinese Communist Government faked the details of the Olympic Opening ceremony? On a far vaster scale it has duped millions of foreigners with the fake image of China as free and open. But Western commentators show an unerring tendency to focus on the trivial offence and ignore the vast atrocities.
Page 1 of 2 : 1 2 >