Part 5: The Reaction to Celebrity Imagery

So far the discussion has concentrated on how people react, of how people follow an example.  The looking glass self theory initially needs something to emulate, something to inspire the person to copy what they have seen.  It is the same with the theories of Irving Goffman, if there is no audience then an act is not required and with symbolic interactionism, if there are no symbols then there is no interaction.  Consequently, for the theories to be practiced requires something to provide that initial spark of inspiration, an image or event which can provide the impetus of creativity.

This begs the question, who or what are they following?  To say that people are following cultural trends can be somewhat vague, it lacks specificity mainly because culture has a level of abstraction to it.  Whereas the theories mentioned above needs something more explicit in nature that is easier to interact with, something that is tangible for the individual.  For this, there is one group that draws the most attention and who are probably the most visible group of people, and that is celebrities. 

However, “you could argue that the most interesting things about celebrity culture are the least important – the celebrities.  Less interesting but more important is our preoccupation with famous persons” (Cashmore, 2006) does summarise our fascination with celebrities.  It is possible to be famous or infamous for anything, from being a violent drug cartel leader, such as Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, to being a movie star, such as Leonardo Di Caprio, or even to be famous just for being famous, such as Kim Kardashian.   But what is more interesting is the influence these celebrities have over people, in that how they look and act tends to dominate social media. 

For instance, here we have a selfie taken by Kim Kardashian.  It has the social setting inside of a house, of what might be a bathroom, with Kardashian striking a casual pose in front of a mirror where she seems to be pouting and making a peace sign with her right hand.  In terms of how she looks, Kardashian has emphasised her physical beauty and is connecting it to her femininity.  The tightness of the jumpsuit emphasises her breasts and hips, with her lips being made fulsome and her eyes have been highlighted.  By doing so Kardashian is embodying femininity, transforming into a modern day Venus with social media becoming the wind of a zephyr to bring her forth to the public. 

Unfortunately though, the image is a genuine as the myth of Venus.  Kardashian does not actually look like that, her hips are not that round, her lips are not naturally so full and her breasts appear to have, at the very least, either implants or a very uplifting bra.

This image has been manufactured, such as having clasps in the back of the jumpsuit to make it tight over the hips and then having this manipulated further within photoshop.  In short, Kardashian has produced an image that is promoting a perfect ideal, an ideal beauty centring on her physicality and “of the many dubious gifts brought to us by celebrity culture, perfection is simultaneously the most innocuous and pernicious.” (Cashmore, 2006).

But, as mentioned above by Cashmore, what is “less interesting but more important is our preoccupation with famous persons” (ibid) is the key as to the reasons behind producing such an image.  Through social media people become accessible, it is possible to contact people from the other side of the world instantly and directly, whether it be friends, family or even celebrities.  For instance, it is possible to leave a comment on Instagram directly to Kim Kardashian about the image or about anything that comes to mind because social media makes people accessible.  If Kardashian sees or reads the comment is another matter as it is possible that a personal assistant would interact more, but that doesn’t change, from the perspective of the fan, that they can contact her directly. 

Consequently, because of the high profile of celebrities, their visibility and alleged accessibility, it makes it easier for people to emulate them.  People start to want to look like the celebrities, they begin to have cosmetic procedures such as having lip filler injected to create more fulsome lips or to have their breasts enlarged.  In short, people are being influenced by the celebrities to appear and behave a certain way and brings us full circle back to the looking glass self theory. 

By connecting the looking glass self theory to the imagery of celebrities, it can explain how physical beauty is defined and then copied by people.  For instance, with Kim Kardashian promoting herself as a voluptuous beauty on social media is fortifying a conception of physical beauty, a look that emphasises her physical attributes.  Consequently, people react to the image in a positive way and try to emulate the look,

which could be described as experiencing a positive aesthetic experience coupled with internalising those values, which ultimately leads to the person trying to emulate what is depicted by Kim Kardashian. 

Now this would be trouble free and achievable if the image had not been manufactured and is practically unattainable.  People are trying to look like something that doesn’t naturally exist, an ideal form of beauty promoted as being perfection, trying to achieve an appearance which is manufactured.  By trying to achieve the same look, the person is internalising those same values so that they literally embody a concept of beauty, to encapsulate beauty in everyday life.  This can have positive and negative effects on the person, when the ideal has been achieved and attained, self confidence and self-esteem are generated.  But when perfection is not achieved, and perfection can seem like an unreasonable goal, “the repercussions of this self-objectification, in turn, permeate a host of emotional, motivational, and attentional states.” (Fredrickson and Roberts, 1997)