Essay

To what extent has celebrity culture replaced religion?

Far from the modest beginnings of the notion of fan, in recent years, celebrities have been propelled from being considered talented, or in many cases untalented individuals, and instead be held as “God like,” figures, which possess powers, abilities and knowledge which surpass by far that of the mass populous: and with this, creating a hoard of obsessive followers. In the past century religion has been rapidly diminishing in western society: “by 1970 only 10 to 12% of the population of England and Wales attended church on an average Sunday ” (Haralamobs & Heald, 1985) It now appears as if “celebrity culture” has taken it’s place.




Clear parallels can be drawn between the idea of celebrity, and that of “God.” Like religion, celebrity culture is omnipresent. Celebrities are everywhere, and are now, for the most part, setting the standards which non-celebrities must adhere to.



As a starting point, it would be sensible to try and define why people are “religious.” A religion provides a set of rules to live by, hope, and generally, direction in their life: “religious beliefs provide guidelines for human action and standards against which man’s conduct can be evaluated ” (Haralamobs & Heald, 1985). Religion functions as a tool for “social solidarity: It is argued that in the “highly charged atmosphere of collective worship, the integration of society is strengthened” (Haralamobs & Heald 1985). Talcott Parons states that the primary function of religion is to “make sense of all experiences no matter how meaningless or contradictory they appear.” 


“Other than religion, celebrity culture is the only cluster of human relationships in which mutual passion typically operates without physical interaction” (Rojek, 2001).



What makes celebrity culture far more appealing, is that the figures of worship appear far more tangible than those presented in a strict religious group. Religious figures are fairly abstract, and debatably fictional, whilst celebrities can be seen, heard, and appear to, unquestionably exist: “reciprocal relations are constructed around an anonymous character and a public face.” It could be argued that this element of transcendence in celebrities is one that makes them far more attractive than traditional religious icons: you can worship them, and listen to their albums at home, and then pay money to go and see them in person, “the celebrity in contemporary society is accessible through internet sites, biographies, newspaper interviews, TV profiles, radio documentaries and film biographies ”(Rojek, 2001), however “, “the audiences connection with celebrities is dominated by imaginary relationships” (Rojek, 2001), and is ultimately para-social.


Further enhancing the allure of celebrity culture over religion is the theory of “Primary Foundational Types ” (Rojek, 2001). Whereas in a religion, followers are given a God to worship, in celebrity culture, non celebrities appear to be able to pick an choose a celebrity to adore, that will possibly mirror, but certainly satisfy the persona, morals, and ideals of the “fan.” This is in an example of “pseudo individualisation” (Adorno, 1941). “Celebrities” function to endow “cultural mass production with the halo of free choice,” “the choice in individual alterations is so small that the perpetual recurrence of the same variations is a reassuring signpost of the identical behind them ” (Adorno, 1941).


Like religion, celebrity fans gain a sense of “social solidarity,” and through their fandom are able to feel that “their universe of meaning is real, true, correct, “legitimate”” (Haralamobs & Heald 1985).


Unlike religion, fans are able to use the celebrity in a range of means to satisfy themselves: admiration, inspiration, sexual desire etc, for example: 


“When I make love with my husband I imagine its Barry Manilow. All the time. And after my husband and I have made love and I realize it’s not him, I cry to myself. I suppose it’s the same kind of thing people get out of religion. I can’t really explain it more than that. But they obviously get something from God to help them through their lives. And Barry is­–maybe I shouldn’t say it but it’s the way I feel–he’s the same sort of thing. He helps me through life.” (Firth & Goodwin, 1990)


The underlying desire that a celebrity obsessive experiences, and realistically, is one that can never be achieved is to possess the object of their affection. “Fans” achieve is this in amassing celebrity collections: these collections are not limited to tangible collections of memorabilia, collections of celebrity trivia are also relevant, and is not dissimilar from devout Christians memorising bible passages, although in many cases, shrines to celebrities are constructed, the function of which is to shorten the distance between the fan and celebrity. Such an instance has been labelled as “The S.T Thomas Effect” (Rojek, 2001)


“The disciples of Christ wanted to touch him after the resurrection to prove he was real, reincarnated once more in the flesh and not just a ghost. We can see how fans of celebrities do this …status in the cult of worship is proven through consumption, through how big your collection is, or the amount of ownership of whatever product the celebrity is producing or endorsing or producing…” (Rojek, 2001)


Continuing to illustrate the similarities between religion and celebrity is the “fans” reluctance to accept the death of “their” celebrity. Stories are concocted of celebrities faking their own death, as a means of escaping the spotlight abducted by aliens etc.


Undoubtedly, the most famous case of this would be Elvis Presley: 


“The reason experts can’t agree on the cause of Elvis’s “death” is because he’s not dead!. Many national surveys on the subject have revealed that a large percentage of the population in the U.S believe that Elvis Presley is alive today.”  (Beeny, 2005)


There are clear similarities of the “fans” denying the death of “celebrity,” and a religious funeral ceremony: “a funeral ceremony expresses the belief in immortality, which denies the fact of death, and so comforts the bereaved.” Celebrity funerals are usually lavish events, and are in some cases broadcast on television. Using Michael Jackson as an example:


“Jackson's memorial was held on July 7, 2009, at the Staples Center in Los Angeles, preceded by a private family service at Forest Lawn Memorial Park's Hall of Liberty. Jackson's casket was present during the memorial but no information was released about the final disposition of the body. While some unofficial reports claimed a worldwide audience as high as one billion people, the U.S. audience was estimated by Nielsen to be 31.1 million, an amount comparable to the estimated 35.1 million that watched the2004 burial of former president Ronald Reagan, and the estimated 33.1 million Americans who watched the 1997 funeral for Princess Diana.”  (Wikipedia 2011)

The most obvious trait that the two share is the idea of regulation. In religion, if you don’t follow the views and morals of your particular faith, you will not got to “Heaven,” and will consequently be banished to an horrific existence after death. Similarly, if you don’t embrace celebrity culture, invest, imitate, and idolise, you can never achieve fame, and in turn, will never be truly happy. Religion is clearly built on a panoptic framework: you are constantly under surveillance from god, regulate accordingly. Arguably, this idea can also be applied to celebrity. Increasingly, “celebrities” are being plucked off the streets, “the celebrities’ achievement, his/her very existence is used to propagate the notion that s/he could be any one of us.” Subsequently, non-celebrities must regulate them selves in appearing in such a way that they can fit easily into the role of a celebrity – they could be the next big thing: like religion, the main function of celebrity culture is to “establish rhythms, impose particular occupations” and “regulate the cycles of repetition,” and in turn non-celebrities are coaxed into “a state of consciousness and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power” (Foucault, 1977).


A relevant example of a celebrity that materialises the idea that just about anyone can be famous is Justin Bieber: 


“Three years ago, Justin Bieber was busking for money to go to DisneyWorld. Then he appeared on YouTube, and now he's the biggest pop sensation since Michael Jackson “ (The Guardian, 2010) 


At a glance Justin Bieber appears as a celtoid, however, further analysis produces an argument that he is fact a celeactor: he is young, extremely successful, good looking, loves his mum and appears to make time for his fans: an embodiment of the ideal American boy, (he is in fact Canadian) providing a great deal of appeal. Continuing to broaden his appeal, and fitting easily into the classic “sob story” category is the fact that he was born while his mother was young, his mother and father divorced, they had no money, and all of a sudden, he is a star–this simply translates the idea that “if Justin can do it, you can to!”


The lengths that people are willing to go to achieve any level of celebrity, no matter how minor is disturbing. For example: 


“Kinga Karolczak is a half Polish, half Kuwaiti market researcher from London. She initially entered into the (Big Brother) house through the Secret Garden with fellow newcomers Eugene and Orlaith. She is most famous for masturbating with a wine bottle in the garden. “ (Wikipedia, 2011)


A further example of non-celebrities publicly humiliating themselves in a quest for fame is X-Factor. Entrants participate in the competition knowingly, or in some cases to unintentionally satirise themselves, in front of millions of people, in search of some kind, or rather, any kind of recognition “, celebrity is seen as a quick fix solution for the things that are wrong in someone’s life – like playing the lottery.”


As in religion, the oppressed can achieve “salvation from bondage and misery in the afterlife,” (Haralamobs & Heald, 1985) if non-celebrities are unable to achieve celebrity in life, there is now a glimmer of hope in that they can at least achieve some degree of fame in death­– by being buried amongst the stars:


“Founded in 1899, Hollywood Forever Cemetery is the resting place of hundreds of Hollywood’s greatest stars. Recently refurbished to its original splendour, the cemetery attracts visitors from all over the world. Yet it is also an active cemetery and funeral home.


“With thousands of spaces available, new mausoleum construction nearing completion, and a vibrant cultural events program the cemetery is more active today than ever in its history.” (Hollywood Forever, 2011)


For some time, the line between religion and celebrity culture has been blurred, and in some instances, the two have become intertwined. Using Christianity as an example: the idea of celebrating the birth of, and reincarnation of Christ at established Christian holidays is rapidly dying out. Now, Christmas and Easter is a time to further indulge in celebrity culture: the faces of celebrities are positioned on Easter eggs: the very notion of chocolate eggs celebrating the “reincarnation of mankind’s saviour” solidifies the notion that Christianity is fading away, and celebrities serve as an effective tool to “humanize commodity consumption,” “the purpose of celebrity culture is to shepherd the populace into imitative consumption ” (Bell 2010). Christmas is now a time where you can almost definitely see your favourite celebrity on TV: everyone is catered for. The tradition of celebrities, regardless of their musical ability, releasing a Christmas single, is one that is generally relished, and has become to be considered wholeheartedly “festive.” An example that further reinforces the idea of Christmas being a time for celebrities is the turning on of the Christmas lights. Christmas lights can only be turned on be a mediagenic, or even a “notorious” public figure, thus, putting them in a “Christ-like” position; celebrities are those who bring Christmas to the non-celebrities: “authority is located in religion when kings speak for Gods as in the case of the pharaohs of ancient Egypt” (Haralamobs & Heald, 1985), whose place now appears to have been taken by celebrities.


Building on the idea of dualism between celebrity culture and religion, whether or not it is voluntary on their part, current “religious figures” have become objects of “celebrifacation.” Using the Pope as an example, whilst he has understandably been vocal on his distaste towards celebrity culture:


"One of the great tragedies of this world" was that so many people did not find happiness. That was "because they look for it in the wrong places".


"The key to it is very simple – true happiness is to be found in God." (The Guardian 2010)


However, the pope is no longer considered a religious figure, in the sense that he embodies some sort of spiritual connection with “God,” rather, now serving as an unintentional parody of a set of redundant traditional religious beliefs – when a the pope visits a town, it is not dissimilar from an elderly relative visiting, and is altogether a novelty. This, arguably, to many, may be an accurate representation of where religion lies in the western world.


In conclusion, I feel that the relationship between religion and celebrity culture is one that corresponds to the idea of “ repressive desublimation ” (Marcuse, 1964) Celebrity culture has essentially participated in a systematic attempt to dominate, and integrate religion, and has ultimately succeeded. I am not presenting the idea that traditional religion is somehow more acceptable than celebrity culture: both repress: like religion, celebrity culture “does not simply cushion the effects of oppression, it is also an instrument of that oppression ” (Haralamobs & Heald, 1985), one has now simply encompassed the other and taken it’s place.  


The ideas, and functions of religion, have been compressed, repackaged, and incorporated into society as something that is far more palatable than it’s previous form, leading to an unquestioning acceptance, producing to an effective form of mass regulation, finally culminating in “a misguided attempt to make life more bearable ” (Haralamobs & Heald, 1985).

Bibliography
Foucault, M (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. ST. Ives: Penguin Books
Marcuse, H (1964) One-Dimensional Man. London: Routledge
Rojek, C (2001) Celebrity. London: Reaktion Books
Marshall,D,P (1997) Celebrity and Power: Fame in Contemporary Culture. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press
Beeny, B (2005) Elvis’ DNA Proves He’s Alive. Boston: Branden Books
Lee, J (2009) Celebrity, Paedophilia, and Ideology in American Culture. New York: Cambria Press
Firth, S & Goodwin, A (1990) On Record: Pop, and the written word. London: Routledge
Bell, C, E (2010) American Idolatry: Celebrities, Commodity and Reality Television. North Carolina: McFarland Company, Inc, Publishers
Haralambos, M & Heald R.M (1985) Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. Suffolk: Harper Collins Distribution Services
Adorno, T (1941) On Popular Music [Online] Last Updated: 17/02/11. Available at:http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/SWA/On_popular_music_1.shtml
Crawley, W (2009) Is Celebrity Culture a replacement for religion? (Online) June 2009. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/06/is_celebrity_culture_a_replace.html (Accessed 5^th February 2011)
Nisbet, M, C (2009) Celebrity Religion: On Michael Jackson, Princess Diana and Mother Teresa  (Online) July 2009. Available from: http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2009/07/celebrity_religion_on_michael.php (Accessed 16^th February 2011)
Ronson, J (2010) Justin Bieber: One Day with the most Googled name on the planet (Online) November 2010. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/nov/13/justin-bieber-interview (Accessed 16th February 2011)
Hooper, J & Jones, S (2010) Pope’s Visit: Benedict Warns of Cult of Celebrity (Online) September 2010. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/17/popes-visit-benedict-children-celebrity (Accessed 14th February 2011)
Hollywood Forever (Online) Available from: http://www.hollywoodforever.com (Accessed 14^th February 2011)
Wikipedia. List of Big Brother Housemates 2005 (UK) (Online) Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Big_Brother_2005_housemates_(UK)#Kinga (Accessed 15^th February 2011)
Wikipedia. Michael Jackson Memorial Service (Online) Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson_memorial_service (Accessed 27th March 2011)
Beyond Belief. Celebrity Culture (2011) BBC Radio 4. Monday 31^st January

Task 7 - Constrcuting the Other

Throughout the newspaper, a false sense of unity is present throughout. The front cover provides a clear divide between them, and the police force. It ridicules the police force over an “assault with a marshmallow.” Even though the police are in a position of authority, it attempts to place the readership in a position of power.

The second page reinforces the sense of unity, presenting them much in the same way as the police force: even though the reader isn’t “powerful,” they are not making “Nazi slurs.” This is reinforced by the presentation of “Lords plotting,” representing them as villains, clearly defining them as the enemy of the readership.

Page 3 serves as a tool to boost the reader’s masculinity: it offers reassurance to the reader that they are attractive, the model has been waiting on this page, only for them, reinforced by the inclusion of the models name, age, and home: AMII, 24, from Birmingham: the model literally saying “you know where to find me,” further reinforced by “Get today’s girl on you phone.” Her inclusion in the newspaper justified by her view on the news: “AMII loves the story about pupils discovering topless photos of their pretty art teacher:” this particular “News in Briefs,” not only serves as a device to reinforce the model as an object which only functions to satisfy sexual desires, but also to coax the reader into continuing to read the newspaper in search of this article.

This particular article (page 17) functions to solidify the idea that even though the reader may not be powerful, it doesn’t matter: those that are in any position of power are essentially idiots anyway. The headline ridicules a middle class accent, which immediately divides the reader from them:” Posh School:” it isn’t just any school. The article presents a relatively successful woman, and presents her in a way similar to the page 3 model: the article states that she has been “exposed:” giving the impression that she is a porn star/come teacher, whereas in realty she was posing for a anti breast cancer campaign.

Overall the images that I have looked provide clear indicators on how the reader should define themselves: Irresistible to women, although they are not in any position of authority, they are in fact the ones in power.

Taak 6 - Sustainabilty and Capitalism

Within the text, the “sustainability” is best defined as “an environmental buzzword.” It presents the idea that whilst sustainability is defined as “inter – and intra- generational equity in the social, environmental, economic, moral and political spheres of society,“ it ultimately “isolates and ostracizes various populations who cannot afford to be sustainable:” it is “no longer about the salvation of nature, but the prolonging of human life and human social and economic systems, namely capitalism.”

An example given in the text is the BIOX plant in Hamilton: “Hamilton has one of the highest incidents of low income per household in Ontario” The construction of the plant in a residential area puts the residents in a high risk situation, with no means of escape, exposing them to  “harsh and potentially harmful chemicals,” for sustainability’s sake: “sustainability is reinvented as technology and as individual choices, it creates a divide in the population along the lines of class.”

In conclusion, the text presents the question “is it right to save the environment, or save the poor?”

The main tendency of capitalism is the commodification of objects, issues, anything that can be integrated into a “systematic cycle of accumulation.” In the text, capitalism is described as being “never ending:” “a diverse web that is constantly expanding and trapping things.” A crisis of capitalism is presented as when the cycle of capitalisation appears to have reached it’s limit, however, “the construction of this crisis only further perpetuates the cycle,” and capitalism is able to renew itself: the depleting oil supplies could be used as an example, however, the prices of oil rises, and expensive alternatives, using the “eco friendly” alternatives are introduced.

Within the text, the reinvention of sustainability is offered as a solution” so that it mirrors its ideological construct of community, morality, equality and prosperity, instead of technology driven innovation:” it states that in order to solve the sustainability problem, we need to stop looking towards capitalism in for a solution for problems. Sustainability, and capitalism, have been presented as concepts that are largely incompatible: one has integrated the other, and in turn, sustainability needs to be re-established.