Quote:
Originally posted by XenuHubbard
This is scary. I have to quit being famous. Oh well.
|
LOVE the nickname
Anyway, I strongly believe that while the study may show a relation between the two it does not seem to show a correlation between them. And, if anything, I believe it goes the opposite direction - i.e. people who are "solitary, impulsive, anti-social and troublesome" tend to display "high levels of sociopathic celebrity worship" rather than the other way around. I think their other character flaws LEAD them to celebrity worship, not that celebrity worship causes the character flaws.
That said, while I agree that celebrities are no more important as humans than anyone else, I think it's wrong to make blanket statements degrading them as people and their intentions. They are no more or less "one-trick ponies" than anyone else who performs a function in society. Cooks are "one-trick ponies," computer programmers are "one-trick ponies," and architects are "one-trick ponies" to name a few. The only difference is their "trick" isn't as immediately visible and isn't visually linked to them.
Are celebrities held at a much higher esteem than they ought to be? Of course. Do I think their contribution to society (generally speaking) is less important than the computer programmers or the cooks? No. Music is necessary. Art is necessary. Theatre is necessary. Humans have an intrinsic urge to create and these are just a few of the many types of outlets for that creation.
Are there bad celebrities? Of course. Especially in music where a lot of them are blatebtly manufactured. However, a great deal of them - especially in theatre and movies - became celebrities due to their talents. Tom Cruise, for example, is an excellent actor.
The issue, I believe, is not the aspect of celebrity itself, but the absence in society of a seperation between the task which the celebrity excels at and those which he/she does not. John Carmack is an excellent computer programmer, but I don't see him on CNN talking about political decisions (at least, not ones unrelated to his field of excellence). Charlie Trotter is a great chef, but I don't see him being interviewed on Nightline about campaign finance reform. Yet, celebrities are good actors, singers, etc who I DO see on the news and speaking at events about things completely unrelated to the fields in which they excel - namely acting, singing, etc. THAT is the basic flaw in celebrity - not its existence, but societies treatment of it.
Can you blame a celebrity for taking advantage of this though? I don't think you can. I know that if I were a celebrity for, say, acting, and I lived in a society which, although I was not involved in politics would listen to my views on the matter, I would certainly take advantage of the situation and express my views.