The Cultural Politics of Celebrity

PROFESSOR ANDY MIAH IS CHAIR OF ETHICS AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES IN THE FACULTY OF BUSINESS & CREATIVE INDUSTRIES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF SCOTLAND, FELLOW OF THE INSTITUTE FOR ETHICS AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES, USA, AND FELLOW AT FACT, THE FOUNDATION FOR ART AND CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY, UK. HE IS AUTHOR OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED ATHLETES (ROUTLEDGE, 2004) AND CO-AUTHOR WITH DR EMMA RICH OF THE MEDICALIZATION OF CYBERSPACE (ROUTLEDGE, 2008) AND EDITOR OF HUMAN FUTURES: ART IN AN AGE OF UNCERTAINTY (LIVERPOOL UNIVERSITY PRESS AND FACT, 2008). PHOTOCOPYING PERMITTED BY LICENSE ONLY © BERG 2010 PRINTED IN THE UK THE CULTURAL POLITICS OF CELEBRITY PHILIP DRAKE AND ANDY MIAH Celebrities are a ubiquitous aspect of contemporary Western culture. Although the phenomenon of celebrity itself predates the twentieth century, the rise of the modern mass media – popular newspapers, cinema, radio, and television, and more recently the Internet and other digital communication technologies – has done much to promote and circulate public knowledge of celebrities during the last 100 years. The presence of multi-channel digital television, radio, and the World Wide Web in Western KRXVHKROGVDWWKHWXUQRIWKHWZHQW\ÀUVWFHQWXU\KDVQRWRQO\ increased the number of places in which celebrities can be seen and heard, but has also required media producers to compete with each other and with alternative leisure activities for the attention of fragmented audiences, an increasingly precious commodity. The rise of celebrity culture is inextricably linked to developments in media systems that operate within capitalist systems of commodity exchange. Most obviously, celebrities provide a well-proven route to attracting and retaining audiences, helping to offset the risks inherent in cultural production. They also play out a fantasy of the individual simultaneously performing within public and the private > DOI: 10.2752/175174310X12549254318746 DR. PHILIP DRAKE IS DEPUTY HEAD OF GRADUATE SCHOOL IN THE DEPARTMENT OF FILM, MEDIA AND JOURNALISM AT THE UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING AND A MEMBER OF THE STIRLING MEDIA RESEARCH INSTITUTE. HE HAS PUBLISHED WIDELY ON STARDOM AND CELEBRITY, ACTING AND PERFORMANCE, AND HOLLYWOOD CINEMA, INCLUDING ESSAYS IN STARDOM AND CELEBRITY: A READER (SAGE, 2007) AND (WITH M. HIGGINS) FRAMING CELEBRITY: NEW DIRECTIONS IN CELEBRITY CULTURE (ROUTLEDGE, 2006). HE IS CURRENTLY WRITING A BOOK ON TALENT AND CELEBRITY IN HOLLYWOOD CINEMA. REPRINTS AVAILABLE DIRECTLY FROM THE PUBLISHERS CULTURAL POLITICS VOLUME 6, ISSUE 1 PP 49–64 49 CULTURAL POLITICS PHILIP DRAKE AND ANDY MIAH spheres. As P. David Marshall neatly puts it, celebrities might be seen as a “production locale for an elaborate discourse on the individual and individuality” (1997: 4). However the ubiquity of celebrity culture does not mean that its considerable diversity can be ignored. A cursory glance through the prime-time television schedules, for instance, reveals how one might choose between shows featuring celebrity hosts and guests, contest-based reality television shows that participate in the construction of celebrity, personality driven lifestyle programming, sports shows featuring star athletes and commentators, and even political shows with celebrity journalists. All of this is indicative not just of the pervasiveness of modern celebrity culture but also its diversity and breadth. The various kinds of celebrities – celebrity chefs, reality television performers, star athletes – and the places in which they perform provide audiences with a complex and differing set of UHODWLRQVKLSVDQGSRLQWVRILGHQWLÀFDWLRQHYHQLIWKH\WHQGWREHXQLWHG by how they are mediated with a constructed sense of intimacy and address (using conventions such as the point-of-view shot in cinema and the personal mode of address in radio). Media celebrities thus offer us forms of “para-social” interaction (Horton and Wohl 1956) – para-social in that they reproduce the effect of a relationship between SHUIRUPHUDQGDXGLHQFHGHVSLWHEHLQJDSUHGRPLQDQWO\RQHZD\ÁRZ of communication. As Richard Dyer (1979) has observed (examining ÀOPVWDUV WKH\DUHVLPXOWDQHRXVO\RUGLQDU\DQGH[WUDRUGLQDU\HDVLO\ consumed (in mediated form) yet remote from us. This paradox of stardom is striking, as he notes: It is one of the ironies of the whole star phenomenon that all these assertions of the reality of the inner-self . . . take place in one of the aspects of modern life that is most associated with the invasion and destruction of the inner self and the corruptibility of public life, namely the mass media. (Dyer 1986: 15) Thus in spite of the ubiquity of celebrity texts, stars themselves usually remain inaccessible, available for consumption only through managed media performances or fame rituals such as book signings and orchestrated public appearances. 50 CULTURAL POLITICS PROBLEMS OF DEFINITION Before we examine the nature of contemporary celebrity culture, we VKDOOEULHÁ\DWWHPSWWRGHÀQHWKHWHUP´FHOHEULW\µDVLWLVRIWHQXVHG interchangeably with “star,” “stardom,” “fame,” and related concepts such as “heroism” and “renown.” The term “celebrity” is from the Latin celebrem/celebritas/celeber and derived both from the verb meaning “to celebrate” and the noun describing one who is well-known/famous, from the French célèbre. The original use referred to a form of ritual or ceremony, but by around the fourteenth century it had begun to be used to describe the condition of being famous, that is, fame in the public domain. By the mid nineteenth century it was used to describe 51 a person of fame, that is, the descriptive noun “a celebrity.” As a term, FHOHEULW\ZDVRULJLQDOO\XVHGSRVLWLYHO\EXWLQWKHODVWÀIW\\HDUVRUVRKDV been used in a more negative manner, to describe someone famous for not doing very much, and contrasted with the term “hero” denoting VRPHRQHRIPRUHYHULÀDEOHWDOHQWDQGDFFRPSOLVKPHQW Chris Rojek offers an interesting taxonomy, differentiating between “ascribed,” “achieved,” or “attributed” celebrity (2001: 17). According to Rojek, “ascribed celebrity” concerns lineage, such as in the case of the monarchy, and a phenomenon that clearly precedes the modern mass media. “Achieved celebrity,” on the other hand, derives IURPDFFRPSOLVKPHQWVLQRSHQFRPSHWLWLRQVXFKDVÀOPDFWLQJRU VSRUWVDQGWKHUHFRJQLWLRQRIWDOHQWLQDSDUWLFXODUÀHOG)LQDOO\5RMHN describes “attributed celebrity” as the “concentrated representation of an individual as noteworthy or exceptional by cultural intermediaries” (18). This attempts to distinguish between individuals deemed to have gained fame through exceptional skill in a particular occupation (for LQVWDQFHJROIHU7LJHU:RRGVRUÀOPVWDU-XOLD5REHUWV DQGWKRVHZKRVH fame has been notably attributed by their media representation or scandal. A reality television celebrity (British reality television performer -DGH*RRG\IRULQVWDQFH LVRIWHQFRQVLGHUHGWREHDQLQGLYLGXDONQRZQ IRUHPRVWIRUWKHLUSXEOLFSURÀOHDQGPHGLDFLUFXODWLRQKDYLQJEHFRPH IDPRXVE\DSSHDULQJRQDVSHFLÀFDOO\IDPHSURGXFLQJVKRZDQGZRXOG correspond to Rojek’s “attributed” form of celebrity. Implicitly Rojek’s taxonomy also recognizes a distinction often made in more vernacular terms between “A” list and “Z” list celebrities as those most often relegated to the third category are those individuals who appear in more populist entertainment formats. $OWKRXJKVXFKFDWHJRULHVKDYHVRPHXWLOLW\WKHUHDUHFOHDUGLIÀFXOW LHVLQDJUHHLQJZKDWLVPHDQWE\´DFKLHYHPHQWµDQGGHÀQLQJVNLOODQG talent are issues bound up with relative assumptions of cultural value and politics. The term “star” is mostly used to denote an individual who LVKLJKO\FHOHEUDWHGDQGGHHPHGH[FHSWLRQDOLQDSDUWLFXODUÀHOGRU profession, and most commonly associated with performers in popular media such as music, television, and, most commonly, cinema (Dyer 1998 [1979]). The “celebrity,” on the other hand, is usually considered WREHDQLQGLYLGXDOZKRLVÀUVWDQGIRUHPRVWNQRZQIRUWKHLUSXEOLF SURÀOHDQGPHGLDFLUFXODWLRQUDWKHUWKDQWKHLUVNLOOHGSHUIRUPDQFHVLQD SDUWLFXODUÀHOG)RUVRPHSHRSOHDUHQRZQHGIRRWEDOOSOD\HUUHSUHVHQWV one of the highest forms of skill, while for others they would simply be known through their fame and celebrity persona. For example, we might ask whether the fame of Piers Morgan, former editor of British tabloid The Mirror turned America’s Got Talent (NBC, 2006–) judge and Celebrity Apprentice (NBC, 2008) winner, has been based on his talents as a performer or as a self-publicist, for instance. The divination of talent rather than its less valued counterpart – media publicity – SUHVHQWVDSUREOHPRIGHÀQLWLRQ 7RDYRLGVXFKGLIÀFXOWLHVDPRUHSURGXFWLYHZD\RIXQGHUVWDQGLQJ celebrity is as a mediating frame rather than as the particular quality CULTURAL POLITICS THE CULTURAL POLITICS OF CELEBRITY PHILIP DRAKE AND ANDY MIAH of an individual. It is the public recognition and circulation of celebrity that is absolutely intrinsic to its being. The mediation of the famous individual to a public, such as a viewing audience, is a critical quality of celebrity. Celebrity presents a form of public performance, describing both an individual’s mediated persona as well as the qualities (fame, glamour, and so on) that they are perceived by an audience to possess. Yet we must go further than this and also acknowledge the importance of “cultural intermediaries” – the interlocking celebrity and promotional industries made up of managers, agents, publicists, promoters, stylists who work behind the scenes to create narratives of stardom and promote celebrities for public consumption. +HUHZHZLOOGHÀQHFHOHEULW\DVDmediated public persona, to be differentiated from the actual, unmediated person who is almost always unknown to audiences. This recognizes the mediation of a personality’s identity prior to reception by an audience and the importance of this process to contemporary celebrity. Thus, we suggest that the notion of celebrity is better understood as a way of perceiving famous individuals, a mediating frame (a “fame frame”) than it is a formal delineation of their qualities. THE LONG CULTURAL POLITICS OF FAME AND CELEBRITY 52 CULTURAL POLITICS Debates over celebrity and cultural value are not as recent as many critics would have us believe. According to Leo Braudy (1997), fame in Western cultures prior to modernity was largely derived from either SXEOLFRIÀFHRUKHURLFDFKLHYHPHQWV+RZHYHUWKLVZDVEHJLQQLQJWR alter by the turn of the nineteenth century. In Britain, for instance, the poet William Wordsworth recorded this sense of change in his Preface to the 1800 edition of Lyrical Ballads, attacking what he saw as the “craving for extraordinary incident” evident in the metropolitan classes of England. He vividly observes that, . . . a multitude of causes, unknown to former times, are now acting with a combined force to blunt the discriminating powers of the PLQGDQGXQÀWWLQJLWIRUDOOYROXQWDU\H[HUWLRQWRUHGXFHLWWRD state of almost savage torpor. The most effective of these causes are the great national events which are daily taking place, and the increasing accumulation of men in cities, where the uniformity of their occupations produces a craving for extraordinary incident, ZKLFKWKHUDSLGFRPPXQLFDWLRQRILQWHOOLJHQFHKRXUO\JUDWLÀHV (1800: 8) For Wordsworth and his fellow Romanticists the mundane character of industrial urban life and the circulation of “idle and extravagant stories” contrasted negatively with the “great and permanent objects” of nature (1800: 8). He was identifying a trend for gossip and “extraordinary incident” that was to continue unabated, and during the nineteenth century the population explosion, rapid industrialization, 53 and consequential urbanization of Western societies had the effect of forming media publics – audiences united by an interest in consuming information about events of the day. By the turn of the nineteenth century a new discourse of celebrity and fame had emerged that was less virtuous and more pragmatic. The graphic revolution introduced innovations such as the news press and the photograph, and with it came the widespread availability of print media such as newspapers and pamphlets that brought to public attention the exploits and visages of personalities in the public domain. This increased popular interest in the personalities and private lives of famous people as well as speculation over the possible identity of QRWRULRXVLQGLYLGXDOV DJRRGH[DPSOHEHLQJWKHFXOSULWRIWKH´-DFN the Ripper” murders in London in 1888). Thomas Carlyle, a Scottish philosopher and essayist, commented upon the qualities of heroism and heroic leadership in his book On Heroes, Hero-worship, and the Heroic in History (1841), and compared different types of secular and religious heroes, including such diverse individuals (notable, not least, that they were all men) as Oliver Cromwell, William Shakespeare, Napoleon, and the Prophet Muhammad. However it was during the nineteenth century that modern celebrity culture appeared. At this time an increasing quantity of journalism and biographies began to be published about writers and performers of stage, vaudeville, and music in the “penny press” in America and the emerging popular news press in Britain. These began to have the effect of expanding mass interest in the names and qualities of public individuals. Newspapers soon began to recognize the economic importance of celebrity, noting the increase in circulation achieved through articles about famous individuals. From this juncture, celebrity has been intimately connected with publicity and the mass media, demonstrated vividly in the mid nineteenth century by the American showman P.T. Barnum’s skilful use of the news press to promote his circus and music performers. One of the most systematic attempts by the media industries to FDSLWDOL]HRQFHOHEULW\ZDVE\WKH+ROO\ZRRGÀOPVWXGLRV%\WKHHDUO\ twentieth century they realized that they could commodify the popularity of their recognizable players, bringing the performers fame and WKHVWXGLR·VÀOPVSXEOLFLW\DQGODUJHUDXGLHQFHV,QRUGHUWRV\VWHP atize this process the studios contracted rosters of stars to perform H[FOXVLYHO\LQWKHLUÀOPVLQH[FKDQJHIRUKLWKHUWRXQLPDJLQDEOHVDODULHV – what became known as the “star system.” Richard deCordova (1990) LGHQWLÀHVWKHHPHUJHQFHRISXEOLFLQWHUHVWLQ´SLFWXUHSHUVRQDOLWLHVµ DQGWKHVXEVHTXHQWQDPLQJRISHUIRUPHUVRQVFUHHQDQGLQÀOPVWXGLR publicity material, as crucial in the development of the Hollywood ÀOPLQGXVWU\DQGDGLVFRXUVHRQVWDUGRPLWVHOI6XFKÀOPVWDUVZHUH SURPRWHGE\WKHVWXGLRVDVH[RWLFDQGH[WUDRUGLQDU\ÀJXUHVIROORZHGE\ audiences across the world (as movie star Humphrey Bogart reportedly once put it, “You’re not a star until they can spell your name in Karachi”). Other media industries were quick to emulate these methods, if not CULTURAL POLITICS THE CULTURAL POLITICS OF CELEBRITY PHILIP DRAKE AND ANDY MIAH always with Hollywood’s global reach. As cinema was joined by other media forms, so these developed similar hierarchies of star talent. By the middle of the twentieth century, television personalities had EHFRPHFHOHEULWLHVLQWKHLURZQULJKWDQGÀOPDQGURFNSRSVWDUV circulated across other media, bringing publicity to their projects and participating in the celebrity promotional strategies with which we have become so familiar – rounds of press junkets, talk shows, celebrity PDJD]LQHSURÀOHVSXEOLFDSSHDUDQFHVDQGRWKHUSODWIRUPVIRUWKHLU performances. CRITICAL THEORY APPROACHES TO CELEBRITY Celebrity is inextricably bound up with capitalist consumer culture and attempts to individualize cultural production. At the time when the emergence of the modern mass media was being felt, the cultural critics of the Frankfurt School argued that the production of celebrity worked to efface the standardized and alienated mode of production in mass culture. For instance Theodor Adorno maintained that: 54 CULTURAL POLITICS [the culture industry’s] ideology above all makes use of the star system, borrowed from individualistic art and its commercial exploitation. The more dehumanised its methods of operation and content, the more diligently and successfully the culture industry propagates supposedly great personalities and operates with heart-throbs. (2003 [1975]: 26) “Heart-throbs” and “supposedly great personalities,” for such critics, appealed to our emotional rather than critical instincts, and he developed the concepts of “standardization” and “pseudoindividualization” to elaborate a theory of the culture industries and celebrity, as a form of ideological deception. For such critics the drive WRZDUGVSURÀWPD[LPL]DWLRQLQFXOWXUDOSURGXFWLRQZDVDFKLHYHGLQSDUW through what we might call the processes of celebritization. Needing to reconcile the alienation between mass production and artistic endeavor, they contended that celebrities were ideal mediators of capitalism, eminently suitable as they exist in both the public and private spheres, LGHQWLÀDEOHDVRUGLQDU\KXPDQLQGLYLGXDOV\HWDUHDOVRHQGRZHGZLWK extraordinariness and fame. Following Adorno, one of the most prescient of early writers on twentieth century celebrity was Daniel Boorstin, whose book, titled The Image: a guide to pseudo-events in America (1961) noted the increased prevalence of celebrity in American society and was widely read at the time. He argued that that the consequences of a rise in celebrity were a decline in those with “heroic” qualities. Terming the celebrity a “human pseudo-event” he offered a damning critique of the media’s role in WKHFUHDWLRQRIIDPHSUHVHQWLQJD QRZZHOONQRZQ GHÀQLWLRQRIWKH celebrity as a tautology: an individual who is “well-known for their wellknownness” (Boorstin 1961: 57). Boorstin’s book valuably anticipated WKH DQDO\VLV RI ODWHU ZULWHUV QRWDEO\ *X\ 'HERUG·V  >@  THE “CELEBRITIZATION” OF MEDIA If celebrity is fundamentally a product of the mass media age, over the last twenty years or so the media, promotional, and celebrity industries KDYHRQO\LQWHQVLÀHGWKHLULQWHUGHSHQGHQFLHV&HOHEULW\FRYHUDJHKDV now moved well beyond traditional entertainment formats into the domains of news and current affairs. Indeed politicians and journalists have often become entertainers themselves – witness their frequent 55 examination of the “society of the spectacle,” and Baudrillard’s (1994) concept of the “simulacra,” as well as the more recent rise in celebrityproducing reality television. However, as Braudy’s (1997) history of fame shows, oppositions made between deserved fame (renown) and inauthentic fame (celebrity) are, if nothing else, historically problematic, DVWKHFHOHEULW\RIQRWRULRXVDQGXQSRSXODUÀJXUHVLQKLVWRU\DWWHVWV Even if we do not accept the more pessimistic claims of the Frankfurt School and Boorstin, it is clear that the rise of the mass PHGLDUHFRQÀJXUHGWKHQDWXUHRIFHOHEULW\SURGXFWLRQDQGUHFHSWLRQ during the twentieth century and this process continues today, with the development of celebrity through new media forms such as Internet websites such as YouTube and blogs. Occasionally it is striking that these circumvent the usual gatekeeping processes, for example the reported rise of singer-songwriter Sandi Thom via webcast gigs from her home promoted via the social networking site MySpace. However, while it is possible for a celebrity to be produced and circulated in alternative media forms, it remains much more usual for such individuals to be rapidly subsumed within the mainstream media (Thom, for instance, was signed to a major record label soon after her Internet success). In essence, our contemporary formation of fame still broadly depends on the circulation of a public persona by the media and promotional industries. Media exposure is the oxygen that sustains the contemporary celebrity. On the other hand, they are the means through which the media attempt to compete for audience share and product-differentiate content, increasingly important in the contemporary media environment characterized by diversity of choice and DXGLHQFHVHJPHQWDWLRQ-RVKXD*DPVRQ·V  VWXG\RIFHOHEULW\LQ America stresses the importance of this industrial manufacturing of the celebrity, noting that what he calls “celebrity making” is fundamentally a “commercial enterprise, made up of highly developed and institutionally linked professions and sub-industries such as public relations, entertainment law, celebrity journalism and photography, grooming and training, managing and agenting, novelty sales” (64). Yet the popular discourse on fame has long stressed the exceptionality of the individual and their unique qualities, rather than the industries that produce and manage this fame, and the media industries that rely upon it. The “exceptional talent” assumption is comprehensively challenged by many of the articles here, revealing how image management and the sub-industries that construct and sustain media celebrity are important areas for analysis. CULTURAL POLITICS THE CULTURAL POLITICS OF CELEBRITY 56 CULTURAL POLITICS PHILIP DRAKE AND ANDY MIAH appearances on television chat or quiz shows, for example (see Higgins in this issue). This has led to debates about the personalization of politics and attracted criticism from those who see celebrities, rather than democratically elected politicians, acting as persuaders and conduits of public opinion. Politically active celebrities are now a commonplace part of contemporary politics, as demonstrated by the global campaigning against Third World poverty by rock stars Bono and %RE*HOGRIWKHDSSRLQWPHQWDV*RYHUQRURI&DOLIRUQLDRIPRYLHVWDU Arnold Schwarzenegger and the endorsements of Hollywood celebrities for Barack Obama in his campaign for the American Presidency. For writers such as Bob Franklin (1997, 2004) the movement of celebrities into the domain of formal politics – as endorsers of political views or public persuaders – is troubling, replacing democratic forms of debate with managed “newszak” and “infotainment.” For others they present one of the means through which – like it or not – modern political communication may be mediated, and voters engaged (Street 2002; Drake and Higgins 2006). The prominence of celebrity in media representations raises quesWLRQVRIWKHV\PEROLFSRZHURIFHOHEULW\FXOWXUHLQGHÀQLQJRXUVHQVH of cultural identities – what we think of as glamorous, for instance, or fashionable, or cool, or sexy. In the media there exists a popular, but DFDGHPLFDOO\FRQWHVWHGPHGLDHIIHFWVGLVFRXUVHDERXWWKH´LQÁXHQFHµ of celebrities upon the public, especially upon children. An example was offered by a recent report from a large British teaching union, The Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), which conducted a survey of 304 teachers on schoolchildren’s attitudes to celebrity in the classroom (2008). According to their report, television is the most common source of celebrity information for schoolchildren (77%), followed by their peers (61%), the Internet (51%), and magazines (46%). 2YHURIWHDFKHUVLQWKHLUVXUYH\IHOWWKDWFHOHEULW\FXOWXUHLQÁXHQFHV their students’ aspirations for the future, however most (74%) felt that this was both positive and negative, rather than the 24% who felt it was negative and the 2% who thought it was positive. In terms of aspiration, nearly 60% of pupils aspired to be a pop star or a sports star, while DURXQGDWKLUGDVSLUHGWREHDÀOPVWDUDPRGHORU´DQ\WKLQJDVORQJ as they are famous.” When asked who their students felt they modeled themselves upon, the top overall answers were (in descending order of popularity) David Beckham, Victoria Beckham (Posh), Frank Lampard, Keira Knightly, David Tennant, Paris Hilton, Lewis Hamilton, Sugababes, DQG/HRQD/HZLV7KHVXFFHVVRIWKH+DUU\3RWWHUERRNVDQGÀOPV meant that the actor Daniel Radcliffe was particularly popular among primary age children. David Beckham appears, according to this survey, to be popular among all ages of children and far more popular than the next (Victoria Beckham or Posh) at 53% against 30% (meaning that WKH%HFNKDPVHPHUJHGLQWKLVVXUYH\DVE\IDUWKHPRVWVLJQLÀFDQW celebrities for the British children that were sampled). Finding out that celebrities are popular with children in our contemporary media-saturated environment is hardly surprising. Less 57 FHUWDLQLVWKHLU´LQÁXHQFHµRURWKHUZLVHXSRQWKHDWWLWXGHVDQGEHOLHIVRI these children. The survey suggests that celebrity culture has increased LWVLQÁXHQFHXSRQVFKRROFKLOGUHQEXWWKHH[DFWQDWXUHRIWKLV´LQÁXHQFHµ ²LIE\LQÁXHQFHZHPHDQDGHPRQVWUDEOHFDXVHHIIHFWUHODWLRQVKLS²LV harder to discern. In the survey 44% of teachers reported that students tried to look like and/or behave like the celebrities they admire against 33% who reported that they did not, with the rest unsure. But copying GRHVQRWRIFRXUVHHTXDWHWR´LQÁXHQFHµDQGWKHPRVWIUHTXHQWHIIHFWV reported were on visual appearance (hairstyle, dress) and the use of celebrity catch-phrases and mannerisms, which may represent a more critical and knowing engagement with issues raised by celebrity culture than might be assumed from the headline of the report. The question RIFHOHEULW\LQÁXHQFHRYHUDWWLWXGHVDQGEHOLHIVLVDOPRVWLPSRVVLEOH to prove as celebrity culture cannot be effectively isolated from culture itself. The essay by Helen Powell and Sylvie Prasad in this issue takes up such questions by examining the celebrity lifestyle expert acting as DFXOWXUDOLQWHUPHGLDU\:KLOHFHOHEULW\´LQÁXHQFHµLVFOHDUO\DQLVVXH that has long preoccupied commentators, little evidence yet exists to VXSSRUWFODLPVRIVWURQJFDXVDOLQÁXHQFH0RUDORXWUDJHYRLFHGLQWKH popular press about the behavior of celebrities as role-models is often predicated upon simplistic hypodermic transmission models of media HIIHFWVUHDOO\UHÁHFWLQJWKHPHGLD·VQHHGIRUVDOHDEOHVWRULHV DIWHU all, celebrity sells). Perhaps of equal concern is the misleading yet widespread discourse of fame as inherently democratic, perpetuated by the media, especially in recent reality television shows that have made “ordinary people” into celebrities. This plays upon the “ordinary/extraordinary” paradox outlined earlier. According to the ATL report, many pupils believe celebrity status is attainable by anyone, potentially diminishing the importance of their academic study and perpetuating the myth of celebrity status as the ultimate form of achievement. Yet we might also note how celebrities can bring issues into the public sphere for wider discussion. The brief imprisonment of celebrity and American socialite Paris Hilton for violating her probation gave rise to debates in the news media about whether rich celebrities were treated differently in the justice system to ordinary people. The media coverage over pop star Madonna’s decision WRDGRSWD0DODZLDQEDE\OHGWRVLJQLÀFDQWGHEDWHVRYHUWKHHWKLFVRI DGRSWLRQ7KHGHEDWHVRYHUJOREDOSRYHUW\EURXJKWE\%RE*HOGRIDQG %RQRDORQJZLWKRWKHUFHOHEULWLHVWRWKH*:RUOG6XPPLWLQ and the global Live8 concerts, showed how celebrities can use their fame to attract global attention to an important issue. The problem ZLWKGLVFXVVLRQVRIFHOHEULW\´LQÁXHQFHµWKHQLVWKDWLWRIWHQLQYROYHV framing the questions asked the wrong way round – instead of what LQÁXHQFHGRFHOHEULWLHVKDYHRQRXUPHGLDZHPLJKWLQVWHDGDVNZK\ the media are so fascinated by the forms of public subjectivity that celebrities perform for us. CULTURAL POLITICS THE CULTURAL POLITICS OF CELEBRITY PHILIP DRAKE AND ANDY MIAH 58 CULTURAL POLITICS CELEBRITY AND THE ACADEMY Analysis of the celebrity/star phenomenon has been taken up more systematically by recent academic research. Richard Dyer’s (1998 >@ VWXG\RIÀOPVWDUGRPKDGDSDUWLFXODUO\VLJQLÀFDQWLQÁXHQFH on subsequent work on screen stardom. Dyer’s argument was that stars function as clusters of signs and signifying discourses that gave them particular meanings for audiences. Dyer drew particular attention to WKHIXQFWLRQRIÀOPVWDUVDQGVXJJHVWHGWKDWWKH\UHVROYHLGHRORJLFDO contradictions for audiences through naturalizing certain values and myths. In doing so, Dyer took seriously the pleasures that consuming celebrity images gives audiences. In this work, and that of others within ÀOPDQGWRDOHVVHUH[WHQWWHOHYLVLRQVWXGLHVDWWKHWLPHFHOHEULW\DQG stardom presented a paradox: Hollywood stars offered the appeal of attainable, meritocratic fame and wealth, yet at the same time they were desirable for their idealized glamour and “otherness.” For him the “star image” was not conceptualized exclusively in textual terms, but DOVRUHODWHGWRH[WHUQDO´WH[WVµELRJUDSKLHVSUHVVDUWLFOHVSURÀOHVDQG the multitude of discourses constructed around celebrities in the public GRPDLQ7KLVZDVVHHQDVDPXWXDOO\LQIRUPLQJFLUFXLWRIVLJQLÀFDWLRQDQ accumulating inter- and extra-textual star image that gained meaning through its relationship with audiences, and their negotiated readings of star signs. '\HU·VZRUNOHGWRDVLJQLÀFDQWH[SDQVLRQLQUHVHDUFKLQWRÀOPVWDU dom, in particular on the discursive structures that mediate stars/ FHOHEULWLHVDQGLVVXHVRILGHQWLÀFDWLRQ+RZHYHUPXFKRIWKHZRUN within this tradition focuses upon celebrity consumption rather than production. Despite an early interest in stardom by sociologists, research remained lacking on the production of celebrity, particularly so within WKHSROLWLFDOHFRQRP\WUDGLWLRQ7KXVZKLOHÀOPDQGFXOWXUDOVWXGLHV have emphasized the important symbolic resources of celebrity, the economic grounds upon which celebrity is produced have only recently EHHQJLYHQVLJQLÀFDQWDWWHQWLRQ *DPVRQ7XUQHU%RQQHUDQG Marshall 2000; Turner 2004). P. David Marshall, through the lens of political theory, argues that celebrity is a form of “rationalization” of the social domain, and “celebrates the potential of the individual and the mass’s support of the individual in mass society” (1997: 43). For him a complex co-dependency develops between celebrities and their publics. Celebrity power depends upon audiences and the media’s investment in the status and exceptional nature of celebrity. At the same time celebrities need to regulate and control the ownership of their images to maintain a monopoly power over themselves as individuated brands (Drake 2007). In summary, academic writing on celebrity draws from a broad range of disciplines and considers a range of different media, as do our contributors here. However most approaches agree that although celebrity predates the rise in modern communication technologies, the mass media of the twentieth century facilitated a dramatic expansion of the sites and means in which famous individuals can be consumed 59 by audiences. The emergence of stardom in Hollywood cinema, for instance, demonstrated how the cinema was important not only to the expansion of celebrity at the start of the twentieth century, but also to a public discourse around stardom (deCordova 1990). Nuanced accounts of the phenomenon of celebrity from sociological, aesthetic, and cultural perspectives have begun to appear, including studies of FHOHEULW\LQRWKHUÀHOGVVXFKDVVSRUWVDQGSROLWLFV :KDQQHOVHH also the range of essays in Holmes and Redmond 2006). Research on audiences and fan culture has also extended consideration of celebrity through an examination of the varied forms of engagement WKDWDXGLHQFHVKDYHZLWKFHOHEULWLHVLQVSHFLÀFFXOWXUDOFRQWH[WV)RU H[DPSOH -DFNLH 6WDFH\·V   VWXG\ RI SRVWZDU IHPDOH FLQHPD audiences in Britain suggests not only the escapism and pleasures that “star gazing” offered to British women during post-World War Two austerity, but also the captivating lure that the glamour of Hollywood stars symbolically held over their audiences as idealized images of femininity. The tension between these two positions – escapism and captivation – is at the very center of debates about the cultural politics of celebrity. We hope that the articles gathered here offer a demonstration of the range of approaches that can be used to address celebrity, but that also WKH\DWWHQGVSHFLÀFDOO\WRWKHFXOWXUDOSROLWLFVRIFHOHEULW\7KHDUWLFOHV started life as papers in an international conference that we organized on celebrity culture. This event aimed to encourage an interdisciplinary dialogue between scholars working on celebrity and stardom, enabling an interchange of ideas and approaches from across the humanities and social sciences. Presenters offered papers examining celebrity from a broad range of textual, industrial, and audience perspectives – truly an interdisciplinary event. While the research represented in this LVVXHLVE\QHFHVVLW\ERWKQDUURZHUDQGPRUHVSHFLÀFDOO\FRQFHUQHG with the cultural politics of celebrity, it too emphasizes how analysis of celebrity, fame, stardom, heroism, and renown cuts across different ÀHOGVDQGLVDEOHWRUHÁHFWDGLYHUVLW\RIDSSURDFKHVGHPRQVWUDWLQJWKDW while the category “celebrity” may have a common idiomatic currency, the differences between celebrities and the varying forms of their public mediation matter a great deal. To take such mattering seriously is, of course, also a key concern of cultural politics. To promote the conference we issued a press release which led to snowballing interest from which approximately forty media articles were produced, mainly in the form of printed press articles and interviews with presenters, but also a number of radio interviews from PHGLDDVIDUDÀHOGDV$XVWUDOLDDQG,QGLD2XUDFDGHPLFFRQIHUHQFH found itself at the center of unexpected media attention, attracting visiting journalists and a spread of media headlines ranging from straightforward reports of the event to misinformed opinion pieces, including one by journalist and former Celebrity Big Brother (Channel 4, ² KRXVHPDWH-DQHW6WUHHW3RUWHU LQWKH%ULWLVKThe Independent newspaper) and perhaps our most lurid headline, in the largest CULTURAL POLITICS THE CULTURAL POLITICS OF CELEBRITY PHILIP DRAKE AND ANDY MIAH circulating British popular newspaper, The Sun,WLWOHG´%RIÀQVGLVFRYHU the meaning of Becks” (September 13, 2005). Broadly speaking we PLJKWLGHQWLI\WZRIUDPHVWKDWW\SLÀHGWKHMRXUQDOLVWV·DUWLFOHV7KHÀUVW was structured around the high concept collision between high-brow DFDGHPLF´ERIÀQVµDQGORZFXOWXUH7KHVHDUWLFOHVIRFXVHGXSRQD small sample of the papers delivered, particularly an interest in, as The Sun article indicates, the English football star David Beckham. The second frame involved, in varying forms, attempting – like the ATL survey – to position the work from the conference within a media effects paradigm, asking whether celebrities might be good or bad role-models. 7KLVUDLVHGDVLPLODUGLIÀFXOW\IRXQGE\6X+ROPHV  LQKHU´ELG for media ‘fame’.” The journalists clearly preferred a form of punditry rather than academic analysis. Despite the so-called “cultural turn” LQWKHKXPDQLWLHVDQGVRFLDOVFLHQFHVDQGWKHVLJQLÀFDQWLQFUHDVH in column inches written about popular culture, it appears that there UHPDLQLQVKRUWVRPHGLIÀFXOWLHVLQGHYHORSLQJDVXVWDLQHGSXEOLF engagement via the media with issues relating to the politics of the popular as represented by celebrity culture. 60 CULTURAL POLITICS RECONSIDERING CELEBRITY, REDEFINING THE POLITICAL Our discussion of celebrity and its interlocking relationship with the media VXJJHVWVWKDWDQDO\]LQJFHOHEULW\FXOWXUHLVDSROLWLFDOLVVXH*UDQWHG the power of individual celebrities is often fragile and ephemeral, but QRQHWKHOHVVFHOHEULW\FXOWXUHDVDV\VWHPLVDVLJQLÀFDQWDJHQWRISRZHU relations within contemporary culture, and the media celebrity offers a site for discussions about the power relationships between media producers and consumers, and their struggles over meaning. Celebrity often emerges as a mediating frame between a performer and their publics, as a key discourse informing cultural representations (such as gender, ethnicity, or class), and as an alliance between media and promotional industries. When all of these converge around a single and highly prominent news event then, momentarily, the celebrity narrative can become the absolute center – the vortex – of media attention. In KLVDUWLFOHLQWKLVYROXPH*DUU\:KDQQHOSURYLGHVDGHYHORSPHQWRI his concept of “vortextuality,” analyzing how the verdict of the trial of SRSVWDU0LFKDHO-DFNVRQZDVUHSRUWHGLQWKHQHZVSUHVVDQDQDO\VLV that might be extended to the coverage of his death in 2009. Whannel demonstrates how the relationship between celebrity, the news press, the promotional industries, and audiences involves a complex set of feedback loops. When a story gains “traction” then the acceleration and accumulation of media coverage can be startling, often only for it to subside equally rapidly. In his article Whannel also notes how the British series of the reality television show Celebrity Big Brother offered some indication of the ´SRWHQWLDOO\SROLWLFDOµ 1DVK 7KLVÀIWKVHULHVEURDGFDVWLQ IHDWXUHG-DGH*RRG\DFHOHEULW\LQLWLDOO\PDGHIDPRXVIURP appearing in (but not winning) the third series of the non-celebrity 61 version of Big Brother &KDQQHO *RRG\RULJLQDOO\ZDVWKHWDUJHW of a negative press campaign to vote her out of the Big Brother house, and subsequently became a regular feature of celebrity magazines. Her DSSHDUDQFHKRZHYHUEHFDPHFRQWURYHUVLDOZKHQ*RRG\DQGWZR fellow housemates made a number of bullying and racist comments WRDQRWKHUFRQWHVWDQW6KLOSD6KHWW\D%ROO\ZRRGÀOPVWDU7KH%ULWLVK television regulator Ofcom received over 44,500 complaints from viewers and its Content Sanctions Committee produced a seventy-page report examining the issue. As a result the broadcaster, Channel 4, was sanctioned for breaches of the Broadcasting Code and forced to issue DSXEOLFDSRORJ\ZKLOH*RRG\ZDVYLOLÀHGLQWKHSRSXODUSUHVV6KHWW\ went on to win and to gain numerous lucrative sponsorship contracts ZKLOH*RRG\ZDVDWWDFNHGLQWKHSUHVVZHSWSXEOLFO\LQDWHOHYLVLRQ interview, and checked in to a rehabilitation clinic. The following year, attempting to revive her career by appearing in the Indian version of the program, Bigg Boss (Colors Viacom, 2006–), she was informed on air that she had cervical cancer, propelling her back into the British media spotlight until her untimely death in 2009. +LJKSURÀOHFDVHVLQYROYLQJFHOHEULWLHVWKHUHIRUHRIWHQLJQLWHZLGHU GHEDWHVLQSRSXODUFXOWXUH,QWKH*RRG\6KHWW\H[DPSOHWKHFRQWURYHUV\ opened up a broader public discussion about casual racism in British VRFLHW\DQGODWHUSXEOLFV\PSDWK\IRUKHUWHUPLQDOFDQFHU*RRG\·V cancer was reported to have led to a substantial increase in women going for cervical screenings, potentially preventing other early deaths. The artwork by David Levine that follows presents head shots of wannabe celebrities in their bid for fame. Through a fascinating exSORUDWLRQRIWKHSURFHVVRIXQVROLFLWHGVXEPLVVLRQKLVZRUNUHÁHFWV upon the gatekeeping processes that regulate contemporary celebrity. The aspirational desire for public recognition and fame gives rise to particular forms of performance – as shown in the ritualistic head shots or photographic poses, or in hopeful submissions to reality television or quiz shows. As he notes, the thirst for fame itself becomes a performance, both aspirational and exploitative, offering us a discourse about the individual and what constitutes cultural recognition in a world saturated by media celebrity. Unwanted wannabe celebrities, he suggests, might be thought of as “the Culture Industry’s industrial waste,” waste necessary to the process of fame production. Earlier we discussed aspects of celebrity that involve incursion in the domain of politics. However this also applies to those prominent journalists and news anchors who interview politicians. In his article in this volume Michael Higgins advances the concept of “public inquisitor” to analyze well-known British journalists and presenters -HUHP\3D[PDQDQG-RKQ+XPSKULHVDQGFRQVLGHUVKRZWKH\SHUIRUP as media personalities. In so doing, Higgins suggests that a critical reappraisal is needed within political communication of such forms of celebrity, where prominent journalists draw discursively upon their celebrity status to bring politicians to account. Helen Powell and Sylvie Prasad extend the discussion of the political into an analysis of lifestyle CULTURAL POLITICS THE CULTURAL POLITICS OF CELEBRITY PHILIP DRAKE AND ANDY MIAH television and the celebrity expert. They argue that such celebrities act as cultural (and sometime political) intermediaries in the transmission and shaping of public taste – here the celebrity acts as public “tastemaker” or bearer of aesthetic knowledge. Their analysis demonstrates that power struggles over cultural meaning often privilege particular “middle-class” tastes at the expense of other social groups. What all these articles and artwork share is a healthy, critical skepticism towards the hyperbole surrounding celebrity culture and its place within the media and promotional industries. In different ways they H[DPLQHWKHLPSRUWDQWIXQFWLRQRIFHOHEULW\LQVLJQLÀFDQWGHEDWHV²RYHU issues such as public health or democratic politics, for instance – and consider how the bond between celebrities and audiences might characterize and perhaps even shape our mediated culture. 62 CULTURAL POLITICS CONCLUSIONS As we have seen, contemporary celebrity is associated with the rise of the mass media in the twentieth century and its creation, circulation, and promotion of well-known individuals. Although celebrity culture predates modern communication technologies, the dramatic rise of the mass media in the twentieth century facilitated a great expansion of the sites in which celebrity culture could be consumed by audiences. They are an inherent part of consumer capitalism, driven by the interlocking media and publicity industries. Although celebrity is not a modern phenomenon, the articulation of contemporary celebrity with the media represents a distinct shift in the dynamics of fame. Celebrity might thus be best understood not as the property of an individual but as a mediating frame between famous individuals and their media publics. The relationship between celebrities and audiences has been usefully conceptualized as a paraVRFLDOHQJDJHPHQWDVLWLVSULPDULO\EDVHGXSRQDRQHZD\ÁRZRI communication, although more recently in the case of reality television, feedback mechanisms (voting for or against a celebrity) are a popular UHÁH[LYHGHYLFHDOORZLQJDXGLHQFHVWRSOD\DQGLQWHUDFWZLWKLQWKH boundaries of the format. Through such forms of interaction celebrities become more than simply famous, they become mediated friendships, giving rise to new forms of mediated intimacy – ranging from adoring and enchanted, to cynical and ironic – between celebrity performers and their publics. In conclusion we contend that celebrity is not a phenomenon as easy to dismiss as its many critics would like us to believe. For better or worse, the ubiquity of celebrity culture means it is part of everyday life, and deeply embedded in the functioning of the contemporary PHGLD$VWKHH[DPSOHVRI*RRG\-DFNVRQ%RQRDQG*HOGRILQGLFDWH the publicity that celebrities command can act as a lightning rod for social anxieties, bringing public attention to potentially political issues. Celebrity narratives can sometimes set the news agenda, as Whannel DUJXHVDQGLIRIWHQRQO\EULHÁ\EHFRPHWKHKHDGOLQHWRSLFIRUHYHU\GD\ discussion, possibly to even form part of a mediated public sphere. For THE CULTURAL POLITICS OF CELEBRITY good or ill, celebrity culture continues to be connected in complex ways to our sense of identity and belonging, of how we relate to the world, to each other and to ourselves. For these reasons we argue that the dynamics of our contemporary cultural settlement with celebrity are important to analyze. 63 Adorno, T. 2003 [1975]. “Culture Industry Reconsidered.” In W. Brooker DQG ' -HUP\Q HGV   The Audience Studies Reader, pp. 55–60. London and New York: Routledge. Association of Teachers and Lecturers. 2008. “The Beckhams are the celebrities most children aspire to be, as celebrity culture increases LWVLQÁXHQFHVD\V$7/µ3UHVVUHOHDVHZZZDWORUJXN DFFHVVHG April 1, 2008). %DXGULOODUG-Simulacra and Simulation7UDQV6KHLOD*ODVHU Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Boorstin, D. 1961. The Image: a guide to pseudo-events in America. London: Penguin. Braudy, L. 1997. The Frenzy of Renown: Fame and Its History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carlyle, T. 1841. On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History. /RQGRQ-DPHV)UDVHU 'HERUG*>@Society of the Spectacle. Detroit, MI: Black & Red. deCordova, R. 1990. Picture Personalities: The Emergence of the Star System in America. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. 'UDNH3DQG0+LJJLQV´,·PD&HOHEULW\*HWPHLQWR3ROLWLFV The Political Celebrity and the Celebrity Politician.” In S. Holmes and S. Redmond (eds) Framing Celebrity: New Directions in Celebrity Culture, pp.87–100. London: Routledge. Drake, P. 2007. “Who Owns Celebrity? Privacy, Publicity, and the Legal Regulation of Celebrity Images.” In S. Holmes and S. Redmond (eds) Stardom and Celebrity: A Reader, pp. 219–29. London: Sage. Dyer, R. 1986. Heavenly Bodies: Film Stars and Society. London: Routledge. Dyer, R. 1998 [1979]. Stars. London: BFI. Franklin, R. 1997. Newszak and News Media. London: Arnold. Franklin, R. 2004. Packaging Politics: Political Communication in Britain’s Media Democracy, second edition. London: Arnold. *DPVRQ-Claims to Fame: Celebrity in Contemporary America. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Holmes, S. 2005. “‘Starring . . . Dyer?’ Re-Visiting Star Studies and Contemporary Celebrity Culture.” Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 2(2): 6–21. Holmes, S. and S. Redmond (eds) 2006. Framing Celebrity: New Directions in Celebrity Culture. London: Routledge. Horton, D. and R. Wohl. 1956. “Mass Communications and Parasocial Interaction.” Psychiatry 19(3): 215–29. CULTURAL POLITICS REFERENCES PHILIP DRAKE AND ANDY MIAH 64 CULTURAL POLITICS Marshall, P.D. 1997. Celebrity and Power: Fame in Contemporary Culture. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. Nash, C. 2001. “The ‘Cultural Turn’ in Social Theory: Towards a Theory of Cultural Politics.” Sociology 35(1): 77–92. Rojek, C. 2001. Celebrity. London: Reaktion Books. 6WDFH\ -  Star Gazing: Hollywood Cinema and Female Spectatorship. London: Routledge. 6WUHHW-´%RE%RQRDQG7RQ\7KH&HOHEULW\$V3ROLWLFLDQµ Media, Culture and Society 24(3): 433–41. 7XUQHU*Understanding Celebrity, London: Sage. 7XUQHU*)%RQQHUDQG3'0DUVKDOO Fame Games: The Pro duction of Celebrity in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. :KDQQHO*Media Sport Stars, Masculinities and Moralities, London: Routledge. Wordsworth, W. 1800. Lyrical Ballads, in 2 Vols. London: T.N. Longman and O. Rees.