Monday, March 29, 2010

Celebrities as religious leaders

Back in the day when I was an impressionable young lad developing my taste in music, I used to listen to a little-known rock n' roll outfit called "Rage Against the Machine." It was a fitting name, because, as witnessed by the photo, the band members were apparently very angry about something. If you cared to pay attention to the lyrics, you would hear them criticizing the government, large corporations, the police, and many other things. At their concerts they often took time to discuss political items and encouraged their fans to join their causes — which the fans often did. Of course, the band members weren't experts on politics, sociology or fields related to their causes, but that didn't stop them from advocating nor did it stop people from believing them. I eventually grew tired of their music and political diatribes, sold my CDs, and moved on to other things. However, Rage Against the Machine was not the last time I was to see celebrities taking the role as leaders of popular causes.


Pop culture figures have also spoken out against the war in Iraq, called for the release of political prisoners (Rage Against the Machine), spoken against Scientology (the band Tool and the show Southpark), and led many other social and political causes.


Insofar as these actors and musicians gain broad bases of support and often dictate the tenets of belief for a certain cause, I feel that celebrities often function in the same way as religious leaders. A person may not believe in God, but they may certainly believe in the doctrine of Sean Penn and go to worship at his movies or at protests and rallies that he supports.


A good example of this is with California's recent battle to pass Proposition 8. On one side of the debate were religious leaders, such as those of the LDS and Catholic faiths, who proclaimed a certain set of values. On the other side were various secular groups, which had their own set of values, and who often employed celebrities as their figureheads. Ellen Degeneres, Jack Black, Kathy Griffin, Drew Barrymore and Brad Pitt were used as spokespersons and figureheads in the campaign against the Proposition.


In a double-whammy of Hollywood support for overturning Prop 8, Brad Pitt appeared on The Ellen Degeneres Show and delivered the following statement:


"That to me is an issue of equality. And um, you know, I go back to the Declaration of Independence. We're all created equal, um, we all free to for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And um, that proposition was stepping on people's pursuit of happiness and people's liberty and I don't think it has any place or in our definition of America so I hope we figure that one out [sic]."


Thanks for the legal analysis, Brad.


Now leading or believing in causes is fine, but what I think is worrisome is that large groups of people join celebrity causes simply because the person is a celebrity. I fail to see how being really good at playing guitar or being really good at pretending to be someone else on film also makes that person an expert on law, morality, or politics. How in the world does Brad Pitt, who doesn't hold a law degree and has a long trial of failed relationships, become an expert on marriage or its legal roots? Maybe it's his abs.


So here we have these pop-culture prophets preaching to their dedicated minions. They give their (uneducated) opinion on an issue, and their believers follow. However, if I was in their position, and had the power as they do to influence popular opinion, would I let my lack of knowledge prevent me from exerting my influence?


This brings me to my question: do celebrities have a greater obligation than the average person to study out issues before they try and influence others concerning the issue, simply because so many people blindly follow them? Or if you think that question is lame, you could also explain why people adopt celebrities' opinions on issues about which the celebrities have virtually no expertise (why do these pop-culture prophets have converts?).

4 comments:

  1. I would say yes and no. While celebrities have a larger impact on the ideals and decisions of others than I do, they are often seen as out of touch. For example, I have heard Tom Cruise talk a number of times about Scientology, but I am not more likely to join because of hearing him talk. The general public doesn't model their lives after what celebrities do. I haven't adopted a bunch of kids because Brad and Angelina did, but I'm sure that there have been some obsessive fans who have. I think that some people follow these celebrities because they haven't formed their own opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Celebrities have achieved this kind of level of power (money = power usually) which is why I think they have so much influence in the everyday citizen's life. They have a lot of money, they must have done something smart to get that money, right? Well, no, not exactly, but in the world of professions with other wealthy people (ie: doctors, CEOs, etc.) they actually had to go through years of school to get to the level celebrities are on, so maybe that's why all of the high rich powerful people are lumped together as being an all-knowing source, thus someone to follow, on apparently any topic.

    I think they have somewhat more of an obligation though to figure out the details of something before they go out and promote it, but it's tricky too because they're in such a huge media eye, if they agree with the "less popular opinion" they could have economic backlash, so they usually just want to stay on the happy side of things. Going with something simply because a celebrity says they like it is dumb anyways, like getting ProActiv just because Jessica Simpson has it. People want to feel on the same level as these "high and mightly celebrities" so maybe that's why they're so easily influenced to follow them with things like these political issues.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think that celebrities should definitely be careful with the way they respond to issues. They should probably know what they are talking about or not say anything at all. If I put myself in their situation and am asked to respond to questions about certain issues, I would see myself being pretty cautious about leaking a lot of controversial stuff into the media, if I didn't know much about it.

    The reason it would be better to be careful is I think that celebrities are very influential on society as a whole. With prestige and being a public figure, comes tons of publicity in general. Interviews, talk shows, special appearances at huge events.. the media documents their every public move and word. This then appears in the mainstream instantly, especially if it concerns controversial issues. Regardless of whether a celebrity sounds intelligent or not, I think there are tons of people who take their positions/opinions and really let them sink in. Obviously this is unfortunate, but that is why I think it comes down to either being well-educated and REALLY know what you're talking about, or not commenting at all (that goes for you Brad).

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have a few things to say about this subject
    before anyone should try to influence someone else they should have some knowledge of the subject. That goes for us all. celebrities are included in that. why they have a following? A simple (but complex if you look into it) reason is... the media tells us what is important, and what the media focuses on is important. Now some could argue that we shape what the media portrays. but at this moment I think its the other way around.
    The qoute from brad pitt obviously shows that he is only regurgitating what he has heard in the media, and not necessarily the issue. prop 8 isn't about rights for same gender marriages but rather the definition of marriage and what constitutes that union. The last time I heard same gender couples have all the same rights, just not the same definition of marriage.

    ReplyDelete