Verified by 
Neal Gabler's recent Newsweek article on celebrities is the latest installment in the "are celebrities good or bad?" debate. Gabler says they are good because (among other things) "they provide us with life lessons," and "stimulate the imagination."
As a social scientist, I'd prefer to stay out of the "Celebrities: Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down?" discussion, and focus instead on the matter of why our society is so rabidly focused on these people. For example, Gabler names 11 different celebrities in the first three paragraphs of his article. Part of the reason for this is that he is no dummy and he knows that readers will be excited just by seeing the names of the most current celebrities. When it comes to celebrities, we (including me, by the way) are a lot like chimps hooting our approval at a pleasing stimulus.
Gabler does eventually get around to the question of why we are so fascinated with celebrities. His theory is that celebrity is a form of art that "doesn't have to create the pretense of reality; it is real." Stories about celebrities are on the one hand entertaining and compelling-like TV dramas, say-and on the other hand they are really happening! Can't beat that.
That's a great theory, except for the fact that it's wrong. Or, to be more positive, it's exactly half right. In fact, celebrities are fascinating because they are real and aren't real at the same time.
Take the now-somewhat-embarrassing Tiger Woods. I agree that there really is a gifted golfer named Tiger Woods who recently crashed his car and evidently had several extra-marital affairs. But I have never met Mr. Woods, and therefore my knowledge of him has been acquired entirely through the mass media. Mr. Woods has a publicity team, he gets interviewed by journalists who want to write something interesting, photos of him are carefully chosen and may be retouched, etc. So there are very important differences between "real-guy Tiger" and "mass media Tiger."
These differences are so important because mass media Tiger is idealized and simplified and made into a coherent story in a way that no normal human ever is. A single example will have to do. Recently, the Associated Press named Mr. Woods the top athlete of the decade. What does that even mean? Psychologists are careful about using valid measures; how could "top athlete in all sports during ten years" be measured? If you were to hear someone claim that some real person you know is a better athlete than anyone else in the world, wouldn't you immediately recognize that statement as something that could never be shown using actual evidence? The "Top Athlete" thing is just a media creation, a story. And the Tiger who is the Top Athlete of the Decade is a media image, not a person.
Now, what Neal Gabler and millions of other celebrity worshippers do is conclude that "real guy Tiger" and "mass media Tiger" are the same, and therefore "mass media Tiger" is a real person. Once you make that move, you have entered the realm of religion. You have accepted that certain human beings are fundamentally different from the rest of us, they are transcendent, they can have qualities the rest of us cannot have ("Top Athlete of the Decade."). Christians believe that Jesus Christ was at once a real man and a transcendent being. Celebrity worshippers believe the same thing about Tiger Woods and Lady Gaga. I agree that's fascinating, but not because they've got it right.
To learn more, visit Peter G. Stromberg's website. Photo by Andrew Griffith
