Celebrity Evolution

Celebrity Evolution

By Nicola Hosking

It is my intention to study and evaluate the concept of ‘celebrity’ and to examine changes over the course of history. As part of this examination, two key issues will be focussed upon; the importance of ‘Individualisation’ and ‘Identification’.  In addition, I will discuss an understanding of media influence within society and how the advances in new technologies determine ways of thinking. The area I aim to direct my analysis most towards is that of the ‘psychological’, mainly because I would argue that everything exists out of an ‘idea’…all that is learnt and created comes from the mind.

By referring to key texts – surrounding academic and public discourse on matters of celebrity – respected theories and perspectives will be presented alongside my arguments. In conclusion, I will summarise my findings, delivering an overview of the changing celebrity landscape and public perception.

The concept of ‘celebrity’ has changed over time, arousing interest for academic discourse and raising questions of worthiness. The word ‘celebrity’ was not seen in print until 1849 (Tillyard, 2005) but can be traced further back to much earlier centuries. Prior to discussion, it is worth defining what ‘celebrity’ is. The Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 2012) defines celebrity as:

                                                      

                                                                                                 A famous person;

The state of being well known 

The Latin origins of ‘celebrity’ are termed;

‘celebritas’, from celeber, celebr-, meaning:   

  'frequented or honoured'.

Saul (2011) differentiates fame and celebrity as follows:

“The idea of celebrity overlaps with that of its sibling 'fame'. Fame describes 'reputation', 'renown' or 'good report'; it is associated with recognition of an achievement beyond time or place…the knowledge that he or she will have a place in history. Celebrity, however, is associated with a certain glitziness which underlies and informs a relationship between the celebrity and an admiring audience...”

‘Celebrity’ has also been described as being variously used to indicate a more fleeting conception of fame (Rojek 2001, 9) - the contemporary state of ‘being famous’ in which ‘meaningful’ distinctions and  hierarchies have diminished, or when fame rests predominantly on the private life of the person, as opposed to their performing presence (Geraghty 2000, 187). To expand further, Chris Rojek, has categorised fame as a process of ‘celebrification’, suggesting distinctions between ‘ascribed’ celebrity (a product of lineage), ‘achieved’ celebrity (a meritocratic conception where fame is linked to talent and accomplishment), and ‘attributed’ celebrity (which simply emerges from ‘concentrated’ media representation).

The emphasis here is clearly that we have moved toward a culture of attributed celebrity. This is very much in keeping with the popular discussion of fame in the contemporary moment, and again underlines the reciprocal relationship between public and academic discourse (Rojek 2001)

 The modern day celebrity has been recognised as a by-product of the growth of mass literacy, arising from an explosion in the number of printing houses and the existence of a public concerned with new ways of thinking about itself.  However, according to Saul, the roots of celebrity can be found much earlier. It may be that the origins of the modern celebrity cult are to be found in the 13th and 14th centuries, in the so-called age of chivalry (Saul, 2011 20-25)

 

Reflecting on a time before the word celebrity existed, those individuals who brought honour to nations or displayed a specific talent and flair, were the celebrities of their day. Medieval knights, scholars, artists and diplomats stood before an adoring public to entertain, enlighten and inform…to be ‘celebrated’. Their acclaim would be recognition of what had been accomplished rather than for the individual.  In the ancient world Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Augustus, even Socrates, had all in their different ways encouraged the growth of a cult around themselves (Saul 2011. 20-25). 

On the contrary, the modern celebrity does not go hand in hand with talent or merit. Daniel Boorstin’s (1962) book on the media, The Image, affirms this by referring to celebrity as a "human pseudo-event," A product of manufacture – ‘creation’…where celebrities are known unlike ‘heroes’ for their ‘image’ rather than their achievements (Briggs & Burke 2005). This focus on image is related to contemporary postmodern culture’s emphasis on spectacle and surface reality. Robert Dyer (1980) argues that stars embody social values that need, or are felt to need assertion or reassertion (Stadler, 2005). This is further reflected when thinking about the rise of urban democracy. The two-hundred-year expansion of its media of communication, together with the radical individualisation of the modern sensibility making fame a much more transitory reward, changing public acclaim from an expression of devotion in to one of celebrity.  (Inglis, 2010)

In consideration of the above, we can begin to have an understanding of why celebrities are so successful. What they portray through their image reflects society’s own needs and desires. As a society we have become much more focussed on ‘individualism’. This is affirmed by Holmes (2005):

“The topic of selfhood and identity is particularly important, as it appears to be where popular discourse on contemporary celebrity and academic perspectives meet.”

The shift towards a much more ‘individualised’ society has erupted out of fractured social frameworks which have led people to become ‘self-sufficient’. The systems that once united people; religion, communities, class, don’t hold as much importance as they once did. Not that they don’t exist but their relevance has diminished somewhat. Similarly, Inglis (2010), posits that celebrity, at a time when the realms of public politics, civil society, and private domestic life are increasingly fractured and enclosed in separate enclaves, is one of the adhesives which serves to pull those separate entities together and to do its bit towards maintaining social cohesion and common values.

This more self-centred perspective is further permeated by the advance in information technology which enables the public to make broad connections across many platforms, closing the gap between distance and time. Consumers are able to communicate accessibly and instantly. News can travel faster than ever before.

We are surrounded by images of celebrities; on television, adverts and films, through internet sharing, in glossy magazines and on billboards. In relation to this, the multimedia press churns out celebrity stories (most of which are fabricated) and capture private images which reach the public sphere at great speed. The use of this new media brings people into ‘close’ connection with their idols, therefore allowing a virtual dialogue to develop, making it all the more ‘real’. People buy into the concept largely because of its overbearing presence. It’s the age old case of ‘if you hear something enough, you’ll believe it’. The idea rubs off, influencing thoughts and actions.

The overwhelming interest in the celebrity cult today could simply exist out of a fascination for the basic human desire to succeed or gain individual recognition. People like to be seen as popular. It’s understandable that fame or celebrity lifestyle is often thought of as glamorous, but what an image depicts is far different from the truth of a situation. Celebrities, much like ourselves, ‘perform’ to an audience. They need the media as much as the media needs them. Holmes (2005) suggests that if we were to apply the questions we ask of celebrities to the broader context of human identity, they explore ‘useful’ issues surrounding selfhood: is there a distinction between our ‘private’ and ‘public’ selves?  With this in mind it is worth thinking more in depth about psychology and how in everyday life there are very clear elements of ‘performance’ at play. People adapt their behaviour to different situations, in a sense ‘performing’ according to what is happening or who they are with. Social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter enable a profile to be created for sharing. In one sense that profile becomes manipulated to show the ‘best’ (or perhaps the worst) of somebody….to present themselves in a particular way. We adopt a new ‘mediated’ personality for the purpose of others and in the same way the press manipulate their material to make headlines.

Today’s culture of celebrity is much less romantic then what has pre-existed.  We are surrounded by, arguably, talentless individuals who end up on reality TV, parading their selves in a ridiculous fashion to gain credibility. The sad matter is - it works. If we take Big Brother (Channel 4, 2000) contestant, Jade Goody, as a well-considered example, she was an inarticulate young woman with a poor sense of geography, a lack-lustre demeanour, brutally opinionated and vocal, with low self-esteem regarding her own self-image. It was just those attributes that pulled her through to the end and crowned her ‘winner’. What the public recognised in her, was her sense of humour and her ‘no-shame’ attitude. This is what the public appear to want from celebrities (and probably politicians too)….to identify with them as ‘real’ and ‘ordinary’. Stadler (2005) suggests that the success of Big Brother points to two factors: the way that every day people can become instantly famous – having their fifteen minutes of fame.  And the way they are quickly found, celebrated and then disregarded since these shows are perpetual events.

It is possible to argue that the underlying quest for fame and renown in the age of chivalry, which was embodied in the values of the social elite, is mirrored by contemporary celebrity culture today.  To affirm this, Fred Iglis (2010) sums up how:

“…understanding celebrity turns into an enquiry into the best and worst values of contemporary Western society. These public lives embody key meanings of the day; success and wealth first, perhaps: then niceness, generosity, honesty, integrity, spontaneity, sympathy (on the good side); and arrogance, insolence, cruelty, narcissism, irresponsibility, greed (on the bad)”.

The success of any celebrity is built upon a combination of media marketing, the contribution of the star themself and importantly, audiences who pay to see them.  The ‘product’, so to speak, is groomed and marketed to connect with people. Stars offer a symbolic resolution to cultural concerns (Dyer 1987).

If we observe celebrities such as Marilyn Monroe or David Beckham, it is clear to see how their images and identities can mean a number of things to many people; Marilyn on the one hand, as a woman struggling to survive in a male-dominated world, appealing as sex object, victim or heroine and David Beckham’s contradictory image of sporting and sexual prowess coupled with responsible husband and family man…both celebrities embody a type of identity representative of changing social norms, (of their respective eras) and shifting boundaries around sexuality and gender. The association between iconic figures and the ideas they convey impact upon audiences. We buy into the package they present. Not always for the positive. Negative press (i.e Michael Hutchins tragic sex/drug fuelled death) is glamorised because tragedy makes for good drama. It entertains. The tabloid press make a very good job of exploiting celebrities which in turn causes legal battles with big media corporations. 

The same way crowds were once entertained by gladiators fighting to the death in the arena; the public now gain entertainment from tragic life stories. Jeremy Kyle’s television talk show is just one example of how people revel in misery. The media finds, devours, and then spits out the latest discovery (Stadler, 2005). We are observational creatures, interested in what we see, hear and read. In this respect, today’s concepts of celebrities and their influences may have altered, however essentially people want to be entertained in the same gladiatorial way.

To summarise, my argument would be that the reason for the shift in the concept of celebrity lies alongside a shift in society. Values and ideologies have changed as society has become fractured, leaning towards an emphasis on the ‘individual’. There is a greater interest today in the latest celebrity scandal than in heroes receiving awards at royalty-lined ceremonies; because it’s seen as ‘real’ and the public can easily identify with it. In our culture, news of celebrity scandal often takes the headlines above important world events. Celebrities are built up as ‘modern day Gods’.

Contemporary society is captivated by those they see as glamorous. Since recorded history, humans have had a fascination with the famous. Gods were created as very human-like beings by people in ancient Greece and Rome, complete with character flaws and drama. Throughout the middle ages, royalty and nobility were the celebrities of the time.

In today’s fast-changing world consumers are much more empowered in their use of the media, gaining more control as tight regimes have become relaxed (encouraging ‘individualism’). The speed in the turnaround of new media and technology is moving forward at a very quick pace…what we have available to us today was different to yesterday and will be even greater tomorrow.