Skip to content

Celebrity Culture and the American Dream

by Karen Sternheimer

Tag Archives: karen sternheimer

Popularity—the kind we think we left behind after we finished middle school or high school—bears a great deal of resemblance to celebrity culture.

Several sociologists have done research on the concept of popularity, conducting ethnographies in middle and high schools. (Murray Milner Jr.’s Freaks, Geeks, and Cool Kids, Patricia and Peter Adler’s Peer image Power and School Talk by Donna Eder and Stephen Parker are a few particularly good ones).

While an imperfect analogy, there are some striking similarities between how kids gain status in schools and image how people become celebrities.

The Adlers studied middle schoolers, and found that boys in particular were more likely to be popular if they had savior fare: in other words, they could charm peers and adults alike. The smooth talkers found themselves among the popular set (think George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and decades of other charmers).

For girls in this middle school, appearance was key, especially the clothes they wore. In the middle school Eder & Parker studied the same was true, and interestingly, these girls might have been popular but not well liked. Female celebrities often face the same paradox: admired for their appearance but criticized by men and women alike image for seeming shallow, and “stuck up,” as popular middle school girls were thought to be.

In Eder & Parker’s research, a big part of popularity was being known by others. Visibility in a large school was often tough to achieve, but was the hallmark of popularity. Being known by people that you yourself don’t know is a hallmark of celebrity, and is something that a small percentage of kids might experience growing up.

I’m not aware of any systematic research that examines whether celebrities were more likely to have been the popular kids growing up, but anecdotally we often hear how they weren’t: the beauty who couldn’t get a date, or the leading man who was shy and awkward help us feel like celebrities are “just like us.”

Milner discusses at length how popularity is by nature a scarce resource; if everyone could be popular it would no longer be a mark of status. Celebrity too is a relatively scarce commodity. Although there are many more opportunities in the internet age to become known by strangers, as I write in the last chapter of Celebrity Culture and the American Dream, most people will not be able to monetize being known despite some well-known examples of reality stars and YouTube sensations. Even amongst celebrities there is the distinction between the so-called A list and everyone else.

Adolescent popularity and the sociology of celebrity is an imperfect analogy: most celebrities probably haven’t personally humiliated us in front of our peers, something Milner observed as a way to maintain superiority in the high school pecking order. But there are a lot of similarities.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Celebrities often have a certain cache about them, so much so that there are typically people who do what they can to be part of their lives. From fans and admirers to those seeking to profit from a celebrity connection, fame can attract people who enjoy basking in the reflected glory of an “anointed one,” who might feel special by claiming insider status in a celebrity’s life.

And while many people choose the company of the famous, children of the famous have no choice in the matter. While I am not aware of any comprehensive study on the experiences of celebrities’ children, it is clear that their family connections bring both opportunities and challenges.

Like anyone from a privileged background, children of celebrities often have resources few other have access to. Private schools, private tutors, the best health care available, and of course material goods are but a few examples of the benefits of having famous parents.

As Wall Street Journal Reporter Daniel Golden found while researching his book The Price of Admission, children of celebrities (and of the wealthy) often get admitted to Ivy League universities despite mediocre grades. Even highly selective schools (he singles out Brown University in particular) are wooed by the glow of celebrity.

Beyond college, celebrity offspring might have industry connections and doors opened for them by family friends that propel their careers. As I write about in Celebrity Culture and the American Dream, we often think of stardom as a reflection of the American ideal of meritocracy. But we often forget that many of today’s biggest celebrities have famous family members (think Charlie Sheen, Angelina Jolie, and George Clooney, to name a few).

This doesn’t mean that these celebrities don’t deserve their fame or didn’t work hard, only that they have had some opportunities few others might. Like Jolie (nee Voight), Nicolas Cage changed his surname (from Coppola), so it is not simply their famous birth names that brought them recognition.

Even without specific connections or the cache of a family name, children of wealth can afford lessons and additional training. Likely unburdened by student loans, they might have less pressure to take a job that pays better than more flexible low-wage jobs like waiting tables that might enable someone to pursue another career at the same time.

But people with famous parents might face significant challenges—like criticism that their success is the result of their lineage rather than their own efforts. A famous name might open doors, but it can also feel like a burden at times, as people might face constant comparison to their famous parents.

Living in Los Angeles, I have had the opportunity to meet several children of celebrities whose parents’ success often overshadows their every accomplishment. Carving out a unique identity can be an added challenge when people expect that they should in some way be similar to their famous parent.

And then there is the matter of infamy. Most of us have that adolescent experience of being embarrassed by our parents at some point growing up, but the scale for children whose family is embroiled in scandal is much greater. The Schwarzenegger children’s every Tweet has become news since their father’s infidelity became public. While many families experience major disruptions like this, most children get to deal with upheavals privately.

While adults may choose to lead public lives—and others make seek to share the afterglow of the spotlight—their children don’t get to make a choice. Just as being born into a family of great wealth brings privilege, having famous parents can also create special challenges.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The news of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver’s split has been breaking news for the past few days. Why do celebrity break-ups get so much attention?

As characters in an ongoing real-life soap opera, we feel we know them and their “story line.” There hadn’t been news of trouble in this relationship, despite his 2003 admission of groping several women, so it may seem sudden and out of the blue for onlookers.

In my research of celebrity coverage dating back to 1911, I observed coverage of celebrity break-ups as an central part of celebrity stories since the 1930s. Yes, news of a divorce or an ended engagement might have been news before then, but a few social changes likely contributed to the growing interest in analyzing celebrities’ failed relationships.

The experiences and expectations surrounding marriage and relationships have shifted dramatically during the twentieth century, as historian Stephanie Coontz documents so well in her book Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or how Love Conquered Marriage. As marriage became less about economic interdependence and basic survival, it also became less stable.

In many ways, female celebrities were on the vanguard of these changes. They had their own careers and salaries. They had public acclaim at a time when women were still largely thought to be helpmates to men and caretakers of children. Female stars of the early twentieth century had identities beyond marriage and family at a time when few other women did.

Fan magazine articles (and advertisements) warned women of the danger that could await women who focused too much on careers FIGURE 2.4 P 12.29 p119 and not enough on their families. A man would spend extra time at the office to avoid a wife who failed to properly maintain her “hygiene,” according to an ad for Lysol. Women were the home wreckers of Hollywood, according to an article that blamed recently divorced celebrity women for their relationships’ end.

Women are not always blamed for the end of a relationship today, but the attention paid to celebrity relationships reflects our continued anxieties about whether marriages can really last. If people who have money, beauty, and fame struggle with their unions, what hope do mere mortals have?

As marriage has become defined more as an emotional partnership rather than an economic one, it is inherently less stable, but as Coontz concludes likely to be more satisfying. In fact, contrary to popular belief, divorce rates have been falling in recent years. As you can see from the graph below, divorce rates peaked in the early 1980s but have since declined.

Nonetheless, anxieties about marriage and relationships persist. And news about what people once thought was a strong union only heightens these worries.

Celebrity break-ups are plot points in ongoing celebrity dramas, but they reflect concerns about social change, just as they have for nearly a century.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

It’s tempting to go to a news organization’s website, often loaded with celebrity gossip, and presume that they’re just giving the public what we want. Are they?

While audiences bear some complicity in consuming celebrity gossip, there are a few other important reasons that news organizations regularly feature celebrity stories too.

As I discuss in chapter 9 of Celebrity Culture and the American Dream, celebrity “news” provides cheap filler content at a time when news budgets have been cut. According to the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, newspaper advertising revenues have dropped dramatically as well. Celebrity stories take relatively few (if any) resources and are easy for audiences to follow.

When television networks first broadcast news reports, they were not under nearly as much pressure to earn profits and ratings. Considered public service rather than entertainment, news broadcasts were significantly shorter than today, especially considering the proliferation of 24-hour news networks and the internet.

News-oriented magazines have seen their circulations plummet in recent years. As I note in chapter 9, ad revenues declined significantly for the eight best-selling news magazines, including Time, Newsweek (which was recently sold), and U.S. News & World Report.

By contrast, magazines that feature celebrity content like People and US not only outsell news magazines, but their circulations are steady or increasing. Several new magazines, like In Touch and Life & Style have thrived in this otherwise dismal economic climate for magazines.

As I argue throughout my book, celebrity stories serve a purpose beyond mindless entertainment. And yet they should by no means replace traditional journalism, which is vital for any democracy. Journalism is struggling to reinvent itself as a profitable enterprise during the internet age. As profit and loss sheets increasingly dictate content, we are likely to see more, not less, celebrity stories in the news.

Tags: , , , ,

Ever since I started doing research on celebrity culture, reporters have been asking me a variation of this question: why are we so obsessed with [insert any celebrity who is all over the news at the time]?

Most of the time I politely suggest that is not us who are obsessed, but celebrities provide the news media with an endless amount of cheap content requiring little investigative research on their behalf.

Rarely do I have any data to back this up—it’s just a hunch. Yes, we might linger before changing the channel, or click through on a news website because it might be entertaining, but this isn’t necessarily what the public demands.

With the British royal wedding just days away, breathless reporters live from London tell us about proper attire for the affair and the required etiquette should we happen upon the queen. We can’t get enough—or so they tell us.

That’s what makes the recent New York Times/CBS News Poll so interesting. Finally, data to support my hypothesis.

According to the poll, conducted April 15-20, 68% of Americans said that they have not been following the coverage of the wedding very closely or at all. Just 28% said they were following the coverage somewhat or very closely.

Of the 58% of Americans who reported following the wedding coverage, two-thirds said they would likely watch the wedding, while 37% did not plan on watching.

Of course some people might get wedding fever and decide to watch at the last minute. But it’s a reminder that sometimes our “obsessions” are instead media creations in hopes that we will decide to tune in and increase their ratings.

To some degree, the massive coverage celebrities sometimes garner creates a self-fulfilling prophesy rather than serve as a commentary on American society.

Tags: , , , ,

Did you know that PBS was a pioneer in the reality television business?

An American Family first aired in 1973, featuring a Santa Barbara family and their five children. In addition to offering an inside glimpse into family life, the family experienced major turmoil during the filming.

Wife Pat tells her husband she wants a divorce, and eldest son Lance comes out as gay. Perhaps difficult issues under any circumstance, but considering the public nature of normally private events, they made for dramatic television. (Keep in mind that the American Psychiatric Association had just declassified homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses that year too).

In a bizarre twist of reality becoming a work of fiction, HBO is debuting a film called Cinema Verite on April 23, a dramatization of the behind-the-scenes life of the Loud family during the filming of their family.

(KOCE owns the west coast rights to the series and will rebroadcast the original series starting this weekend).

French sociologist Jean Baudrillard wrote about the Louds in his 1983 book Simulations, referring to the show as a “truth experiment…neither a question of secrecy nor of perversion, but a kind of thrill of the real” (p. 50).

Baudrillard passed away in 2007, but my guess is he would find the latest development to be further evidence of the endless reflection between “reality” and simulation, making the two indistinguishable.

Weren’t we already supposed to glimpse “behind the scenes” during the original series? This alleged distinction is something Baudrillard refers to as “an absurd, paradoxical formula—neither true nor false: but utopian” (p. 50).

Part of the thrill of celebrity culture today is the illusion that we are regularly allowed behind the curtain. But are we?

Tags: , , , , , ,

Being a celebrity might be lucrative for a person of renown. Beyond individual celebrities or even the entertainment industry itself, celebrity is a major engine of commerce.

At a time when the magazine industry is struggling to stay in business, celebrity-based content is thriving. News magazines like Time and Newsweek have seen their circulations plummet, so much so that the owners of Newsweek sold the 50-year-old magazine last year.

But not so for new celebrity magazine start-ups. Life & Style, launched in 2004, is doing so well that in 2009 it raised its advertising rate base.

Beyond just offering celebrity gossip and profiles, magazines like Life & Style promote products that reflect their content. According to the publisher, Life & Style:

showcases up-to-the-minute Hollywood fashion, beauty, body and lifestyle trends and helps readers incorporate them into their own lives with engaging, informative shopping features and expert advice.

Motion Picture Classic, December 1916

Traditional fashion magazine Mademoiselle ceased publication in 2001, just as a new crop of celebrity magazines arrived.

In Touch began in 2002 and OK! in 2005; Star reinvented itself as a glossy celebrity magazine in 2004.

Celebrities have been selling lifestyle products for at least a century. As you can see from these ads, silent stars frequently hawked beauty products.

Motion Picture Classic, December 1916

Besides featuring celebrities in ads, the magazines included lifestyle features, like photo spreads of wedding gowns as in the June 1918 issue of Photoplay below.

Photoplay, June 1918

Celebrities have been vital in selling a lifestyle of abundance, beauty, and glamour. Even if we don’t care for a celebrity personally, their lifestyle still may be a draw for advertisers.

Besides the ongoing celebrity sagas covered in celebrity gossip and paparazzi shots, we see their outfits, their accessories, their cars, where they dine and vacation. Celebrity is as much about selling products as selling the people themselves.

Tags: , , ,

Would you pay to see reality show participants in person?

Promoters of “Reality Rocks Expo” are hoping fans will pay $35 to meet people who have appeared on shows like Celebrity Rehab, The Real Housewives, Survivor, and a variety of other programs this weekend at the Los Angeles Convention Center.

There’s nothing new about paying admission to get autographs and meet famous people—its some of the workshops at the expo that are most interesting.

For an additional $25, attendees can attend workshops to learn to “Create, Produce and Pitch your Reality TV Show,” “Brand Yourself: Using Social Media to Advance Your Career in Reality TV,” and meet casting directors.

One workshop in particular stands out: “How To Become A Host/Reality Star – Parlay your 15 minutes of Reality Fame into a Career.”

As I write in the last chapter of Celebrity Culture and the American Dream, so-called reality programs can create the impression that we all have a shot at a career, just for being us. At a time when unemployment has remained stubbornly high, the price of admission and a workshop may seem like a legitimate investment in a career that could potentially pay off big.

As a 2010 Forbes magazine article detailed, a handful of reality stars have been able to cash in big, but as the magazine reported in 2007, most do not. The glut of reality stars means that paychecks for personal appearances have declined for all but the top stars. Some might also become infamous and have trouble finding work after their FIGURE 1.215 minutes are up.

Besides the financial long shot, being on a reality show might have a personal toll, as making one’s private life public can have a downside.

In my research of celebrity fan magazines, one thing remained consistent throughout their century of publication: the promise of a better life. Reality TV also offers the promise. But does it really deliver?

Tags: , , ,

Want to be famous? The weathered cliché “be careful what you wish for” is particularly salient in the era of YouTube, where uploading a video can lead to international recognition. Instant stardom is possible, but so is instant  infamy.

You have probably heard about two recent examples, one where a student posted a rant about Asian students at her university, and another by thirteen-year-old Rebecca Black, whose music video went viral after many called it the worst song ever.

We probably know people who share angry thoughts about various ethnic groups and went to middle school with kids who thought they were talented singers (or actors, athletes, poets, or artists….). But fortunately for those of us who came of age before YouTube, any fallout from our peers was limited in scale. People might have made fun of others behind their backs (remember a few years ago when concerns about gossiping cliques reigned in the headlines?), but now the internet means that anyone with a computer can contribute their insults.

And yet Rebecca Black has been able to get media coverage any newcomer would kill for. She has been on The Tonight Show and apparently has a record deal. But one would image all of the hateful comments she has received online—which I choose not to repeat here—would be hard for anyone to handle, especially a thirteen-year-old who had not been in the public eye before.

Before the internet, the doors to fame were guarded by gatekeepers: agents, managers, casting directors, A&R reps, and editors to name a few. Talented people who failed to get the approval of these gatekeepers would find themselves on the outside, with few options other than to keep trying to impress the gatekeepers. And hateful comments would likely be limited to letters, handled by editors, a studio or agent, and maybe the occasional obscene phone call, resolved by changing one’s number.

The gatekeepers aren’t gone, but the entrances to fame (and infamy) are more porous today. We can go around them—sometimes at our peril, and sometimes without even meaning to. And the critics no longer need a byline to express their disapproval.

In Celebrity Culture and the American Dream I write about how the internet age offers more “jobs” in the fame industry, but not all of these jobs pay well, if anything. Stories about those who found fame via the internet, like Justin Bieber, help promote the idea of limitless upward mobility at a time when the economy stagnates, and the gap between the wealthiest Americans and the rest of us widens.

In fact, one wonders if the infamous—like the student who posted her rant about Asians—will face serious economic setbacks in the future due to the notoriety a single video created. Whether we like it or not, in the internet age we are all public figures.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

In my research of fan magazines dating back a century, one of the central tensions in celebrity coverage has been whether celebrities are really “just like us” or uniquely different. Are they mortals or demigods?

In some respects, being famous sets one apart by virtue of definition: in Celebrity Culture and the American Dream, I define celebrity as “anyone who is watched, noticed, and known by a critical mass of strangers” (p. 2). This is purposely a broad definition, since celebrities can (and do) exist within smaller groups and may remain largely unknown in other groups, but still enjoy the benefits of limited celebrity status.

In fan magazines throughout history, celebrities have been regarded as special, important, and worthy of public attention. That makes them different from the collective “us,” obviously.

They seem to lead struggling along compressed.jpg magical lives at times, and many can afford a lifestyle only available for the wealthiest earners. As the story “Struggling Along on $50,000 a Year” (at right) from the February 1928 issue of Motion Picture Classic sarcastically notes, celebrities had to make do with just enough to pay their servants, buy mansions, and maintain their fabulous wardrobes. (According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, $50,000 is the equivalent of nearly $650,000 in 2011 dollars).

And yet this “just like us” theme persists. In the earliest fan magazines, this theme meant to reassure readers that “picture players” were morally upright in a time when the movies and their performers were often viewed with suspicion.

As movies gained legitimacy, fan magazines let readers know that the new movie industry represented economic opportunity, and that successFIGURE 1.2 was right around the corner. As in this ad below—from the February 1916 issue of Motion Picture Classic—readers were invited to write and act in the movies and earn their fortune too.

Today the suggestion that we too can make it big is more subtle, but it is still here. Rather than an ad asking readers to write a screenplay, the “just like us” paparazzi shots of a celebrity shopping or taking a child to school reminds readers that celebrities are mere mortals, and not so far removed from everyone else. If they can make it, maybe we can too. And if they experienced dramatic upward mobility in their rise to stardom, perhaps it is proof that the rags-to-riches story is not just a fairy tale.

Tags: , , , ,