And One More for Good Measure

I went to The Threepenny Opera on Friday night, and Mr. Peachum's opening speech about people's emotions made me think of class. (In other words, this blog post is not about the reading.)

He talked about the progression in declining returns when people meet a beggar. The first time they see a beggar, they are generous; the second time, less so; and the third time, they pass by on the opposite side of the street. So, as head of the beggars, Mr. Peachum has to continually come up with new ideas to touch the hearts of the general public and bring them back to generosity. But he knows that nothing he comes up with will last for long.

I know there's an official term for this--emotional fatigue? Emotional overload? Something like that. It certainly exists, and is no less applicable now than in the early 20th century when the musical was first produced. In fact, with the proliferation of causes and needs that come parading into our lives via TV, internet, and people passing out fliers in the West Mall, I would say that we reach the point of fatigue sooner. At some point, in order to protect my own emotional state, I have to say, "No more." And I hate how callous I sound when I say that, even to myself, but it's true; if I get upset over every cause there is, I'll spend all my time unhappy. And that doesn't help anyone.

Mr. Peachum was deliberately and unashamedly manipulative with people's emotions. His livelihood, his family's well-being, and the lives of his "boys" all depended on his ability to resonate with the populous who could spare some coins. Do the ends justify the means? When it's a matter of starvation or not, when the people whose heartstrings are being tugged can afford to give up some change, is the manipulation more acceptable? And if the answer to those two things is "yes", then I should think we have to see ourselves in the same light: Generally speaking, the US is wealthier than most places, so we should expect to see/hear appeals to help. So, is Mr. Peachum right?