Huffpost Entertainment
THE BLOG

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors

Johann Hari Headshot

Fame Is Like Sugar -- A Little Is Great, Too Much Is Deadly

Posted: Updated:
Print

The great cliché of our age is that we are sinking into a lobotomized
celebrity culture where we worship the worthless. We jabber on about Balloon Boy while carbon emissions soar; we yammer about American Idol while Afghanistan burns. The a new headline-snatching
documentary Starsuckers, released today, expresses this view at great
length: the West has been drugged by fame into a brain-coma, where our
eyes can only follow the neon lights of Hollywood and the Big Brother
house.



But is it true? The two-hour film – with all its haughty polemic –
helped me to figure out why I am so queasy about this argument, even
though I agree with some of its specific points. Yes, I worry that my
young nephews' first question about anyone I mention is: "Are they
famous?" Yes, I fret that one of my friends is obsessed with Justin
Timberlake, and seems to have a stronger imaginary relationship with
him than with anyone she actually knows. Yes, I find the creeping of
celebrity gossip into serious news broadcasts disturbing.



But the sweeping, simplistic dismissal of celebrity culture misses some
more deeper, tougher truths. Running through Starsuckers – and this
wider debate – are two incompatible arguments about celebrity. The
first is that this revering of celebrities is a new phenomenon, born
with television, and intensified by the internet. With these new
technologies, we have fallen under a form of electronic hypnosis. We
stare numbly at our screens and imagine we are seeing something real,
rather than a photo-shopped fiction.



The second argument is more interesting. It suggests that we are
hard-wired to seek out Big Men (or Women) and copy them. Think about
the hunter-gatherer tribes that we lived in a few minutes ago (in
evolutionary terms). Those ancestors of ours who identified the most
powerful or abundant people in their group, worked their way into their
entourage, and imitated their ways were obviously more likely to
survive. Seeking out celebs had an evolutionary advantage – so they
passed this instinct on to us. The people who thought it was dumb to
act this way dropped off the human family tree.



This seems more persuasive, because some form of celebrity-worship has
always existed. In his terrific new book Fame – From the Bronze Age to
Britney
, the classicist Tom Payne shows how humans have always told
lascivious stories about people they don't know.



The ancient Romans made celebrities out of their gladiators, cheering
when they killed and weeping when they died. Later, they made
celebrities out of the Christian martyrs who were gored by them. The
ancient Greeks gossiped about their gods' love affairs – and far from
being wholly mythical, the gods appeared among them all the time. As
Payne says: "You could invite gods to dinner. The god Serapis [or
rather, somebody posing as him] would hold parties at which he was once
'host and guest'.... You could even have sex with a goddess." The
tyrant Pisistratus typically found a gorgeous woman, put her in a
chariot, and announced she was the goddess Athene. The crowd howled and
whooped like anyone at Madison Square Gardens.



And just as there has always been fame, there have always been people
complaining that these days people get famous for nothing. In St Paul's
letters to the Corinthians, he moans that people only become Christian
martyrs nowadays "to obtain a corruptible crown" of celebrity. Here's
Chaucer, writing in the 14th-century, giving voice to a crowd: "We have
done neither that nor this/but spend our lives in idle
play./Nonetheless we come to pray/That we should have as good a
fame,/and great renown, and well-known name/as those who have done
noble deeds." The Queen snaps: "What! Why should I serve/you the good
fame you don't deserve/ because you've not achieved a thing?"



If celebrity has always existed, the debate changes. When people jeered
at the Japanese game-shows Clive James put on air, where men ate
maggots and crawled through shit, he counseled us to remember: a
generation before, these young men would have been using the same drive
for danger to fly kamikaze planes into Allied warships. He wrote:
"Civilisation doesn't eliminate human impulses: it tames them, through
changing their means of expression."



Our innate celebrity-instinct used to be directed in really dangerous
ways – towards finding revering warriors like Achilles, who killed so
many people that Homer ran out of names; or towards fanatics like the
Catholic saints who believed God was talking to her. What were the the
Jewish prophets, the Muslim martyrs or the Hindu gods but the
celebrities of their day? They took this impulse and channeled it
towards primitive superstitions, with all their cruelty, and all their
backwardness. Compared to them, directing this impulse towards Zac
Efron or Beyoncé or Robbie Williams – because they are hot, or sweet,
or make pretty sounds – seems positively benign.



Modern celebrity isn't a deterioration from a pristine past; it's a
taming of an impulse that was once met in far more harmful ways. Better
Madonna than the Madonna. Better the Heat of celebs telling you to buy
perfume than the heat of martyrs telling you you'll burn in hell.



It's only once you admit that celebrity has a place that you can keep
it in its place. To a culture, celebrity is like sugar: fun in
moderation, deadly if it's all you consume. We are letting one impulse
– to vicariously enter the Big Man's entourage – over-ride the others,
like the desire to enrich our minds. I have seen some of the best minds
of my generation focus on nothing but discussing fame in ever more
ironic ways, and they are left with a kind of intellectual diabetes.
Whenever I see celebrity news bursting beyond its proper boundary, I
remember Pauline Kael, the great film critic for the New Yorker and one
of the first intellectuals to take trashy films seriously. When she was
dying, she gave a final interview, and said sadly: "All that time I was
promoting trash culture, I never imagined it would become the only
culture we have."



We need an unwritten Celeb Code of Hygiene about what they should do,
and how we should respond to them. Celebrities can provide us with
pleasure and titillation – within limits. There needs to be privacy
rules to stop us stalking celebs to despair or death. Remember – Greta
Garbo didn't actually say "I want to be alone." She said "I want to be
let alone" – and there's a world of difference.



And we should drop the mad idea that they should provide us with
political guidance. The most effective part of Starsuckers is the
exposé of how Bob Geldof and Bono hijacked the Make Poverty History
campaign, defying the advice of the main aid groups to applaud
political charades that later came to nothing. There's a more
terrifying vision still in the film: in Lithuania, a "Celebrities'
Party" ran for office, and became the second biggest party in
government. The host of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire became speaker of
the parliament.



We will always have celebrities, and we will – if we are honest –
always want them. If we rage against them Starsuckers-style, with an
annihilating, snobbish superiority, we will lose the argument. The real
struggle instead is to temper our instinct for fame – and stop it
sucking up all the cultural oxygen.

 

Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent. To read more of his articles, click here. You can email him at johann -at- johannhari.com