1
Celebrity Politics in an Era of Late Modernity
In recent years, there has been an increased involvement of celebrities in the political process. Moreover, as P. David Marshall has commented, politicians have constructed âpublic personalitiesâ which have an âaffective functionâ in the organization of interests and issues (Marshall 1997: 203â4). Clearly, these actors perceive their usage of the mass and multi-media to be an effective means through which to influence public opinion: âIn the shift away from emphasising party ideology, the political style of individual politicians ⊠[who] take on an aura of âcelebrityâ ⊠[and the symbolism of the] stars of popular culture ⊠becomes central to how audiences ⊠evaluate [political] performance, authenticity and ⊠capabilitiesâ (Dahlgren 2009: 137). But how far do celebrity politicians and politicized celebrities actually affect outcomes? Traditionally, many academics view celebrity politics as a âmanufactured processâ fabricated by media exposure (Louw 2005; Turner 2004). Public interest in celebrity has been manipulated through contrived pseudo-events staged by a collusion of communicators and cynical media (Boorstin 1971: 65). However, as celebrities have become politically engaged with the public sphere, this literature requires a re-evaluation. As stars have intervened in politics and political leaders have been defined by celebrity-style imagery, it may be argued critical theorists do not take into account the extensive influence of celebrity politics on decision-making processes.
An alternative literature has identified the trend towards the celebritization of politics, both theoretically (Street 2004) and empirically (Holmes and Redmond 2006), through an exploration of celebrity performance, authority and representation. As celebrities and image candidates gain credibility to assume a moral authority amongst target audiences/citizens, it becomes necessary to reflect upon their significance when mobilized for political campaigns, policy agendas and activism.
These matters of political representation segue into a wider debate wherein civic values are being replaced by new forms of participatory engagement. In a period of late modernism, there have been growing concerns that a democratic deficit has occurred with regard to a collapse in virtue and citizenship. For instance, Robert Putnam has argued that new forms of social capital are necessary to reconnect citizens with their societies (Putnam 2000). Alternatively, Henrik Bang suggests that different types of political capital are emerging as duty-bound citizens are being replaced by virtuous âeveryday makersâ who utilize local narratives to reciprocate with one another (Bang 2003). Similarly, John Keane, in his analysis of âmonitory democracyâ, in which consumer-led forms of representation become a measurement of accountability, has considered how changes to matters of âvoiceâ and âoutputâ have reformed democratic practices (Keane 2009b).
This chapter will outline the contours of the academic debate concerning the celebritization of politics. Critical theorists have provided an analysis of the âmedia spectacleâ in which celebrity engagement has been defined by public relations techniques to distort political issues. Conversely, Liesbet van Zoonen, John Corner, Dick Pels and John Street have considered how the popular aesthetics employed by celebrity politicians may be linked with reconfigured democratic practices.
Therefore, this analysis will critically assess how celebrity politics operates in reference to the post-democratic changes that have been identified by Bang and Keane. It will discuss whether their analyses provide an appropriate framework to capture the worth of celebrity politicians. While these authors have focused on matters of output, this chapter will consider the extent to which celebrity politicians âinputâ aggregated forms of âagencyâ to affect political outcomes. From these differing perspectives, it will seek to define a normative position concerning the worth of celebrity politics.
Finally, this chapter will define a systematic taxonomy to analyse the relationship between celebrity politics and democratic behaviour. Thus, it shifts the focus of attention away from those studies which have sought to categorize the different types of celebrity political behaviour (West and Orman 2003) to the definition of a methodology through which to analyse such activism. In this context, it will review the work of Paul ât Hart and Karen Tindall (ât Hart and Tindall 2009; Marsh, ât Hart and Tindall 2010), who have sought to consider the forms of political action which are associated with celebrity politics. Elsewhere, it will be necessary to consider how van Zoonen (2005) and Street (2003, 2004) have elaborated on the analytical distinctions which can be made concerning the significance of the typologies of political personalization and celebrity performance. In turn, this analysis will draw upon Max Boykoff and Mike Goodmanâs model of politicized celebrity systems (PCS) to provide a framework to consider the aesthetics of celebrity political behaviour (Boykoff and Goodman 2009). The chapter will conclude by considering how these typologies may be utilized to discuss what constitutes an effective celebrity politician in a modern political culture.
The traditional paradigm: style over substance
Several commentators have contended that fame is a manufactured process. Through an industrialization of culture, an individualâs âcelebrity-nessâ has been facilitated by the mediatization of their public rather than their real persona (Drake and Miah 2010: 52; Louw 2005: 172). Concurrently, critics such as Neil Postman claim that the mass political communication process has led to a decline in rationality as televisual style dominates substantive debate. This critique suggests that the âAmericanizationâ of politics has had a negative impact on the public sphere and civil engagement (Postman 1987). In tandem, political communications have evidenced the convergence of public relations (PR) techniques with commercial pressures drawn from the global media. For instance, Thomas Meyer notes: âInsofar as the elite actors in the political system put their faith in the basic question of media democracy â publicity equates with success â they yield to the time constraints of media production, because they suppose that it is the price they have to pay to win public supportâ (Meyer with Hinchman 2002: 45).
Most recently, with the escalation of media and communication outlets, together with the voluminous use of talent and reality shows such as The X Factor (2004 onwards) and Celebrity Big Brother (2001 onwards), instant celebrities can be launched in conventional and viral terms (e.g., Susan Boyle or Justin Bieber). Such ubiquity in fame has combined with a more visible and self-conscious employment of celebrity activists. Under such conditions, Daniel Boorstin has argued, illusions are mistaken for reality (Boorstin 1971).
Thus, politicians have âpackagedâ themselves as commodities to be sold to voters in an era of partisan de-alignment in which the electorate no longer clearly identifies with the political parties on matters of ideology or class (Franklin 2004). This suggests the relationships between âleadersâ and the âcrowdâ which have evolved in late capitalist societies are vital to âthe massâs support of the individual in mass societyâ (Marshall 1997: 43). Therefore, public interest in celebrity politicians and politicized celebrities has been manipulated through pseudo-events staged by a cynical media to construct a perceived myth of individual aspiration (Boorstin 1971: 58). This has created a spurious egalitarianism which âin reality ⊠[serves] only to thwart a desire for equality, and [conceals] the extent to which the practice of government [departed] from its democratic idealâ (Hatch 1960: 65). In turn, the public is presented as being culpable as it cannot understand that it has been manipulated by elite marketing tactics.
Moreover, Darrell West and John Orman contend that celebrities propagate irrelevant understandings of complex political matters, remain ignorant and do not justify their status in claiming to represent public opinion. In particular, West and Orman argue that the skills of celebrity politicians are ill-suited to statecraft as they lack knowledge or expertise of public policy so that âserious political issues become trivialized in the attempt to elevate celebrities to philosopher celebritiesâ (West and Orman 2003: 118).
This anxiety over the negative effects of celebrity on the political process may be traced back to the American sociologist Leo Lowenthal, who argued that US media coverage had replaced âidols of productionâ, such as politicians, with âidols of consumptionâ such as film stars (Lowenthal 1944). Similarly, C. Wright Mills contended that the attention placed on celebrities meant that they had become part of a new power elite (Mills 1956). Elsewhere, Herminio Martins claimed instead that celebrities were an âelite without powerâ whose maximum observability combined with an inability to provide life chances for the public (Alberoni 1972; Martins 1964).
Even Graeme Turner, in his multifaceted account of celebrity, accepts the notion of celebrity as a mechanism of political inauthenticity (Turner 2004: 134). He explains celebrity politics as a means of commodification through which to neutralize consumer/citizen engagement (ibid.: 135). While Turner views the cultural consumption of celebrity as part of a new media democracy in which a heterogeneous public sphere allows for the possibilities of a do-it-yourself (DIY) citizenship, he chooses to ignore the social relations proffered by politicized celebrities. In tandem, Nick Couldry and Tim Markham remain sceptical that celebrity culture can positively contribute to the publicâs political engagement. They contend that the followers of celebrities will be unlikely to be politically engaged and that any claims of democratic renewal offered by celebrity politics are spurious (Couldry and Markham 2007).
Following this logic, Louw has argued that, with the exportation of the US cultural values accompanying the globalization of the mass media, branded performers have narrowed the gap between politics and entertainment (Louw 2005: 192). In his definition of âpseudo-politicsâ, Louw suggests there has been a PR-ization of issues âin which celebrities are now enlisted to whip up mass public opinionâ (ibid.: 191). By defining celebrity politics as the latest manifestation of the fame game, he views the media as a site of ideological control: âFame-game endorsements constitute the ultimate PR-ization of politics based upon pure puff and hype. The mediaâs preference for glib sound bites, good visuals, and attractive famous faces is exploited to the full to celebrity-ize and emotionalize issues as a tool to steer mass public opinionâ (ibid.: 191).
In the most sophisticated variation of this position, Douglas Kellner has developed his concept of the âmedia spectacleâ to suggest that the emphasis on celebrity replaces the complexities of policy with stylistic gestures (Kellner 2010b: 123). He argues that the media coverage of celebrity politics creates a form of spectacle which âframesâ politicians and celebrities as global âsuperstarsâ. Kellner suggests that such a form of spectacle has substituted substance with a symbolism in which the norms of democratic engagement have been undermined (ibid.: 123). He concludes: âAn informed and intelligent public thus needs to learn to deconstruct the spectacle to see what are the real issues behind the election, what interests and ideology do the candidates represent, and what sort of spin, narrative, and media spectacles is being used to sell candidatesâ (Kellner 2009: 738).1
Underpinning the traditional paradigm is a normative position that suggests that celebrity politics diminishes the processes of representative democracy. In such a pessimistic extrapolation, âpolitics has been subsumed within the culture industry, so that the political is now another commodity to be marketed, purchased and consumed in a cycle of false needs and unsatisfied desiresâ (Calcutt 2005). These critiques of celebrity activism reflect the values of the Marxist Frankfurt School whose critical theorists contended that the media had become an expression of dominant ideologies. Effectively, culture has been industrialized and distorted for the needs of political and social elites. Chris Rojek has concluded that, as celebrities express an ideology of heroic individualism and upward mobility, they standardize social conditions to perpetuate consumption and subdue the masses (Rojek 2001: 33).
These critiques share JĂŒrgen Habermasâs modernist concerns that there has been erosion of the public sphere. Instead of the mass media providing an agora in which legitimate debate may occur, the public space between the state and the electorate has evidenced an irrational political discourse. Therefore, partial or distorted information is presented as being representative when, in reality, it is controlled by powerful influences (Habermas 1992). Thus, the most common analysis of celebrity-ness has referred to the ubiquitous growth of the visual media in which fame operates as a tool with which to manipulate public opinion (Louw 2005). It is contended that such a usage of performance is pitched on artifice and sells prescriptive ideas to a disengaged public.
Celebrity politics and political aesthetics
The employment of political rhetoric has a historical continuum which offsets the modernist dismay directed at the personalization of politics (Braudy 1997; Pleios 2011: 251). As Liesbet van Zoonen comments, the classical Greek Sophists contended that virtue was a matter of great performance (van Zoonen 2005: 72). Moreover, NiccolĂČ Machiavelli demonstrated that the proper union of personality and performance was necessary to create the appearance of a convincing âgoodâ political persona if it was not a requirement to actually have one. Therefore, while the conditions of the modern political communication have changed, the need to determine a persuasive political performance remains timeless.
But even without acknowledging this important historical context, the traditional paradigm may be criticized as it perceives political communication as a top-down process between political elites and a passive electorate. It disregards the polysemic range of readings that audiences take from popular culture. Such an approach ignores the effects of celebritized politicians in forging new or alternative social formations for engagement. Effectively, it does not evaluate the influence of imagery on the publicâs political decision-making processes. Instead, it is necessary to consider the changes in political aesthetics that have facilitated the opportunities through which celebrities have influenced politics and politicians have popularized themselves. As P. David Marshall comments, âa leader must somehow embody the sentiments of the party, the people and the state ⊠a celebrity must somehow embody the sentiments of the audienceâ (Marshall 1997: 203).
John Corner and Dick Pels contend that the previous forms of partisan allegiances have eroded to be replaced by a focus on post-ideological lifestyle choices which foreground matters of aesthetics and style (Corner and Pels 2003). As voters are less likely to identify with political parties, the public have favoured âmore eclectic, fluid, issue specific and personality-bound forms of political recognition and engagementâ (Corner and Pels 2003: 7). Corner argues that through their âmediated personasâ â the individualâs public image â film, television and music stars have created new forms of identification in which they attain public admiration, sympathy and authority to effect political expression (Corner 2003: 83). Thus, celebrities and image candidates command credibility through a conjunction of de-institutionalization, personalization and parasocial familiarity to transcend other agencies of social authority2: âIt is a claim that derives from a world which, says Keane [2002] ⊠is marked by ⊠(the) popular identities (which) derive from the role models provided by celebrities who inhabit this worldâ (Street 2004: 442).
Within a world in which mediated personas are taking greater shape and importance, it is necessary to investigate celebritiesâ integral roles in political campaigns. While symbolism and charisma have always shaped political communications, can celebrities use their reputations and charisma to invigorate politics with new ideas? Moreover, as Aeron Davis has shown, celebrity politicians have employed personalized forms of âmedia capitalâ to define their âperformancesâ so that their mediated personas may connect with the electorate:
In many modern ⊠mediated democracies ⊠several contemporary leaders, such as Vladimir Putin, Silvio Berlusconi and Nicolas Sarkozy, devote extensive resources to the cultivation and promotion of their public images to voters. In competitive presidential and majoritarian type systems ⊠personalities often appear to be a more decisive factor in deciding election outcomes than policies and political records. Thus, the âpersonal appealsâ of Tony Blair and David Cameron are compared favourably to the âtechnologically giftedâ but âuncharismaticâ Gordon Brown. (Davis 2010a: 83)
In this respect, John Streetâs work provides a systematic attempt to analyse how the political aesthetics of celebrity politicians and politicized celebrities interlink with their democratic worth. As Street argues that celebrities have assumed a moral authority and provide credibility for political agendas, it is necessary to investigate their integral roles in political campaigns. He asks whether celebrities can use their reputations to reinvigorate politics with new ideas and an aggregated form of political agency (Street 2003, 2004, 2010): âIn other words, the study of politics requires study of the way in which performances are constructed and styles are articulated, because they constitute the transactions between represented and representatives in democracies. Significant political relationships are constructed through media performanc...