In contemporary media, it is possible for a same-day hired employee to commit acts of such depravity that decades of reputation can be lost. Video of an employee urinating in a sink at a West Virgina Pizza Hut recently emerged. Once broadcast on local media the story “had legs” and made its way to popular “click-bait” sites where rapidly it spread. More viral than the bacteria splashed inside the sink, the story became less about the employee or his actions and more about the brand and the response from those in charge. From Twitter came their comments of “disappointment” and “regret”.
Is a corporation responsible for the actions of every employee? Surely a company as large as Pizza Hut can’t be held accountable for the habits of the few? One lesson that can be learned from this story is the peril of expansion. With greater size comes cost. As the network expands the distances between the components becomes greater. Corporate Pizza Hut (based in Plano, Texas; owned by Pepsi and Yum! brands) must respond for each of its 160, 000+ employees.
With immensity comes more hazard. What is lost as one expands? Communication and awareness. I highly doubt the employee caught on camera concerned himself with the reputation of Pizza Hut. One wonders just how close he was to his own supervisor. Certainly a pizza shop where that type or behavior occurs is one lacking in supervision.
Unfortunately the costs of this expansion become massive in contemporary society. One rogue employee’s act becomes a global reflection on the brand. The internet is a highway of sharing and its streets are filled by cobblestones of rumor. Do we benefit from such revelations? Are these bad actors at the sinks now open to… exposure? Is there really no such thing as “bad press”? One wonders just how busy that Pizza Hut remains tonight? Are employees busy slicing pizzas or bored in their bewilderment. One wonders if they’ve gathered round that sink to ask themselves just why he did it and how quickly things can change.
Is the death of someone talented more tragic? The “critically-acclaimed actor” is a common start for widely read obituaries. Lost at her prime stage of talent, her death comes with both reminders of the past and musings for the future. Reflecting on the death of Philip Seymour Hoffman, Slate’s Dana Stevens reflected her regret that Seymour would never again be the focus of a Paul Thomas Anderson film. She mourned the loss of an artistic collaboration in the making.
All deaths are tragic, but with the death of public figures we experience death together. Though we never meet Celebrity X, we see his films and spend hours with his work. From this we experience the death of these figures in unique and novel ways. These are not our family members, but they matter and we know them a some deeper, human level. Is it strange that many spend more hours watching the work of a celebrity than they do with neighbors living just a house away.
The “w0rk” of a selective group of people is experienced by the world. The actor’s personality becomes product and, from sea to sea and country to country, a world experiences the work. Despite cultural differences and political turmoil an actor’s work can be considered by anyone. Herein lies another great power of art: where politics creates boundaries and pain and suffering determine daily life a work of art can breach all borders.
Each individual possesses a unique talent. Whether he or she locates and develops this talent depends on a variety of factors. Is everyone a Shakespeare or Mozart? Perhaps they are if given the right talent, time and focus. Though all have certain skill sets few are provided with the bundled supplements to find its worth. How sad is it that millions go without even knowing of their skill? And yet, despite these millions left unaware the select few who realize their talents often work to create things that forever change the world for everyone.
This is where the greater tragedy comes in. In losing an individual who was aware of his or her talent we lose this precious item of development. For the few who can break through and realize their skills it is their duty to follow it through. So often these breakthroughs come with an inability to cope. Some have argue that Philip Seymour Hoffman’s acting skills were closely tied to his ability to sense human experience. Such sensitivity, they claim, left him vulnerable and unable to cope. The same has been argued for poets whose untimely deaths suggests too sensitive a demeanor or some lacking tool to separate skill with life experience.
Is the death of genius more tragic? Indeed it is but not just for the human soul we lose.
Stumble through a local shopping center and an onslaught of symbolic theater takes place. Every article is a statement: why did the person wear that? Why that item, why that color? We work to make sense of these other people as a way to establish a reality. Our world is merely a construction of our imagination: far too much remains unknown and we’ve little to control. How does one perceive malevolence? Does the baddy always wear the black hat? Though our methods of detecting danger are varied, we often seek an outlier in behavior.
Despite our limited abilities, we still strive to find hidden intentions revealed by fashion. Though we cannot know the inner workings of another we seem confident in thinking their choice of clothing has some power. Is the key to their inner psyche in the selection of their t-shirt? How much is revealed in choice of color? Do the baggy pants mean she’s upset? What about his length of hair- does that mean that he’s angry? Silly as these connection seem they remain common and profound. No matter their lack of depth, evaluations and judgements have power and many have been falsely summarized by others on the basis of silly, minor features.
Certainly our clothing says a lot about who we are but how should another perceive what we wear as us? How much of our inner world is expressed in our clothing? How would our world be different if we all wore the outfit? Would we gradually develop other means of expression and evaluation?
Given that its main ingredient is human imagination, paranoia is the most powerful of human motivators. Threaten the individual with an existential crisis and desperate measures are guaranteed to ensue. It’s an evil meal to muster: whether cooked for relationships, careers or reputations, paranoia winds itself from one idea into another.
Paranoia gains significant gusto from its use of human creativity. An initial situation is exaggerated and expanded so that minor problems become crisis. Twinged with paranoia the most minor of missteps quickly becomes conspiratorial plot. What one gains from such exaggeration seems likely tied to primal ways of life. Overzealous worry liked helped the human being hunted, but in today’s world we exist in a world of endless minor threats. Ambiguous language, both textual and body, create countless moments to second guess and wonder. For many, the daily minutia of corporate ways becomes a greatest drama.
How can one cope with paranoia? Its likely impossible given its wiring to our primal states. We may work to rationalize or to question, but we’ve little defense against our ancient tools. What protected us for centuries, and made it possible for our genes to exist these thousands of years later, was never cautious confidence. To be alive today is to be a latest link in a long chain of survivors. Perhaps we’re just the latest edition of the paranoid humanoid: always worried, but breathing nonetheless.