Separating the Artist from the Art: On the Legacy of Worldview Violators
By Sam Fairlamb | April 28, 2020
How should we treat the legacies of those who achieve greatness but then go on to commit acts such as murder, sexual assault, or other types of moral transgressions? This is a question that has gained interest, as well as sparked controversy in recent times. For example, some music stations have opted to remove artists alleged to have committed crimes of a sexual nature, although this is something that has also received considerable backlash. In Israel, there is an unofficial ban on performances of Wagner’s music due to Wagner’s notably anti-semitic views and the fact that Hitler drew great inspiration from his music. The Simpsons creators decided to pull the episode starring Michael Jackson from syndication rotation after the HBO documentary ‘Leaving Neverland’ sparked renewed allegations of sexual assault by the singer. The examples are plentiful.
How to handle the legacies of worldview violators – and whether we separate the art from the artist – is a question that I think would have appealed to Becker as it strikes to the heart of his work. In short, one’s professional work is often an immortality project. Work provides us with a legacy that can outlive our own temporary existence, which may minimize anxiety over our uncontrollable and impending physical death. To take that away, would be in the view of Becker, a fate worse than death itself. As Becker writes in Escape from Evil, “What [hu]man really fears is not so much extinction, but extinction with insignificance” (p.4).
If one’s legacy manages existential concerns, then to feel like one’s legacy is being expunged should have a damaging effect on one’s psychological equanimity. Evidence from Terror Management Theory suggests that having a strong sense that one is leaving behind a vestige of themselves insulates from the typical effects that have been identified when one has been reminded of their death (Florian & Mikulincer, 1998). Moreover, advancements in research concerning a terror management perspective on well-being suggests that when people lack certain buffers (e.g., self-worth, meaning) which help manage existential concerns, one’s psychological well-being is compromised (see Juhl, 2019; Juhl & Routledge, 2016 for reviews of this work). Taken together, this might suggest that the loss of one’s legacy – which is a major source of meaning and self-worth – may in turn do damage to one’s psychological health.
Given the grave consequences that one’s loss of their legacy may carry, we might want to ask ourselves when such a decision becomes appropriate to take. Our societies uphold a belief that everyone has the right to a trial, and a jury of our peers should decide one’s fate. If the loss of legacy is potentially so damaging, and arguably a punishment worse than what any judge could deliver, perhaps a jury would decide that such a decision is fitting for those who have been found guilty. Another question we might want to consider is what sort of culture we want to espouse. Is the function of sentences to merely punish the offender and deter others from committing similar acts? Stripping away one’s legacy would likely be a convincing deterrent. Alternatively, do we believe that a part of punishment should be a path to rehabilitation? If so, might those who choose to walk the proverbial road to redemption, have a right to someday “regain” their legacies? These questions are evidently a matter of personal belief with no definitive answer, though we could appeal to Becker’s work for guidance.
When considering why people might feel more or less likely to support the view of separating the art from the artist, there are various factors that come into play. On one hand, those who violate one’s cultural worldview are often subject to hostility, derogation, and rejection. The denial of a transgressor’s immortality via a disregard for their achievements may represent a potent psychological defense towards those who commit such transgressions. Perhaps when these transgressions cut into particularly central aspects of one’s worldview, people may feel that such violations should be met with particularly harsh penalties. Possibly, the denial of someone’s legacy may fall under the umbrella of a symbolic form of annihilation as it condemns them to be thrown onto the pile of the forgotten. To some, this may seem like fitting justice for the crimes that these people have committed, as well as for their victims.
On the other hand, it is also possible that some will feel ambivalent towards snatching someone’s immortality project away. Perhaps this depends on the severity of the crime, or the amount of time lapsed? Additionally, stripping others of their immortality projects may serve as a timely reminder that our own immortality projects are fragile and by no means assured. They require consensual validation, and so are as much in the hands of others as they are in our own, by the actions that we take.
Whilst it is an open question of whether we should separate one’s art from the artist, I think Becker’s work tells us that such a decision should not be taken lightly. The denial of one’s symbolic immortality is arguably the most severe punishment one could face. (That is, at least if one is aware of this threat to their symbolic immortality whilst they are still living; our immortality projects are of little use to us of course once we are dead.) From a Beckerian point of view, we as a society should take very seriously decisions regarding others’ immortal fate because of the potentially devastating consequences that the denial of immortality could have on one’s psychological health. Fellow Beckerites – what are your thoughts on the conditions under which separating art from artist is necessary, and when it is not?
Dr. Samuel Fairlamb is a Social Psychologist in the Department of Psychology at Royal Holloway, University of London. He often teaches the ideas of Becker, and Terror Management Theory, to his students He first came across the work of Terror Management Theory, and Ernest Becker, whilst completing his PhD examining the antecedents of Islamophobic prejudice in the UK.