So-called "left-leaning" artists such as Taylor Swift, Paul McCartney, U2 upset about making less $$

fortune.com/2016/06/20/taylor-swift-youtube/

Other urls found in this thread:

wagesforfacebook.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Damn OP this really is a slap on the face of the Left, these musicians are central figures to our struggle.

threadly reminder that Taylor Swift hates filesharing and sues people for using phrases that contain the names of her songs on the internets

I wrote an essay for college about how the influence of celebrities kills the class struggle, I'll post if anyone cares.

Actually I'll post it anyway, other than my tutor nobody but me has ever read it before now, so read it or don't

-

As a prism through which we see both the world and ourselves, celebrity culture has been painstakingly analysed in connection with a variety of social ills and trends, from eating disorders to promiscuity, but it is in the bigger picture of the structure of society that perhaps the true power of celebrity representations can be seen. Draped in designer clothes, drinking thousand dollar champagne, and driving million dollar supercars, it is sometimes difficult to separate celebrities from the consumerist culture they exist within. While they are often seen simply as the ultimate embodiment of modern capitalism, do they - and the media that constructs their personas - also have a greater role in perpetuating this system?

As early as 1944, Frankfurt School sociologist Leo Lowenthal (1961) had described perhaps the most obvious connection between celebrity reportage and consumerism. In a study of biographies in popular magazines from 1901 and 1941, he identified a shift in focus from “idols of production’, who: “stem from … industry, business, and the natural sciences”, towards “idols of consumption … directly, or indirectly, related to the sphere of leisure time”. In the eyes of Francesco Alberoni (1963), these aspirational figures serve as role models to solidify modern consumer capitalism, not through their own will but as “a cultural product of the economic power elite, having as its object to supply the masses with an escape into fantasy and an illusion of mobility, In such a way as to prevent their taking stock of their real condition as exploited masses”. Fred Inglis (2010), who defines the ‘celebrity era’ as the last 250 years, claims this celebrity culture grew alongside capitalism in centres of culture as early as the 1760s, when London theatre stars ”defined a new consumer culture that saw the city rather than the court as the place to be seen”, and as this new celebrity phenomenon entwined with the birth of haute couture in Paris: “the mix of classes could see, through the glass of the department store … the idealisations on consumption – a spectacle of possibility whether one bought anything or not”.

Far from an incidental factor, P David Marshall (2005, p19-30) even argues that this appeal to mobility was central to the development of celebrity journalism, which: “represented heightened examples of individual achievement and transformation and thereby challenged the rigidity of class-based societies by presenting the potential to transcend these categories”. This notion of transcendence is critical, as it undermines the notion of ‘class consciousness’ that Engels identified as a key component of Marxist resistance – for the proletariat to recognise their position not as free agents but as an exploited ‘working class’ of the capitalist economy (Lukács, 1971). This breakdown of class and local community-based identities has been hailed as ‘democratisation’ by populist theorists who argue modern celebrity represents equality through “a process of social levelling … part of a western ideal of personal freedom … based on rewarding self-improvement and efforts towards self-development, rather than being a consequence of hierarchical muh privilege and elite networks”. (Hesmondhalgh, Evans, 2005)

However, in the new ‘consumer society’, partly driven by the individual attractions to different facets of the celebrity ‘marketplace’: "Identities, just like consumer goods, are to be appropriated and possessed, but only in order to be consumed, and so to disappear again […] 'aggregate identities', loosely arranged of the purchasable, not-too-lasting, easily detachable and utterly replaceable tokens currently available in the shops, seem to be exactly what one needs to meet the challenges of contemporary living" (Bauman, 1998). By and large these new, commoditized senses of self have much more in common with fashions than genuine connections between people, and while perfect for the marketing and sale of consumer goods, they seem less well suited to any kind of collective concern or organisational power – therefore negating one notable threat to established capitalist systems. This corresponds with Marxist ideas of the superstructure and base of society – and in particular the later structuralism of Weber, who believed that culture is as significant as economic factors in the reciprocal relationship underpinning society (Scaff, 1984). Just as class politics become thought of as irrelevant, they seem more valid than ever, when for example the poorest 75% of American families are found to own an insignificant 3.8% of the nation’s wealth – the lowest level in almost 70 years. (Inequality.org, 2014)

Much more convincing seems the belief of sociologists like Colin Crouch that society is entering a stage of ‘postdemocracy’, that “continues to have and to use all the institutions of democracy, but in which they increasingly become a formal shell. The energy and innovative drive pass away from the democratic arena and into small circles of a politico-economic elite” (LSE, 2013) In narrower terms of celebrity this can be observed in the emergent markets of ‘reality’ TV. Even Graeme Turner (2010), who coined the ‘demotic turn’ to describe “the increasing visibility of the ‘ordinary person’” in celebrity and media culture rejects the idea of a true media democracy, saying: “the media industries still remain in control of the symbolic economy, and … they still attempt to operate this economy in the service of their own interests”.

Perhaps more importantly than even our worldview and beliefs, some writers argue the secondary socialisation provided by: “the explosion of shallow celebrity culture promotes narcissism as not just acceptable but desirable … the social models we see are often advertisements for a narcissistic lifestyle” (The Narcissism Epidemic, 2008). “In the early 1950s, only 12% of teens aged 14 to 16 agreed that “I am an important person”, writes Jean Twenge (2006): “by the late 1980s, an incredible 80% - almost seven times as many – claimed they were important”, and describes that between 1976 and 2012, high school students were more likely to value life goals based on fame, image, and making money. From 1966 to 2013, the number of students who said “being very well off financially” was important rose from 44% to 82%. While it seems unlikely celebrity is responsible for the whole of these changes, it seems to be an important factor. A study by Jake Halpern (2007) concluded that the more entertainment and celebrity content a child consumed, the more likely they were to choose being more famous over being more intelligent – and to have lower grades. In addition, teens who were identified as lonelier were up to three times more likely to agree that: “My favourite celebrity just helps me feel good and forget about all of my troubles”.

As a society at large, people appear to be growing more lonely and depressed, especially the old and young, perhaps through what Marxists would call ‘alienation’ from capitalism, driven by competition and ‘heroic individualism’, (Monbiot, 2014) which can perhaps best be summed up through the Thatcherite claim that ‘there is no such thing as society’. Chris Rojek (2001) argues that the ever-present icons of celebrity perfection and the rise of desperate reality stars shows that: “To some extent, the dynamics of modern society mean that all of us are caught up in the celebrity race. It is axiomatic that only a minority acquire the public acclaim and recognition that we associate with celebrity status. It is also axiomatic that if the majority suffer from feelings of rejection and invalidation, they internalize them in ways that pose no threat to the social order”. As these trends accelerate, the tendencies to form parasocial relationships based on fame seem to be becoming ever more essential to the maintenance of capitalism, and may to an extent be replacing interpersonal relationships with far more marketable interactions based on consumptive identities and the celebrity ‘product’.

One particularly valuable product, famed philanthropist Bono, called by the National Journal “the most politically effective celebrity of all time” (Gharib, 2011) is well known for his dedication to promoting aid causes, and for the highly publicised ONE campaign to encourage governments to pledge more money to tackle world poverty. Less well-known is the tax avoidance network of Irish companies that U2’s touring and album profits travel through. (Tomlinson, O’Brien, 2007) "Commerce is real," Bono told students at a Georgetown University lecture. "Aid is just a stop-gap. Commerce, entrepreneurial capitalism takes more people out of poverty than aid - of course, we know that.” (Lunch Box School, 2013) Despite no claims that their normal sales contribute to charities, U2 have certainly benefitted from association with the philanthropism ‘brand’. (Tomlinson, O’Brien, 2007)

This celebrity emphasis has meant that “it is now through the global media mega-star that the subaltern speaks” (Goodman, 2010). This could be seen again as democratisation, but far from opening the discussion to all, it seems to have merely cast celebrities, whose whole identities are deeply intertwined with the systems of global capitalism, as “those elevated voices that work to define for us the problems and solutions to global poverty and humanitarian crises”. (Goodman, 2013). This may be a move away from solutions handed down by traditional elitist figures of ‘rich, white, academic males’ that positivists decry, but: “by focussing attention and resources on the immediate crisis and short-term emergency, the overwhelming tendency is to tackle the symptoms rather than the causes … the media-friendly ‘personal stories’ rather than the wider and recurring patterns of inequality and dispossession. [Humanitarianism] needs to move away from the domain of unilateral and moralising solutions such as those offered by celebrities, towards the much broader, long-term, and necessarily messy, terrain of politics”. (Kapoor, 2013)

The vast majority of celebrities who visibly stand against injustices do not question the system that they are beholden to, and the handful of openly anti-capitalist celebrities, like Michael Moore or Russell Brand – both unusually from working class backgrounds – are routinely savaged in the media for their perceived personality flaws, and the perhaps valid point that it is hypocritical of them to question greed while being worth millions. Yet, this mainstream criticism seems eminently self-serving when the millions of ordinary people with similar criticisms are ignored precisely because they are not rich and famous.

Even when activism relates to causes that do not directly oppose capitalist narratives, celebrity social concern often seems to be side-lined when economic needs arise, or even exploited to further them. One of the best examples is the troubled relationship between the celebrity and fashion press and ‘women’s issues’ like body positivity. US model and presenter Tyra Banks has been hailed for many years in the media as a warrior against unrealistic body standards, and last year picked up a lucrative brand deal with Special K’s “Fight Fat Talk” campaign. (Forbes, 2014) However, as a key player in celebrity modelling, and the personality behind long-running reality show America’s Next Top Model where young women are judged on, among other things, their weight and physical characteristics, she has been accused of profiting from the perpetuation of these same standards. (Bond, 2010) The insincerity of celebrity culture does not encourage social change, but instead “is most often self-serving, helping to promote individual aggrandisement and the celebrity “brand” [and] advances consumerism and corporate capitalism”. (Kapoor, 2013, p79-80)

In a broader sense, the direct link between celebrities and branding, and the incredible payments they can receive, illustrates the extent to which they have become integral parts of the capitalist system on a practical level. Celebrities “can act as a potent beacon to fans and transform them, due to attraction and emotional connection to the celebrity, into consumers”. (Barron, 2015, p54) Jean Baudrillard (1998, p8), who aims to use both structuralist and Marxist approaches, argues that in the culture of conspicuous consumption: “Commodities are no longer defined by their use, but rather by what they signify. And what they signify is defined not by what they do, but by their relationship to the entire system of commodities and signs”. As signifiers of both social norms and desirable goods, and as products themselves whose qualities and attributes must also be promoted to achieve a greater market value (Chung, Derdenger, Srinivasan, 2012), it is easy to see how celebrities inspire theorists like Lee Barron (2015, p181) to view the development of celebrity advertising empires as: “a potent form of Marxist ‘commodity fetishism’ that seduces consumers with celebrity glamour and fidelity while maximising profits … [demonstrating that] the centrality of celebrity within the economic system is undeniable”.

With so much influence both direct and indirect over the ideology of the world, it seems inevitable that the lines between celebrity and politician would become blurred, and while much of the power of celebrity is informal, the example of Ronald Reagan, former president of the screen actors guild, demonstrates the easy transition of celebrity power. Ellis Cashmore notes his nickname as the ‘great communicator’, saying that: “Reagan’s acting skills were an invaluable asset, especially in debates with opponents, and for the changing American media landscape … his expression of ideas in plain, easy-to-understand language was made for [media culture]” (Barron, 2015, p71-2). Yet, what some would call plain, effective language can also be linked back to Kapoor’s observations about the trend towards celebrity-backed simple, media-friendly solutions to complex problems. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s high-profile California victory also suggests a victory of personality over policy, according to Freya Thimson. In the short window of the recall campaign, ‘the Governator’: “drew far more public attention than his fellow aspiring politicians who lacked film-star status … In essence, then, being Arnold Schwarzenneger was a key factor in electoral success” (Barron, 2015, p72). In the UK, a flagging Gordon Brown appointed Alan Sugar as ‘enterprise tsar’, almost certainly more for his perceived status as a savvy TV businessman than real economic policy acumen. (Wallop, 2009) The ‘celebritisation’ of politics – a trend which has also affected mainstream politicians – distracts from meaningful policy change towards personal ‘brand’ attributes, and perhaps: “represents a further societal shift towards tabloidization and commercialization that encourages passive engagement … [acting] in opposition to the democratic ideals of active citizenship and engaged political action, distracting the public from societal problems to focus on materialism and the accumulation of wealth”. (St. Jaques, 2009)

This ‘tabloidisation’ and increasing focus on entertainment and celebrity news be felt across the spectrum of reporting, with practical effects even on serious newsrooms. “It’s cheap, it’s easy, it’s not legally dangerous, and it sells papers. So you can see a whole shift in the priorities of the media” argues Nick Davies (2009 (1)), who detailed this reduction in detailed, well researched coverage in Flat Earth News, as well as a pronounced reduction in the deployment of investigative reporting and a replacement with PR material (Davies, 2009 (2)). However, despite a strong reliance on PR material in celebrity journalism for flattering coverage, it could argued that the one area ‘investigative’ journalism is still a significant source of news is the celebrity arena, to fulfil a voracious desire for negative news. Despite cutbacks across the industry, the News of the World maintained a far-reaching phone-hacking campaign, and practiced “covert surveillance, blagging, and deception in circumstances where it is incredibly difficult to see any public interest justification” (Leveson, 2012). These techniques were employed largely not against politicians or business leaders, but celebrities. Paul Lashmar (2011) argues: “The cultural capital of investigative journalism has been frittered away by the perverse use of investigative techniques for salacious celebrity-based journalism. A trade that provides the public with its first line of defence against overbearing institutions and interests has emerged badly tarnished”.

This perceived over-reach of showbiz journalists led to both the Leveson inquiry and the star-studded Hacked Off campaign, led by Hugh Grant, who argued: “it is absurd to label anyone who believes in protecting citizens against the worst abuses of certain newsrooms as a “muzzler” of the press. To me, freedom of the press is just as important as the freedom of individuals to enjoy an expectation of privacy”. (Hacked Off, 2011) Regardless, the effective consequence of this activism by celebrities, for the interests of celebrities, was tighter restrictions on all British journalism through the establishment of the Royal Charter. Graham Foulkes, who feared his phone may have been hacked after his son was killed in the 7/7 bombings, initially supported the Leveson inquiry, but later said: “[it] completely lost its focus and lost its value … an important piece of work for ordinary people, for ordinary members of the public, was railroaded by the celebrity circus”. Furthermore, he felt politicians used the inquiry to: “get hold of the media and shape it in a way that suits them”. (BBC, 2012) While it is undeniable that celebrity journalists acted improperly, a panel of senior ‘hard news’ journalists and editors like Alan Rusbridger and Andrew Gilligan agreed that these failures had been used by government, with the help of high-profile celebrity figures, to present a “one-sided debate” that allowed the powerful to protect themselves not only from celebrity ‘exposes’ but also from real investigative journalism, (Reid, 2013) with Nick Cohen (2015) arguing: “The authorities have played on an understandable but disastrous confusion in progressive thinking.”

In the end, it is difficult to say whether celebrity culture has merely been defined by capitalism or has played a role in shaping it, but there seems little doubt that: “capitalism and celebrity culture enjoy an important synergy today” (Sternheimer, 2011). Celebrity reporting provides for free market thinking a powerful rhetorical device in appeals to meritocracy, individual identity and the concept of ‘talented people’, as well as a solid practical tool for selling products, both directly through branding campaigns, and more generally through the idealisation of luxury lifestyles and conspicuous consumption. The increasing tabloidization of journalism cannot be wholly blamed on celebrity, but it has certainly had a negative impact on both the quality of mainstream news journalism and the quality that is expected. Overall, it seems clear that through many factors, celebrity culture dilutes opportunities for resistance to capitalism and serves a helpful role to those seeking to maintain the existing systems of globalised, neoliberal market economics.

Are you retarded or just stupid?

Upload it as a .pdf