<\/p>
Chris Rojek describes celebrity as \u201cthe attribution of glamorous or notorious status to an individual within the public sphere.\u201d He recognizes there are other forms of celebrity: the \u201cascribed\u201d celebrity of inherited status (Prince William, eg), and the \u201cachieved\u201d celebrity of an accomplished musician or writer or actor or sports figure. <\/p>\n
But attributed celebrity is a \u201ccultural fabrication,\u201d constructed by \u201ccultural intermediaries who operate to stage-manage celebrity presence in the eyes of the public,\u201d mediators such as \u201cagents, publicists, marketing personnel, promoters, photographers, fitness trainers, wardrobe staff, cosmetics experts and personal assistants. Their task is to concoct the public presentation of celebrity personalities that will result in an enduring appeal for the audience of fans.\u201d <\/p>\n
Attributed celebrity poses massive personal challenges to the celebrities themselves. Appealing to George Herbert Mead\u2019s distinction between the \u201cI\u201d (the \u201cveridical\u201d self) and the Me (the self presented to the world), he notes that \u201cFor the celebrity, the split between the I and the Me is often disturbing. So much so, that celebrities frequently complain of identity confusion and the colonization of the veridical self by the public face.\u201d The I may disappear into the Me, so that the celebrity feels he has no personal existence of his own (Peter Sellers stated that he \u201cdisappeared\u201d when he ended a film role); or the veridical self can assert itself against the public face. The bad behavior of celebrities is, Rojek argues, an effort to expose the pain of the self that is hidden behind the mask. <\/p>\n
Celebrity in its contemporary form depends not only on the media, which puts the celebrity in front of many more people than ever before, but also on \u201cthe democratization of society,\u201d \u201cthe decline in organized religion\u201d and \u201cthe commodification of everyday life.\u201d <\/p>\n
Religion first: \u201ccelebrities have filled the absence created by the decay in the popular belief in the divine right of kings, and the death of God.\u201d In a democratized society, which operates by the myth of the common man, celebrity offers an opportunity for distinction: \u201cthe dramatical personality and achieved style inscribe[s] distinction and grab[s] popular attention.\u201d Even the notorious become celebrities, because they stand out against the drab background of social indistinction. <\/p>\n
And the market: \u201cThe market inevitably turned the public face of the celebrity into a commodity.\u201d But consumers enter not only a market of commodities but a \u201cmarket of sentiments . . . . Celebrities humanize the process of commodity consumption. Celebrity culture has emerged as a central mechanism in structuring the market of human sentiments. Celebrities are commodities in the sense that consumers desire to possess them.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chris Rojek describes celebrity as \u201cthe attribution of glamorous or notorious status to an individual within the public sphere.\u201d He recognizes there are other forms of celebrity: the \u201cascribed\u201d celebrity of inherited status (Prince William, eg), and the \u201cachieved\u201d celebrity of an accomplished musician or writer or actor or sports figure. But attributed celebrity is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[34],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3190","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-media"],"yoast_head":"\n