I would like to take a moment to examine why I think Bruce Lee is an inspirational figure for many people. He was a martial artist but he also has broadcast his talents on the few films that he has played in. He played roles where he was cast as an outsider who had to overcome rival gangs or crime syndicates. But at the same time, he was able to showcase his martial talents which were unrivaled at the cinema. His fighting kept his audience engaged as much as his simple charismatic line delivery. So, his films show an enhanced image of his character which people find attractive.
I also realize that my previous post was about how following someone who you can personally call 'teacher' is not the path for those who hold to the cross and what it represents. But at the same time it would be naïve to think that we will shrug off our roll models once we learn the truth about influence and those who practice it. So, revisiting someone like a Bruce Lee in comparison with a Carl Trueman, for example, would show how influence differs widely considering that their goals and methods of impacting others, who happen to find them intriguing, are not the same.
Thus, having a large cult following makes one person defensive while for another it propels them forward. And the means by which each of these influencers, Bruce and Carl, are going to be emulated by their audiences have value because of how they portray influence as something to be unmasked or, in another way, to be considered unimportant compared with their respective messages that they have pushed for. It is just that their audience members (not all) seem to think that just their personas are being communicated instead of the values of marital arts from one and the cross from the other.
No comments:
Post a Comment