The Exile of Britney Spears - Christ Smit (cont'd.)

1. Name of author, name of essay/chapter reporting on: Christopher Smit, The Exile of Britney Spears, chapter 8-epilogue

2. Your articulation of their thesis:

            In the last half of this book, Smit finishes discussing exactly how we consumed Britney and how/why we exiled her. Our consumption of her was mainly done through material things – all of the stuff that was manufactured to help sell her image – but also through the portrayal of herself as a sex symbol. Not only did we consume her, however, but we digested her – we chewed her up, sucking out everything that we could, and when we were done we spat her out (or, as Smit’s metaphor goes, we excreted her). When she no longer had any more to offer, when she was well and truly ruined, we tossed her aside.

            This exile, as Smit calls it, is done for a couple of reasons. We do not cast her off because of personal beliefs or anything nearly so meaningful – she simply stops being what we expect and desire from her, both physically and mentally, so we abandon her when she ceases to be the object that we want to consume. First, she gets pregnant – her flawless body becomes larger, different, imperfect; then, her inherent humanity is revealed in an unflattering paparazzi photograph, ruining our idealized vision of her as some sort of transcendent example of sexuality; finally, she shows signs of mental illness/instability – she is no longer infallible, and eventually manages to alienate us so fully through her drastic actions that she is effectively thrown out of the spotlight – with this, her exile is complete.

3. At least three links or images that illustrate the ideas of the article:

1. Smit mentions, in his chapter about material consumption, the Britney dolls that were first made in 1999. He discusses what these dolls meant to little girls and how they teach these girls lessons about possession – that they own Britney, in a way – they can control her. Those dolls remind me very strongly of these dolls of the band One Direction – the target audience (teen/preteen girls) is approximately the same age as that of the Britney dolls, so is the message that they send the same? Are One Direction’s fans subconsciously learning that they have control, in some way, over the band? Personally, I find this worrying and very sad – fans are a big part of celebrities, yes, but people should always be in control of their own lives, not others, and I hope One Direction doesn’t feel powerless in their careers.

2. When Smit talks about Britney’s exile, he mentions motherhood; not just the actual act of parenting, but the physical changes that heralded Britney’s impending role as a maternal figure and how people reacted so negatively to her pregnant body and its connotations. The way Smit wrote about it, I felt like the public almost didn’t realize that Britney was married, and would have sexual intercourse with her husband – they seemed completely unprepared and caught off-guard when Britney was revealed to be pregnant, even though it really isn’t a surprising situation for a married couple to find themselves in. It reminded me very strongly of the virgin Mary and the immaculate conception – suddenly, Mary’s body just started changing because of the baby Jesus growing inside her, completely skipping the logical, necessary steps it would have taken to get there. This seems to reflect the way people viewed/reacted to Britney’s pregnancy.

3. Finally, we get to the straw that broke the camel’s back, as it were: Britney’s 2007 mental breakdown, during which she checked herself in (and then right back out) of a rehabilitation facility and shaved her head. Smit especially talked about her head-shaving and the symbolic nature of it – she was taking back power from her managers by getting rid of a very feminine, sexually-significant part of her image, but also clearly illustrating her own instability – people who are emotionally stable and healthy don’t go around shaving their heads, after all. A very similar situation recently occurred with one of the members of One Direction (I’m sorry I write so much about them! I really am! It just always seems to apply so well), Liam Payne. The day after he and his girlfriend of two years broke up, he shaved all of his hair off, instantly sparking heated debates about why – was he devastated over his breakup? Was he doing it for Breast Cancer Awareness? Did he do it as a drunk dare? It’s inconceivable, of course, that he could have just wanted to change his hair, or pick his own hairstyle, instead of having one carefully styled for him by a specialist team from One Direction’s management company. Personally, I wish we could live in a world where celebrities could cut their hair without sparking enough backlash that half of the trending topics on Twitter refer to Miley Cyrus’ new hair color or Justin Bieber’s absent sidesweeping bangs.

4. At least two discussion questions that will help your reader develop the ideas of the article:

1. Britney was, according to Smit, “enslaved” by her parents, her fans, her managers, the industry she was in, etc. – she was trapped by their expectations and in a way, forced to act in certain ways. Do you think the Church and/or organized religion has the tendency to do this to people, also – forcing people (in a sense) to act in particular ways out of a feeling of obligation or guilt? Is this pressure a good or a bad thing (or: where does the motivation for this pressure come from)?

2. Assuming that God wants us to use digestion when we consider the issues of religion and beliefs, how does He want us to relate to the rest of the world – pop culture, media, political issues, etc.? Are there things that, as Christians, we shouldn’t worry about just consuming, instead of digesting (like Christian TV programs and music, sermons in our church, etc.)?

3. Britney was exiled from popularity and media, but not for her personal beliefs – more for the (perceived) failings of her body and mind. These things are hardly under her control, however; our exile was deeply unfair. Do you ever find yourself exiling someone for a physical or mental failing (or just difference from yourself/from your perceived norm)? What do you think it is about these differences that make us so uncomfortable and make us want to distance ourselves from these people?

The Exile of Britney Spears – Christopher Smit

1. Name of author, name of essay/chapter reporting on: Christopher Smit, The Exile of Britney Spears, chapters 1-7

2. Your articulation of their thesis:

In the first seven chapters of this book, Smit first delves into the origins of Britney Spears – how her family, her Baptist upbringing/faith, and time as a Mouseketeer on Disney Channel affected her experiences and her rise to fame – then into how she transitioned from an innocent child actress into an oversexualized, oversold, overcontrolled pop sensation and teen icon.

Her beginnings were humble; middle-class, Southern, Christian, from a typical American family. Smit analyzes how each of these things affected her start in the media world, then how they played parts in the later parts of her career; her class disappearing as she earned more and more money, her Christianity framing her early career before disappearing for a time, her family starting out a picture-perfect American household but slowly devolving into the broken, scandalous spectacle whose dysfunction American society could watch splashed over the pages of gossip mags. Smit argues that Britney’s rise to fame, along with her (inevitable, Smit would say) fall from media preference and attention is due in large (if not largest) part to us, the consumers, who eagerly gobbled up all the “celebrity news,” the risqué pictures, the music videos, the concert tickets – everything that she produced, we happily consumed and demanded more. Smit’s thesis is that we created Britney through these actions.

3. At least three links or images that illustrate the ideas of the article:

1. When Smit mentioned that actors in Disneyland who act as Disney characters have to have “helpers” (bodyguards) to make sure that the visitors to the park don’t ‘kick’ them to try to get them to break character, I thought of an actor in Disneyland who has become especially popular lately – he’s a young man who plays Peter Pan, and I thoughtthis video of him talking to someone in-character was a good portrayal of what Smit talks about when he says Britney was playing a role on Disney Channel. Just as the guy who plays Peter Pan isn’t really Peter, Britney wasn’t really her Disney self; we simply saw her interactions with others in that character, like we see “Peter” interacting with someone who wants him to say hello to her friend. This particular person doesn’t ‘kick’ Peter to make him break character, but other videos on the internet of Peter have strict warnings attached to them about not revealing the actor’s true identity – the man is only supposed to be interacted with on the level of being Peter, just as Britney was only meant to be consumed as Media Britney, never Real Britney.

2. Obviously, a discussion on Britney Spears is not complete without an example of her work. Smit talks at length about this video and how it shows Britney first breaking out of her ‘child actor’ role and into a more mature, sexualized position in the media and the eyes of consumers. Personally, I had never seen this video before today (I was homeschooled, okay?) and what Smit has to say about the Catholic schoolgirl image is just so accurate about this video – he emphasizes how it shows her breaking out of the Baptist image from her childhood, but still keeping herself confined in a religion with Catholicity. I think the juxtaposition of this music video with her part on the Disney Channel makes the difference between the two absolutely staggering – you can see how much she’s being affected by consumer culture already, trying to sell herself to a wider audience and appeal to different ages.

3. Smit starts off his discussion of Britney with a short summary of her origins, including her first experience with singing, which she got in her church choir. He particularly mentions thissong, which she would most likely have sung at some point. This song not only would have instilled in her a belief in her own belonging in God’s love, but would have brought her praise for her singing ability. Personally, I find it absolutely staggering that a child who grew up singing such amazing, reverent songs could go to performing in the music video I talked about in the former point. Britney seems to have lost touch with the faith that this song clearly shows, replacing it with the Catholic schoolgirl skirts, bared midriff, and fluffy lyrics of ‘…Baby One More Time.’

4. At least two discussion questions that will help your reader develop the ideas of the article:

1. Smit posits that Britney, starting from her time on the Disney Channel, was never really herself – she was never acting as “Real Britney,” but rather as a fake, Britney-like character. Do you think Britney made a conscious choice to act differently on the show? This choice obviously affected her future career, as she continued playing roles – perhaps never truly revealing the true Britney. Do you think it would have been better, in the end, for her to have acted authentically and been herself for the cameras on the Disney Channel?

2. Fame obviously affected the Spears family in a negative way. Why do you think this is – was the media attention simply too much stress, or were they playing a part from the beginning and the attention simply revealed their true nature? Would you ever want your family placed under that kind of scrutiny (perhaps because they could be a good example of a loving, solid family to American society)?

The American Monomyth in a New Century - Lawrence and Jewett

Name of author, name of essay/chapter reporting on: John Shelton Lawrence and Robert Jewett, The American Monomyth in a New Century

Your articulation of their thesis:

The authors of this article mainly argue that there is an overarching tendency in American narratives to follow the same classical monomythical pattern: a hero travels from an ordinary world to a supernatural one, where he/she does battle against magical forces and wins, then they return to their mundane world with the power to bless and help the people around them. The authors deny the claim that this myth has been slowly disappearing from American popular culture, arguing instead that Americans are actually so attached to this myth that they have revised it slightly and made it their own, forming the “American monomyth.” It is similar to the classic monomyth, but with some changes: a safe, harmonious community is threatened by evil and danger that normal institutions are powerless to protect against, so a selfless hero steps forward to rescue the people. It is fated that he shall win, but his victories come also from his worthiness and faith, and his triumph returns the community to its idyllic beginnings. The hero returns to his former anonymity and obscurity. The authors connect this change in the common narrative of American pop culture to religion, arguing that it “determines and shapes goals and ideals for both individuals and society” – these narratives are avenues for confessional statements of personal transformation and new conclusions of life’s meaning. The authors additionally claim that the relationship between reality and fantasy eventually begins to blur any clear distinction that once existed between mere entertainment and seriously-held life purposes.        

At least three links or images that illustrate the ideas of the article:

1. As the authors were talking about the movie The Matrix in relation to heroic, redemptive violence, they briefly mentioned connections between the film and Biblical language and events – I found this absolutely fascinating and wanted to learn more, finding this article identifying and explaining all the biblical references and parallels in The Matrix.

2. I think the movie/story ofCaptain America is a really good example of the American monomyth: evil (in the form of Hitler and the Nazis) threatens a peaceful community (America itself, in this case), so a selfless hero (Steve Rogers) steps forward to sacrifice himself for the community. He battles the evil and wins, returning to his community in triumph, only to disappear back into obscurity when the community no longer has any need of him. Not to mention that this completely fits the standard stereotype for the rescuer: a physically-powerful white male.

3. At the very end of this article, the authors compare the American monomyth to the events of September 11, 2001 and the reaction of the American people, whom the authors say saw this as an attack on America because it was the shining symbol of freedom and opportunity in the world at the time – the American people adopted the view of “good vs. evil,” with America being good (of course) and terrorists being evil. This is a very interesting article about who shares this belief and who saw the world as being even less divided into good and evil than before as a result of the 9/11 attacks. Personally, I agree with the writers of the monomyth article – America’s reaction to 9/11 was definitely to divide the situation into terrorists and Americans, with the Americans obviously being the victims and the protagonists, and the terrorists as the bad guys, the evil villains.

At least two discussion questions that will help your reader develop the ideas of the article (i.e., keep us talking):

1. The authors of this article argue that Americans are getting more and more of their life’s meaning and worldview from pop culture. As a Christian, do you think this is a good thing? Should Christians guard themselves more from the influence of myths such as the American monomyth?

2. The American monomyth and some of America’s actions following 9/11 were based on the idea that there is a clear notion of good and evil. Do you think there is a clear definition of “good” and of “evil?” If there is (and especially if there isn’t), is it possible for us to ever be completely sure which side we are on? 

When Reality TV Gets Too Real - Peters; TV Contestants: Tired, Tipsy and Pushed to the Brink - Wyatt

Name of author, name of essay/chapter reporting on: Jeremy Peters, When Reality TV Gets Too Real and Edward Wyatt, TV Contestants: Tired, Tipsy and Pushed to Brink

Your articulation of their thesis (i.e. in your own words):

            Both of these New York Times articles identify and discuss the environments on reality TV shows.

In TV Contestants, Wyatt speaks to contestants on competitive reality TV shows such as “Hell’s Kitchen” and “The Bachelor,” where contestants were worked almost 20 hours a day, deprived of sleep and access to communication devices (phones, computers, etc.) and entertainment (TV, books, magazines, etc.), and, in some cases, underfed. They also spoke of the ready availability of alcohol at all times. Wyatt discusses whether or not this is ethical treatment of the contestants – if they do not sign a disclosure agreement allowing the show to treat them how it wishes, they will be kicked out and someone else on the long waiting list will replace them, but if they do sign it, they are allowing the show’s producers to manipulate them so they make better television. Wyatt does not make a case either way, but acknowledges that the people running the show aren’t actually forcing the contestants to do anything against their will. The contestants, however, were not made aware of the expectations of them, and reveal that they were continuously exhausted, hungry, and emotionally strained.

In When Reality TV Gets Too Real, Peters investigates reality TV shows that have camera crews follow people around during their daily lives, such as alcoholics (on the show “Intervention”) or police officers (“Cops”). On some of these shows, the subject of the episode/show puts themselves and/or others in danger as the cameras roll. Peters’ question is this: should the camera crews, producers, directors, etc. intervene in these situations? Obviously, these sort of situations make for exciting, dramatic television, and they want to capture as much of it on film as they can. Additionally, American law does not require people to intervene in a crime in progress or obligate anyone to help anyone else in a bad situation. I believe that Peters’ opinion is that it is the moral obligation of the showmakers to help the subject of their show if they are going to put others and/or themselves in danger or commit a grievous crime.

At least three links or images that illustrate the ideas of the article:

1. This kind of picture is literally the only thing I could think about when I was reading in the Peters article about the camera crew of Intervention not… well, intervening when an alcoholic woman got into her car and, clearly drunk, drove away. Some staff member could surely have driven her car for her, or simply taken away her keys. She created a dangerous (and potentially fatal) situation for herself and everyone around her, and that is not okay to me.

2. The Wyatt article talked a lot about the bad conditions the contestants on Hell’s Kitchen and other such reality TV shows worked under, and when he wrote about sleep deprivation, I immediately thought of something I had read about sleepdeprivation being used to torture detainees in Guantanamo. Personally, I think anything that could be considered torture should not be allowed to be practiced anywhere, much less an accepted, professional environment such as the entertainment/television industry.

3. These articles really made me question the practices that go on in the reality TV business. Personally, I enjoy watching a show called “Wipeout,” in which contestants try to complete obstacle courses in order to win money. The contestants are always very… interesting people, with flamboyant, overdramatic personalities – after reading these articles, I find myself wondering if that’s just the way those people are, or if they have been affected in some way by the show’s producers/directors to make them more interesting and/or ridiculous to the audience.

At least two discussion questions that will help your reader develop the ideas of the article (i.e., keep us talking):

1. Would you, as a Christian, ever work on the staff of a reality show like Hell’s Kitchen or Intervention? Why or why not?

2. Would you ever knowingly enter a situation like that of the contestants on Hell’s Kitchen? If you would, what are your motivations? If you wouldn’t, do you think it’s wrong for others to do so?

Gods Behaving Badly - Ward (chapter 2)

Name of author, name of essay/chapter reporting on: Pete Ward, Gods Behaving Badly – chapter 2: Representation

Your articulation of their thesis (i.e. in your own words):

In this chapter, Ward presents the idea that celebrities, no matter what they are famous for, communicate meaning through their actions, persona, beliefs, and public image. They represent things to different people because the images they create have the possibility for different interpretations. These people assign meanings to these images based upon their personal experiences and use the actions of the celebrities to find a sense of identity within themselves. It is important to note that the celebrities themselves do not force their own identities upon their fans – they simply offer themselves and their beliefs and interests up for inspection and consideration. Whether or not a single fan chooses to adopt the celebrity’s way of thinking is completely up to the fan themself.

This dissemination of a celebrity’s image, life, and personal beliefs is due completely to media. Popular media allows the public to consume every part of a celebrity’s life, which leads to the formation of “fake” celebrities, whose actions, words, outfits, etc. are planned carefully to make a certain impression and impact upon the public. In a way, every celebrity is at least a little bit fake – the thing that “sells” about them is their image, so they must cultivate it carefully to reflect positively upon themselves and make people want to “buy” more.

Ward stresses that celebrity depends completely upon media, and vice versa – without media to make a celebrity known, they cannot be popular, and thus they cannot be a celebrity, and without celebrities, people would be much less interested in media. Thus, celebrities and the media have a very special relationship – the media is always trying to find out more about celebrities, to expose them, draw back the protections in order to provide a sensational story, while celebrities are always trying to cover the parts of the lives that they can, presenting a perfect, unblemished image to the media for consumption.

At least three links or images that illustrate the ideas of the article:

1. Ward talks briefly about how celebrities can even have influence upon fashion choices on a very large scale, inspiring imitation of a certain unique aspect of their look. This has always been something that interests me – it’s so fascinating to me that people love celebrities so much that they want to be like them, and attempt to achieve this by looking like them. Something that I thought of immediately while reading what Ward had to say about this was Jennifer Aniston’s haircut that she had as the character Rachel on the TV show Friends – it was widely imitated, but Aniston herself has expressed her distaste for the “Rachel”haircut. Her fans were assimilating a style that their idol didn’t even like – for them, it was simply their way of expressing their love for her.

2. Somewhat related to the above topic, Ward also talks about how people love to buy celebrity-endorsed products or products with the celebrity’s name on them. He postulates that this is because we want to show other people our identity, and go about doing this by showing them our interests – not necessarily because it makes us feel connected to the celebrity. This relieves me, in some ways; at least the 13-year-old girls buying One Direction toothpaste and toothbrushes probably don’t think using them will make them feel closer to the members of the boyband – they just want to show everyone how much they love the five cute boys.

3. Ward talks a lot about media, especially how it pierces the private lives of celebrities. Since media relies on celebrities for its success, journalists, paparazzi, interviewers, etc. are continuously digging ever deeper into celebrities’ personal lives. Personally, I think this goes way too far sometimes. I know I use One Direction as an example way too much, but they are such a permanent fixture in the public eye these days that they work really well for this point. The five boys (Louis, Niall, Zayn, Liam, and Harry) can’t go out to a corner store to buy some food without being photographed and having it plastered all over the internet. If Harry hangs outwith his friend Nick Grimshaw (who happens to be a gay radio DJ), they are photographed and speculation immediately abounds over his sexuality. Every move is documented and eagerly discussed – they have absolutely no privacy anymore.

At least two discussion questions that will help your reader develop the ideas of the article (i.e., keep us talking):

1. Have you ever adopted a political view or considered a social issue just because a celebrity supported it/brought it to your attention? If you agreed with their position on the topic, why do you think this is – where they subtly affecting your opinion, or would you have agreed no matter who presented it to you?

2. Do you think it’s right for the media to pry into every aspect of a celebrity’s life? Should there be more restrictions/protections in place controlling what can be published about celebrities? 

Michael Jackson - Smit (introduction)

Name of author, name of essay/chapter reporting on: Christ Smit, Michael Jackson: Grasping the Spectacle – introduction

Your articulation of their thesis:

            Smit starts this introduction by establishing that although Michael Jackson may be deceased, his spectacle will live on. The most famous thing about Jackson was always the image, the act, the show that he put on, and this will live on without him, perpetuated by media, record companies, and even his own family. Everything he did was about the spectacle, and this reflects back to us, the consumers – when he died, our grief was as large a spectacle as his life was, making his death almost seem like a performance. Then Smit breaks his introduction down into different points of focus on aspects of Jackson’s spectacle; what it meant to “know” the man himself, the different layers that made up his spectacle, and how to understand where this persona/image came from.

            “Knowing” Michael Jackson was almost impossible. Everyone had a notion of who he was, what he stood for, etc. etc. inside their heads, but none of them truly knew the man behind the music – the human behind the depersonalized spectacle. Indeed, it became an impossibility to ever get to know this person, because Jackson began to exist solely as a spectacle – he created his own system of reality in which he was not defined by culture, or his own personality or anything that we regard today as the basic definitions of celebrities and/or people.

            The layers of Jackson’s spectacle were deep, confusing, and difficult to travel down through. His spectacle was made up of many different images, stories, myths, etc. that described his origin and his current existence. For example, we know that Jackson underwent extensive plastic surgery and body modification, but we don’t know why – was he perhaps disabled? What was this (and/or these) disability (disabilities)? Was it a side-effect of his spectacle, or part of the cause, or neither? Past the purely physical layers of the spectacle lay even more questions – about Jackson’s identity, culture, and psychological state. Smit argues that the most important layer of this spectacle isn’t the layers pertaining to Jackson personally, or the physical layers – it is the layer of music and video creation. As Smit says, “To know Michael Jackson’s music was to know Michael Jackson’s image.”

            The last, and most complicated layer, is death. Jackson’s death is the layer through which we must look at all of the other ones, adding genuine feelings and reactions to what was formerly simple performance and emotionless spectacle.

At least three links (websites, blogs, articles, music) or images that illustrate the ideas of the article:

1. This short clip from the movie Shrek shows a scene in which Shrek, an ogre, is talking to his friend, Donkey, about the nature of ogres. He attempts to explain ogres using an onion to show all the different layers that ogres (apparently) have. On some childish level, this seems similar to Smit’s points about Jackson and how his life was arranged in layers of importance, popularity, accessibility, etc. Perhaps Shrek’s last layer wasn’t death, but I really quite prefer this image when it comes to trying to picture Michael Jackson with all of his layers of spectacle.

2. Smit talks a lot about Jackson’s fans, and how while they mainly only “knew” Jackson through his music and performances, they still found themselves greatly attached and felt as if they knew him on an intimate level. These are the same fans who, when Jackson died, took the news hard, and personally. Smit especially talks about the outcry on the internet and social networking sites – expressions of grief, fear, sorrow, etc. were very common. I myself have many social media accounts, and while I was not one of the people posting emotionally-charged entries on the internet after Jackson died, I was curious to see what would happen if I put ‘michael jackson’ into Twitter’s search bar. I found a twitter account for a dead man. It appears that Jackson’s fans are so dedicated that he cannot be silenced, even in death, and that fans obviously feel they have some sort of special bond to Jackson – they still need more from him, whether it be a few tweets or a tribute performance.

3. Smit talks at length of how so many people felt that they knew Jackson, but how they really didn’t know anything about him. Jackson existed solely as a spectacle, as entertainment – there was no dialogue between him and the world, only a monologue of the things he produced and the world’s consumption of them. It was not a mutually beneficial relationship, but a give-take one – where Jackson did all of the giving and the world did all the taking. Thus, nobody really ever knew Jackson. This assertion immediately reminded me of a song by The Weepies called ‘Nobody Knows Me At All,’ which has the same basic idea – although with the implied undercurrent of sadness and depression. Perhaps this was true of Jackson, also, but it cannot be denied that there were very little (if any) people who truly knew Jackson on a deep, emotional, meaningful level.

At least two discussion questions that will help your reader develop the ideas of the article:

1. What do you think made Michael Jackson so special for so many people? It’s not like he really tried to connect with his audience on a personal level – he really mostly just made and performed music. Why did so many people feel such a strong connection to him, leading to such an enormous public outcry at his death?

2. What do you think of the idea as Jackson as a monetary value – specifically, the way his family, record label, etc. have been essentially selling the rights to his life to the highest bidder? Do you think Jackson would be happy to see his legacy continuing, or horrified that even in death people can’t seem to leave him alone?

Gods Behaving Badly - Ward (introduction)

Name of author, name of essay/chapter reporting on: Pete Ward, Gods Behaving Badly – introduction.

Your articulation of their thesis (i.e. in your own words):

            In this introduction, Ward writes about the blurring lines between religion and pop culture (aspects of religion are continually filtering into media, finding their way into TV, movies, music, books, etc.) and explores it using the context of celebrity. Ward argues that whether or not you like or loathe celebrities is not important – they still affect you. A celebrity merely represents something else – a bigger idea, value, or “take” on being human. If you are the type to frown upon celebrities and everything they stand for, you are no better than a cultural elitist. Instead, you must view celebrities for the symbols they are and define your opinions of the topics they represent. Increasingly frequently in modern society, celebrities have come to be very nearly religious figures – they have obsessive fans who are said to ‘worship’ them and are called ‘gods.’ Ward explains this occurrence by citing the release of mainline Protestantism’s “stranglehold” on society – without religion in their everyday media, fans latch onto the nearest celebrity and worship them in the place of religion, using religious vocabulary to describe both the celebrities and their actions and turning celebrities into semi-divine figures. This “religion” tells us much less about Christian theology than it does about the nature of ourselves—we much prefer fallible, human idols than perfect, Christian ones – celebrities are the exact right mix of sacred and profane. In essence, we are knowingly labeling fellow humans as gods while still being perfectly aware that they are not, in fact, perfect – false gods. We set them up in our heads as sacred and perfect, but we almost seem to delight in their failures more than we do in their successes. We love hearing about the latest failings of our fake gods, and we especially enjoy sitting in judgment of them when they do so – media has become our way of keeping an eye on our gods.

At least three links (websites, blogs, articles, music) or images that illustrate the

ideas of the article:

1. Ward talked a lot about how people love celebrities who show their humanity – by making mistakes, doing bad things, etc. These celebrities do not usually suffer ill effects from their recklessness, stupidity, and/or maliciousness – they simply receive more attention because of it. A prime example of this is Chris Brown, a rapper infamous for having physicallybeaten his then-girlfriend, Rihanna, multiple times. Brown’s career barely even took a hit from the media backlash against him, and today he is a top-selling artist in the United States. It’s horrendous, but it really exemplifies the celebrity-glorifying culture we have in America – everyone was horrified by what Brown did, but it only served to make them more fascinated with him.

2. Ward also talks about the growing use of religious terms and vocabulary to refer to parts of celebrity culture and celebrities themselves. Nothing is a better example of this linguistic shift than the title Justin Bieber fans unite themselves under: “Beliebers.” An obvious play off of the word “believer,” these young people are very up-front about the way they equate Bieber with a semi-deistic figure.

3. Ward tells us that celebrities are not famous precisely because they are particularly intelligent, talented, or special, but because they show a unique “take” on what it means to be human (or black, or a woman, or short, etc.). As I tried to think of reasons Ward would say this, only one example came to mind: the cast of The Jersey Shore. None of these people are especially remarkable human beings, with no super-exciting talents to boast about. Why, then are they so ridiculously famous? Because they show an intriguing way to be human. Other humans are fascinated by the way they live their lives – not necessarily because they think it’s a good way to live, but because it’s new and interesting.

At least two discussion questions that will help your reader develop the ideas of

the article (i.e., keep us talking):

1. Have you ever found yourself building up a celebrity (and/or celebrities) to be a “false god?” Did they live up to your expectations of them? Did you expect them to?

2. What do you think it is about celebrities that makes everyone else think there is something special, something remarkable about them – what makes them better god-material than anyone else in the world? Money? Fame? (Perhaps nothing at all?)