June 30, 2006: A Marxist Theory of Celebrity
Marxists need to develop a theory of celebrity in general, and of left celebrities in particular, e.g., Noam Chomsky, Angela Davis, Howard Zinn, Cornel West, Michael Moore, and Cindy Sheehan. The purpose of such a theory would not be to criticize these persons as lacking insight or conviction but rather to explore the degree to which their very celebrity status can have an adverse effect on movement-building.
A possible point of departure for such a theory would be a fascinating recent book by Hal Niedzviecki, Hello, I'm Special: How Individuality Became the New Conformity (San Francisco: City LIghts Books, 2006). Niedzviecki argues that
"if there is a single constant in the emergence of individuality as the new conformity, it is the ubiquitous presence of celebrity. Celebrity doctors treat celebrity adventurers who date celebrity zoologists who lunch with celebrity art critics and celebrity entrepeneurs. . . . Not only do we have more celebrities than ever in the interlocking spheres of sports, pop culture, and the arts, but new categories of celebrities seem to be constantly emerging" (p. 10).
At least one disturbing consequence of this rise of celebrity in late capitalist societies (a term, by the way, Niedzviecki does not use) is the emergence of a new mental disorder: celebrity worship syndrome (CWS). According to a psychologists at the University of Leicester in England, this disorder has become widespread and can be classified according to three levels of severity:
"At its least troublesome, there are those who simply like to casually follow the careers and lives of certain celebrities. At the mid-range of the affliction are those who believe that they have 'an intense personal-type relationship with their idol.' Finally, there are . . . the 'hardcore CWS sufferers, ' who 'believe their celebrity knows them and are prepared to lie or even die for their hero.' Their celebrity worship is 'borderline pathological'" (p. 84)
Dr. John Maltby, the author of an article published in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease--and based on the University of Leicester research--has proposed that "CWS is emerging as traditional relationships with family and people in the community are on the wane" (p. 84). (Because of the ongoing subsumption of everyday life and institutions by capitalist social relations, I would submit.)
What is the relevance of this research for Marxist theory, though? Here Louis Althusser offered an extremely suggestive assessment of one of the "limits" of Marx. In a major work dating to 1978 (published posthumously and now available in Geoff Goshgarian's marvelous English translation: "Marx in his Limits," in Philosophy of the Encounter: Later Writings, 1978-1987 [NY: Verso, 2006], pp. 7-162), Althusser argued convincingly that a key factor in Marx's decision to withhold his stinging Critique of the Gotha Program in a dispute with the German Social Democratic Party leadership was his failure to consider "the fact of his own persona." Marx, according to Althusser,
"pretended, to himself, that he was not what he objectively was, whatever his scruples--a very prestigious personage, and, still more important, a theoretical personage whose every word counted, whose formulas and phrases were taken for gospel, and taken seriously, with all the ambiguity which assimilates--or very nearly so--political seriousness to religious or religiose submission. But the 'theoretical-personage effect' is, beyond any doubt, an important political and ideological effect--not only in the history of the bourgeoisie, but also in that of the workers' movement, the Marxist workers movement included" (p. 53).
How then shall we in the U.S. left explain the "theoretical-personage effects" that occur within our own ranks? Again, my point is not to repudiate leadership--even famous leadership--but to stress the danger of relying on "celebrity" leaders who all-too-easily generate undue deference by "non-celebrity" grassroots activists and wind up (even if unintentionally) substituting themselves for the collective wisdom from below that has been, and remains, the cutting edge of social movements.
