Whenever I’m watching television or perusing the
internet, I never fail to see a legion of rabid fans of bowing and scraping at
the feet of some “impressive-looking” celebrity. It’s almost like he or she is
a King or Queen parading for the peasants—except usually admiring peasants
don’t tear out their hair and scream with ecstatic vigor.
It’s almost as if the fans worship their “monarch,”
albeit in an incredibly irreverent way.
So that got me thinking about why
people would behave like a neat-freak finding a mud pit in their living room… If
they react so physically to the appearance of a star, how is their thought
process affected by a celebrity’s political views, moral values, etc.?
Well, in a US-UK study, 59% of
those surveyed claimed that a celebrity had an influence over their attitudes
or beliefs (Boon & Lomore, 2001).
Honestly, I don’t feel I can relate to this form of
mob-mentality, simply because my psychology isn’t consistent with the worship
of imperfect mortal beings—but first let’s perform a check.
According to one Boorstin, a celebrity is defined as
“someone who is known for being well-known”. Under this definition, celebrities
don’t just include actors and singers. A study defined that celebrities can be
involved in Science, Politics, Religion, or Medicine, too.
Now if a celebrity’s “specialty” (science, acting,
etc.) is inherently different from another discipline, it should make sense
that the “fans” of that celebrity act differently from the fans of one from a
different discipline.
Take President Monson for example. Among the LDS
culture he fulfills the definition of a celebrity. If he came to BYU for
devotional (as he has occasionally in the past), people wouldn’t scream like maniacs
and pull out their hair. Why?
If you’re reading this, then you probably already
know. He’s a religious figure, not some famous actor. His renown comes through
the nourishing of souls, not the rotting of brains.
I intend to appear facetiously despondent towards
the entertainment industry, but this illustrates another point; different
celebrities, and especially different “genres” of celebrities, appeal to
different people. I’m a big fan of President Monson, due to his role in
religion, and not so much for most actors and singers. I can relate to
President Monson more because of how much I do
relate to him. Meanwhile, those “popular” celebrities often represent something
that is against my values.
We are seeing a similar case in the 2012
presidential election. Governor Romney is known to be LDS, and there are
extremes in reactions. There are those whose backgrounds and values do not
relate Mormonism, and these can fall into a trap of misunderstanding despite
Romney’s view on the issues.
However, an equal risk is that those who love
Mormons, particularly LDS people, to support Romney simply because he is a
relatable figure that has similar values. Weighing a candidate’s values is not
a bad thing, but if it serves as a distraction from the issues, then relatable
figures can be a negative influence indeed.
I think that this has freshness in it, because the effect of fanhood on voting behavior has not been in the news a lot or anything. However, I think your blog over-explained celebrities and under explained voting behavior. What statistics are there to show how celebrities of the past have affected voting? Was it a positive or a negative effect? That is what I want to hear after about the first five sentances of your argument.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your last point that it is not very intelligent or right for people to not vote for Romney simply because he is Mormon and the voter hates Mormons, or the voter chooses Romney simply because he or she loves Mormons. I was a little confused at how you related celebrities with political candidates, simply because the connection wasn’t made until the last couple of paragraphs. I think there is somewhat of a correlation between celebrities and how their fans react to them, but what is the strong relationship between a candidate, their religion and how voters react to both? With that stated specifically and analyzed, that would make a very interesting argument.
ReplyDeleteMostly, the religious references were to show an easy example of how celebrities impact people, yet I unfortunately failed to remove it from its position as a focal point of my statements.
DeleteYou present a good question, and I'll definitely consider it. I know JFK received flak for being a Catholic, yet people elected him over those concerns, and he turned out to be one of the more popular presidents.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think all voters are “fall[ing] into a trap of misunderstanding” over Mormonism as a flawed form of opposition to Governor Romney. While misconceptions about the Church will create some unsubstantiated hostility towards Romney, it is important to realize that many people are perfectly aware of our real positions and consciously reject that influence on politics by voting against a Mormon candidate. Mormonism explicitly rejects gay marriage, abortion, and to some degree the welfare state. Voters who support positions contrary to the values of Mormonism do have a reason to vote against Romney because of his faith. His belief system clearly indicates his opposing policy views on those issues. Sometimes it is easy to get stuck in the fantasy that everyone will be nice to Mormonism and leave it out of the political conversation if they only knew more about us. Unfortunately, this is not the case. A significant portion of the electorate will inevitably fight against the tenets of our religion and its effect on a political candidate because they conflict with their own worldviews.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good observation. Even if those who don't know a lot about the church properly educate themselves, that won't necessarily mean that they'll happily support Romney. Mostly, I was referring to those who who hold similar political views as Romney, but are unwilling to support him because of their current perception of the church. And even if they do educate themselves, that won't necessarily mean that their perception will change for the better.
DeleteIt would certainly be nice if everyone could be nice to Mormonism, but I agree that that's not going to happen soon.
Daniel (nice name), I really like your perspective. It is really interesting how celebrities have been such a prevalent theme in this election! I think your delivery of the point that society is powerfully and often irrationally influenced by celebrities was solid. I would have liked, though, to see more on how that applies to voting behaviors. In the last two paragraphs, you addressed Romney's Mormonism. How is that linked to the celebrity phenomena? If you want to focus on this how Romney's Mormonism affects voting behavior, I think it would be good to speak a lot about why do people vote based at least partially on religion. As you extend these blog ideas to the issues paper, I think it would be good for you to research the specific effect of celebrities on politics.
ReplyDeleteRomney fulfills the role of a political celebrity, especially for many members of the church, since Romney's a member, too. Thus many are more inclined to support him (because they relate to him). With more "conventional" celebrities, if one can relate to them, they are much more likely to support that celebrity(and the ideas and causes of him or her).
DeleteI know I hold the opinions of The Piano Guys in much higher esteem than Justin Bieber, because they appeal to me more--I relate to them more.
If you google the "Oprah effect", there's research on how Oprah's endorsement of Obama in 2008 actually helped him secure the Democratic primary.
By the way, I like your name too...