Page 206 - CULTURE IN THE COMMUNICATION AGE

STAR CULTURE

their view of stardom and its potential danger provided them a logical explan-
ation for the object of their original analysis: the rise of Hitler and fascism in
their native Germany. The masses are ripe for passivity and obedience, according
to this line of thought, provided that the media are manipulated e ffectively, as
Hitler certainly was able to do.
This pessimistic view of popular culture, media, and stardom has dominated
critical academic theory since the end of the Second World War. Although not
all contemporary critical theorists argue that stars create a sense of social
malaise or political obedience, many do. Indeed, some critics press the Frankfurt
School arguments even farther, arguing that stardom poses real dangers to the
social order as celebrity images increasingly dominate the globe. They argue
that whereas past societies could anchor their positive, substantive values to
genuine political heroes, today we live in a world of celebrity worship where
style routinely stands in for substance. The consequences of such super ficiality
and sensationalism include the failure of proper moral judgments, and generally
reveal a global breakdown in authority and virtue.
This argument is taken up, for instance, in Daniel Boorstin’s important study,
The Image, where he claims that the actions of modern celebrities comprise
‘human pseudo-events’. From this perspective, today’s celebrities are famous
simply for being famous, not for the substantial or heroic acts attributed
to figures of the past (Boorstin 1961: 57). James Monaco makes a similar
argument, distinguishing between the ‘heroes’ of an earlier time and the
‘celebrities’ of today:

Before we had celebrities we had heroes . . . [W]hat these hero types all
share, of course, are admirable qualities – qualities that somehow set
them apart from the rest of us. They have done things, acted in the
world: written, thought, understood, led. Celebrities, on the other
hand, needn’t have done – needn’t do – anything special. Their
function isn’t to act – just to be.
(Monaco 1978: 5–6)

Contemporary critical theorist Stuart Ewen agrees with the idea that character
has become divorced from the images stars project in modern life. Ewen says
we therefore need a ‘reconciliation of image and meaning’ for society to func-
tion healthily again (1989: 271). Even some critics sympathetic to the emer-
gence of modern celebrity admit that the link between stars and everyday
people is ‘not necessarily a deep one . . . the experience of it is not necessarily
weighty’ (Gamson 1994: 6). This argument resonates throughout the writings
of Jean Baudrillard too. The French sociologist implies that stars, as dimensions
of fashion, are simulacra – empty signs that circulate free of values and without
connection to any stable reality (Baudrillard 1988: 6). While Baudrillard seems
to take some joy in describing this ‘playful’ meaninglessness, his foundational
view of all media – and, by implication, stardom – is not much di fferent from

195