No.1026
Before I get to my question, let me make some statements.
"Celebrity complex" is a trend that has been gaining momentum at an alarming rate for the past two or so. It derives from the idea that the worth of an individual is directly related to how famous they are, regardless of the reason why they became famous in the first place. This is most apparent in the case of celebrities which are famous because they have personal value, and have personal value because they are famous (e.g. Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, "reality" show stars). The common (if simple-minded) individual, associating their exposure with personal worth, deduces that because they themselves are not famous they are almost worthless (this is not a rational deduction, but a subconscious one). In order to remedy this feeling of worthlessness the individual assumes a histrionic approach to life, seeking any opportunity possible for exposure, and often ridiculing themselves in public in exchange for the attention (which to them, matters not if is positive or negative).
The surveillance state is the collection of practices by government bodies which aim to gather as much information as possible about their citizens, including data that would be considered personal or private, without legal and moral justification. It is best seen in the context of the multiplication of CCTV cameras and the universal monitoring of online traffic.
Now, considering that both of these are growing trends, how do you evaluate their correlation?
Is the voluntary abdication of privacy an engineered trend in order to facilitate the expansion of the state surveillance apparatus? Is the government simply seizing and opportunity that created itself organically? Was the celebrity complex a product of some other, unrelated organized effort (by the media elite, for example)?
If the term "celebrity complex" doesn't exist, I just made it up
I have the impression I made some gross grammatical mistakes up there, let me know what you find
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1032
I think you're definitely on to something.
There's also something interesting about the phenomenon of celebrity leaks and our own relationships to privacy and urge to know others' intimate details. Many may not remember this but paris hilton's personal life was leaked in 2005, including photos, texts, her valtrex prescription and other embarrassing things. that may be the first big celebrity leak of the information age that i can recall. well does pam and tommy's tape count?
Celebrities have instagrams/twitters and people hang on their every posts and have their own accounts where they probably feel like they are emulating their favorite stars in a way. The bar for being a "public figure" has been lowered. but another interesting thing is that youtube and instagram stars don't become famous at random. there are corporate machinations underlying the publicity needed to rise above the masses. but that doesn't stop people from buying into the dream that they too can be famous and glamourous.
i remember when i was young everyone said their ultimate goal in life was to be famous but i couldn't figure out why. where do we get these messages from?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1116
>>1026You may be interested in this:
Daniel Boorstin in 1961 wrote a book titled "The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America". The premise of the book is that American culture was transitioning from hero veneration to celebrity veneration, where heroes are people famous for accomplishment, and celebrities are famous either for pseudo-accomplishment, such as roles they have played as actors, or simply "famous for being famous" (I believe he coined this phrase.) A large part of his book is about how America was increasingly becoming preoccupied with "simulated" events, or as he called them, pseudo-events. Pseudo-events can be obvious, like events in movies that everyone has seen, but also things like stories in celebrity tabloids, which are presentations of the public image of celebrities, their public persona being as fictional as their movie persona (eg their public persona is basically advertising for their movies, and isn't "the real them." Even more advanced, is government propaganda even to the level that presidents pre-record speeches doctored by armies of speechwriters, wear makeup, and do the recording on a set. Completely fabricated image. Boorstin was concerned with the degree to which events in American history were pseudo-events.
If this sounds like a multi-decade precursor to Baudrillard's simulacra and simulation, it is in many ways. I think it's a better book.
I probably can't give more of a summary than that, its been a number of years since I've read it cover to cover. I tried to find an ebook or pdf to upload, couldn't.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1118
>>1116Wow, thanks for sharing. Never heard of this book or man.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1119
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1123
There has been observed a biological instinct to create and value social standing among ape species including chimps, bonobos, and humans.
The status of "celebrity" is derived from popularity gained by a variety of means, be it demonstrations of promiscuity, loyalty, physical strength, intelligence, skill, survivability, etc.
To get a better picture always consider the development of a social function from as far back as possible. In the interest of brevity I will touch on the period at the end of prehistory: Celebrity status among groups of humans and other apes was constrained to the group wherein local interactions were maintained. The feats of these popular individuals were more mundane. They could merely be the nicest or wisest or prettiest individuals in the tribe. Information about the celebrity was constrained by how far information could propagate about them. As language developed so too did verbal history. The limitations of human memory and time proved to be a selector for certain types of information: Very notable people and events were retold as history and legend while the more mundane events were largely lost. Still, information very relevant to personal interest could be maintained (see: verbal accounts of land ownership chains maintained in some African tribes).
The limitations of verbal retelling acted as a selection filter upon the cybernetic feedback loop of retelling and thus amplified stories into legends and popular or important individuals into celebrities. This information was able to spread further than the local group one interacted with within one's lifetime, further amplifying celebrities into heroes and legends into religion. Each region had a diverse collection of myths, legends, heroes, celebrities. As travel took these stories abroad the most notable and appealing ones survived.
After the advent of writing so too came written history. Humans were no longer limited by their to propagation of information that could be retained in a local group of brains. The cybernetic feedback loop of information propagation once again amplified the existing set of information. Once again the medium of transmission filtered the information that would be preserved. The cost of writing was so high that only royalty could afford to have it performed. Political interests shaped the tales and religions of the time, and amplified that which benefited those who recorded the data.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1124
>>1123 (continued)
What relatively new feature of human culture is there that would provide opportunity to once again transform the propagation of human cultural information?
The Industrial Revolution yielded cheaper and cheaper machines and ultimately gave rise to a many-to-many bidirectional global information network: The Internet. It used to be that creating video, audio, publications, or disseminating other information had a high barrier to entry and thus had properties of a few-to-many system of distribution. The limitations of the few still filtered what would be popular via selecting what to disseminate (in accordance with what generated interest). Being that consumption of the information also had a higher cost (lower availability) in the past only the most notable events were reported in Radio, TV, and online just as with verbal and written information distribution.
However, you will note that the apes were not ever only interested in notable events; They are social creatures and are interested in the "mundane" interaction among other like apes. Why? Because these more local interactions have a more direct impact on ones personal social status.
With much greater availability of information production, in that nearly everyone has a global-network attached device, camera, and video/audio recorder the human ape became more able to propagate more localized data relevant to more localized popularity -- including self social standing.
New types of celebrities matching the new types of popularity data were once again created. More mundane events and individuals could become popular. Those with merely local social status could be elevated into stars.
As with any cybernetic feedback loop the larger media distribution systems also gained more diverse information dissemination as the availability of data recording and production capabilities of culture increased, such as thousands of new channels for said info. Hungry for content, some of these data outlets also began releasing ever more mundane information regarding individuals and event with lesser impact and social status, see: Reality TV stars. The human ape's natural instinct for interest in said day-to-day interaction inevitably was magnified.
The information distribution systems will affect everything from education (MOOCs) to politics (online petitions & voting) to pornography ("Cam Whores"). Not to mention every day life: The Social Network was not invented by humans, it has a long history in various forms going back millions (if not billions) of years.
Because your view was initially limited you did not see all the factors at play. Thus, you did not consider a return of the tribal celebrity in the Information Age as a natural event not requiring a purposeful conspiracy to bring about. The general method that a "Surveillance State" may use these new found information networks can similarly be predicted by past events of Kings and Data.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1186
>>1119>>1118>>1116Anons, here's a pdf of Boorstin's book.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1204
I personally feel that the celebrity complex and the surveillance state are connected and rooted into other sociological, technological, and government matters.
It is important to understand that the social trends and cultural norms are controlled and dictated by those who have money (Corporations, etc, etc). Things such as the celebrity complex, or radical aspects feminism, LGBTQ+, etc, etc are pushed as a means of distracting, destroying, and giving devoid purpose to our lives.
We allow ourselves to be exploited by those in power by they're use of psychological warfare and continually driving of a consumerism based society/culture. The celebrity complex is a means of manipulating young men and women (11 - 22) to disregard developing critical thinking abilities, act impulsively and histrionically, and make it a social norm through social media.
These activities fund the military industrial complex, while giving more power to the global police state in three ways.
1. People who cannot think critically, cannot see outside the box. They will not question the state or system. They are easily manipulable, they will follow social trends if prominent people support them. If Lady Gaga promotes hedonism, they'll be far more inclined to engage in hedonistic acts. If Lady Gaga supports the state (Even if the state is committing genocide) they'll be more inclined to agree with her.
2. Impulsive people who act histrionically, cannot think critically, and live hollow lives are far more likely to succumb to debt-slavery, abuse substances, feed the prison industrial complex, feed the healthcare system, become dependent upon social services, spend impulsively, sexually deviant and promiscuity , and be good consumers.
3. The products that these people will buy are products that will further fund the military industrial complex, agricultural biotech, etc, etc. For this reason, they are going to be more interested in buying the latest technology (Cellular phones, computer systems, etc, etc) this same group of people will be firm supporters of cybernetic technology and implants.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1236
Several factors seem to be coalescing and encouraged by various think-tanks and agencies:
-The rise of a witch-hunt culture, in which shame and mobbing are applied to certain individuals here and there in an inconsistent manner. Social standards are fluid and contradictory, so many people speaking publicly have cause to be afraid that they will be targeted.
-The dual arms of the media and the mob (particularly 'SJWs', and note also that Common Core style education is creating the kind of irrationality conducive to ever more mob culture) as primary enforcers in these witch-hunts. The general public participates and tacitly consents, or cowers.
-The new standard of standing down or apologising profusely as being the proper response to mobbing. You can get away with a lot less than you used to be able to. You're expected, if you're to be professional and competent and hirable, to respond in the 'appropriate' manner.
-The accumulation of vast amounts of dirt on everybody by intelligence agencies.
-The normalisation of leaks of personal information into the public sphere, including personal phone calls or comments whose contents are then met with public opprobrium.
Combine these factors, and you have an intrusive and dangerous public sphere which allows for maximal weaponisation of the information agencies gain by spying. The blackmail system formerly used to control political players has begun seeping out into the general culture of the west. Anybody can be targeted, but anybody who tries to do anything or organise anything that matters is at most risk.
Mobs are easy to direct, when you have your hands on the levers and and an endless supply of scandals with which to enrage them.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1237
>>1236Great post, lots of good points here.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1240
>>1236tbh I think that the SJW phenomenon really took off just because of increased interconnectedness due to smartphones with social media apps. It had been around since the 1990s but didn't take hold until very recently when it just completely exploded because it was able to take advantage of social signaling and holiness arms races.
That said, now that it exists, it will be taken advantage of by intelligence agencies and pr handling companies, and it will be extremely effective for those purposes.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1244
I read a book called The American Age of Unreason which brought this up. Well, not specifically people having a celebrity complex, but the rise of celebrity worship (which would be necessary before people want to be celebrities).
Anyway, the author brought up how it was television that allowed for celebrities to exist. Newspapers were articles of decent length accurately describing current events, whereas television had video and as a result it affected how they reported. If the station agreed with what they were reporting they found attractive individuals to interview and report on, while they opted for ugly ones if they disagreed. I'll just quote some of the book.
>There was no feminist or antiwar or black power central headquarters for a reported to call, and there was no reliable way to ascertain who spoke for whom or how many
>King was arguably the last American leader of a social protest movement who claims to leadership, while ultimately certified and publicized by the media, were grounded in years of grassroots work that made him a genuine rather than a media-appointed spokesman for millions of black Americans.
I'll add, this is happening right now. Look at Gamergate, they will use some death threat (without evidence it was from Gamergate) to speak about gamergate as a whole. And then all the current "celebrities" involved (the literally whos) who are nobodies, but appointed by the media as experts.
Don't want to quote a whole bunch, this is about San Francisco's "Be-In" of 1967
>What Americans saw on their television was a spontaneous-appearing gathering-carefully orchestrated, in fact, by the media-savvy expressionist painted Micheal Brown-that conflated antiwar messages, hatred of government bureaucracy, drugs, gurus, and, as always, rock music.
At the event was Timothy Leary. Look him up if you want more, he was a drug proponent of the '70s and the media focused on him
>By focusing on a celebrity as the embodiment of a phenomenon that was reaching every level of American society, the media generated publicity that both demonized and glamorized drugs but eschewed any real analysis of why drug use was on the rise and what the change in behavior meant for the future.
However, this change did not stay in television
>I was proud of working for a newspaper that gave reporters the time and space to tell stories in greater depth than television was able to provide, and at the time I did not view print journalism as a competitor of television
>The job of television, as I saw it, was to provide same-day pictures of what was happening around the world, the job of newspaper -my job- was to explain why these things were happening.
That's enough for one post, I have to leave a few minutes ago anyway. I will come back and post more if people are interested.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1649
>>1026
I agree with everything in your except except for one thing: that there would be a correlation between the unhealthy obsession with celebreties and the surveillance state, as I cannot see the connection between worshipping Kardashian & giving up privacy.
This is only my uneducated opinion.
As a phenomenon, obsessing over famous persons is alot more appealing to the media elite than the state. A individual consumed with this obsession would in my eyes make a very uninteresting target for those envolved in mass surveillance ,as a citizen pacified with the alluring grace of the fabricated stars is not very likely to be a threat or engage in something disruptive.
However, as our culture allows for this CelCom (celebrity complex -I'm on a mobile device typing is a pain)
to be translated into the form of revenue, the extreme glorification of public figures is VERY attractive to commercial media for the plain reason that you can earn dough off it. The state wants to quickly discern you as a non-threat whereas the media is always looking to increase their scope and net as you are a potential consumer.
>>1032
You mentioned something very interesting & that is the concept of "leaks" concerning a celebs life.
I can only speculate but I think we are getting closer and closer to a reality where "leaks" are constructed and executed by the media agencies in order to generate publicity and "buzz" in places where there were little or none before. Whether its in favor of something or against.
Imagine seeing headlines how a celeb's email gets leaked, but instead of scandalous content, we get mails about how they help the homeless or children with learning disabilities.
>>1204
Regarding point 1 & 2:
Well put and I believe you are so right. With the obsession of celebrities running rampant, it creates a perfect platform for pushing political agendas/messages and creating role models with the celebrity as a medium. The part about being a good consumer is especially true in my opinion, as brands sponsor & pay celebs (both on the scale of Kardashian or some blogger with a big enough base to bother with) to just be seen together with their product and brand thus sales go up.
Its a widely accepted business strategy and our times new take on commercials.
I apologize if you perceive this as a post of low quality & if that's the case, please help me prevent it in the future with feedback.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1650
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1706
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.