Consuming Britney

The consumption of Britney Spears has been one of violence and manipulation, and many of us have nonchalantly sat back behind our computer screens participated in it. Her “dolling down” and miniature “likenesses” of her would be taken home by little girls and adolescent boys in small packages to be played around with. Smit argues that this form of consumption, an ownership and toying around with the small representations of Britney is a form of violence. We come to “own” her, and we are able to do whatever we want with her. This idea of ownership came to a height when the famous naked crotch picture was shot. For all we know, it may have been created digitally- the amount of manipulation that can be achieved these days could worry you too if pictures of you were constantly being snapped. We felt empowered the moment Britney was caught off guard and we saw something that was meant to be private to her. 

The ease of her consumption has become so unnoticeable that we sometimes even deny our participation in her exile. We constantly validate a digital system that gives power to exile the same woman, the same celebrity that it created. And we would stand back and observe her contemporary exile. Smit says that she was exiled once her body no longer reflected the “perfect” youthful yet sexual image that society was accustomed to. It was ironic that society so badly wanted to see her grow up yet forgot that it entailed the possibility of motherhood. And it was jolted when the sexy, youthful image was killed. This overbearing mindset that the physical characteristics of the body determines the person implies more about our consumption than we may think. The assumptions made about a person in a wheelchair who cannot speak properly versus those about a sexy, confident young lady are far less than appropriate. Why is it that the lady is seen as having worked hard for her position in life and the person in the wheelchair made a charity case? Why is physical disability regarded something to be “cured” or overcome should the person try hard enough, or pray hard enough? Why was Britney’s decision to shave her head interpreted as an act of insanity? Was it so impossible to believe that Britney, the individual, was tired from the pressure of her hectic life that she desperately wanted to feel like more than a product of her hair and the media for once? If Britney is to return from exile, this would then mean her welcome back rather than an actual “comeback”. She would be once again subjected to full subordination by the people, becoming the Britney they expect her to be, rather than the woman she truly is.

Chapters 8-15 The Exile of Britney Spears - Chris Smit

Discussion:

• I found it interesting that the media and so many people immediately associated Britney's shaving of her head to madness. In some cultures, any cutting of the hair may also represent a sort of shunning from the group. In others, it represents a turning of a new leaf, and sometimes is celebrated or honored. If you believe that her actions were more than just a drastic impulse, what significance would it have had for her?
• Britney was shown as a "bad mother", cameras catching her nearly dropping her child or forgetting to put him in a car seat. But don't you think we put the line a bit too high for billboard mums like Britney? Every mother has their "oops" moments, and going to parenting classes shows that she was making an effort to be a better mother because the media was criticising her for it. How much of Britney's "failures" are truly attributed to her and how much are what we exaggerate and make into a bigger deal than it should be?

Related:

• "Sheer power and shear madness"
• MSNBC On Britney's pregnancy - more for the way it was presented (as an accidental event, something she could've prevented but maybe was too careless)

Love now, Regret later

Consciously or not, this is precisely what consumers did with Britney Spears. In these chapters (1-7) of Smit’s The Exile of Britney Spears, Smit argues that society has put her into exile through various means. He aims at finding the origins of this phenomenon by looking at empowerment, ideologies, and the presence of capital. When she emerged as a Southern Baptist belle, her image took a great interest in the public - only until the image grew old, and her “perfection” was slowly disintegrating, allowing the public at a peak of her humanity. This is when the person of Britney Spears was put into exile. She was never allowed to use her Southern-ness to gain stability with her identity. Even her family troubles were cast as an Americanist spectacle, a type of standard for the American family.

You could say Britney was brought up in series of ideological systems. Her first employment was at Disney, a corporation saturated with its own values and ideologies. Could it be that she possibly had been shaped by her experiences to become the narrative she is today? Could someone without such a background have become someone like Britney? One could argue that she was fit to play this puppet role of society, one that bends and contracts with the flows of society’s wavering values. Has she then become the Universal Woman/Saint or Whore? (Universal as opposed to dynamic, critical of self and others, developing, authentic) The capitalization of ideas/values has also complicated Britney’s search of identity. With all the cash rolling in, Smit contends that she has been made classless and isolated. Britney breathes, moves, dresses in currency. This rapid flow of currency sticks her in immobile contexts of complacency, and ultimates feeds her misrecognition. 

A couple of things to think about:

• Smit mentions this briefly: Britney as a Baptist means that she believes in the same God that cares for creation, guides our actions, leads us to fulfilling lives. If God is indeed in control of our lives, as well as Britney's, what does it mean for her that she has transgressed from the singing choir girl to somewhat of a sex symbol? For other celebrities? 
• What does it mean for society if we are continually chasing down these representations of ideologies that ultimately hold no Truth?

Related:

• On Leaving Britney Alone
• Chris Crocker, on consumption of Britney

Why Superman?

Maybe you haven’t noticed the trending themes in popular films and novels these days, but John Shelton Lawrence and Robert Jewett have definitely picked up on them. A community in paradise is threatened by an intruding, outside force and the institutions in place are incompetent to defend society. A selfless, unidentified hero abandons all personal motive and chooses to carry the burden of redeeming society from the evil force.  He (usually a male character) is aided by fate and renounces all temptations in order to achieve his task. Using only nonviolent confrontation, he is victorious in restoring the paradise in the community. More often than not, he then retreats back into obscurity and does not receive any reward for his good deed. This basic structure of a story can be found in The Matrix, The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and the numerous superhero movies that have gained popularity. Lawrence and Jewett recognize the implications that similar structures of such films have on society and behavior. The rituals, symbols, and myths that are brought to light “establish benchmarks, but also anticipate forms of the future as they determine and shape ideals and goals for both individuals and society.” The Werther effect is the phenomenon that occurs when the reality in a fantasy world is brought out of context by the reader, who then uses his newly shaped ideals to interpret and act in the real world. This is a powerful idea, one of moving people to action through stories. Surely the author will take responsibility should something go wrong?

Lawrence and Jewett studies the pervading myth of Eden in the American imagination, and how it arose from people’s responses of the historical context. They go through the evolution of themes in films - from The Birth of a Nation to films like Superman. Films seem to often be semi-inaccurate portrayals of reality, simpler illustrations of what reality truly is like, in a way that makes evil clearly discernible from “good”. They conceal the clash of the components from both sides. Though newer superhero films try to give more depth to the antagonist side by creating a context for their behavior, they have also have made the protagonist to be larger-than-life and virtually indestructible. In a way, they stand firm in the idea that good will always prevail, because of some greater force that governs the outcomes of conflicts. 

The American Monomyth in a New Century” in The Myth of the American Superhero - John Shelton Lawrence and Robert Jewett

A Penny for your Thoughts?

• The authors talk about the paradoxes that are found in american monomyth culture but do not explicitly explain their occurrence: the sexual renunciation in the midst of a growing sexual freedom, supernatural powers in a increasingly secular culture, and the depiction of incompetent democratic systems in a society that urges on the democratic man. Why do you think we as a society desire films that give us the same stories of the dysfunctional society being saved by a supernatural person who transcends morals and temptations of life? Are there parallels that we can draw to the figure of Christ? What are they?
• After 9/11, the authors say that the message that “good will triumph over evil” was nailed into the American mind as comfort for the losses. Our presidents have had the notion that every loss is worth shedding a tear, but then we must ruthlessly make our move against those who have harmed us. What effects do you think this message has had over the last couple years in relevance to how the nation has responded to conflict and threat?

Read more:

Reviewing comics with the monomyth theme

Reexamination of the Werther Effect 

Does Madonna represent what society wants?

Much of the popularity that celebrities have is attributed to them by consumers, the TV talk show producers that choose focus on a celebrity’s latest rampage through town, and so on. Ward emphasizes how much the public knows about Madonna, for example, even though they may not be intently watching her every move. This “knowing about a person” is generated when people give the celebrity’s stories or stolen pictures “meaning”. Madonna is known for her open-ness and lack of inhibition with her 50-some year old body (with good cause). She has “commodified intimacy” with the release of books like In Bed With Madonna and by pushing the lines for the traditional age group typically associated with being able to perform on stage with revealing outfits and sexy choreography. She is the perfect representation of a star who has managed to create a persona that is unafraid of the media, confident about her individuality and her body, yet also creating a life off the stage with her adopted children and personal life.

Ward also mentions the shift of media coverage from the glamourous to the “ordinary” behind-the-scenes stories of celebrities. Magazines like Heat were one of the first to turn their issues into something like the equivalent of a reality TV show, exploiting the details of a star’s love affair or financial issue. He discusses the use of such parts of a celebrity’s life as a form of currency in the media world, being exchanged, bargained for, or sold. He explains that this shift in interest has to do with the larger role consumers have come to play. Stars are popular because of the meanings that people project onto them, most significantly the notion of individuality as difficult, yet promising.

Gods Behaving Badly Chapter 2: Representation - Pete Ward

A Penny for your Thoughts?

• When magazines fight over certain rights to publish something about some celebrity, they are highlighting the importance of celebrity figure heads in our society (Eg. reality television contestants, a pop artist) and the "meanings" that they represent. Does the media focus too much of celebrity gossip and not enough of other issues that might be more consequential to our lives? What does this mean for society if it is so focused on the lives of stars?
• Ward talks about how one photograph caused many problems for Elizabeth Taylor and Robert Burton, both personally and legally. Do you think celebrities give up certain rights to privacy when they become famous? (Should they be legally allowed more privacy?)

Read on:

How Fame Works (connection with Ward's ascribed/ achieved/attributed forms of fame)

Why Are We Obsessed With Celebrities?

The Reality behind Reality TV

We didn’t need Edward Wyatt to convince us that being part of a reality television series would probably be a bad idea. We’ve seen it ourselves repeatedly, regardless of the title or story. Contestants are constantly shown as stressed, tired, angry, rude or hysterical. Despite that, millions still flock to the lines for few weeks of screen time, to be displayed to the masses and mocked by teenagers sitting in their pajamas on the couch at 9 P.M. looking for a good laugh. 

Through various interviews with ex-contestants on shows like “Hell’s Kitchen” or “Project Runway”, the horrifying stories of their treatment on and off set are revealed. Phones, laptops, music players, periodicals are taken from them. Socialization between contestants is restricted. They are given little food but a generous supply of alcohol. The contestants of “Hell’s Kitchen” remember getting 5 hours of sleep a night at the most. Creating this environment for the contestants places contestants in a more vulnerable and off-balanced state than usual. Wyatt notes that this is favorable for producers because it allows them a greater amount of control when manipulating interactions between contestants to meet a certain goal for the show. The contestants become mice in a “televised psychological experiment” that run around for the entertainment of the masses. 

“TV Contestants: Tired, Tipsy and Pushed to Brink” - Edward Wyatt

A Penny for your Thoughts?

• Why are reality television series so popular in our culture today? What is the appeal in watching people humiliate themselves on air or fight amongst themselves over issues that don’t directly concern us?
• After reading this, I couldn’t help but automatically make a connection in the structure of reality TV shows and how the Hunger Games was portrayed. Even though many of us were appalled by the idea of having children kill each other off on live TV, is Wyatt trying to show us that reality TV is not so different?

Read on:

Why America loves reality TV

Project Runway criticism

Celebrity Worship

The phenomenon that takes hold when a star dies young is intriguing, even more so that those who mourn them do so remembering them as more than a singer with an amazing voice or a talented artist with a big heart, despite never having truly known them. Fans express their sorrow as if they were parting with an essential part of themselves, leaving a gaping hole in their culture and identity. However, if one looks at this through Ward’s previous notion that the uplifting of an idol is a projection of the crowd’s desired identity, then does this not mean that the public grief is instead a worshipping of this desired image?

Ward also continues to explore the idea of celebrity culture as a type of not-so-religious religion, something he comes to term “para-religion”. It expresses the limited nature of celebrity worship, such that it can never progress or develop into a full blown religion even if he acknowledges the curious similarities between the two. This can be noted through the behavior of the public who actively plays a role in their sustenance. Many of them act in ways that may be similar to certain religious traditions, the group Ward terms as the Believers. They engage in discussion about the latest news and gossip about their celebrity, follow their whereabouts, buy their products, etc. The anti-fan club consists of the Hipsters, those who actively take a stance against the popular culture and demonstrate their distaste (or presumed indifference) for it. There is the remaining larger proportion of people, the bystanders, the Game-Players. They watch, they silently judge, and the effects of popular culture only exhibits in them subtly. By identifying with their groups, “fans” or anti-fans participate in a form of self-construction and a building of social relationships. This building of relationships amongst people who share similar views is the central theme for fandom, not the artificial relationships that extremely devoted fans seek in order fulfill their social desires. 

Celebrity culture is also a phenomenon that is much “in the air”. People recognize the celebrities and feel like they know who they are, even if they do not particularly keep up to date with the 411. It is as if people constantly have “half an eye” on them, whilst continuing about their lives as if it did not affect them. Interestingly, this draws a parallel to the nature of religion in and its believers. There will always be those who only keep half an eye alert and “recognize”, yet do not truly “know”. There will also be those who detest it altogether. However, Ward realizes that if celebrity culture were ever to be a religion, it could never be stable, nor capable of ordering institutions and societal structures. Because of its wavering values, it will not fully be established or grounded. Even fans themselves deny any religious association with their idols. 

Gods Behaving Badly, Chapter 1 - Pete Ward

Read on:

• An un-British style of mourning
• A New Age of Celebrity Worship (CBS)

A Penny for Your Thoughts?

• Ward talks about fandom having a sort of “intimacy at a distance”. The audience is allowed to get to know the celebrity through the magazines, the talk shows, the scandals, their life stories, etc. It seems like a one-sided relationship where the fan does not truly have to work at or put effort into, yet they take pleasure out of following a celebrity’s intimate life. It seems to be that there might be a natural human desire to worship someone. (Even in the case of Christians when describing the reasons what God means to them) Why do you think this is so?
• Do you agree that idolization of a celebrity is a projection of the individual's desired self and in effect, a validation of their desired image? Then, do you agree that fan clubs validate every member's desired identity, in mass? Why, or why not?

Gods Behaving Badly

It is growing more difficult to judge the secular from sacred, the profane from the culturally-acceptable. The distinctions between the many groups are blurring, and no longer do people believe what they are told by the church or by their college professor about discerning them. The media does not attempt to do any different. Ward says it presents us with a multitude of ways to live and “be human”. It works through the currency of meaning, exchanged through celebrities who are embodiments and reflections of certain types of lifestyles, and therefore a set of values and ideologies. By keeping up with the many children that Brad and Angelina kept adopting or despising the many pick and drop relationships that John Mayer got involved with, one is actively taking a stance with or against popular culture. It invites people to form a view about the spotlighted lifestyles, to make a judgement and a choice about their own lifestyles. They can buy into the lifestyle and make it their own, or reject it and claim to be unaffiliated with such values. 

Ward observes that theological terms are often loosely thrown around in popular culture colloquialisms. “Rise”, “fall”, “salvation”, “divinity”, for example. Through talk of them, it seems as though they are being expected to act larger-than-life, in fact, above typical humanity. Why else should they be given so much heat for the little things that they do, especially when they “act human”? He also notes the apparent irony in the term “idol” (a false god) in American Idol, or when describing extremely celebrated figures in popular culture. In a way, celebrity culture reveals how humanity sees itself. One revels in seeing a young, aspiring artist slowly gain his much-deserved fame and reputation but then chides in mocking him when he makes a mistake during his later years. Ward attributes this to the desire to see “mere-mortals” rise to fame, and for stars to prove their humanity once they have gained a god-status. They reflect the individual’s yearning for the beautiful home, the loving spouse and happy family— Hence the support for the aspiring artist and the distaste for the star who “has it all” but chooses to waste it away. 

Gods Behaving Badly, Introduction - Pete Ward

Read this!

Religion and Popular Culture in America - Bruce David Forbes & Jeffrey H. Mahan

Celebrity Culture: Are Americans Too Focused on Celebrities? - Howard Altman

A penny for your thoughts?

• Ward says that celebrity culture is a reflection of our individual selves. Rather, do you think that we encourage the “mere-mortal” aspiring to be a star and to have “god-status” because it proves that we can do it as well? Do we not criticize the star who makes a trivial mistake because we believe that we could do it better should we be in their shoes? So in a way, does popular culture feed off our inherent selfishness and pride?
• Ward starts talking about popular culture potentially becoming the new religion. Assuming that happens in the new future, what would that look like?
• Many pastors encourage Christians not to reject popular culture but to find new ways to work through it, especially in order to reach out to younger generations. (so as to perhaps combat the decline in traditional church attendance, as Ward notes) Do you think that this might work?