Psychology of Michael Jackson: The King of POP
Psychtronics officially presents you the
psychology of Michael Jackson. After reading the full length autobiography of Michael
Jackson i got clear view on the mentality of Michael Jackson.
Who is Michael Jackson?
The answer for this question is not a
king of the pop the real answer is a childish, innocent, decent, brilliant,
genius and inspiring human being in this world.
I am said he childish because one Hollywood
actresses said about Michael
Jackson “One day i went to Michael Jackson home and we had some discussion and
after some time i kiss Michael Jackson and he kiss back me and this continue
for few minutes and suddenly he went far from me with shy then i understand the
even if he a technically brilliant but innocent at family matters”. As an entertainer, Michael Jackson was
obviously the king of the world not only pop. His spellbinding "pop"
artistry was mesmerizing to virtually everyone who watched him perform. And in the few
days since his passing, the tributes made to his creative musical gifts--and to
his enormous influence on 20th century popular music (to say nothing
of his music videos!)--have drawn an extraordinary amount of attention. Even more attention
(if that's possible) than Elvis Presley received after his own untimely death.
Undoubtedly, he was the very "King of Pop."
Still, in the past two
decades as much probably has been said about Michael's psychological
quirkiness, if not downright pathology, as about his prodigious talent. And the
tragedy, not just of his early death but also of his deeply troubled life,
continues to clamor for our attention. In fact, one major illustration of a
life--and moral consciousness.
Why Michael died at Middle
Age?
Michael Jackson was interrupted by many controversies and those controversies make the Michael
mentally sick. Many of the doctors said that Michael death is due to mental
pain. This because to overcome the mental pain Michael become a drug addict and
Michael is technically brilliant but he is innocent at family matters and other
business due to this every on tries to cheat Michael Jackson. All these things
like sexual abuse and social media make the Michael Jackson died at middle age.
I read in your paper
recently that Michael Jackson had signed a multimillion-dollar deal to purchase
outright (if need be) his own offspring. Assured through DNA testing that his wife-of-convenience, Debbie Rowe, is
in fact carrying his baby, he has reportedly had his attorneys fashion a
contract wherein should the marriage deteriorate and the two of them split
up, he would obtain exclusive rights to the child. In this (not at all
unlikely) event, his wife has allegedly
agreed--for the tidy compensation of $2.3 million--"never to see the child
again."
My immediate reaction
to this news item was one of frank astonishment. Matter-of-fact reporting at
its finest, the brief piece carried not a single note of shock, disbelief or
moral outrage. Still, as a psychologist I was stunned that in the late 90s a
child not yet born could conceivably be subject to a capitalistic ethic
potentially making illegal all contact between mother and child.
Could economic
arrangements initiated by a neurotic, self-indulgent millionaire actually dictate a living being's relationship--or
lack of same--with its own mother? Is money in our society so powerful, so
"vocal," that it can effectively muffle ethical considerations about
a child's best interests? Indeed, can a child be defined as a material
acquisition whose emotional and spiritual needs must be subordinated to its
"owner's" property rights?
As I pondered these
troubling questions, I was reminded of an article I once published on Catch-22, which interpreted Joseph Heller's classic
fiction as a contemporary moral satire on American capitalism. To Heller, a government based on certain principles of free
enterprise could end up jeopardizing
universally held ethical values.
Milo, the novel's
half-crazed entrepreneur whose opportunistic behaviours
are guided almost exclusively by profit motives, and who "innocently"
regards war itself as a unique opportunity for financial gain, is an emblem of
modern business values run amok. No doubt it's an exaggeration to compare
Michael Jackson's marital "deal" with the wheelings and dealings of an absurdist fictional character. But
to me there's something equally absurd--and opportunistic--about a superstar's
using his fortune to try, however indirectly, to determine the rights of
someone else's life-even if it be his own unborn child.
I can sympathize with Jackson's possibly urgent need to become a parent. What I find appalling is (1)
that he should believe he has the right to dictate the terms of the
relationship between his wife and their--not his--child, and (2) that the law
might actually be exploited to "validate" his paternal
aspirations--so long as the child's mother is granted a sum of money acceptable
to her. Even ignoring the child molestation charges against "Jacko"--and I'm not sure they should be
ignored--is it not the basest arrogance for anyone to presume to purchase the right to
abolish a child's relationship with its mother?
And what about the
as-yet-unborn child? What would be the impact on this child to learn that for a
fee its own mother waived the right to a relationship with him or her? How
would the child's self-image be affected by the knowledge that its
mother conceived, then abandoned, him/her for just the right amount of
"blood money"? And is the child's need (inalienable right?) for
maternal nurturance and guidance to be dismissed--superseded by the needs
(however possibly perverted) of its wealthy father?
I can only hint here
at the disturbing ethical issues embedded in Michael Jackson's bizarre
postnuptial agreement. What troubles me most is that exact dollar amounts are
being attached to something that should transcend monetary considerations
altogether. The article I read also noted that Jackson's spouse is to be reimbursed $1.25 million when the baby
is born. To me, to put a price tag on a human life is as foolhardy as it is
decadent. But, most of all, I worry about what it says about our society today
if personal wealth alone might be sufficient to rule whether a mother and child
are allowed to see one another.
Finally, to what
extent can we even blame Jackson for seeking to fulfill his
heart's desire? Is it possible that there's something inherent in our
capitalistic ethic that somehow fosters the belief that as free citizens it is
our birthright--indeed, almost our "duty"--to pursue our personal
interests at every opportunity? Frankly, I shudder at the thought. Any way
Michael Jackson most inspiring human being in this world and i wish to see more
Michael Jackson’s in my life time.
To get updates like
these Like us In FB: www.facebook.com/psychtronics
Post a Comment