Once There Was a Spot

The other day, I was thinking about how we treasure things; or, if the case may be, how we don't treasure them.  And I started to think about how sometimes we treasure things more if we feel like we lost out on something.  In Behavioral Economics, this phenomenon is called the Endowment Effect--people resent losing something less if they never felt like it was really theirs to begin with. However, even if that person didn't really want the item, losing it is more painful if they felt like it was theirs, because they feel like there was something that they could have obtained, had they been allowed to keep that item.  Historians use a much more poetic term than economists, as historians usually do.  They call it the Camelot Phenomenon.  This is in reference to a song in the musical, Camelot--more like a mantra in the musical. The musical outlines King Arthur's desire to make a land where right will rule over might, and a person's status will have no effect where the law is concerned.  Unfortunately, all this is destroyed through passions--the passions destroyed the dream, as Arthur says.  At the beginning of the musical, to woo his queen, Arthur sings a song describing how wonderful Camelot is, wherein he says, "In short, there's simply not/ A more congenial spot/ For happily-ever-aftering than here in Camelot."  At the end of the musical, when all of this is destroyed, Arthur pines for his kingdom that could-have-been, echoing his previous words, and singing, "Don't let it be forgot/ That once there was a spot/ For one brief shining moment, that was known as Camelot."   And sometimes, we worry more about what could-have-been than what we never imagined in the first place, or what we do have.

Two very classic examples of this.  Firstly, the one to which historians commonly apply the term Camelot Phenomenon.

John F. Kennedy

 

John F. Kennedy--first Catholic president, very young for a president, and named by the female American Heritage TAs as being one of the most attractive men important to American History (also on the list if you're curious: Alexander Hamilton and Alexis de Tocqueville). However, let's face it, he didn't really do a lot as president, and a lot of what he did do as president, he did badly.  The Bay of Pigs was nothing but a mess, and a lot of the things that are "to his credit" he didn't really do.  Sure, Cuban Missile Crisis averted.  However, notice, JFK did none of the negotiation on that one.  That was all his bro, Bobby.  He did do things for the Civil Rights Movement.  But his most famous moment in Civil Rights was releasing Coretta Scott King from prison, but wait...that was Bobby too.  A lot of the things he did for Civil Rights say a lot for his personal character, but very little for his willingness to really stand up for Civil Rights as policy.  And yet, he nearly always ranks amongst Lincoln, Washington and the other greats in polls on what people think of past presidents.  Many historians suggest that it is not what Kennedy did that makes this true, but what people like to think he would have done, had he not been assassinated.  So, Lee Harvey Oswald, you did nothing but endear a good man, but mediocre president, into the hearts of Americans forever. 

Jacqueline du Pré

My second example is our good friend, Jacqueline du Pré.  This legendary cellist, famous for her interpretation of Elgar's cello concerto, is often described as being "gone too soon," after having stopped performing at the age of 28, because of her lost nerve function due to multiple sclerosis.  She died at the age of 43.  However, are we once again pining for a what could have been?  When I first learned the story, I, too, mourned for what could have been.  Then, my little brother, whose evaluation of cellists are much more reputable than mine (don't listen to him when he says he's not that good...they don't hand out those kind of scores on Eastman School of Music juries like candy), pointed out a few things.  Sure, du Pré was good, but she wasn't as good as the MS tragedy made her out to be.  As my brother describes it, "she's only famous for the Elgar, and we don't really know how good of a cellist she was--she died."  Furthermore, he describes her technique as sloppy, and, though a good, talented cellist, not the enigma we make her out to be.  I don't know if I can make the judgement on her abilities and technique, but I will take my brother's word for it (he knows better than I).  Once again, perhaps we are wanting something, not because we didn't have it and felt a need for it, but because we believe we could have had it.   If you're not familiar with du Pré, here, for your viewing/listening pleasure:

I guess my question is this.  Do we sometimes worry too much about what we don't have?  Do we sometimes not work for something that we could have in the future, because we get so caught up in an alternate universe of what could have been had the past been different? Perhaps we ignore the present, because of that alternate universe? Maybe, instead of being sad for what JFK could have been, we should worry about what our vote can do today to make a difference today.  Perhaps instead of mourning du Pré, we can listen to the beauty that she did give us and invest in the Yoyo Mas and Julian Lloyd Webbers of today. And maybe, just maybe, if we stop wondering what du Pré could have given us, we'll find a new, young promising cellist to enrich the world.