As an aside allow me a few words on David Aaronovitch's latest column in the Times today. In it he considers adultery; the public attitude towards high profile adulterers in the light of the super injunctions* controversy in the UK, and seductively hints at his own.
DA maps a journey, from reasoning:
"anyone can see that there's no read-across from sexual frugality to professional capacity"
to 'getting it', ie. to understanding the Zeitgeist:
"The unfaithful celebrity, who seems to get it all, rocks our world and mocks our limitations."
Mocks our limitations? Hmm. David doesn't so much 'get it' as gets some of it, some of the time. He certainly doesn't get me. And I am not alone.
It's not about popularity or skill with a ball *cough*. One blogger put it succinctly:
"The simple fact is this. If you become a star then you have to accept that many sad people want to know all about you and are prepared to pay for it. This knowledge is bought and sold at a premium. You knew of this downside before you came to stardom. This thirst for detail is the main reason why sponsors are prepared to pay you lots of money to wear their logos."
When you are a footballer promoting products you are not simply promoting a running shoe or a vest. The world and more particularly the world of advertising doesn't work that way. You are promoting an image. Pay £X for our face cream and you too can look like Kate Moss when actually you never will and a pot of Nivea will do the job just as well. But when the idea of Kate Moss became one of a cocaine snorting debauched druggy her brand was worth less. And that mattered. She traded on her image.
Paddy Pantsdown has demonstrated that adultery need not end a political career but I do think it's naive of Aaronovitch to laugh at the Fred Goodwin case as an illustration. Yes other factors may well have been at work but DA seems to find the idea of cosy corruption between the sheets ridiculous. I wonder what he'd say about the Profumo affair? And the public are right to mistrust a politician given to deceit and debauchery if Lord Boothby is any example. More recently David Laws' deceit about his expenses was fraud.
"If you make a commitment" DA tells us "it should cost you". Oh what rot. David Aaronovitch doesn't 'get it' again. It's not about anything costing you it's about having integrity. If David married in church I'm guessing he would have promised to honour his wife?
"David, will you take [this shorter person] to be your wedded wife? Will you love her, comfort her, honour and protect her, and, forsaking all others, be faithful to her as long as you both shall live?"
Imagine a society in which nothing can be believed. Where there is no trust. Imagine that all the food labels tell us lies and we never know who will be at home when we arrive there, or whether our key will fit the lock. Imagine phoning an ambulance and not knowing if it will arrive. Imagine caring for someone and never knowing where they are or if they are well or in pain or coming back? Imagine giving yourself to someone and in that moment of giving never knowing if this is shared joy or simply a convenient lie? Imagine the stress of not believing.
David Aaronovitch is an atheist and quotes Cromwell, presumably in an effort to mock the idea of sin. But society needs it's heros and gods, it needs its symbols of good and evil. If David would care to look back through history and philosophy he would see that. And we need to trust. I know that. Life is far too scary without it.
Notice that DA wrote "sexual frugality" not sexual fidelity. Why does he assume that faithful husbands have a frugal sex life and unfaithful ones an ample sex life? I don't think we can assume either way. An adulterous husband can be one who desperately searches for a shag and rarely gets laid whereas a happily married husband can enjoy a deeply satisfying sex life with his wife. It's completely subjective and not a matter of frugality or liberation per se. I've seen far too many desperate middle aged men rejected to subscribe to that view.
I think David is correct when he states:
"Those of us who stay within our own struggle will often want some kind of recognition for our own self-discipline"
Society should applaud good behaviour and denounce the bad. Isn't that what it's all about? Religion, philosophy and politics is all about telling us how to live; what is good and what is bad. But I don't think the unfaithful celebrity is mocking our limitations. As I've already stated, we need our heros. We need images to aspire to. But the example of wrongdoing is not about mocking our limitations. None of us are perfect. It is the casual acceptance of wrongdoing that mocks our value system. We cannot and will not put bad behaviour on the same comment free platform as good and nor should we. It is more about the acknowledgement of our frailty and our need for the public reassurance of what is right and what is wrong. The visible establishment of our shared values.
In my opinion this issue has now threatened the establishment. If an MP cannot stand up in parliament and speak honestly and freely, with full regard to his commitment to his constituency, then where is democracy? With secret 'Family Courts' in Britain and Super Injunctions for the rich and famous (they're costly) I can only agree with David Aaronovitch: it's a disgrace.
*Super Injunction: a gagging order so complete that you can't even say there's a gagging order.
Public figures and public morality are discussed on the Moral Maze on BBC Radio 4, chaired by David Aaronovitch, here.
Aaronovitch debates this topic, phone hacking and journalistic ethics with David Allen Green and others at the Frontline Club.
UPDATE:
I've never had sand kicked in my face before but tonight David Aaronovitch did just that by stomping on the opinion about injuctions protecting a brand with: 'well we all know it's shit' or words to that effect. Succinct and devastating. Check out the exact quote by watching the good and interesting debate about superinjuctions, phone hacking and ethics in journalism at the Frontline club here. I don't agree with all Aaronovitch says, especially when he claims to have special insight into the motives of other people (as this post states: I am living proof), but I recommend this enjoyable and informative debate. Was Peter Obourne pissed? Is Aaronovitch going to hug David Allen Green later on Hampstead Heath? Should we care? And is the UK so far behind America and Europe in enforcing a code of conduct in print journalism that change is needed? Watch the debate, here.
More on injunctions on BBC R4 here, Tues 21st June.
“The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant." • "If it is an offense to justice to hold people who may have been victims of mistaken identity or of vendettas by other factions, then it is also an offense to justice to release psychopathic killers who believe that they have divine permission to throw acid in the faces of girls who want to attend school." • "Don't be such a lesbian!
”
