Negative

by Matt Collins

Created on: February 18, 2010

I believe celebrities currently have a negative effect on society. This is not inherent to the idea of celebrity or fame, but instead related to how those who have such fame choose to utilize it. Celebrities are idols and role models for many people, and the idea of role models is certainly not negative in its own regard. In fact, many celebrities choose to use their fame and wealth to address a particular social or political issue. However, in today's popular culture many characteristics lauded as desirable in celebrities are considered negative by many measures. The issue is complicated by popular media involvement (read: skewing, altering, "lying", falsifying, etc) as the media plays a powerful role in both how a particular celebrity is perceived by the public and, to an extent, which qualities society finds to be desirable.

One such negative quality is an elitist perspective based on one's financial status. For example, many people considered "celebrities" are famous simply for belonging to wealthy families, and as a result must (or choose to) maintain this status by flaunting their wealth at every opportunity. I believe this emphasis on visible material wealth has been adopted by many people in society, and contributes the recent (perhaps not only recent?) tendency to "live above one's means". By this I refer to people who place more importance on the appearance of wealth than on actual wealth itself- an effect I think is related to our glorification of the wealthiest people in society. While wealth itself is of course desirable as it mitigates many of the daily pressures faced by most people, the celebrities famous solely for being rich are in actuality famous only for showing their wealth in the most ostentatious manner possible. We do not glorify those who have, through hard work or ingenuity, earned their wealth, but rather on those who have inherited such a life. This fixation on those who are born into wealth is ironic because in actuality, earning one's wealth is a more feasible route than inheriting a fortune and life of luxury.

On the positive side, there are many celebrities who use their fame or wealth to help those in need or further social agendas they consider important. In addition, many celebrities have gone out of their way to address issues such as body image, media distortion, certain political issues, or even substance abuse. These individuals prove that role models can have a positive effect on society, illustrating my earlier claim that it is a personal decision by each celebrity exactly how to use their fame. As i mentioned earlier, media involvement cannot be disregarded, either in terms of which qualities are perceived to be desirable or in how a particular celebrity is viewed by the public. Most people's sole exposure to celebrities is through mass media outlets like tabloids or gossip websites. Though society holds some responsibility for accepting media content as truth, the media plays a primary role in determining who is considered a celebrity. Oftentimes this determination is made not on positive characteristics but instead by selecting those individuals most likely to be involved in some type of scandal or other objectionable behavior.

I think a distinction in celebrities is in order- those who are followed by society because they possess positive characteristics (talent, beauty, athleticism) and those that are famous simply because we are disgusted or amazed by their actions (drug use, relationship failure, psychological issues). Perhaps the "problem" with celebrity is that some of society cannot discern between those who should be emulated and those whose actions and choices are remarkable simply by their idiocy.

Learn more about this author, Matt Collins.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.