How Celebrity Lives Affect Our Own: Understanding The Impact On Americans’ Public And Private Lives 1498577830, 9781498577830, 1498577849, 9781498577847

Table of contents :
Cover......Page 1
How Celebrity Lives Affect Our Own......Page 2
How Celebrity Lives Affect Our Own: Understanding the Impact on Americans’ Public and Private Lives......Page 4
Copyright page......Page 5
Contents......Page 6
Introduction......Page 8
Tragic Research: A Primer to Suicidology......Page 14
Celebrity Imitation and Copycat Fans......Page 17
Invoking Werther: Celebrity and Suicide Clusters......Page 18
Invoking Papageno: Celebrity and Suicide Prevention......Page 20
Conclusion: Guidelines for Social Media?......Page 23
References......Page 24
Looking to the Starchitects......Page 28
The Make It Right Foundation......Page 29
Celebrity Displaces Deliberation in Favor of Manufactured Consent......Page 30
Celebrity Alienating, Depoliticizing, and Recontextualizing the Lower Ninth......Page 32
Celebrity Maintaining Structural Hierarchy and Reaffirming Neoliberalism......Page 39
Notes......Page 41
References......Page 42
Star Brand Power and the Broadway Stage......Page 44
Equus (2008)......Page 47
Orphans (2013)......Page 54
Sister Act: The Musical (2011)......Page 57
Conclusion......Page 61
References......Page 62
“Save Your Life! Do What I Post!”......Page 64
Attention Paid to the Topic at Hand......Page 66
Retention of Knowledge......Page 68
Reproduction of the Knowledge or Behavior in a New Social Context......Page 71
Motivation to Reproduce the Behavior......Page 73
Conclusion......Page 76
References......Page 77
I’m Not a Doctor, But I Play One on TV......Page 80
Jenny McCarthy and the Anti-Vaccination Movement......Page 81
Media Influence on Support for the Anti-Vaccine Movement......Page 87
Offit vs. McCarthy Celebrity Death Match......Page 89
Consequences of the Vaccine-Autism Controversy......Page 91
References......Page 92
The Hunger Games for Orphans?......Page 96
Celebrity Humanitarianism, Global Motherhood, and Angelina Jolie......Page 98
“It’s the Kind of Thing I’d Expect in a Borat-Style Parody”: Media Backlash to Jolie’s Casting Process......Page 101
From “Ethereal Wood Nymph” to “Removed Ice Queen”: Authenticity, Motherhood, and Celebrity......Page 103
“No Faves Are Safe”: Celebrity Call-Out Culture and Future Directions......Page 108
Notes......Page 110
References......Page 111
Colin Kaepernick, Civil Disobedience, and Self-Sacrificial Leadership......Page 114
Civil Disobedience......Page 115
A Willingness to Accept the Consequences of Disobedience......Page 117
Self-Sacrificial Leadership......Page 118
References......Page 121
Celebrity Suicide......Page 126
Suicides by Professional Athletes......Page 127
Suicides by Musicians......Page 129
Robin WILLIAMS’S Suicide......Page 134
References......Page 136
The Naked Truth......Page 142
Women’s Bodies as Social Constructions......Page 143
Postfeminist Media Culture......Page 144
Analytical Approach......Page 146
“I Do It Because I’m Proud of It”: The Body as a Source of Identity......Page 147
“Her Baby-Maker Has always Been Her Money-Maker”: Sexualization, Sensationalism, and Consumerism......Page 149
“These Women Were Bold and so Strong”: Subverting Postfeminist Sensibilities......Page 151
Conclusion......Page 152
References......Page 154
How to Be a Postfeminist......Page 160
Amber Rose’s Rise to Fame......Page 162
Celebrity Culture, Hip-Hop, and Postfeminism......Page 163
Analyzing How to Be a Bad Bitch for Hip-Hop and Postfeminist Messages......Page 166
Understanding Rose’s Book as Postfeminist Literature......Page 167
The Empowering, Contradictory Themes within How to Be a Bad Bitch......Page 169
Rose’s Use of Hip-Hop Feminism to Empower and Teach Women......Page 170
Conclusion......Page 172
References......Page 174
Sex, Likes, and Instagram......Page 178
Celebrities’ Self-Presentation on Social Media......Page 179
Celebrities, Sexualization, and Social Media......Page 180
Strategies for Self-Presentation......Page 182
Analysis of Celebrities’ Instagram Self-Presentation Strategies......Page 183
Celebrity Characteristic and Self-Presentation......Page 186
Conclusion......Page 187
Future Directions......Page 189
References......Page 190
Methodological Appendix......Page 193
Celebrities’ Legal Rights in California to Fight Paparazzi Intrusion......Page 194
Media Rights in the United States......Page 196
Protecting Victims from Harassment......Page 197
California Privacy Law......Page 200
California Driving Law......Page 202
Conclusion......Page 204
References......Page 205
Index......Page 208
About the Contributors......Page 212

Citation preview

How Celebrity Lives Affect Our Own

How Celebrity Lives Affect Our Own Understanding the Impact on Americans’ Public and Private Lives

Edited by Carol M. Madere

LEXINGTON BOOKS

Lanham • Boulder • New York • London

Published by Lexington Books An imprint of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 www.rowman.com 6 Tinworth Street, London SE11 5AL, United Kingdom Copyright © 2019 by The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Available ISBN: 978-1-4985-7783-0 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN: 978-1-4985-7784-7 (electronic) ∞ ™ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992. Printed in the United States of America

Contents

Introductionvii Carol M. Madere 1 Life, Death, and the Stars: Public Reaction to Celebrity Suicides Tim Michaels and Matthew Corr

1

2 Looking to the Starchitects: The Rhetorical Mode of Celebrity in Disaster Recovery Dylan Rollo

15

3 Star Brand Power and the Broadway Stage: Images and Attributes Influencing Perceptions Kevin Calcamp

31

4 “Save Your Life! Do What I Post!”: Social Learning through Celebrity Health Advocacy on Social Media Deborah Bowen and Janelle Applequist

51

5 I’m Not a Doctor, But I Play One on TV: Bad Celebrity Health Advice and Why We Follow It Carol M. Madere

67

6 The Hunger Games for Orphans? Angelina Jolie and the Limits of Celebrity Humanitarianism Meg Tully and Michelle Colpean

83

7 Colin Kaepernick, Civil Disobedience, and Self-Sacrificial Leadership Joseph Mirando v

101

vi

Contents

8 Celebrity Suicide: How Responsible Reporting Prevents Further Tragedy Bradley Wolfe and Meghann Droeger

113

9 The Naked Truth: Postfeminism in News Discourse in Response to the Kardashians’ Nude Magazine Images Joy Jenkins and J. David Wolfgang

129

10 How to Be a Postfeminist: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Celebrity Culture, Sexual Messages, and Feminism in Amber Rose’s How to Be a Bad Bitch147 Melvin L. Williams and Tia C. M. Tyree 11 Sex, Likes, and Instagram: Celebrity Self-Presentation on Instagram Riva Tukachinsky, Holeka Inaba, Kristina Kraus, Dominique Schuster, and Michelle Williams 12 Celebrities’ Legal Rights in California to Fight Paparazzi Intrusion Joshua Azriel

165

181

Index195 About the Contributors

199

Introduction Carol M. Madere

In an interview recently at San Francisco’s annual Clusterfest, Jon Stewart made an interesting comment about the limits of celebrity influence. He said, “If anyone’s going to topple the current administration, it’s not going to be a comedian.” He added, “We mistake cultural power for power. And I, being a part of that machine and mechanism, do feel oddly culpable” (Page 2018). This book contains essays about the influence and power that celebrities have over their fans, but, as Stewart points out, as much as celebrities need media to amplify their voices and provide the recognition and familiarity that make the average person trust them, they are powerless if their messages fall on deaf ears. You see, you can’t really talk about celebrity influence without talking about why and how fans allow themselves to be influenced, or how much power the media have to facilitate influence. Is the average media consumer just sitting around waiting to turn on their TVs or check their social media accounts to see what their favorite celebrity wants them to do? You’d almost think that the way pundits of all political persuasions like to blame celebrity culture and the media which support it for all manner of social ills. In 2012, British Education Minister Nick Gibb and Iain Duncan Smith, secretary of state for work and pensions, claimed the UK riots were the outcome of a “get rich quick” X-Factor generation and culture minister Barbara Follett worried that “kids nowadays just want to be famous . . . if you ask little girls, they either want to be footballers’ wives or win The X Factor. Our society is in danger of being Barbie-dolled” (Allen, Harvey, and Mendick 2012). Apparently, there’s even an acronym for this materialistic aim—WAG (Wives And Girlfriends). However, research shows that young people do not uncritically buy into celebrity culture with its unbridled consumerism and success without hard work (Allen, Harvey, and Mendick 2012). In fact, far from being unwitting vii

viii

Introduction

stooges of the media, media consumers are believed to be active in choosing specific media (and celebrities) to meet needs of their own, according to the Uses and Gratifications Theory of mass communication. Such reasons include the following: • for diversion, escape from everyday issues • for personal interaction (substituting family for characters on TV) • for surveillance (to get useful news and weather information) • to learn behavior and cultural values Yet, undeniably, celebrities do have influence, even though audience members understand media manipulation and choose to be influenced for their own reasons. How does this happen? There has been much research on source credibility, particularly in the field of advertising, because celebrities are considered to be very persuasive endorsers of products. Hovland et al. (1953) identified expertise and trustworthiness as the two most important aspects of credibility, and media consumers perceive celebrities as having plenty of both. Interestingly, it’s not important that celebrities are actual experts in whatever field they’re representing, only that they are believed to have expertise due to the trappings of material success they display. Trustworthiness is the most important factor in source credibility and likeability the most important aspect of trust. Celebrities, one could argue, are liked not only for being the glamorous exemplars of our deepest desires, but also because, depending on why they’re famous, they have played likeable characters on TV or in the movies, or they have been part of athletic competitions that have been built up as epic contests of collective pride for fans. Thus, celebrities, whether they are actors or athletes, have played the roles of heroes, so they remain heroes to us in real life. Attractiveness and similarity also contribute to source credibility. Beyond just physical attractiveness, this characteristic also entails intellectual skills, personality, way of living, and athletic ability (Hoekman 2008). Similarity describes how much a media consumer considers a celebrity similar to them. People are more easily influenced either by a celebrity they consider similar to them or one with whom they identify. I, for example, identified with Princess Diana, because we were about the same age, had the same hairstyle (I had it first!) and got married within a week of each other. We even had a redheaded child about the same time. Princess Diana was, of course, universally loved and mourned, so there were many, many people throughout the world who identified with her—maybe with her early awkwardness as a young royal or her fairytale romance with a prince (a dream young girls sometimes have), or with the enthusiasm with which she embraced motherhood, or even with the sad dissolution of her marriage.

Introduction

ix

Social media help celebrities promote this identification, as they use Twitter or Instagram to give their fans a glimpse of their personal lives. Kristen Bell, for example, has been labeled “a fan favorite” on Twitter and “the undisputed queen of social media” (Tschinkel 2016) for sharing behind-thescenes moments with fans as well as posts about causes she cares about. She also discussed her own battle with anxiety and depression in an Instagram post (Tschinkel 2018). She is perceived as being both authentic and credible to fans, even though she and her husband, actor Dax Shepard, do not share photos of their children or allow them to be taken by paparazzi. The likeability and perceived authenticity of Kristen Bell promote what are known as “parasocial relationships”—one-sided, nonreciprocal relationships, often with a celebrity or other media persona. Parasocial relationships are strong emotional bonds with people you’ve never met, which grow as you seek out more information about the person, reading magazine articles, watching interviews on YouTube, and discovering their intimate likes and dislikes on Instagram or Twitter. Similar to real-world friendships, those in parasocial relationships keep up with the latest developments of their chosen star’s life, while waiting for the next TV show, album, or film to arrive. This common psychological scenario is born of that identification I’ve been discussing. Children as young as 2 years old have been found to have parasocial relationships with cartoon characters on TV. In these parasocial relationships, a screen is not a barrier. Even if that person will never know us or meet us, keeping up with their lives makes us feel closer to them. “We as a species are dependent on social interaction to survive, and there is a part of our brain that can’t differentiate the face in front of me in real life with the face on TV,” says Gayle Stever, who has been studying fandoms and adult parasocial relationships for the past 28 years at SUNY Empire State College in Saratoga Springs, New York. “It’s normal to be attracted to people in media, just as it’s normal to be attracted to people in real life” (Young 2016). So, yes, celebrities have a lot of influence on our lives. They are perceived as having expertise, because of the success that made them celebrities in the first place. They are perceived as being trustworthy and likeable, partly because we admire and desire the life they have and partly because of the roles they’ve played. In fact, we like them so much that we imagine relationships with them, and their use of social media facilitates that. This book attempts to examine different aspects of celebrity influence and whether that influence is beneficial or harmful. In “Life, Death, and the Stars,” Tim Michaels and Matthew Corr discuss the power celebrities have to either inspire fans to “copy” their suicide or to steer them away from suicide, through the ideas of commodification and social capital, which suggest that people may follow the advice of a celebrity or emulate them because they believe it will increase their social status. In

x

Introduction

“Celebrity Suicide: How Responsible Reporting Prevents Further Tragedy,” Bradley Wolfe and Meghann Droeger also explore celebrity suicides and popular culture responses to them on social media, online news, and other sources in an effort to promote understanding of how such content goes viral and affects the American public. These two chapters seem especially relevant in light of the recent suicides of Anthony Bourdain and Kate Spade. Dylan Rollo’s chapter, “Looking to the Starchitects,” describes the power of celebrities to garner resources to respond to natural disasters far beyond any average individual’s. In fact, as Rollo notes, “the spectator nation has come to expect response and action from celebrity figures in the entertainment industry.” Joshua Azriel’s chapter on celebrities and the First Amendment explores the effect of celebrity advocacy on privacy laws and drone usage in California and the implications of that advocacy on First Amendment protections for the press. Meg Tully and Michelle Colpean’s chapter, “The Hunger Games for Orphans? Angelina Jolie and the Limits of Celebrity Philanthropy,” examines a controversy that arose when Jolie was casting her film First They Killed My Father, which left her open to criticism for the “exploitative,” “white savior” politics of her activism. The controversy, largely driven by socially conscious Twitter users, raised troubling questions about the relationship between celebrity, philanthropy, and public culture, which Tully and Colpean explore. Joseph Mirando explores a different type of celebrity advocacy in his examination of Colin Kaepernick’s national anthem protest. In “Star Brand Power and the Broadway Stage: Images, Attributes, and Manipulating Perceptions,” Kevin Calcamp discusses how stars are branded and marketed and the potential effects this marketing can have on the Broadway theatergoer. In this fascinating chapter, Calcamp demonstrates how familiar attributes associated with a star (sexuality/desire, comedy, nostalgia, scandal) can garner interest in watching a Hollywood star perform a certain role on the Broadway stage. Riva Tukachinsky et al. explore the way social media enhance a celebrity’s influence and the self-presentation characteristics that celebrities employ to strengthen the parasocial relationships fans form with them. Two fascinating chapters in the book describe postfeminism. Melvin L. Williams and Tia C. M. Tyree investigate whether tenets of Hip-Hop and postfeminism were presented in Amber Rose’s self-help book, How to Be a Bad Bitch, while examining how celebrity culture enabled a select group of women to be seen as revolutionaries who capitalize on being women of color, sexual, and relevant in popular culture. In “The Naked Truth: Postfeminism in Media Discourse in Response to the Kardashians’ Nude Magazine Images,” Joy Jenkins and J. David Wolfgang discuss the sexualization, sensationalism, and consumerism of Kim and Kourtney Kardashian.

Introduction

xi

Two chapters in the book discuss celebrity health advice. Deborah Bowen and Janelle Applequist discuss how celebrities have raised awareness of lupus, prostate cancer, and mental illness by discussing their personal experiences. My chapter discusses the influence of celebrity spokespeople, particularly Jenny McCarthy, on the anti-vaccination movement. Jon Stewart may have been overly modest when he claimed to possess only cultural power, a power insufficient to engender real political change. Hill and Holbert (2017) credit him with getting the Zadroga Act passed, which created a trust fund to provide medical treatment and financial compensation for 9/11 first responders and survivors exposed to the toxins at Ground Zero. “Even the White House lauded Stewart’s coverage of the bill, with then Press Secretary Robert Gibbs crediting Stewart for breathing new life into the stalled bill” (Hill and Holbert 2017). Stewart used the trust and credibility he had built as host of The Daily Show to pressure Congress to pass the bill in 2010 and then later to reauthorize it in 2015. Celebrity influence is power. This book attempts to answer whether it’s being used responsibly. REFERENCES Allen, Kim, Harvey, Laura and Mendick, Heather. “Is Celebrity Culture Really That Bad for Our Students?” The Guardian. November 16, 2012. https​://ww​w.the​guard​ ian.c​om/te​acher​-netw​ork/2​012/n​ov/16​/cele​brity​-cult​ure-s​tuden​ts-pr​oblem​s-pol​icy. Hill, Megan R. and Holbert, R. Lance. “Jon Stewart and the 9/11 First Responders Health Bill: A Case Study of Political Satirist Turned Advocate.” In Viewpoints on Media Effects: Pseudo-Reality and Its Influence on Media Consumers, edited by Carol M. Madere, 1. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2017. Hoekman, Marijn. “Celebrity Endorsement: How Does Celebrity Endorsement Influence the Attitude Towards the Brand and How Does Negative Publicity Affect This Relationship?” Bachelor’s thesis, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands, 2008. Page, Clarence. “Sometimes Brutal Reflections in Today’s Comedians.” The Advocate. (Baton Rouge, Louisiana), August 11, 2018. Tschinkel, Arielle. “Kristen Bell Shared What She Wishes She Could Say to Her Younger Self About Mental Health In a Raw New Instagram Video.” Hello Giggles. May 1, 2018. https​://he​llogi​ggles​.com/​news/​krist​en-be​ll-ad​vice-​teena​ge-se​ lf-in​stagr​am/. ———. “Does Kristen Bell Have Snapchat? She’s Taking Over Social Media, One App At A Time.” Bustle. May 24, 2016. https​://ww​w.bus​tle.c​om/ar​ticle​s/162​910-​ does-k​riste​n-bel​l-hav​e-sna​pchat​-shes​-taki​ng-ov​er-so​cial-​media​-one-​app-a​t-a-t​ime. Young, Lauren. “How Our Make-Believe Relationships with Celebrities Shape Our Social Lives.” Atlas Obscura. September 23, 2016. https​://ww​w.atl​asobs​cura.​ com/a​rticl​es/ho​w-our​-make​-beli​eve-r​elati​onshi​ps-wi​th-ce​lebri​ties-​shape​-our-​ socia​l-liv​es.

Chapter 1

Life, Death, and the Stars Public Reaction to Celebrity Suicides Tim Michaels and Matthew Corr

It’s often said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Celebrities, then, should feel awfully flattered, as they have a profound effect on the behaviors of their fans who are all too happy to imitate them. From the phrases they say to the things they wear, the adoring masses of fans are ready and willing to immediately mimic every trend that their most beloved icon has started. Although these are so often harmless and even mundane actions like haircuts and beverage choices, could there be a dark side to that sort of emulation? Could a celebrity inspire their fans to do something as drastic and tragic as taking their own life? In this chapter, we will peer into the shadows that sometimes even star power can’t illuminate as we consider the intersection of celebrity influence and suicide. First, this chapter will consider theories that explain suicide as a general phenomenon as well as how it affects celebrities in particular. In the following section, we consider some explanations as to why fans have a tendency to engage in imitation of their favorite celebrities. The next section will bring these ideas together by focusing on the dangers and risks of high-profile suicides and propensity for imitation of them. Finally, we will end on a more positive note with a section discussing ways that the media and celebrities can use the power of their public platform to bring awareness to suicide and even help prevent them. TRAGIC RESEARCH: A PRIMER TO SUICIDOLOGY Suicide has long been a challenge for even the smartest among us to understand. Intentionally ending one’s own life seems to be counter to everything we know about our most basic instincts to survive. The novelist Albert Camus 1

2

Tim Michaels and Matthew Corr

declared that suicide is the “one truly serious philosophical problem” (Camus 2013) Of course, the problem isn’t merely philosophical. According to the Centers for Disease Control, every 12 minutes suicide claims another victim in the United States (Suicide Facts at a Glance 2015). To combat this ongoing issue, psychologists and sociologists hope to understand suicide in hopes that they may even prevent them. These researchers specialize in suicidology, the study of the psychological and social factors that help explain how and why people commit suicide. Suicidologists have put together a lot of theories in an effort to explain the ongoing occurrence of suicide. One of the most prominent of these models is called the Interpersonal Theory of Suicidal Behavior, originally constructed by psychologist Thomas Joiner. According to Joiner’s theory, suicidal behavior typically results when three different conditions are met: (1) acquired ability, (2) thwarted belongingness, and (3) perceived burdensomeness. Acquired ability refers to the need to fight a powerful natural instinct, self-preservation. Humans, like any other animal, are programmed to avoid death or injury, so bringing physical harm to oneself must be a learned behavior. But not everyone commits suicide simply because they’ve become comfortable with that kind of risk-taking; instead, they require a certain psychological state in which they desire death. Part of this mentality comes in the form of thwarted belongingness. People are by nature social creatures, and we thrive as a part of a community, valuing friendships and families. When someone experiences what they feel to be a rejection from those positive relationships, their sense of connection suffers. In conjunction with this feeling is the final component, perceived burdensomeness. This sensation arises when people feel so ineffective in life that they have become a problem for those around them, and (falsely) believe that everyone else would be better off if they commit suicide. Taken together, these three requisites provide the ability and mindset that drive individuals to suicide (Joiner 2007). Might this theory be a sufficient explanation of celebrity suicides? Nearly anyone can be touched by the suicide crisis, but when the public hears of high-profile celebrities committing suicide, it tends to be met with quite a bit of shock. While we can often rationalize the stressors that everyday people are exposed to, we also assume the life of a star is too glamorous to bring about such a tragedy. Think back to the last time you were stunned to learn that one of your favorite famous actors or musicians had committed suicide; perhaps it was Robin Williams or Chester Bennington. Why were you so surprised? Perhaps you thought “he had such a great career!” or “they were so popular!” We are quick to assume that our idealized notion of the creative and famous should somehow inoculate them from the specter of such a deep depression, but obviously this isn’t always the case. In fact, some studies have shown that rather than being preventative measures, creative professions and fame can actually be risk factors that increase

Life, Death, and the Stars

3

the chances of an individual becoming suicidal. A 2017 study of suicide cases in England which considered occupation data determined that there was an increased risk of suicide among those working in the creative arts and other high-profile professions (Windsor-Shellard 2017). When working in the fields of culture, media, and sport, men were 20 percent more likely than their peers to commit suicide, and women were a staggering 69 percent more likely. In particular, musicians, actors, and entertainers were especially vulnerable (Windsor-Shellard 2017). Furthermore, the type of fame that these careers often creates as the individual becomes a celebrity can be a stimulus for suicidal behavior, as can be seen from the high percentages of suicides among eminent people like composers and painters (Lester 1998). Fame can create an immense pressure to maintain an unsustainable public image, leading to heightened self-awareness. Psychologically, heightened self-awareness can be damaging to the individual over time, leading to dangerous forms of coping from alcoholism to suicide This outcome is even more pronounced when a celebrity begins to lose their fame (Smalley, Bryant, and McIntosh 2011). It is easy to see how the difficulties of handling fame can quickly descend into the thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness of Joiner’s Interpersonal Theory of Suicidal Behavior. Consider, for example, the 2017 suicide of Jonghyun, a Korean pop star. Jonghyun was a singer for the massively popular SHINee boy band with millions of fans who were shocked to learn of his death. In his suicide note, which his family released to the public, Jonghyun blamed the pressures of being a celebrity on his decision to take his own life. Jonghyun lamented, “The life of fame was not for me. They say it’s hard to bump up against the world and become famous” (Wang 2017). Jonghyun’s experience reaffirms the vulnerability of those working in the creative arts as well as the deleterious effects of fame. It also conforms to the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide. His comments make it clear that, despite his popularity, he could not find a sense of belonging. As for perceived burdensomeness, Jonghyun’s suicide note begged the reader for forgiveness: “Even if you can’t smile, please don’t blame me as you send me off” (Wang 2017). While it remains unclear from his note alone if his prior behaviors built up to the component of acquired ability, the public availability of Jonghyun’s suicide note offers a rare glimpse into the psyche of a celebrity pushed to end their own life. Jonghyun’s tragic tale is but one of many at the intersection of celebrity and suicide. Through the Interpersonal Theory of Suicidal Behavior, one can see how people are driven to the brink, and in assessing the role of profession and fame, this process appears to be exacerbated. It can afford us a basic understanding of why a celebrity might commit suicide, but how does the public react? Will fans and followers really imitate an iconic suicide? To answer these questions, we first have to understand the forces behind imitation and the persuasive appeal of celebrity behavior.

4

Tim Michaels and Matthew Corr

CELEBRITY IMITATION AND COPYCAT FANS The same persuasive power that prompts Americans to discard their lives can also be used to save them. The influence of celebrities can be used to raise awareness of the mental health factors related to suicide, break stigmas, and dissuade people from acting on suicidal thoughts. However, before we can fully understand the positive impacts of celebrity influence on suicide and mental illness, we must first consider some of the invisible forces working on the mass media consumer. A 2017 systematic review of literature identified both psychological and social forces (Hoffman et al. 2017). Psychological factors include concepts such as classical conditioning, selfconception, cognitive dissonance, and attachment. Classical conditioning is the foundation for behaviorism and involves a simple stimulus-response relationship (i.e., Pavlov) where someone associates a certain stimulus with an associated behavior. Classical conditioning could help explain why One Direction fans may have positive feelings toward Pepsi, even when they are not actively endorsing the product. Self-conception is the idea that we follow those who we see as similar. This is also true with the celebrities that we follow. This perception of similarity leads to an increased likelihood of following the advice or emulating the behavior of a celebrity. Cognitive dissonance is the idea that we often behave in a way that inconsistent with our beliefs such as smoking when we know that it causes cancer. To deal with the mental discomfort we either stop doing the behavior or justify the behavior (Festinger 1957). Celebrities whom we idolize that also promote unhealthy behaviors create psychological discomfort that often leads to justifying unhealthy behavior for ourselves. Finally, attachment is the idea that certain vulnerable individuals may psychologically attach themselves to celebrities. Attachment theory is usually applied to infants and their mothers, however it is defined as any “lasting psychological connectedness between human beings” (Bowlby 1969). The attachment does not have to be reciprocal, which opens the door for celebrity attachment and the associated vulnerability. Social factors that contribute to celebrity influence include social networks, social constructivism, and commodification and social capital. Large social networks exponentially expand the reach of celebrity advice. Gwyneth Paltrow, for instance, who has helped to break the stigma of postpartum depression, has also used her personal blog to advise women to balance female hormone levels by using a spa steam treatment on their genitals. This advice is counter to the advice from doctors that claim such a treatment disturbs the reproductive system and could cause urinary tract infections (Ferger 2015). In their landmark book, The Social Construction of Reality (1966), Berger and Luckmann coin the term social constructivism, which refers to the way humans acquire knowledge. The thoughts and opinions of others merge with

Life, Death, and the Stars

5

our own and, together, we construct what we perceive as reality. Thus, reality is not objective, is not created in isolation, but is socially constructed. The reach of social media allows celebrities to co-construct reality with millions of people. The idea of commodification and social capital suggest that people may follow the advice of a celebrity or emulate them because they believe it will increase their social status. This could be as simple as dressing and eating like your favorite celebrities, or it may involve adapting their opinions and attitudes. When YouTube celebrity vlogger Logan Paul posted video of a suicide victim in a forest at the base of Mt Fuji, it wasn’t the fact that he had posted the video, but it was the lack of empathy and callousness of his comments that drew outrage. The danger is that laughing and joking could be adopted by his 15 million followers as a fashionable way to respond to suicide. However, the backlash he received on social media made it clear that this approach is not socially acceptable. Paul released another video apologizing and claimed to be trying to raise awareness for suicide prevention. This example highlights a catch-22 when it comes to suicide awareness. A 2001 WHO publication highlights the importance of raising public awareness about the prevalence and scope of mental health disorders and suicidal thinking. Suicide prevention advocates believe this would help to combat the stigma related to mental health and suicide (WHO Health Report 2001). Conversely, some believe that public awareness campaigns would normalize suicide and frame it as acceptable (Klimes-Dougan, Klingbell, and Meller 2013). The next two sections of this chapter will consider the evidence for both sides of this issue, addressing both the negative and positive influences that celebrity has on suicide. INVOKING WERTHER: CELEBRITY AND SUICIDE CLUSTERS Werther, a young man in Europe, found himself heartbroken as he wrote letters to his close friend. The object of his affection, Charlotte, had married his friend. After long consideration of his inescapable love triangle, he convinced himself that the only noble resolution was to take his own life. With that, Werther drew a pistol and said farewell to the world. This tragic tale, thankfully, is fictional. It’s a spoiler for Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s 1774 novel The Sorrows of Young Werther. What’s even more tragic, however, is the nonfictional response to this popular book’s plot twist. Sadly, it seems that Werther’s decision influenced an epidemic of copycat suicides, as in the months that followed imitators reportedly used similar pistols and were often even found dressed in similar clothes to those of Werther (Devitt 2017). While Werther himself is fictional rather than a celebrity, the events present one of the first documented instances of a suicide contagion.

6

Tim Michaels and Matthew Corr

Imitation and Suicide Two hundred years after the Werther suicides, links between imitation and suicide would finally begin to be understood by researchers. There are often sudden outbreaks of suicides from imitating behavior, such as in a school in which one suicide inspires a series of copycats in the student body, which researchers refer to as suicide clusters (Gould, Wallenstein, and Davidson 1989). One of the most common triggers for a suicide cluster comes from media coverage. To better understand the role of the media and suicide imitation, sociologist David P. Phillips studied several decades’ worth of newspapers in the United States and Great Britain from throughout the 20th century to identify highly publicized suicides. This research demonstrated that when there are frequent suicides publicized in the media, there is a resulting spike in the number of suicides in the following weeks. Phillips attributed these results to the media’s power of suggestion, similar to the powers discussed earlier in this chapter. Noting the similarity to the incidents following Goethe’s novel, Phillips dubbed this phenomenon the Werther Effect (Phillips 1974). When we combine the outcome of the Werther Effect and its evidence that highly publicized suicides invoke imitation along with what we’ve already learned about the ways that the public imitate celebrities, the results are concerning. If someone famous commits suicide, it is certain to receive significant media coverage, priming it for the results of the Werther Effect. Research has found that the impact is considerable, with one study finding that those who felt impacted by the news of a celebrity suicide were nearly six times more likely to be experiencing suicidal thoughts themselves (Fu and Yip 2007). Another study found that the Werther Effect is much more prevalent when the highly publicized suicide is that of a celebrity, prompting a spike in the suicide rate in the United States for the following month, as opposed to a noncelebrity (Wasserman 1984). Similar results have been found in Asian cultures in the weeks following the suicides of popular icons as well (Yip et al. 2006). Alarming as it may be, the Werther Effect demonstrates the ability of celebrity behaviors to induce imitation in the public, even copycat suicides. The Werther Effect does, however, have some limitations when it comes to celebrity-inspired suicide clusters. The suicides of different kinds of celebrities, for example, can have different corresponding effects on potential copycats. A study in Korea observed suicide rates following the suicides of a musician and a politician. Both appeared to have a corresponding Werther Effect with the copycat suicides often imitating the method, but the singer produced a more pronounced response (Kim et al. 2013). A similar study attempted to assess these differences by looking for surges in suicide rates in France following highly publicized celebrity suicides. Four musicians were represented, accompanied by a politician and a philosopher. The researchers

Life, Death, and the Stars

7

then examined the suicide rates in France for month-long intervals following each of these six notable suicides, with mixed results. The singers seemed to produce a strong Werther Effect similar to the Korean study, but this time the politician also created a similarly strong impact. Their conclusion was that the differing manners in which the media presented these suicides may be partly responsible for the likelihood of imitation. This last insight with regards to the media’s role in the Werther Effect following celebrity suicides is important. Thus far, the research presented here has perhaps made copycat suicides seem to be a tragic, unavoidable fate, but this is certainly not the case. With the dark side of the influence of celebrity suicides understood, the next section of this chapter can seek to correct these ills of imitation. The final portion of this chapter will explore how both media and celebrities can mitigate the Werther Effect and help prevent suicides altogether.

INVOKING PAPAGENO: CELEBRITY AND SUICIDE PREVENTION Let’s briefly return to literature to find a more optimistic response to the Werther Effect. In Mozart’s 18th-century opera, The Magic Flute, a character named Papageno was contemplating suicide. During the opera, Papageno was shown alternative ways of dealing with his problems. Unlike Werther, Papageno realizes that suicide would be a mistake as the influence of the other characters ultimately save his life. The Papageno Effect, then, suggests that the media can be a powerful force in effectively offering nonsuicidal alternatives to suicide (Sisask and Vamik 2017). Understanding this phenomenon is the key to turning celebrities into a force for good in the face of suicide. Media Coverage of Celebrities: How the Media Reports Suicides Matters Societal attitudes may shape the reporting of suicides; however, the way that suicides are portrayed in the media may also influence societal attitudes toward suicide (Hawton and Williams 2001). Suicidal behaviors can be learned from various places in one’s social environment. The media is one of those places. Media effects literature has acknowledged that suicide reporting, while capable of inspiring copycat suicides, can also have preventative effects (Mann et al. 2005). In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a guide for media professionals to use when creating stories about suicides. Some of the recommendations are to 1) use the story as an educational opportunity giving people information about where they can get help,

8

Tim Michaels and Matthew Corr

2) avoid sensationalizing and normalizing suicide, 3) avoid prominent placement and repetition, 4) avoid explicitly describing the suicide method and location, 5) be thoughtful of the wording of headlines, 6) limit photographs, 7) show consideration for the family and friends of the deceased, and 8) take extra care when reporting a celebrity suicide. The celebrity effect is the focus of this chapter and deserves to be highlighted here (World Health Organization 2000). A news agency is compelled to report any event that is relevant to the public, and reporting a celebrity death most definitely falls within the scope of their responsibility. However, because celebrities are generally admired and venerated by the community, their actions, positive or negative, are more likely to influence health behaviors, especially for those that are considering suicide themselves (Ransohoff and Ransohoff 2001). Adolescents, while they have significantly lower suicide rates than middleaged adults, are especially vulnerable to celebrity influence. The idolization of celebrities, such as pop singers, involves both admiration and modeling and is the strongest in adolescents between the ages of ten and fourteen (Raviv, Bar-Tal, Raviv, and Ben-Horin 1996). The influence of a celebrity is also especially strong when one’s age and sex are similar to the celebrity (Schmidtke and Hafner 1988). The WHO specifically warns against romanticizing celebrity suicides as the created media image may inculcate the act with a certain honor or pride that others may interpret as honorable. Since the publication of the WHO’s media guidelines, and subsequent changes in both the quality and frequency of suicide reporting, there have been noticeable reductions in suicidal behavior (Niederkrotenthaler and Sonneck 2007). Celebrities Become the Media While responsible media reporting may have significantly reduced the Werther Effect throughout the 2000s, the new social media environment changes everything. The WHO’s resource guide was published in 2000, the Suicide Prevention Resource Center published their own media guidelines in 2001 (Suicide Prevention Resource Center 2001), and the Samaritans (UK) published their Media Guidelines for Reporting Suicide and Self-Harm in 2008 (Samaritans 2001). Studies assessing the impact of these guidelines are optimistic; however, the media landscape has changed tremendously in the past decade. A 2017 survey from Pew Research shows that two-thirds of Americans use social media to get their news (Shearer and Gottfried 2017). Due to its gigantic user base (over 2 billion monthly active users), Facebook is by far the most common social media platform used for news (Statista 2018). The grandfather of modern social media is arguably Friendster, founded in 2002, which was primarily used for social gaming, but included many features of modern social media such as member-member chatting, contact lists,

Life, Death, and the Stars

9

content sharing, event promotion, and even dating (Friendster at a Glance 2017). The Friendster platform inspired employees of e-Universe to create MySpace (August 2003), which was the world’s largest social networking site from 2005–2008. Primarily music-themed, MySpace offers a platform for people to discover, discuss, and share music. MySpace was responsible for creating a new species of celebrity. Artists such as The Arctic Monkeys, Lily Allen, Panic! At the Disco, and Sean Kingston rose to popularity on MySpace, representing the first of a new breed of social media–made celebrity. Social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube have been especially prominent in the creation and amplification of celebrity. They offer a mass media platform to anyone with a following. By definition, celebrities are well-known individuals; thus, they have larger audience sizes. Katy Perry, for instance, was the first person to accumulate 100 million Twitter followers. The connection between popularity and audience size is what allows the celebrity to have an amplified impact on the public. It was extremely impactful, then, when Perry released an interview with Dr. Siri Singh that aired on Viceland where she discusses her struggles with mental health and suicide. Where traditional news outlets are part of a larger media institution, celebrities on social media act as individuals. This shift makes the reporting of mental health and suicide much more difficult to monitor. Two-thirds of Americans get their news online, with Facebook being the most popular source, followed by YouTube (which recently added a “breaking news” bar), Twitter (74 percent of users get their news from Twitter), Instagram, and Snapchat (where major news organizations are beginning to have a presence) (Shearer and Gottfried 2017). Although the content of individuals cannot be monitored, social media has the added benefit of immediate feedback and conversation to help offset irresponsible reporting of suicide and mental health. Followers versus Engagement: The Opportunity for Celebrity Many celebrities understand their potential influence and attempt to direct that influence toward promoting healthy behaviors. However, despite the research that was highlighted in the 2017 systematic review, it is still unclear to what extent celebrity influence can shape public opinion and change behavior. In most cases, positive social or psychological effects will occur only when celebrity advice is centrally processed. According to the Elaboration Likelihood Model, a message is centrally processed when an audience or interlocutor is completely engaged with a message. Furthermore, central processing connects the message to other relevant information in the mind leading to lasting attitude change and a greater likelihood of predicting future behavior (Petty and Cacioppo 1984).

10

Tim Michaels and Matthew Corr

For celebrities who want to promote mental health or prevent suicide, then, it is important not only to have a large number of followers on social media, but also to engage them. Engagement will promote central processing of nonsuicidal messages. Celebrities, and other social media posters, can increase engagement with followers by understanding that people will interact in different ways online. Some are just readers, some prefer to repost, some engage in conversation, and others will be inspired to create their own similar messages. Original posters can offer choices for people to join the conversation. Additionally, if someone cannot find your post, they cannot engage it. It is helpful to use easy-to-find/search hashtags such as #suicide or #EndStigma. A relatively new way to increase engagement is to join Twitter chats or livetweets about mental health topics. A few popular chats listed in the Entertainment Industries Council (EIC) include “#MHChat, #MHSM (mental health social media), #SPSM (suicide prevention social media) (Social Media Guidelines for Mental Health Promotion and Suicide Prevention 2017). Social media is different than traditional media in that it offers an opportunity for conversation. In the octagon of media effects, this gives Papageno a slight advantage over Werther. Celebrities can provoke conversations and help break the stigma of mental illness. This was evident at this year’s VMAs when Jared Leto honored Soundgarden’s Chris Cornell and Linkin Park’s Chester Bennington, who had both committed suicide a few months earlier. The tribute was followed with a performance of Logic’s hit 1-800-273-8255 ft. Alessia Cara and Khalid (the song title is the number for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline). Although the VMAs were viewed on MTV, there was also opportunity to engage in real time through Live Blog and Twitter commentary. The commentary was bursting with links to Logic’s video on YouTube, which has over 19 million views and 31,000 comments (Logic 2017). (i.e., “logic saved me from killing myself, thank you so much, from the bottom of my heart” (xBrokenDreams 2017). There were also links to suicide prevention resources, personal testimony about mental health (i.e., “Hello. Literally TRYING TO SAVE MY LIFE. Please make a small donation and spread the word. #MentalHealthAwareness” (Cooper 2017), and inspirational messages directed toward whomever needed it. This example illustrates the viral nature of social media and the power of influence. CONCLUSION: GUIDELINES FOR SOCIAL MEDIA? From our discussion we now know that traditional media reporting of suicide can lead to both the Werther Effect and the Papageno Effect. We have also seen some promising results following the publication of media guidelines for

Life, Death, and the Stars

11

suicide reporting. This begs the question, however, are there guidelines for social media? In fact, there are. However, as previously mentioned, celebrities act as individuals and not part of a larger institution (i.e., news agency) or profession (i.e., journalist). Thus, it is much harder to standardize the way suicides are reported. Despite this daunting task, the Entertainment Industries Council, with support from the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention, the National Association of Broadcasters, and Facebook, has created tips for communicating about mental health and suicide. The goals of this project are to “reduce stigma, increase help-seeking behavior and help prevent suicide” (Cooper 2017). A free PDF can be found here: http:​//www​.eico​nline​.org/​teamu​p/wp-​ conte​nt/fi​les/t​eamup​-ment​al-he​alth-​socia​l-med​ia-gu​ideli​nes.p​df. The EIC’s guidelines are similar to the WHO’s media guidelines, but are geared more toward a social media environment. It is reasonable to assume that the application of the guidelines would have a similar impact to the media guidelines in the 2000s; however, assessing the impact may not be feasible. It is a simple task to monitor suicide activity (i.e., reported deaths and suicide hotline activity) following an article in the New York Times or on a major news network. However, suicide reports are consumed individually, at different times, and through different media. Identifying potential Werther or Papageno Effects would, more than likely, involve tracing back each individuals’ social media history after a suicide attempt or asking social media related questions at the end of a suicide hotline conversation. If, however, the EIC educates celebrities with large online audiences on how to incorporate best practices when reporting suicide or mental health issues, it may be a good first step in avoiding Werther-like phenomena in this new media environment. As a final note, it’s important to remember that suicides are very real, horribly tragic, yet thankfully preventable. Remember the statistic from the CDC earlier in this chapter about the frequency of suicides in the United States? In the time it took you to read from that statistic to this sentence, at least one more American has taken their own life. If anyone you know is experiencing suicidal thoughts, please talk to them and encourage them to seek help. You can even sing them Logic’s lyrics, 1-800-273-8255, to make sure they’re just a quick phone call away from the help they need.

REFERENCES Au, J.S., P.S. Yip, C.L. Chan, and Y.W. Law. “Newspaper Reporting of Suicide Cases in Hong Kong.” Crisis. 25 (2005): 161–68. Bowlby, J. Attachment: Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Loss. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1969.

12

Tim Michaels and Matthew Corr

Cacioppo, John, and Richard E. Petty. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.” Advances in Consumer Research. 11 (1984): 673–75. Camus, Albert. The Modern Classic Myths of Sisyphus. London: Reprint, New York: Penguin Classics, (1942) 2013. Citations refer to the Penguin edition. Cooper, Lance. (@804StreetMedia). “Hello. Literally TRYING TO SAVE MY LIFE. Please Make a Small Donation and Spread the Word. #MentalHealthAwareness.” August 28, 2017. Tweet. Devitt, Patrick. “13 Reasons Why and Suicide Contagion.” Scientific American. 2017: Accessed December 09, 2017. https​://ww​w.sci​entif​i came​rican​.com/​artic​le/13​-reas​ ons-w​hy-an​d-sui​cide-​conta​gion1​/. Fekete, Sandor, and Armin Schmidtke, A. “The Impact of Mass Media Reports on Suicide and Attitude Toward Self Destruction: Previous Studies and Some New Data from Hungary and Germany.” In The Impact of Suicide. Edited by B. Mishara, 142–155. New York, NY: Springer, 1995. Firger, Jessica. “Why Do We Believe Celebrity Pseudoscience?” CBS News. February 5, 2015. Accessed on January 6, 2017 from https​://ww​w.cbs​news.​com/n​ews/ w​hy-do​-we-b​eliev​e-cel​ebrit​y-pse​udosc​ience​/. “Friendster At a Glance.” Retrieved on January 3, 2017 from https​://ww​w.imm​agic.​ com/e​Libra​ry/AR​CHIVE​S/GEN​ERAL/​WIKIP​EDI/W​11060​1S.pd​f. Fu, K.W., and P.S. Yip. “Long-Term Impact of Celebrity Suicide on Suicidal Ideation: Results from a Population-Based Study.” Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 61, no. 6 (2007): 540–546. ———. “Changes in Reporting of Suicide News After the Promotion of the WHO Media Recommendations.” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior. 38 (2008): 631–36. Gould, Madelyn S., Sylvan Wallenstein, and Lucy Davidson. “Suicide Clusters: A Critical Review.” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior. 19, no. 1 (1989): 17–29. Hawton, Keith, and Williams, Kathryn. “The Connection Between Media and Suicidal Behavior Warrants Serious Attention.” Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention. 22, no. 4 (2001): 137–40. Hoffman, Steven et al. “Celebrities’ Impact on Health-Related Knowledge, Attitudes, Behaviors, and Status Outcomes: Protocol for a Systematic Review, MetaAnalysis, and Meta-Regression Analysis.” Systematic Reviews 6, no. 13 (2017). Accessed on December 29, 2017. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-016-0395-1. Joiner, Thomas E. Why People Die By Suicide. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007. Kim, Jae-Hyun, Eun-Cheol Park, Jung-Mo Nam, Sohee Park, Jaelim Cho, Sun-Jung Kim, Jae-Woo Choi, and Eun Cho. “The Werther Effect of Two Celebrity Suicides: An Entertainer and a Politician.” PLoS ONE. 8, no. 12 (2013). Accessed on December 28, 2017. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084876. Klimes-Dougan, Bonnie., Klingbell, David, and Meller, Sarah J. “The Impact of Universal Suicide-Prevention Programs on the Help-Seeking Attitudes and Behaviors of Youths.” Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention. 34, no. 2 (2013): 82–97. Konrad, Michel, Frey, Conrad, Wyss, Kathrin, and Valach, Ladislav. “An Exercise in Improving Suicide Reporting in Print Media.” Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention. 21, no. 2 (2000): 71–79.

Life, Death, and the Stars

13

Lester, David. “Suicide in Eminent Persons.” Perceptual and Motor Skills. 87 (1998): 90. Logic. 1-800-273-8255 (Live At The MTV VMAs / 2017) ft. Alessia Cara, Khalid [Video]. Retrieved on January 6, 2017 from https​://ww​w.you​tube.​com/w​atch?​ v=_Ju​6Q8Az​cmg. Mann, J.J. et al. “Suicide Prevention Strategies: A Systematic Review.” JAMA 294 (2005): 2064–74, 2005. Media Guidelines for Reporting Suicide and Self-Harm. Samaritans. (2001). Accessed July 13, 2018. https​://ww​w.sam​arita​ns.or​g/med​ia-ce​ntre/​media​-guid​ eline​s-rep​ortin​g-sui​cide.​ Niederkrotenthaler, Thomas, and Gernot Sonneck. “Assessing the Impact of Media Guidelines for Reporting on Suicides in Austria: Interrupted Time Series Analysis.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 41 (2007): 419–28. “Number of Monthly Active Facebook Users Worldwide as of 3rd Quarter 2017.” Statista. Retrieved on January 4, 2018 from https​://ww​w.sta​tista​.com/​stati​stics​ /2648​10/nu​mber-​of-mo​nthly​-acti​ve-fa​ceboo​k-use​rs-wo​rldwi​de/. Phillips, David P. “The Influence of Suggestion on Suicide: Substantive and Theoretical Implications of the Werther Effect.” American Sociological Review. 39 (1974): 340. Pirkis, Jane et al. “Changes in Media Reporting of Suicide in Australia Between 2000/01 and 2006/07.” Crisis. 30 (2009): 25–33. Ransohoff, David F., and Richard M. Ransohoff. “Sensationalism in the Media: When Scientists and Journalists May Be Complicit Collaborators.” Effective Clinical Practice ECP. 4, no. 4 (2001): 185–88. Raviv, Amiram, Daniel Bar-Tal, Alona Raviv, and Asaf Ben-Horin. “Adolescent Idolization of Pop Singers: Causes, Expressions, and Reliance.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 25, no. 5 (1996): 631–50. “Reporting on Suicide: Recommendations for the Media.” Suicide Prevention Resource Center. Accessed July 14 2018. https​://ww​w.spr​c.org​/reso​urces​-prog​ rams/​recom​menda​tions​-repo​rting​-suic​ide. Rimal, Rajiv N., and Kevin Real. “Understanding the Influence of Perceived Norms on Behaviors.” Communication Theory. 13, no. 2 (2003): 184–203. Schmidtke, Armin and Heinz Häfner. “The Werther Effect after Television Films: New Evidence for an Old Hypothesis.” Psychological Medicine. 18, no. 3 (1988): 665–76. Shearer, Elisa, and Jeffrey Gottfried. “News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2017.” Pew Research Center: Journalism and Media. September 7, 2017. Accessed on January 6, 2017 from http:​//www​.jour​nalis​m.org​/2017​/09/0​7/new​ s-use​-acro​ss-so​cial-​media​-plat​forms​-2017​/. Sisask, Merike, and Airi Värnik. (2017). “Media Roles in Suicide Prevention: A Systematic Review.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 9, no. 1 (2017): 123–38. Smalley, K. Bryant, and William D. Mcintosh. “The Loss of Fame: Psychological Implications.” The Journal of Popular Culture. 44 (2011): 385–97. “Social Media Guidelines for Mental Health Promotion and Suicide Prevention.” Retrieved on January 6, 2017 from http:​//www​.eico​nline​.org/​teamu​p/wp-​conte​nt/fi​ les/t​eamup​-ment​al-he​alth-​socia​l-med​ia-gu​ideli​nes.p​df.

14

Tim Michaels and Matthew Corr

“Suicide Facts at a Glance 2015.” National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Accessed December 11, 2017. https​://ww​w.cdc​.gov/​viole​ncepr​event​ion/p​df/su​ icide​-data​sheet​-a.pd​f. Tatum, Phillip T., Silvia S. Canetto, and Michael D. Slater. “Suicide Coverage in U.S. Newspapers Following the Publication of the Media Guidelines.” Suicide and LifeThreatening Behavior. 40, no. 5 (2010): 524–34. Velting, Drew M, and Madelyn S. Gould. “Suicide Contagion.” In Review of Suicidology, edited by Ronald W. Maris, Morton M. Silverman, & Silvia S. Canetto, 96–137. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 1997. Viale, Pamela H. “Celebrities and Medicine: A Potent Combination.” Journal of Advanced Practice Oncology. 5 no. 2 (2014): 82–84. Wang, Amy B. “K-pop Star’s Suicide Note Reveals Pressures of Fame, Depression that ‘Consumed’ Him.” The Washington Post. December 19, 2017. Accessed January 02, 2018. https​://ww​w.was​hingt​onpos​t.com​/news​/worl​dview​s/wp/​2017/​ 12/19​/k-po​p-sta​rs-su​icide​-note​-reve​als-d​epres​sion-​that-​consu​med-h​im-pr​essur​ es-of​-fame​/. Wasserman, Danuta. “Strategy in Suicide Prevention.” In Suicide: An Unnecessary Death, edited by Danuta Wasserman, 211–216. London: CRC Press, 2001. Wasserman, Ira M. “Imitation and Suicide: A Reexamination of the Werther Effect.” American Sociological Review. 49, no. 3 (1984): 427–36. Windsor-Shellard, Ben. “Suicide by Occupation, England: 2011 to 2015.” Office for National Statistics. March 17, 2017. Accessed November 09, 2017. https​://ww​ w.ons​.gov.​uk/pe​oplep​opula​tiona​ndcom​munit​y/bir​thsde​athsa​ndmar​riage​s/dea​ths/a​ rticl​es/su​icide​byocc​upati​on/en​gland​2011t​o2015​. World Health Organization. Preventing Suicide: A Resource for Media Professionals. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2000, 1–18. World Health Organization. Mental Health: New Understanding, New Hope. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2001, 1–178. xBrokenDreams. “Logic Saved Me from Killing Myself, Thank You So Much, from the Bottom of My Heart.” Youtube Post. December 23, 2017. Yip, Paul et al. “The Effects of a Celebrity Suicide on Suicide Rates in Hong Kong.” Journal of Affective Disorders. 93, nos. 1–3 (2006): 245–52.

Chapter 2

Looking to the Starchitects The Rhetorical Mode of Celebrity in Disaster Recovery Dylan Rollo

The historical events of Hurricane Katrina and the flood that followed have come to symbolize systemic failures on the part of local, state, and federal governments to do right by the residents of New Orleans. The nationally mediated nature of Katrina primed expectation for response from certain invoked actors, including infamously late and insufficient responses from President Bush and FEMA. In addition, however, the spectator nation has come to expect response and action from celebrity figures in the entertainment industry, from participation in NBC’s “Concert for Hurricane Relief” to more individual and intensive interventions. One such example of a celebrity’s intensive contribution to the effort of disaster recovery following Hurricane Katrina is founded by one of Hollywood’s most recognizable and admired actors: Brad Pitt. In 2006, the year following Hurricane Katrina, Brad Pitt created the Make It Right Foundation with the help of architect William McDonough. As expressed by the organization’s name, the Make It Right Foundation (MIR) intervened in the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans through a specialized housing project as an attempt at correcting for some of the ways in which governmental offices failed the city’s peoples, offering a unique case study in the neoliberal dynamics of celebrity philanthropy as an answer to inadequate governmental support for populations adversely affected by natural and human-made disasters. To do so, MIR claimed hundreds of destroyed plots and offered to build those who could return to the neighborhood sustainable, environmentally conscious, storm-resistant, and stylishly modern homes. MIR is a celebrity-founded organization featuring world-famous architectural firms and “starchitects,” or those individual architects who enjoy critical 15

16

Dylan Rollo

acclaim or focused interest and have attained a level of celebrity sufficient to elevate their name into or near general awareness of laypersons. As example, Frank Gehry and his firm are involved in MIR and he is perhaps the most recognizable living architect in the Western world today. As I discuss in this chapter, these characteristics are crucially affective of MIR’s rhetorical consequences. With the case of MIR, I identify and describe three results of the foundation’s rhetorical mode of celebrity: the displacement of the importance and necessity of community deliberation for recovery in favor of manufactured consent, promoting individual, wealthy actors as able to act willfully; an alienating process of depoliticization and recontextualization of the disaster and recovery project away from already displaced locals and their needs; and the maintenance of structural hierarchies of differences primarily expressed through class and race, as performed by the aforementioned commodification of the celebrity figurehead and their subsequent commodification of the culture in need of recovery. THE MAKE IT RIGHT FOUNDATION MIR has built over 109 homes and is expected to reach its goal of 150 within the next few years. About 109 families, neighbors, teachers, and community members have been able to return to the Lower Ninth Ward thanks to the Make It Right Foundation’s efforts. These results cannot be ignored; however, critiques of the organization range widely. Critics, professional and amateur, distant and local, each have lambasted its aesthetic choices, its choice of location, its construction practices, and more. Tracing these critiques and seeing MIR’s response points to issues that might have been sidestepped had the deliberative process been more democratically open to critiques from the beginning. Accusing Make It Right of being “an exercise of vanity over practicality,” architect Mark English cites failure in attempts at cost-efficiency, authenticity to New Orleans culture, and at fostering the revival of the Lower Ninth Ward’s community (Firestone 2011). English asks: “Are we seriously expected to believe that a handful of LEED houses will somehow create a template for the future, even while the architecture itself destroys the porch culture that formerly characterized the close-knit social life of the neighborhood?” (Firestone 2011). These conflicts of interest and intentions, where models for the future are imposed upon a culture struggling to recover, continue to characterize the skepticism surrounding the foundation. There has also been considerable pushback on MIR’s decision of what neighborhood to rebuild. Journalist Lydia DePillis authored a thorough dissent of MIR. A representative paragraph reads:

Looking to the Starchitects

17

Pitt’s foundation could have chosen to put its money into a neighborhood where the compounding effects would’ve been remarkable, or at least one without the added risk and cost of building below sea level. He could also have built several hundred perfectly serviceable, weatherproof, and efficient new homes, instead of the 90 he’s completed—like Barnes and Noble founder Leonard Riggio, who’ll build 200 new homes in a concentrated area in nearby Gentilly for about the same amount. He could even have filled in more quickly recovering neighborhoods with higher-quality traditional designs. . . . Instead, Pitt got an interesting architectural experiment, lots of gushy magazine coverage, and a place for [Make It Right home residents] to remember what life was like before it all floated away. (DePillis 2013)

DePillis prioritizes tangible effects for the city of New Orleans, noting more effective areas where MIR could have built, housing and improving more people’s lives. In addition, DePillis notes the risk-factor in building in the flood-prone Lower Ninth Ward. Questions of whether the Lower Ninth Ward is a safe place to live come up again. Tulane University Geographer Richard Campanella also takes the position that the Lower Ninth Ward is too dangerous to serve as the location of recovery. He asks, “If you build sustainable structures but place them in a geographically unsustainable site, have you really ‘made it right’?” (Firestone 2011).1 CELEBRITY DISPLACES DELIBERATION IN FAVOR OF MANUFACTURED CONSENT The Make It Right Foundation was prompted and justified by media renderings of the disaster of Katrina to begin work in the Lower Ninth Ward. As they wished to be a part of the community’s recovery, however, MIR worked to gain the consent of those in the area (despite claiming a collaborative model of community work). MIR has claimed local inspiration and support and argues that it has provided the public numerous opportunities to weigh in on its decisions. They claim “a collaborative, transparent approach” with the formation of the Lower 9th Ward Stakeholders Coalition, which consists of “a group of community leaders, neighborhood association leaders, and local stakeholders” (Green n.d.). They credit the help of a New Orleans local, (white real estate professional) Nina Killeen, for advising on the character and worth of New Orleans (Feireiss 2009, 82).2 Despite claims of engaging democratically with the Lower Ninth Ward community to inform its development, however, the dependence of these narratives and reports on Brad Pitt’s celebrity, and thus his extraordinary presence, sounds less like democratic engagement and more like the artificial generation of consent, where decision-making powers are forfeited to those assumed to be more capable than the public.

18

Dylan Rollo

French social scientist Didier Fassin, in his chapter “Heart of Humaneness: The Moral Economy of Humanitarian Intervention,” describes the damaging but often necessary relationship between military forces and the humanitarian organizations they help to protect. Beyond relationships of protection, of organization and logistical aids, Fassin asserts that “the two share many more realities and values than they believe or admit to themselves” (Fassin and Pandolfi 2013, 284). This relationship of shared values and co-presence is damaging for the perceptions of the humanitarian aid organizations by the recipients of their aid. Fassin argues that “the organization of their work is often similar in their management of human groups” and that they share a sense of themselves “above the common law” (Fassin and Pandolfi 2013, 284). These characteristics, though here referring to larger nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in countries abroad reeling from devastating wars or natural disasters, are characteristics that can be applied to MIR’s presence in the Lower Ninth Ward. The foundation’s orientation toward justice in making it right; its aesthetic and developmental control of a neighborhood of the Lower Ninth Ward; its attempts at exceeding the status quo for disaster relief, of providing the world with a global model of green, sustainable architecture in poorer communities; and its ties with the mythos of celebrity power in Brad Pitt and MIR’s world-renowned architects all combine to establish MIR as, in many ways, “above the common law” (Fassin and Pandolfi 2013, 284) in a way that can be directly related to Pitt and Gehry’s celebrity status, as assumed to be on some level above reproach. Directly criticizing and countering state and federal failures—“Our first response in a crisis should be to help those who are the most vulnerable and at this we failed—failed miserably” (Feireiss 2009, 7)—MIR’s higher moral plane and ethical standards elevate it as better than governmental aid organizations, eliding economic and political factors to appeal on a human level of dignity and basic human rights. These elisions, however, also served to erase the grounds from which Lower Ninth Ward residents could speak on their own behalf. Brad Pitt was reported as having gone on a “listening tour” of the Lower Ninth Ward community prior to MIR’s constructions. By MIR’s accounts, this listening tour is the primary means by which MIR included the voices of black locals. In Architecture in Times of Need, Douglas Brinkley describes Pitt’s tours: Shell-shocked mothers held children’s hands and prayed for their blocks of ruin. These residents had heard so many lies that nobody was beyond intense scrutiny. Brad Pitt cut through all that negativity with his heart. He made a direct appeal. Like Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington he told the locals that he had a vision. That he cared. That he could help them Make It Right!! His pure empathy beamed forth and everybody smiled. This was the Missouri kid having a love affair with New Orleans, not a Hollywood sorcerer peddling

Looking to the Starchitects

19

tricks. After being ignored and defiled, Pitt was offering the Lower Ninth residents a sincere helping hand in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Everybody intuited he was for real. (Feireiss 2009, 16)

What Brad Pitt heard on his listening tours was despair and distrust. Not reported are any signs of the community organizing itself or working to get what they need. Brinkley provides an odd (and dated) comparison with Jimmy Stewart acting in a 1939 movie where his character is “a naive man [who] is appointed to fill a vacancy in the United States Senate” (IMDb n.d.). Signaling a collapse of Jimmy Stewart and his character, Brinkley seems to have fallen prey to exactly what he claimed Brad Pitt was not: “a Hollywood sorcerer peddling tricks.” There is a clear issue of opacity and misdirection when Brinkley’s starstruck account of celebrity Brad Pitt’s community engagement is the primary resource for assessing MIR’s deliberative involvement with locals. If a celebrity cannot be differentiated from their public persona, it is a challenge to more equitably weigh their speech with that of the local public. Given the account of Brad Pitt as the Lower Ninth Ward’s otherworldly messiah, it is clear that MIR’s primary mode of engaging the community is a displacement of community deliberation through the use of manufactured consent. As architectural critic Rebecca Firestone reports on Make It Right’s participation in a New Orleans architectural conference before it began building, all the houses are designed by prominent national architects, selected by invitation. This particular initiative was heavily promoted within the conference, including a carefully monitored bus tour where no contact with residents was allowed. In fact, no residents were present at the conference, either. (Firestone 2011)

Following this, and from analysis of the architectural designs themselves, Firestone characterized MIR as “serving the vanity of its celebrity backers more than the displaced people it’s intended to help.” Pitt’s starpower cut through the supposed slog of the community’s necessary deliberative process of town hall meetings and petitioning local governmental changes to policy, distracting on-the-ground deliberations with a vision of a better future lacking contextual ties to their current circumstances. CELEBRITY ALIENATING, DEPOLITICIZING, AND RECONTEXTUALIZING THE LOWER NINTH Despite attempts at a more just Post-Katrina Lower Ninth Ward, MIR’s mode of celebrity results in an alienating process of depoliticization and recontextualization of the disaster and recovery project. Though not necessarily, the

20

Dylan Rollo

primary danger in centering massively mediated celebrity personalities like Brad Pitt and Frank Gehry in a project such as this is the risk of distracting from the needs of the people and reorienting the recovery project until it is seemingly more responsible to the desires of distant investors, institutions, and publics. Results of this reorientation include a sense of abandonment on the part of the locals in need and a warping of the foundation’s goals to the point of being less effective, failing to cater to the needs and desires of MIR’s supposed primary audience. The house that Frank Gehry’s architecture firm (Gehry Partners, LLP) designed for MIR, for instance, has yet to be selected by incoming residents (figure 2.1). A model was constructed and has been purchased by Linda Santi, who works for the Neighborhood Housing Services of New Orleans, a nonprofit organization. The iteration that has been built—with design compromises such as flush windows to lower the building costs and an enlargement of the “owner’s side”—has been praised for adding “even more star power” to the neighborhood just as it has met criticisms online. It is a two-family home, split in a zig-zag down the middle to create front- and rear-facing entryways and dual roof patios with flat roofs. “The undisputed prima donna” of MIR, TimesPicayune writer Doug MacCash predicted in 2012 that it would “increase the attractiveness of the ecologically sustainable, affordable housing development that is already a New Orleans tourist magnet” (MacCash 2012). Those who care enough to submit comments to Times-Picayune remain unimpressed by the home and unimpressed by Gehry’s renown, questioning the design for its aesthetics as well as its impracticality and price. On MacCash’s article on Gehry, commenter “sazerac1” called Gehry an “abomination of an architect” who is “in love with making his structures as odd as possible.” “joegunn” expressed gratitude that the “monstrosity isn’t within sight” of his

Figure 2.1  Split home, designed by Frank Gehry for the Make It Right Foundation. Source: Pinterest user Paula Tilley Travis, or “annzjack,” on album “Architecture Photgraphic Journal” [sic]. n.d., Digital Image. Available from: Pinterest, https://www.pinterest.com/ pin/171910910754444000/.

Looking to the Starchitects

21

home. “noodlebrain” said, “Ugly is ugly even if it is Gehry. Will it withstand a Cat[egory] 5 [hurricane]? How quickly can a family get it back up and running after an 8’ flood? Are we building a tourist destination or true sustainable housing?” Many commented (often utilizing cutting sarcasm) on the seeming danger of the flat roofs over the porches: “The hurricane projectile solar panel roof is a nice finishing touch on that beach house!” and “I hope someone is around with a videocam when the next hurricane hits.” In response, though, “dougmaccash” and “Make It Right” (real or fake is difficult to discern) commented that the roof modules “are engineered to withstand winds up to 130mph.” Finally, others commented on the price tag: “$200,000 for a duplex in the Lower Ninth Ward? LMAO” and “$200,000 for ONE property in the 1700 block of Tennessee Street? The old adage ‘There’s a sucker born every minute’ has been proved once and for all. Once the novelty and chicness of living here wears off, he’ll be lucky to get $55k for it [sic]” (MacCash 2012). Local dissent with MIR’s presence seems to signal a larger tension with recipients of aid in the Lower Ninth Ward and a general suspicion of philanthropy—especially with celebrity philanthropy, as seems relevant with the MIR neighborhood being colloquially called the “Brad Pitt houses.” This suspicion of celebrity philanthropy is particularly warranted through the lens of what rhetorician Dana L. Cloud calls “therapeutic discourse” (Cloud 1997), wherein celebrities appear in times of crisis on shows like Oprah Winfrey to “perform an important function as shock absorbers who cushion the shock, bridge the divide between personal and political frames for tragedy, and compete and collaborate with the host during the interpretive process” (Cloud 1997, 43). Cloud describes this process as “depoliticizing but not apolitical, as [Oprah Winfrey’s] program and the talk show genre thus participate in broader ideological patterns warranting new forms of colonialism and empire” (Cloud 1997, 43). During times of crisis, celebrities in the media soften the blow of bad news and work to humanize the tragedy, attempting to spur action (donations, volunteering, and so on) in the audience while simultaneously rendering the political underpinnings of the crisis less visible. During NBC’s “Concert for Hurricane Relief,” an array of various celebrities appeared to speak to the audience, to promote donation and calm responses to tragedy. According to the script, the program would never serve to point attention toward the political inequalities driving New Orleans and particularly the black bodies residing there to be particularly vulnerable to Hurricane Katrina’s destructive force. Kanye West, of course, abandoned his script and made a highly political series of statements. The impact of such statements were only heightened by the fact that they broke the conventional role of celebrity during crisis on television. Despite what commenter “Robert 1969” diagnoses as “anti-intellectual reverse-snobbery,” comments on Gehry’s MIR house at least signal some public

22

Dylan Rollo

sentiment that the design is incongruous with the community’s expectation, that the house’s claim to sustainability and survivability is not visually demonstrated in the design, and that the house’s price tag is unrealistic, alienating members of the Lower Ninth Ward community and threatening gentrification. The starchitect seems to be engaging in a “therapeutic discourse” geared at making the rest of the United States feel better about the neighborhood rather than recovering what was there. As “Ridethewildsurf” commented: “All these houses have been built in the 9th ward for the Germans/European artsy folk to come in five years and buy for two to th[r]ee times the value thus, killing a neighborhood.” Fears of the community being pushed out, in what “Ridethewildsurf” calls a “domino effect,” seem to underlie each expression of surprise at the price, and fear of the Lower Ninth Ward’s community being destroyed by Gehry’s aesthetic underlie each complaint of its “monstrousness,” resonating with complaints toward Gehry’s personal residence in California (MacCash 2012). Frank Gehry’s own home (figure 2.2), for comparison, is a quaint Dutch colonial renovated on the inside and supplemented around the outside with a deconstructivist shell in 1978 (though it has since undergone expansion and renovations, keeping the same deconstructivist spirit). Gehry is quoted as saying, “I loved the idea of leaving the house intact . . . I came up with the idea of building the new house around it. We were told there were ghosts in the house. . . . I decided they were the ghosts of Cubism” (ArchDaily 2010). Haunted by Cubist deconstructivism, Gehry’s home appears as an unfinished compound, constructed defensively against the then-newly generated disruption of private property with national attraction. Gehry’s renown and the house’s unconventional appearance disrupted the anonymity of the neighborhood home and rendered it a hybrid: private residence in use, national attraction in reception. However, this tense hybridity threatens the privacy and normalcy of surrounding homes as well. Described by Architect Magazine writer Alex Hoyt as “the world’s most famous—and most misunderstood—bungalow,” Gehry’s house has attracted the acclaim of gushing critics and the ire of neighbors: “One neighbor threatened to sue. Another vowed to have Gehry jailed by the city’s building department” (Hoyt 2012). Seeming to threaten the very integrity of the surrounding neighborhood, Gehry’s high-minded statement had no place in a community of private homes. “Neighbors hated it, but that did not change the fact that the house was a statement of art entwined with architecture” (ArchDaily 2010). Gehry’s statement of art entwined with architecture is here taken as a model for understanding the (possible) effects of MIR’s homes. As simultaneous private residence and public attraction, the Gehry house and the MIR homes are distracted from their primary purposes. In the case of Gehry’s MIR house, this detracts from its efficacy and generates a plethora of dissenting discourse. As Peter Whoriskey points out, “none of [the] three most celebrated

Looking to the Starchitects

23

Figure 2.2  Gehry Residence in Santa Monica, CA. Source: Flickr user ikkoskinen, Gehry’s House, I. 2007, Digital Image. Available from: Flickr, https://www.flickr.com/ photos/ikkoskinen/350055881/.

architects—Mayne, Ban and Gehry—can claim to have built any more than one prototype home out of the scores that have been built.” Citing issues of “Alicein-Wonderland elitism” and being “too clever to be built on a budget—that is, in reality” (Whoriskey 2015), MIR’s star architects seem to be almost more of a liability than an asset if we are to understand MIR’s goals to be specifically righting the injustices of the Lower Ninth Ward. The question of audience and clientele arises in ways troubled by MIR’s use of architects famous for buildings that have become worldwide attractions, Frank Gehry being the most notable and celebrated example. Tensions between building public attractions and private homes can be seen in many of MIR’s renderings, and these tensions follow those around the other homes built by these world-renowned architects. The deconstruction of conventional domestic values of the area in favor of more high-minded designs and theoretical ways of living oriented toward outside critics rather than toward inhabitants is a quality that follows from recruiting architects whose renown holds them responsible to the critics, not laypersons. To build a home according to an underprivileged and underrepresented family’s needs within the context of an integral community, a famous architect would need to betray and/or neglect his or her public image and ignore the criticisms of architect peers. Graft, one of the founding architectural firms involved in MIR, writes, “Although the idea for Make It Right was sparked by a site-specific concern [Hurricane Katrina], the potency of the idea resides in its vast potential as a

24

Dylan Rollo

problem-solving model which can be utilized globally” (Feireiss 2009, 86). Make It Right’s project aspires to serve as a global model for recovery and progress. This rhetoric of global aspiration is where MIR slips into tone-deaf and even elitist discourse in relation to the people of the Lower Ninth Ward. To establish a global model, MIR must develop a generic aesthetic that is imposed upon specific sites while necessarily being imperfectly suited to each. This aspiration to solve the world’s crises through aesthetics and design corresponds with architectural theorist Mark Wigley’s statement: “It’s the job of an architect to be optimistic, to invent new forms of optimism, to contaminate us all with the possibility that we could live differently” (Feireiss 2009, 11). The mythos surrounding the visionary architect contributes to paternalistic and elitist rhetorics which further distance MIR from the populations it is meant to be aiding. Coming to Make It Right’s defense, Metropolis Magazine editor Martin Pedersen writes: Make It Right was aspirational from the start. It was never about building the most houses, the most expediently; never about rebuilding an entire neighborhood. FEMA and the Road Home were supposed to handle that. It was about building for returning residents 150 LEED Platinum houses by some of the world’s best architects. It was also about creating a model for sustainable development. (Pedersen 2013)

Pedersen’s account of MIR’s aspirational orientation also establishes the foundation’s perception of exactly where institutional organizations failed. When he writes that FEMA and the Road Home were supposed to handle the basic rebuilding of New Orleans, he suggests that those institutional failures lacked MIR’s aspirational qualities. Unfortunately for everyone involved, FEMA and the Road Home were unable to repair New Orleans to the point of allowing MIR to evade expectations at addressing the specific needs of the Lower Ninth Ward. As Pedersen would have it, MIR is not about the Lower Ninth Ward at all; apparently it was simply taking advantage of a unique opportunity to create a model for sustainable development capable of being copied and pasted anywhere in the world. The recovery project at this point has been radically depoliticized—having little to do with the injustices specific to residents of the Lower Ninth Ward—and recontextualized to instead address the perceived and constructed need for capitalistic development worldwide. In Brad Pitt’s foreword to Architecture in Times of Need, he identifies and acknowledges the contextual and structural issues that contributed to the precarity of the Lower Ninth Ward’s infrastructure, population, and economy, rendering it largely incapable of recovery from a disaster like Hurricane

Looking to the Starchitects

25

Katrina. Pitt uses those issues as mold for his rhetorical response, listing a series of mandates that Make It Right would be held to: constructing sustainable, green, just, innovative, and community-driven homes using “great architectural minds” while creating jobs, preserving New Orleans culture, and taking “what was wrong and [making] it right” (Feireiss 2009, 8). Brad Pitt and the Make It Right Foundation want something more for New Orleans than a return to the status quo, denying the “Big Easy’s” oft-invoked phrase of “le plus ça change, plus c’est le même chose” (the more things change, the more they stay the same) as commentary on the nature of change in a place as rooted in traditions as New Orleans (McBrayer 2014). If Kanye West’s “George Bush doesn’t care about black people” comment coalesced a public critical of the governmental failure to address the disaster and its aftermath, then Pitt and MIR’s framing of Katrina as a man-made disaster historicized that sentiment. Rather than considering Hurricane Katrina to be a natural disaster—one which formed due to patterns of nature and various meteorological effects as somehow divorced from human activity—MIR joins a crowd of voices determining that Katrina was man-made, the result of human action (or inaction), and thus something that needs to be repaired immediately and prevented for the future. Pitt points toward the material strain of slums as triggered by neoliberal economics and racial oppression and inequality, simply denying the uniqueness of New Orleans’ plight as primary exigence and instead treating it as simply an example of greater, global issues (Feireiss 2009, 7). The particular political contexts of Katrina and the Lower Ninth Ward are incredibly important, however, if only because they are thoroughly raced, an issue largely ignored by MIR. Brad Pitt makes generalized appeals to global issues in ways that sideline the important of race in New Orleans politics. The result? As Matt Davis reports, “The city has become significantly whiter since the storm” and it’s been claimed that the “Make It White foundation . . . [has been] foisting $350,000 Frank Gehry-designed houses on poor black property owners . . . who may well, at some point, see an incentive to sell out and realize the nonprofit’s equity in their homes” (Davis 2010). The prestige of world-renowned architects brought MIR plenty of attention—bringing with it accusations of vanity and inviting wealthier white inhabitants, a process of gentrification that further shuts out poor black locals. As MIR held itself responsible to more than just the needs and desires of the displaced, its message became more difficult to decipher, its homes became less palatable for the locals, and its politics became less clearly focused on making the lives of the Lower Ninth Ward better and more secure on their terms. Clouded by the multiple desires of the many who invested in the Make It Right Foundation—emotionally and materially—it became a confused and forced attempt at a utopian panacea quickly picked up and marketed for

26

Dylan Rollo

the rest of the ailing world. Magnified by the often tone-deaf and alienating rhetoric of high-minded architects, MIR became a site of great contestation on many levels of the public: intellectuals, members of the industry, national spectators, and locals. Unfortunately, MIR did not take advantage of this opportune3 positioning with relatively accessible points of deliberative contestation and enact a more locally democratically accessible process. Locals of all sorts have weighed in on MIR through various media, but executive agency remains in the hands of MIR’s largely white and highly educated assemblage of professionals, the vast majority of which having little to no connection to the city of New Orleans pre- or post-Katrina, much less the Lower Ninth Ward. CELEBRITY MAINTAINING STRUCTURAL HIERARCHY AND REAFFIRMING NEOLIBERALISM While criticisms continue to stand against Make It Right, the foundation articulates in Architecture in Times of Need a relatively defensive negotiation of its original intentions and purposes (Make It Right “FAQ” n.d.).4 Pitt himself cited “misinterpretations of intent” as first among Make It Right’s “numerous complications” (Feireiss 2009, 8)5 and Feireiss spent half a page (of a two and a half page section) detailing what the foundation is not: not just “using rich people’s resources to address poor people’s needs . . . but it is about a powerful long-term concept” (Feireiss 2009, 9). Rhetorical justification of needing to utilize “rich people’s resources” in order to effect change comes by way of a futurist, neoliberal orientation. The long-term concept itself justifies use and entrenchment of current capitalistic systems. With MIR, Brad Pitt is attempting to address what he identifies as a series of injustices against the people of the Lower Ninth Ward. He astutely identified Katrina as a man-made disaster at the nexus of rampant climate change, reckless neglect of infrastructure, and a lack of substantive policies to aid those living near or below the poverty line (Feireiss 2009, 7). MIR’s architects designed homes which did more than simply replace the rows of cheaply constructed and low-build-quality homes that held the Lower Ninth Ward’s population in a zone of precarity. Aesthetically interesting (if not pleasing), storm-resilient, and with Platinum LEED certification that drastically lowers utility costs, the MIR homes are not in themselves condemnable. However, as a response to a locally specific political situation, without thorough respect toward the racial dynamics at play, without adequate input by the communities drastically affected, and through the legitimation of capitalistic wealth accumulation by the few to be privately and even arbitrarily donated to the struggling

Looking to the Starchitects

27

masses, the MIR development becomes complicit in repeated cycles of oppression and marginalization. When celebrity philanthropists and organizations like Make It Right assert the state’s failure to protect its citizens and step into the fray, they are responding to and acting within the vacuum left where state welfare policies and programs once stood. As private interests, foundations like Make It Right have freer reign over their selection processes. MIR limited the potential aid from MIR to those who previously lived in the Lower Ninth Ward, later expanding to include first responders and schoolteachers. Had Brad Pitt wished, MIR could have been limited to aiding only those grievously injured by the storm, those who donated to the foundation, or those who have demonstrated an appreciation for such contemporary architectural styles. As it is, MIR’s narrowing of potential aid recipients effectively limited access to the middle-class residents of the Lower Ninth Ward, those who did not lose all of their assets in the storm. This discriminatory capacity of private interests is easily done in harmful ways, with little to nothing holding it to more equitable distributions of aid. The freedom of private interests to act as they will upon fragile and disenfranchised populations is an unfortunate result of the collapse of the welfare state that further disempowers minorities and the working class while re-entrenching the dominance of the capitalistic model of value accorded to commodity status and profitability. Even beyond the individual effects of capitalistic values reasserted at the expense of those displaced by the Lower Ninth Ward, New Orleans itself is caught up in “the increasing importance of ‘culture’ as a commodity” where “industrial practices and economic relations have been reorganized around the ways in which language, aesthetics, design, and other symbolic ‘goods’ can drive the financing and production of key material structures of contemporary life” (Aiello 2011, 342). New Orleans culture is a commodity in itself, as made emblematic by Mardi Gras’ performative dominance in the national imagination and even the connecting function of the localized New Orleans Saints with the nationalistic sport of football and spectacle of the Super Bowl. For this reason, New Orleans is similarly entrenched in what communication scholar Giorgia Aiello describes as “advanced capitalism,” tempering Jameson’s optimistic “late capitalism” and asserting instead that capitalism is developing and progressing into more global models of functioning. As Aiello writes, “speaking of advanced capitalism entails that there is an expansion, rather than a progressive disintegration, of the capitalist mode into various areas of globalist cultural production” (Aiello 2011, 362.) This expansion of the capitalist mode establishes areas as valuable and profitable based in their “ability to perform a highly distinctive identity” (Aiello 2011, 350) that is attractive to tourist visitors and consumers. Discovery of an area worthy and capable of performing distinctive and profitable cultural identities leads MIR to continuing the project of

28

Dylan Rollo

displacing community deliberation in favor of a manufactured consent by making recovery processes about virtuous individuals of the highest class aiding the lower classes and legitimizing the structures that separate them in the first place. CONCLUSION Articulating political messages and co-opting dissent against unjust structures of governance, MIR’s rhetorical mode of celebrity nonetheless markets their houses to liberal capitalism, demonstrating an ability to draw in white investors of New Orleans culture, well-intentioned volunteers, and even housing advocates at the expense of gentrifying a ravaged community. These dangerous effects of celebrity may not necessarily be inevitable, but are widely demonstrable and publicized, marked by divisive negotiation of the opinions of international professionals and local denizens and the muddled messages of an organization tainted by the interests of populations wildly different from (and ignorant of) those displaced, marginalized, and otherwise in need. Failing to represent the people of the Lower Ninth Ward (pre- or post-Katrina) while attempting to draw that same population, the Make It Right Foundation invests heavily in the power of celebrity to accomplish its goals, making clear its commitments to neoliberal organizational structures and systems, even at the expense of its supposed goals. NOTES 1. At the time of this book’s proofing news broke of Brad Pitt and the Make It Right Foundation being sued for these homes being “defective,” with issues including the “growth of mold, air quality problems from improper ventilation, structural problems, electrical problems, plumbing problems and rotten wood” (Zadrozny, “Brad Pitt Sued”). Make It Right has since sued architect John C. Williams because his designs “exposed wood to rain and moisture, failed to include adequate waterproofing, and featured roofs that weren’t up to code” (Zadrozny, “Brad Pitt’s Make It Right Foundation”). Though I was not able to include sufficient reflection on the failures of execution in this case, this chapter had already focused on the disjointed nature of the plans and their executions. This turn of events, of course, is a further condemnation of the approach to humanitarian action taken by Make It Right and Brad Pitt. For a pithy critique of this turn of events, see the satirical site The Onion’s (fictionalized) “American Voices” section, which simulates presenting the reactions of everyday people to recent news stories. In response to this story, these statements read: “Personally, I’ve never thought Brad Pitt was that great of a home-builder;” “No good deed that’s poorly executed to the point of dangerous negligence goes unpunished;” and, “What’s this country coming to if we can’t even depend on wealthy celebrities to meet the needs of our citizens?”

Looking to the Starchitects

29

2. Nina Killeen’s excerpt in Architecture in Times of Need responds to the question MIR faced often: “Should New Orleans be rebuilt at all?” Killeen’s response, titled “A Chance to Come Home,” problematically describes the “modest” accommodations in the Lower Ninth Ward, saying that they “didn’t have much, but they had all they needed to be happy” and describing their remaining in the neighborhood—both at points of inheriting homes and in the face of Hurricane Katrina—as a “refusal” to leave and a “choice” to stay, failing to comment on the effects of poverty on their lack of mobility. Killeen’s argument is that the people of the Lower Ninth Ward deserve a chance to come home, no matter how “modest” the home. 3. In rhetorician Joan Faber McAlister’s “Domesticating Citizenship” article, she makes use of the term “kairotope” to describe the opportune time and place for rhetorical action (McAlister 2010). This formulation has been deeply influential in my own thinking on addressing the topic of this chapter. 4. MIR’s primary counter to the charge of gentrification has been its restriction of new residents to those who lived in the Lower Ninth Ward before Hurricane Katrina (later expanded to include first responders and schoolteachers). 5. The other complications: “complex loan structures, protection of architects’ designs, and worries about gentrification, just to name a few.”

REFERENCES Aiello, Giorgia. “From Wound to Enclave: The Visual-Material Performance of Urban Renewal in Bologna’s manifattura delle arti.” Western Journal of Communication 75, no. 4 (2011): 344–366. “Brad Pitt’s Foundation Sued For Building Shoddy Homes After Katrina.” The Onion, September 20, 2018. https://www.theonion.com/brad-pitt-s-foundation-sued-forbuilding-shoddy-homes-a-1829195169. Accessed on October 19, 2018. ———. “Brad Pitt’s Make It Right Foundation Sues Architect over ‘defective’ New Orleans Homes.” NBC News, September 20, 2018, sec. U.S. News. https://www. nbcnews.com/news/us-news/brad-pitt-s-make-it-right-foundation-sues-architectover-n911601. Cloud, Dana L. Control and Consolation in American Culture and Politics: Rhetoric of Therapy. Rhetoric and Society Series. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1997. Davis, Matt. “Five Years Later, a Richer, Whiter New Orleans.” Salon, (August 28, 2010). http:​//www​.salo​n.com​/2010​/08/2​8/new​_orle​ans_k​atrin​a_dem​ograp​hics/​. DePillis, Lydia. “If You Rebuild It, They Might Not Come.” New Republic, (March 13, 2013). https​://ne​wrepu​blic.​com/a​rticl​e/112​620/b​rad-p​itts-​make-​it-ri​ght-h​ouses​-drag​ -new-​orlea​ns. Fassin, Didier, and Mariella Pandolfi, eds. Contemporary States of Emergency: The Politics of Military and Humanitarian Interventions. New York: Zone Books, 2013. Feireiss, Kristin, ed. Architecture in Times of Need: Make It Right - Rebuilding New Orleans’ Lower Ninth Ward. New York: Prestel Publishing, 2009.

30

Dylan Rollo

Firestone, Rebecca. “New Orleans Post-Katrina: Making It Right?” The Architects’ Take, (January 25, 2011). http:​//the​archi​tects​take.​com/e​ditor​ials/​new-o​rlean​s-pos​t-kat​ rina-​makin​g-rig​ht/. “Gehry Residence / Frank Gehry.” ArchDaily, (July 5, 2010). http://www.ArchDaily. com/67321/gehry-residence-frank-gehry/. Green, Jared. “Interview with Tim Duggan, ASLA.” American Society of Landscape Architects. Accessed April 20, 2018. https​://ww​w.asl​a.org​/Cont​entDe​tail.​aspx?​ id=30​382. Hoyt, Alex. “Frank Gehry’s House.” Architect, (May 17, 2012). http:​//www​.arch​itect​ magaz​ine.c​om/De​sign/​frank​-gehr​ys-ho​use_o​. IMDb. n.d. “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939).” Accessed April 10, 2018. http:// www.imdb.com/title/tt0031679/. MacCash, Doug. “Architect Frank Gehry’s Contribution Adds Even More Star Power to Brad Pitt’s Make It Right Neighborhood.” The Times-Picayune, (July 15, 2012). Accessed July 14, 2018. http:​//www​.nola​.com/​arts/​index​.ssf/​2012/​07/ar​chite​ct_fr​ ank_g​ehrys​_cont​rib.h​tml. Make It Right. n.d. “FAQ.” Accessed April 2, 2018. http://makeitright.org/about/faq/. McAlister, Joan Faber. “Domesticating Citizenship: The Kairotopics of America’s Post9/11 Home Makeover.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 27, no. 1 (2010): 84–104. McBrayer, Ronnie. “What Is Wrong With the World?” The Times-Picayune, (September 22, 2014). http:​//blo​g.nol​a.com​/cest​-la-n​ola/2​014/0​9/wha​t_is_​wrong​_with​_the_​world​ .html​. Make It Right. n.d. “Our Homes in New Orleans.” Accessed April 19, 2018. http:// makeitright.org/see/new-orleans/. Pedersen, Martin. “In Defense of Make It Right.” Metropolis Mag, (March 25, 2013). http:​//www​.metr​opoli​smag.​com/P​oint-​of-Vi​ew/Ma​rch-2​013/I​n-Def​ense-​of-Ma​ke-it​ -Righ​t/. Whoriskey, Peter. “What Happened When Brad Pitt and His Architects Came to Rebuild New Orleans.” The Washington Post, (August 28, 2015). https​://www.​was​hingt​onpos​ t.com​/news​/wonk​/wp/2​015/0​8/28/​what-​happe​ned-w​hen-b​rad-p​itt-a​nd-hi​s-arc​hitec​ ts-ca​me-to​-rebu​ild-n​ew-or​leans​/. Zadrozny, Brandy. “Brad Pitt Sued by New Orleans Residents Who Say Make It Right Sold Them ‘defective’ Homes.” NBC News, September 7, 2018, sec. U.S. News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/brad-pitt-sued-new-orleans-residents-who -say-make-it-n907656.

Chapter 3

Star Brand Power and the Broadway Stage Images and Attributes Influencing Perceptions Kevin Calcamp

Within a world dominated by advertising and marketing, a star’s brand, their particular identity or image, can be considered one of their most important assets. Likewise, the roles they choose to undertake and how they behave in a professional and private setting determine how the public perceives and engages with them. Successfully promoting the star requires marketing departments to employ a star’s brand, past roles, and the public’s knowledge. Keeping this in mind, I argue that casting and marketing a Hollywood film or television star in a Broadway play influences the perception of the public and encourages ticket sales by highlighting positive associations signified with the star. Focusing on Barrie Gunter’s concept of celebrity capital with accompanying notions on celebrity posited by Hamish Pringle, I parse through how a star is marketed for Broadway Theatre and how it might affect the purchaser power and perception/reception of the public. Before finishing the chapter with three separate case studies—Broadway productions of Equus, Orphans, and Sister Act: The Musical—I review Roland Barthes’s writings on photography in Image, Music, Text, which I will later incorporate into the analysis of multiple Broadway posters and promotional images. In his book Celebrity Capital, Barrie Gunter, provides six celebrity endorser attributes: likeability, attractiveness, expertise, trustworthiness, performance, and negative behavior. Of these six attributes, all but negative behavior can be used emphatically in the marketing process to capitalize on the strongest link between the star and the public. (Since negative behavior does not lend itself to marketing, I do not use this attribute in my analysis.) Likeability is one of the most important attributes for any star to have. Gunter 31

32

Kevin Calcamp

writes, “Celebrities attain their status by gaining social capital among the public who place value on them. . . . If celebrities have interesting characters, the public may warm to them and grow to like them. The likeability factor can be sufficient in its own right to enable celebrities to add value to brands with which they are associated” (Gunter 2014, 72). Actors like Jennifer Lawrence, Tom Hiddleston, Tom Hanks, and Patrick Stewart appear to have a very high likability, which makes them good choices for brand association. Casting a likeable star appeals to the emotional connection between the public and the star and is advantageous to ticket sales and, hopefully, good reviews. Attractiveness, the second of Gunter’s attributes, relies on beauty and sex appeal. Hamish Pringle, former general director of the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising and author of Celebrity Sells acknowledges the significance of a star’s attractiveness and the personal search for desire: “One of the most powerful drivers of human behaviour is the desire to reproduce and to reproduce ‘successfully.’ In pursuing this end, I believe that, whether consciously or not, men and women seek to mate with the most successful, desirable or powerful person they can within their peer group and ideally beyond it” (Pringle 2004, xxii). Putting aside Pringle’s heteronormative assumptions, his idea nonetheless supports Gunter’s inclusion of attractiveness as an attribute of celebrity capital. Since the product being consumed by audiences is the star’s body (along with their talents and skills), their physical appearance, as a desirable object for men and women, can entice ticket sales and influence how the character, and ultimately the star, is perceived. Many Hollywood stars are deemed physically desirable by both sexes, allowing for the visual consumption of their bodies to fulfill sexual desires. Gunter concludes “celebrity’s attractiveness can play an important part in determining how popular they are among members of the public” (2014, 75). Likeability and attraction, often work in tandem, and are the two most powerful attributes used for marketing. The third attribute, expertise, is often sought after when hiring someone. Success (financial or critical) in previous roles in film and television can place the star on the short list for a Broadway or Off-Broadway play or musical. Gunter claims that, “when celebrities are hired . . . their impact can depend upon whether consumers regard them as qualified” (2014, 72). In the case of advertising, marketers use the public’s memory of the star’s expertise through past roles as a selling point. Casting a star who is famous for a particular role can be a strong selling point; however, the infamous character who shares the body of the star, can be, at times, indistinguishable from the star, affecting the audience’s perception.

Star Brand Power and the Broadway Stage

33

Trust, the fourth attribute, is built upon the foundation of a relationship between the star and the consumer. According to Gunter, “Celebrities can command trust, even when they may not be experts in relation to the product or service being promoted, because of their reputations in their professional and personal lives” (2014, 72). In order for trust to be established, certain criteria, including reliability, dependability, consistency, and honesty, must be earned. While trustworthiness might not be overtly marketed (as it should be an implicit quality), marketers certainly rely on the public’s memory and associations with a star vis-à-vis trust. Trustworthiness is established a number of ways (performance, deeds, etc.) and becomes a quality associated with the star’s brand. Performance, the last of Gunter’s attributes that I utilize, calls upon the unique qualities within a star. Gunter poses two primary questions marketers might ask when determining how to capitalize on a star’s performance: “Are they celebrities because of special talents they possess? Have they demonstrated sustained high-level performance or been one hit wonders?” (2014, 72). Performance can be difficult to market in a photograph or other image, and often is marketed through commercials and special appearances. Still, photographs can, through memory, haunt a star’s image and recall past performances, reminding people what they loved, liked, or possibly hated about the star and their performance skills or lack thereof. To identify how these attributes are used in marketing images for Broadway shows, I rely on Roland Barthes’s writing on semiotics (the study of signs) and the image in Image, Music, Text. For Barthes, a photograph is a message. He writes, “Considered overall this message is formed by a source of emission, a channel of transmission and a point of a reception” (Barthes 1977, 15). In the case studies that I present, I argue that the source of the emission is the marketers for the production, the point of reception is the public who reads the images, and the channel of transmission is the poster image itself. In reading these images I determine in what ways the star brand is displayed and marketed. The photograph, through poster or promotional image, is perhaps the most direct way to link the image of the star with the production. A photograph of the star is an image of the star copied to film and developed on paper. Barthes contends that the image of the star in the photograph is a denotation; it directly resembles the person whose image was photographed (1977, 19). The connotation is an additional or secondary meaning that derives from the image within the photograph. An image of Alec Baldwin in wizard’s robes is still a denotation of Alec Baldwin; however, the connotation of the image is that somehow Alec Baldwin is magical. Exploring the images of Broadway

34

Kevin Calcamp

posters with film and television star casting provides an opportunity to gain an understanding of how advertisers use denotations and connotations to convey specific messages to audiences and hope to create marketing that will appeal to audience members who find favor with the particular star. The posters draw upon the stars’ brands, past roles, and our memories to create a specific perception and entice us to buy a ticket. Throughout my analyses of the production images and posters for the productions of Equus, Orphans, and Sister Act: The Musical, I explore possible connotations that the marketers are trying to assert. EQUUS (2008) Producer David Pugh cast stars Daniel Radcliffe, who played Alan Strang, and Richard Griffiths, who played Martin Dysart, in his 2008 production of Equus. Due to its critical and financial success in the West End, Pugh decided to transfer the show to Broadway, and on September 25, 2008, Equus opened at the Broadhurst Theatre and ran for 156 performances. The casting of the duo, famous worldwide for their characters in the Harry Potter film franchise, ensured the revival much press coverage and robust advanced ticket sales. Another distinguishing factor that most certainly bolstered sales was the chance to see Daniel Radcliffe’s/Harry Potter’s penis. Audience members, both young and old, who watched the films, had observed Harry’s transition (as embodied by Radcliffe) from the young “boy who lived,” into a likeable, attractive man who was an object of desire for many fans. A close reading of the posters and marketing photographs used to advertise Radcliffe in Equus reveals much about the strategy on the part of the producers to capitalize on the actor’s enormous fame, likeability, attractiveness, and the promise that the production would reveal a part of him not heretofore seen by audiences. Take, for example, the show poster for both the West End and Broadway productions, which displays Radcliffe’s upper body, his head thrust back, and his arms outstretched. In this image, the lower half of Radcliff’s/ Strang’s body is manipulated, as the head of a horse emanates from his torso; his nipples become the horse’s eyes and his abdominals become the horse’s nose and muzzle. The image is stark; Radcliffe’s white muscular form contrasts with the black background. The image is an evocative and somewhat erotic uniting of a 17-year-old nude, male body, and the face of a horse. In examining the image closely by way of Barthes, it becomes clear that there are multiple connotations at play. As Barthes argues, all connotations

Star Brand Power and the Broadway Stage

35

are cultural. In light of this, the image of horse, acting as a symbol, as an accepted inducer of association, communicates within our contemporary cultural context specific ideas, including motivation, sexual energy, masculinity, and passionate desires. Along these same lines, in that the image is framed by a black background that serves to highlight the semitransformed body of Radcliffe, it could be argued that the dualism of black and white within the image represents the opposition between good and evil, a key theme explored in the play. In short, then, the image not only draws on symbolic themes at work in Shaffer’s text, but also promotes a strong selling point for the production: the showcasing of Radcliffe’s sexualized body. While the poster might have been the most publicized image for the show, other photographs of Radcliffe (usually accompanying a horse) also advertised the production. The promotional photos were posted to entertainment websites and were quickly disseminated by way of the World Wide Web. One of these publicity images (figure 3.1) shows Radcliffe’s nude body, from the pelvis up (again implying that he is also nude from the waist down), standing in front of the horse, one arm reaching toward the horse’s back, the other toward the horse’s chin groove. In this image, Radcliffe’s head is turned looking at the horse’s head; his body and the horse are highlighted against the black background where light fog rises. The stage lighting is used to highlight Radcliffe and the white horse against the black background, and

Figure 3.1  Daniel Radcliffe as Alan Strang in Equus (2008). S ource: Courtesy of Uli Weber.

36

Kevin Calcamp

serves to enhance the physical image/features of both. The lighting especially serves to emphasize Radcliffe’s nude body (both that which is seen, as well as that which is not) and his body placement alongside the horse. Radcliffe’s gestures and his positioning (especially in relation to the horse) convey a sensual, even erotic relationship with the horse. Since this relationship is present in Shaffer’s text, the image conveys a key aspect of the production. And yet, I argue it also could be viewed as an attempt on the part of the producers to tantalize readers with an image of the young star, drawing specific attention to his sexual attributes. Though his penis is not shown in these photographs, they nonetheless imply that (a) he has one, and (b) audience members might well have a chance to see it. Indeed, it is not hard to imagine how this image might be deployed by a marketing team to draw in audience members by putting on display Radcliffe’s attractive, sexualized physique. In other portraits in the series, Radcliffe’s nude body is posed in further intimate positions with the horse. In one image (figure 3.2), he is

Figure 3.2 Daniel Radcliffe as Alan Strang in Equus (2008). Source: Courtesy of Uli Weber.

Star Brand Power and the Broadway Stage

37

foregrounded in front of the horse, his body pressed against the horse’s neck, shoulder, and upper arm, and his hand reaching out to caress the horse’s chin. Another (figure 3.3) shows Radcliffe embracing the horse, one hand on the horse’s back and the other on the horse’s neck, head resting on the horse’s shoulder. As in the other photographs in this series, the sexual connotations between Radcliffe and the horse further amplify the already sexualized image of Radcliffe’s nude body, providing potential audience members with signified responses of desire. In another publicity image sans horse (figure 3.4), Radcliffe is pictured in denim jeans and a black belt. His chest is bare and in his hands he holds a saddle and a horse’s bridle. As in the other pictures, his white body is highlighted by the black background with a fog rising. He looks to the left with an inexpressive face. The staging of Radcliffe in this image and the choice of the objects in his hands are significant. The saddle and bridle are relevant to

Figure 3.3  Daniel Radcliffe as Alan Strang in Equus (2008). S ource: Courtesy of Uli Weber.

38

Kevin Calcamp

Figure 3.4  Daniel Radcliffe as Alan Strang in Equus (2008). S ource: Courtesy of Uli Weber.

the production, but can connote a deeper significance as well. The saddle and bridle are tools that the rider uses to communicate with a horse, to gain trust, and physically connect the human with horse. Another connotation could signify the saddle and bridle as elements of enslavement where the rider masters the horse. Barthes remarks on this sort of complex, double signification when he writes, “Objects constitute excellent elements of signification: on the one hand they are discontinuous and complete in themselves, a physical qualification for a sign, while on the other they refer to clear, familiar signifieds” (1977, 23). Whether the decision to include an object in a photograph is premeditated or is ignored, the objects provide codes to be signified by the reader. These images seem to fetishize the sexuality between Radcliffe and the horse, drawing in perhaps a different group of individuals who find submission or dominance desirable. A final series of publicity photographs show Radcliffe with his co-star Joanna Christie (from the West End production). In one photograph (figure 3.5), Christie’s backside is foregrounded in the right of the picture

Star Brand Power and the Broadway Stage

39

Figure 3.5  Daniel Radcliffe as Alan Strang and Joanna Christie as Jill Mason in Equus (2008). S ource: Courtesy of Uli Weber.

wearing only a pair of black panties. Radcliffe, wearing only jeans and the black belt, sits on a pile of hay in the left background. It raises the question: Have they just had a “roll in the hay”? Another image from the series (figure 3.6) depicts the two positioned in front of a large pile of hay. In this image, Christie stands behind Radcliffe, embracing him. Her head rests upon the back of his neck, one hand placed on his left shoulder the other positioned on his waist. Her face is relaxed and her eyes closed as she presses her nude body against his. Radcliffe stands stolid, as his face, looking downward, is cast in shadow. Some might argue that the sexual representation of Christie’s body being presented before Radcliffe, who is sitting among the hay, speaks to a patriarchal society that emphasizes the seduction of men by women. Others might contend that the stoic nature of Radcliffe in the second image connotes the difficulty or disinterest that some men have with intimacy outside the act of sex. Regardless of how one chooses to read the photographs in a particular sense, each image no doubt contains connotations of masculinity and sexuality. Since these connotations are associated with the denotation of Radcliffe’s image, the connection between the two becomes conjoined. The

40

Kevin Calcamp

Figure 3.6  Daniel Radcliffe as Alan Strang and Joanna Christie as Jill Mason in Equus (2008). Source: Courtesy of Uli Weber.

denoted image of Radcliffe and the connotations of sex, physical maturity, and masculinity through the representation within the photograph are linked. These images link Radcliffe’s body with the body of a woman. The woman could serve as a stand in for the audience member who fantasizes about a sexual relationship with Radcliffe. Using attractiveness and sexual appeal when marketing a Broadway show is sure to indicate the mature nature of the performance, but it is also a way to entice audience members into seeing the show and to influence their perception of the star and the show. Seeing a star nude on stage is also an exclusive event that only certain individuals would be privileged to see. Alternatively, there are those who might be put off by male nudity. In the case of Equus, in addition to selling Radcliffe as a sexual object, producers were also selling an exclusive chance to see this famous actor naked. Because of the nature of the play, this marketing was arguably appropriate and at the end of the run, producers earned a profit, Radcliffe achieved a sense of versatility, and Broadway closed another critically and financially successful show; however, it is undeniable that Radcliffe’s likability and attractiveness affected the perception of the public in regards to the character and the production.

Star Brand Power and the Broadway Stage

41

ORPHANS (2013) Lyle Kessler’s Orphans debuted at the Matrix Theatre in Los Angeles in 1983 and was later produced at Chicago’s Steppenwolf Theatre in 1985. The Steppenwolf production transferred to Off-Broadway’s Westside Theatre and then to London’s West End at the Apollo Theatre in 1986. Despite its success in regional theatres and abroad, Orphans Broadway debut did not occur until April 7, 2013. This Broadway cast was built around Alec Baldwin, who played Harold, but included other Hollywood stars as well: originally Shia LaBeouf and then Ben Foster in the role of Treat, and Tom Sturridge in the role of Phillip. It was widely publicized that Orphans would be the Broadway debut for both LaBeouf and Sturridge. As the following analysis will make clear, Orphans as a multistar vehicle provides a different product of analysis than does Equus, which placed Radcliffe at the center of all marketing. The multistar cast brings various brands with various attributes (likeability, performance, expertise, trustworthiness) together, hopefully widening the appeal. With Orphans, while Baldwin may have been the driving force behind this production, he had to share the publicity with LaBeouf, Sturridge, and later Foster. For the official Broadway poster for Orphans each of the three main stars appears aligned in sequence: Baldwin appears first on the left, LaBeouf in the center, and Sturridge on the right. Baldwin’s appearance is not strikingly changed from that of his popular character from the hit TV show 30 Rock, Jack Donaghy. He is outfitted in what appears to be a gray suit jacket and a black dress shirt. His top button is left undone and he is not wearing a tie, which is an article of clothing Jack Donaghy rarely went without. His hair is combed back similar to Donaghy’s and his expression is solemn. While the image of Baldwin might conjure thoughts of Donaghy through denotation, there are elements within the poster, through connotation, that refute connections to Donaghy and 30 Rock. Whereas Baldwin’s image/brand is one of expertise and trustworthiness, LaBeouf’s strongest brand attribute might be performance (and notoriety!). LaBeouf’s public and private life is ultimately connected to a series of crude, violent, and felonious events dating back to 2005, when he was involved in a brawl with a neighbor. In that event, LaBeouf threatened his neighbor with a knife after the latter had made insulting comments about LaBeouf’s mother. Further public indiscretions include being arrested in 2007 for trespass when refusing to leave a Chicago pharmacy, being arrested in 2008 for driving while intoxicated, and being arrested in 2011 for fighting in a Los Angles bar. In addition to his arrests, LaBeouf consistently insults and derides other Hollywood figures. In 2010, he offended Stephen Spielberg with negative comments in regards to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and admitted to

42

Kevin Calcamp

having sex with Megan Foxx during the production of Transformers when Foxx was engaged to Brian Austin Green (Gell 2011). His performances in public life have created an antagonistic, extreme, and neurotic persona, the character of himself that he presents to the public. These attributes associated with LaBeouf’s persona can be compared to those of the character of Treat in Orphans, who can be described as vicious and ruthless. Since LaBeouf’s own persona somewhat resembles that of Treat, audiences may make positive connections between LaBeouf’s life and the role that he was cast to play. The Broadway poster for Orphans places LaBeouf in the center, foregrounded by Baldwin and Sturridge. Unlike the image of Alec Baldwin, this photograph of LaBeouf seemingly gives more opportunity for interpretation from the viewer. He is dressed in a white dress shirt, a dark vest, and a dark striped tie. His hair is neatly cut and styled and his facial hair is short and well groomed. The expression on LaBeouf’s face is ambiguous, although there is something in its framing and composition that recalls a mugshot. The image of LaBeouf does not appear to reference any particular character from his past roles or of LaBeouf’s persona. Juxtaposed to Baldwin and Sturridge, LaBeouf remains the center focus of the poster drawing significance of not only the character of Treat as one of the play’s main characters but for LaBeouf as a significant and controversial film star. While LaBeouf and Baldwin are widely known for popular roles in film and television, Tom Sturridge was (and still is) developing himself as a film star (at least in the United States). He began to acquire some notoriety stateside in 2004 in the film Vanity Fair. His subsequent roles in Pirate Radio, Waiting for Forever, and On the Road both furthered his career and helped establish his fan base. His relationship with, and later marriage to and divorce from actor Sienna Miller, propelled Sturridge into further fame. Sturridge adds likeability and attractiveness to the ensemble, rounding out the positive attributes posited by Gunter. The photographic image of Sturridge, as it appears on the Broadway poster, is foregrounded on the right. He is dressed differently from this other two actors; he appears in a black T-shirt, a gold chain around his neck. His hair is covered by a gray beanie. His facial hair is fuller than LaBeouf’s but is trimmed as neatly. As with the other two men, his expression is flat. The representation of Sturridge in the photograph uses stereotypes to distinguish him from the other characters. His clothing signifies that his social status is somewhat lesser than that of his costars. Aside from this positive connotation, the choice to depict Sturridge as such on the poster seems to have less to do with his character and more about acting as a denotation of the star and his brand. Unfortunately for the producers of Orphans, the ideal casting they had worked so hard to create was undone due to a irreconcilable clash between Baldwin and LaBeouf. After it was announced that LaBeouf was fired from Orphans, the producers of the production quickly announced that film star

Star Brand Power and the Broadway Stage

43

Ben Foster would be stepping into the role of Treat. Foster began his career in television in the short-lived television series Flash Forward. He continued acting in film and television and was cast in his breakout role as Russell Corwin in HBO’s Six Feet Under. Foster then began to primarily focus on his film career with roles in X-Men: The Last Stand, 3:10 to Yuma, Pandorum, The Lone Survivor, and Kill Your Darlings. His roles frequently involve intense, frantic, and troubled characters, which correspond well with the character Treat and are representative of the performance attribute of his brand. While none of the characters he has played could be thought of as iconic, they have helped to shape Foster’s brand as a masculine rogue. With Foster stepping into the role once held by LaBeouf, the poster for the production changed as well. On the new show poster, the image of LaBeouf is removed and the image of Foster is added. Foster appears center on the new poster for the show, in the same place where LaBeouf’s image was before. Foster, who is six years older than LaBeouf, appears in a white dress shirt, unbuttoned at the collar, and a dark suit jacket. His hair is combed back, similar to Baldwin’s, and his facial hair is no more than stubble. The image of Foster is distinctively different from LaBeouf. Whereas LaBeouf was dressed formally in a tie and vest, Foster’s image implies more informality. LaBeouf stood in the background, framed by Baldwin and Sturridge, whereas Foster appears staggered between Baldwin in the foreground and Sturridge in the background. These changes in image are subtle, but have significance, when recalling Barthes’ remarks regarding connotation: “Connotation is not necessarily immediately graspable at the level of the message itself (it is, one could say, at once invisible and active, clear and implicit) but it can already be inferred from certain phenomenon which occur at the levels of the production and reception of the message” (1977, 19). As a connotation is an implication or an undertone, its effect on how the image is read as a whole is tangible. Color, font, and perspective can all be connotative, affecting the reader’s perception. In aligning the stars, as marketers have done for this poster, producers seemingly sought to denote star power and use the array of star attributes to engage the public. After 27 previews and 37 performances, producers announced that Orphans would close early. The Broadway League reports that the production began its first week of previews with 94.13 percent occupancy but fell to 69.56 percent occupancy two weeks after opening. During its short run, the production grossed $4,056,117 with the average ticket at $71.98 (“Orphans” 2015). While fans of Baldwin, Foster, and Sturridge who were in New York City may have had the opportunity to see the show, the three film stars did not garner enough ticket sales to continue the production for six more weeks. Despite the show’s early closing, Sturridge and the revival were both nominated for the Tony Award. Gunter argues that “one reason for multiple celebrity campaigns can be a presumption that specific celebrities will vary in their appeal to different consumer subgroups within the overall target market”

44

Kevin Calcamp

(2014, 81). This is certainly true for Orphans, whose star casting appeals to three distinctive fan bases. “Another presumption is that multiple well-known celebrities will make the campaign more memorable” (Gunter 2014, 81). In terms of my study, this production is significant because of the ways that the marketing created for it trafficked in the star power of four actors. Generally speaking, the LaBeouf controversy is far more interesting and will most likely be why this particular production will be remembered. Each star was given the opportunity to promote their brand in the poster for Orphans, and each star’s brand seemed to support the characters they were portraying in the play. This might have affected the positive critical response of the stars. Casting these stars, using successful marketing, and banking on the stars’ brand and attributes should have guaranteed financial success for the show’s producers; however, while star casting almost certainly guarantees a manipulation of perception for the public, it does not guarantee profits. SISTER ACT: THE MUSICAL (2011) When Sister Act: The Musical premiered at the Broadway Theatre, it did so without a star. In essence, the popularity of the film was the primary selling point for the show. The beloved film starring Whoopi Goldberg was the sixth highest grossing film in the United States in 1992 (“1992 Domestic Grosses” 2015). Much of the film’s success derived from Goldberg’s performance; thus, her absence in the musical was potentially detrimental. Goldberg is a rare talent that combines likeability, trustworthiness, expertise, and performance. David Rooney writes, “This enjoyable family-friendly musical adaptation’s biggest draw is the brand [Whoopi Goldberg] was instrumental in forging in the 1992 Touchstone movie and its sequel. But paradoxically, Goldberg is also a handicap here, demonstrating that hers are tough shoes to fill in a comedy” (2011). Actress Patina Miller stepped into those shoes playing the lead role. Miller, despite her talents, lacked the brand power and attributes of a well-known star, and subsequently her tenure was short-lived. Sister Act: The Musical drew in crowds, but perhaps not the size of crowds the producers desired. When the musical opened on Broadway in April 2011, it sold only 57.9 percent of its seats and the average ticket cost was $71.12 (“Sister Act: The Musical” 2015). While the Broadway League reports that the musical did increase its ticket sales over the following weeks, selling 70–80 percent of its seats, December through January saw a steady decline, again selling about 50 percent occupancy. After the holidays, rumors began circulating through the media that Raven-Symoné would be joining the cast of Sister Act: The Musical, but it was not officially confirmed until March 7, 2012. Raven-Symoné would replace Miller, who had been with the show since it began workshops in 2006 and was nominated for a Tony Award for

Star Brand Power and the Broadway Stage

45

her performance. Replacing Miller with a television star like Raven-Symoné generated buzz for the musical and rekindled interest from the media. David Rooney opined, “Producers clearly are hoping Symoné’s TV fans will provide a fresh boost to reinvigorate box office, which has lost some steam since the holidays” (2012). The producers held out hope that RavenSymoné’s performance would bring more media attention to the show, and that her presence would lead her fans to purchase tickets. It is quite possible, money aside, that Raven-Symoné was simply the right actor for the role. With Raven-Symoné’s first appearance on Broadway since her childhood, audiences surely wanted to see for themselves if the star was up to the challenge. It is with this in mind, I argue that the advertising for Sister Act: The Musical, with Raven-Symoné as the star, used the actress’s celebrity, likeability, and expertise in an attempt to ensure box office sales. Marketing made changes to the promotions and posters to highlight the musical’s new lead. One of the original posters for the West End and Broadway productions was a highly stylized, illustration (figure 3.7). The divine

Figure 3.7  Poster from Sister Act: The Musical (2011)  Source: Courtesy of Stage Entertainment.

46

Kevin Calcamp

Deloris Van Cartier appeared center with a bedazzled habit and microphone and her red stilettos. Singing nuns and one apparent thug surround her, and the words “Sister Act: A Divine Musical Comedy” appeared above the ensemble. Another poster (figure 3.8) shows Miller, who is foregrounded and center, among a row of singing nuns. The images of these characters are dwarfed by the title, which takes up nearly 75 percent of the poster. Miller’s name is strikingly absent from both posters. I note the posters before the addition of Raven-Symoné as a source of comparison. It is clear in the marketing for the production with Miller that the name of the show was the dominant selling factor. Miller, who did not have a brand quality sufficient to carry a show, could not serve as celebrity endorser. This changed drastically when Raven-Symoné, who like Goldberg possesses the attributes of likeability, expertise, trustworthiness, and performance, replaced Miller. In one poster used when Raven-Symoné joined the cast (figure 3.8), the celebrity actor is seen standing in habit as Sister Mary Clarence in the foreground on the left, while behind her, nuns in bright shining silver habits

Figure 3.8  Poster featuring Raven Symoné from Sister Act: The Musical (2011) Source: Courtesy of Stage Entertainment and Joan Marcus.

Star Brand Power and the Broadway Stage

47

dance amidst towering stained glass windows. Raven-Symoné’s image is significantly larger than the other nuns, and, although she is not centered, she dominates the poster. The title has also been changed to read “Sister Act: The Musical” and above the title the words “That’s So Righteous” appears. This added text is clearly referencing Raven-Symoné’s wildly popular Disney Channel show That’s So Raven. The presence of this text influences the reading of the image. As Barthes argues, “Naturally, even from the perspective of a purely immanent analysis, the structure of the photograph is not an isolated structure; it is in communication with at least one other structure, namely the text—title, caption or article—accompanying every press photograph” (1977, 16). Because the text is included as part of the image as a whole (the poster), it reads as a code and influences the reader’s interpretation of the image. Again, Barthes notes, “The text directs the reader through the signifieds of the image, causing him to avoid some and receive others; by means of an often subtle dispatching, it remote-controls him towards a meeting chosen in advance” (1977, 40). Including “That’s So Righteous” on the poster guides the reader to recall positive brand associations with the television show That’s So Raven and the expertise and likeability of the star. Individuals can only make this connection if they are familiar with the television program. By banking on an association with a children’s television show in the early 2000s, the marketers sought to appeal to a specific demographic: the parents and children who watched the show. The text, in association with the image of Raven-Symoné, loads the image, asking its reader to recall their knowledge of That’s So Raven and associate it with Sister Act: The Musical. At the bottom of the poster in large red letters appears Raven-Symoné’s name, with the preface “now starring.” The updated marketing clearly reflects the addition of a star to the cast and demonstrates the importance of the star’s image and her name in advertising/promotion of the production. Barthes helps illuminate this strategy when he states that “the closer of the text to the image, the less it seems to connote it; caught as it were in the iconographic message, the verbal message seems to share in its objectivity, the connotation of language is ‘innocented’ through the photograph’s denotation” (1977, 26). Thus, the name Raven-Symoné, appearing in close proximity to the image, does not connote the image as much as it denotes or describes the image. The bright red lettering, bold font, and close approximation to the image of Raven-Symoné, reminds potential audiences that this image is not simply of a woman in a nun’s costume, but a famous television star. The use of text in the poster helps to remind the reader of Raven-Symoné’s past performance (namely her character in That’s So Raven) and her gravitas as a star. The marketers of the musical are hoping to bank on Raven-Symoné’s celebrity. They are clearly highlighting her fame and hoping that in doing so they can sell more tickets. In addition, the casting of a new star breathes new life into

48

Kevin Calcamp

a production. The changes in the poster also serve to highlight that this is a slightly different production as a new cast member changes the dynamic of the show. The departure of Miller and the arrival of Raven-Symoné did have a shortlived, positive impact on the box office. Before Raven-Symoné’s debut, the show was only selling between 40-65 percent of its seats; with her on stage, the show’s ticket sales boosted to 70–80 percent, with an occasional dip back in the 60 percent range (“Sister Act: The Musical” 2015). Despite casting Raven-Symoné in the production, however, the musical was unable to recoup its investments. Announcing its closure, Patrick Healy reported, “The $10 million show, which has had uneven ticket sales since January, will close without recouping its full capitalization. But the producers hope to eventually turn a profit on the show from its North American tour that begins in Toronto on Oct. 2 (2012).” Alas, even with Raven-Symoné’s boost in ticket sales, the show could not continue its run on Broadway. Although Raven-Symoné has a degree of celebrity and a notable brand, it was perhaps not sufficient to attract a large enough audience. A star with more celebrity might have been able to sell more tickets, but perhaps not. Relying on a star like Raven-Symoné subsequently asks the public to rely on their own memories and associations with the star, thus affecting how each individual perceives the brand, the star, and the show.

CONCLUSION According to Pringle, “all the evidence suggests that campaigns featuring celebrities are no more likely that those featuring any other sort of creative idea to be successful—simply putting a famous person on the screen or in a magazine juxtaposed with the corporate, product or service brand is simply not enough” (2004, 95). While I do believe this to be true, there are effects unique to marketing the star and his or her image for Broadway. The star (as an image, as a product/brand, as a persona) becomes associated with the Broadway Theatre product. The public can read this merger positively or negatively. While some may associate Broadway with high-quality theatre, others might relate it with commercialism, capitalism, and greed—just another moneymaking opportunity for someone already famous and wealthy. The star is also linked to the production and to the character they are portraying. If it is similar to past roles, the images used for production might reinforce strong connotations that already exist in the star’s image. While this is widely used to promote the show, it also changes the way in which one is open to perception. Stars can use this as an opportunity to alter their brand. Those stars that choose to perform a character in opposition to those performed in the past

Star Brand Power and the Broadway Stage

49

may disrupt previous connotations and allow for new codes and connotations to be established. This could be said in the case of Daniel Radcliffe who managed to enter into adulthood by redefining himself and the connotations associated with his image. While he still went on to perform Harry Potter in two more films following his stint in Equus, his reliance on that character to sell tickets and draw in audiences was diminished. Stars might also increase their celebrity through Broadway promotional images and brand associations. The sequence of the Orphans poster juxtaposes Alec Baldwin, Ben Foster, and Tom Sturridge. Those unfamiliar with Foster or Sturridge might recall their associations with Baldwin from the poster and form related connotations; attributes like expertise/trustworthiness might bleed from one star to another. Since the cast was three men, giving each proportional space on the poster unites them, giving them separate but equal power. Similarly, when Raven-Symoné became associated with the Sister Act brand she brought her own level of celebrity to the role, but those unfamiliar with her before her portrayal of Deloris Van Cartier might now recognize the television star in a larger context. Advertising a star’s image can greatly affect the star depending on the public’s reading of the image, “If the image contains signs, we can be sure that in advertising the signs are full, formed with a view to the optimum reading: the advertising image is frank, or at least emphatic” (Barthes 1977, 33). There are few drawbacks to stars from the marketing of a Broadway show. The public who reads the images are the most affected by the star’s representation. It can reinforce or distance a star from past characters, it can associate them with other stars of greater celebrity, it can associate stars with beloved shows or franchises, and it can sell tickets to Broadway shows. The denotation and connotation of the star’s image creates intrigue and helps to convince audiences to purchase tickets. How the individual assesses the star, their value (qualities associated with the star), their past roles, and their multitudinous associations and qualities has an equal or perhaps greater effect on whether or not the individual will purchase tickets to the show, on how they create expectations and preconceptions, and how they make their evaluation of the production. REFERENCES AllMusic. “Sister Act [Original London Cast Recording].” AllMusic. 2015. Barthes, Roland, and Stephen Heath. Image, Music, Text. New York: Hill and Wang, 1977. Box Office Mojo. “1992 Domestic Grosses.” Box Office Mojo. 2015. Charitybuzz. “2 Tickets to Sister Act on Broadway Plus Backstage Tour, Dinner and More in NYC.” Charitybuzz. 2015.

50

Kevin Calcamp

Daily Mail Report. “Shia LaBeouf’s Eloquent Apology to Alec Baldwin ‘Plagiarised from Esquire’ after Transformers Star Quits Broadway Play over ‘Creative Differences’.” Daily Mail. (London), Feb 21, 2013. Gell, Aaron. “Shia LaBeouf: Hollywood’s Last Bad Boy.” Details. Aug 2011. Gunter, Barrie. Celebrity Capital: Assessing the Value of Fame. New York: Bloomsbury, 2014. Healy, Patrick. “‘Sister Act’ Set to Close on Broadway.” The New York Times. Jun 20, 2012. Just Jared. “Daniel Radcliffe Goes Shirtless in ‘Equus’.” Just Jared. Jan 29, 2007. Movie Poster Shop. “Sister Act the Musical.” Movie Poster Shop. 2015. Pringle, Hamish. Celebrity Sells. Chichester, West Sussex, England: J. Wiley, 2004. Rooney, David. “Sister Act: Theater Review.” The Hollywood Reporter. April 20, 2011. ———. “That’s So Broadway: Raven-Symoné Gets Into The Habit For ‘Sister Act’.” The Hollywood Reporter. The Hollywood Reporter, Mar 7, 2012. Salawi, Pawdesh. “Orphans Concludes Broadway Run.” New York Show Tickets. New York Show Tickets Inc., May 19, 2013. The Broadway League. “Orphans.” The Broadway League. The Broadway League, 2015. ———. “Sister Act: The Musical.” The Broadway League. The Broadway League, 2015.

Chapter 4

“Save Your Life! Do What I Post!” Social Learning through Celebrity Health Advocacy on Social Media Deborah Bowen and Janelle Applequist

Remember the 1980s Brat Pack movie “St. Elmo’s Fire”? During one particularly memorable scene in the brat pack classic, nerdy Wendy (Mare Winningham) introduces her family to rebel Billy (Rob Lowe) at a high-end dinner party. Wendy’s mother (Joyce Van Patten) has a habit of whispering aloud any word she finds to be distasteful. “Did you hear about so-and-so?” Mrs. Beamish pauses and looks around for a few beats, finally leaning close into another guest to whisper dramatically, “Cancer.” In this particular scene, the comedic setup to Billy’s punch line is a trope that rings true to women, as the polite phrase goes, “of a certain age.” At least, it was true for these women in 1985, when the movie was released. The word “cancer” was fraught with superstitious implications. It was viewed as itself something to be feared, a hissing, living signifier of the dreaded disease. Fast-forward to 2016. Technology has resulted in more than just the blurring of boundaries between the public sphere and the private space. It has so thoroughly removed those walls that much of what was once “outside” is now “inside” (e.g., adult films, medical assistance, personal confession). This trend seems to have started in concert with the development of the cell phone and the VCR. Conversations that were once unthinkable to hold outside of the home or the office were now by convenience or by necessity, held in grocery store aisles and in public transportation. And as a result of bringing the cinema into the living room via cassette tape, we have brought the living room behavior out to the cinema. The distinctions between public and private have exploded, and the resulting culture is one where once-prized privacy has been, some

51

52

Deborah Bowen and Janelle Applequist

might suggest, sacrificed in favor of likes, retweets, and comments. But is that really such a bad thing? Celebrity advocacy is one positive that has emerged from this collapsing of public and private spaces. Prior to the advent of sweeping technology, specifically social media, celebrity advocacy had been limited to paid advertisements. These were viewed through the lens of skepticism, being, as they were, paid endorsements. A sponsored post or tweet(s) for a specific company often result in both public exposure for the brand—and a nice payday for the celebrity (think about the most recent pregnancy announcement from Khloe Kardashian, which prominently featured exercise gear by designer Calvin Klein). Such a relationship is purely transactional, and lacks the extra “oomph” that differentiates it from its less obvious or overt counterpart. What do we mean by “celebrity advocacy,” then? How does it differ from an advertisement? The difference can be summed up in a single word: authenticity. When a celebrity takes on a cause, whether directly personal or immediately adjacent, the assumption is that s/he is doing so because it is somehow meaningful or significant. The celebrity then banks on the not-unreasonable premise that his/her followers or fans can be swayed or influenced, and, with hope of success, can issue any number of calls to action regarding that particular cause (awareness, information-seeking, help-seeking, purchase, etc.). Brockington and Henson (2015) call the activities undertaken by celebrities in pursuit of causes “celebrity advocacy.” It is a catholic term. It can involve fund-raising, making films, writing articles, meeting supporters, attending rallies, signing petitions or donating recipes to cookbooks. It can also involve less visible work behind the scenes, meeting politicians or policy makers, or arranging such meetings between them and the organizations they support. “Advocacy,” then, refers not just to speaking out and literally advocating for something, but also “any activities which support the work of a cause or other advocates of that cause” (Brockington and Henson 2015, 432). As social media continues its pervasive proliferation throughout popular culture, the importance of understanding how celebrity advocacy works is almost as important as understanding its outcomes. Social learning theory, broadly defined, states that learning (the acquisition of knowledge, be that of concept or behavioral norm) is a cognitive process that takes place in a social context and occurs purely through observation or direct instruction (Bandura 1977, 1999, 2002, 2004). It explains human behavior in terms of continuous reciprocal interaction between cognitive, behavioral, and environmental influences. Ethnography, for example, depends upon social learning theory; it is the art and science of observational learning. When an ethnographer observes a culture or ritual, s/he is acquiring knowledge merely by watching as an outsider. Every one of us, then, is an

“Save Your Life! Do What I Post!”

53

“expert” in social learning theory, simply by our human curiosity and desire to understand one another at any number of levels. Albert Bandura is regarded as codifying this innate anthropological quality and has come to be known as the father of this theoretical lens. Bandura asserted that people learn through observing others’ behavior, attitudes, and outcomes of those behaviors: “Most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others, one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action” (Bandura 1977). Advocacy via social media is inherently suited for applications of this model. It meets all of Bandura’s criteria for successful learning (Bandura 2004): attention paid to the topic at hand; retention of knowledge; reproduction of the knowledge or behavior in a new social context; and motivation to reproduce the behavior. The following sections will expound upon each of these criterion by applying real-world examples of celebrities utilizing social media for each. ATTENTION PAID TO THE TOPIC AT HAND Many people, particularly those who are fans of the medical drama House have at least heard of the medical condition lupus. On House, the running multi-episodic joke is that when one of the physicians suggests a multisymptomatic patient might have the disease, the brilliant diagnostician immediately scoffs, “It’s not lupus. It’s never lupus.” For Selena Gomez, it was lupus. However, despite her successful career as an actor and a singer, and her wildly public on-again, off-again relationship with heartthrob Justin Bieber, Gomez chose to keep this part of her life very private. Not until September 2015 did she reveal her situation in a very powerful Billboard Magazine interview, following an extended hiatus from the public eye: “I was diagnosed with lupus, and I’ve been through chemotherapy. That’s what my break was really about. I could’ve had a stroke,” Gomez tells the magazine of her time spent out of the spotlight, which caused a flurry of speculation as to what was keeping her away. “I wanted so badly to say, ‘You guys have no idea. I’m in chemotherapy. You’re assholes.’ I locked myself away until I was confident and comfortable again.” Gomez was then freer to discuss her disease, but she still managed to keep parts of it very private. As she revealed on Ellen, “I think it was just very complicated because I didn’t understand and then that was something that I did want to keep private until my whole life suddenly wasn’t private.” Gomez also admits that she didn’t really take the disease seriously until it became life

54

Deborah Bowen and Janelle Applequist

or death. Like so many of us, she was unaware of the potential seriousness of the condition—even living with it!—before it literally threatened to take her life. In September of 2017, Gomez took to Instagram to share with her followers that she, as a result of her disease, had undergone a kidney transplant using a kidney donated by her best friend: I’m very aware some of my fans had noticed I was laying low for part of the summer and questioning why I wasn’t promoting my new music, which I was extremely proud of. So I found out I needed to get a kidney transplant due to my Lupus and was recovering. It was what I needed to do for my overall health. I honestly look forward to sharing with you, soon my journey through these past several months as I have always wanted to do with you. (Pearl 2017)

This is an excellent example of attention paid to the topic at hand. Gomez’s kidney transplant revelation on Instagram, which featured a picture of her and her donor, Francia Raisa, holding hands and smiling at one another in their respective hospital beds, received over ten million “likes” and over a quarter of a million comments. In a deliberate and touching move, Gomez used that post in particular to trigger interest in the disease. She included a link to the Lupus Research Alliance where curious fans could find out more about the disease in general and her condition (lupus nephritis) in particular: “Lupus continues to be very misunderstood but progress is being made. For more information regarding Lupus please go to the Lupus Research Alliance website: www.lupusre​ search.org/.” According to LupusCorner, that post saw an immediate and significant uptick in searches for information about the disease (Brett 2017). Trending searches can be a powerful metric in analyzing reach. Google has a monitoring tool—Google Trends—that can provide insight into how popular certain searches are over time. Google Trends measures search terms relative to one another—as opposed to displaying the actual number of searches. LupusCorner (Brett 2017) provides a dynamic chart that demonstrates a significant spike-and-hold in the following terms: “lupus, systemic lupus, erythematosus, Selena Gomez, selena Gomez [sic] (this is a Google search term), Selana Gomez [sic] (denoted by Google as: American singer).” Wikipedia also offers analyses of searches. The word “Wikipedia” is a common top search result, according to LupusCorner, “so spikes in traffic would suggest that people are using it to learn more about lupus.” This pans out nicely: “In the four months prior to Selena’s announcement, the average daily traffic (in page views) was: 5,216. On the day of Selena’s post, the page saw 50,819 page views—nearly 10x as many!” (Brett 2017).

“Save Your Life! Do What I Post!”

55

Finally, thanks to LupusCorner, we can examine the most tangible proof of an “awareness bump”: financial contributions to causes or associations/alliances that benefit the cause. The President and CEO of the Lupus Research Alliance, Kenneth Farber, shared with E! News that as a result of a couple of public statements, Selena Gomez effectively contributed to raising over $500,000 for research funded by the alliance (Brett 2017). The power of a single person to bring awareness to a cause or an illness is staggering in our age of always-on media and unheard-of access (one-sided though it may be!) to celebrities and their most personal struggles and triumphs. When a celebrity uses this star power in a strategic and compassionate way, the results can certainly be beneficial to his/her brand, but they can also help untold numbers of people who might themselves one day be party to the effects of the disease, first- or second-hand. RETENTION OF KNOWLEDGE As Bandura notes, solely bringing awareness to a situation or cause will not necessarily work to achieve comprehensive behavioral learning (Bandura 2002). The awareness—or knowledge—must “stick with” the observer. Is this a measurable concept? The answer, in brief: yes, and in multiple ways. Here is another way in which celebrity advocacy can help affect trackable change. Suicide—formerly another of those “whispered words”—is a leading cause of death worldwide, and continues to plague the global populace: “According to the World Health Organization, in the year 2020 approximately 1.53 million people will die from suicide. As Durkheim established, suicide is not a mere individual phenomenon, but it is influenced by social and environmental factors. These include economic indicators, social cohesion, publicized celebrity suicides, sunlight duration and temperature” (our authorial emphasis) (Won et al. 2013, 1). The list of celebrities who have attempted suicide is long and startling in its comprehensiveness. From Clark Gable and Walt Disney to Elizabeth Taylor and Patty Duke, from Gary Coleman and Nina Simone to Artie Lange and Shelley Long, the names roll out in a tidal wave of singular and glaringly obvious commonality: depression (“25 Celebrities Who Attempted Suicide” 2017). Bringing awareness to depression and subsequently arming people with the toolkits they need to recognize and address the symptoms in themselves and others certainly falls under the rubric of social learning theory, particularly because/as those tools become part of internal and external conversations about depression. Social media has become a space for celebrities to open up

56

Deborah Bowen and Janelle Applequist

about their most intimate battles with this debilitating disease, and, ideally, use their own experiences to educate others and stave off what some feel is the inevitable “consequence” of depression. The Werther effect “describes the increased rate of completed or attempted suicides following the depiction of an individual’s suicide in the media, typically a celebrity” (Kumar et al. 2015). Kumar and colleagues studied the prevalence of this effect in an online platform: r/SuicideWatch on Reddit, examining both the posting activity and content after the death of ten high-profile suicides. The authors note that “Posting activity increases following reports of celebrity suicides, and post content exhibits considerable changes that indicate increased suicidal ideation. Specifically, we observe that post-celebrity suicide content is more likely to be inward focused, manifest decreased social concerns, and laden with greater anxiety, anger, and negative emotion” (Kumar et al. 2015, 87). The importance of bringing the issue to light earlier is of critical importance. Without celebrity advocacy, this cyclical pattern will continue to proliferate, and the depression crisis— already a major public health concern—will continue unabated. Powerhouse representatives from every performance genre are volunteering their narratives: Kid Cudi, Selena Gomez, Cara Delevingne, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Demi Lovato, Trevor Noah, Kristen Bell and Lady Gaga are part of a wave of celebrities coming forward about their experiences with depression, a condition that impacts roughly 15 million adults each year, according to 2014 figures, the most recent data available from the National Institute of Mental Health. (Jones 2016)

By sharing their experiences on a variety of social media platforms, stars present (and are presented with) an opportunity to talk about depression on a larger scale, says Katrina Gay, national director of communications for the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI): On our Tumblr sites, on our Facebook and Twitter communities, which are communities in their own rights, you’ll see this huge shift, especially with young people and people who are really on the fringes, who are more isolated socially, when they see someone like a Kristen Bell or a Demi Lovato being open, they’re now encouraged to be more open. (Jones 2016)

Demi Lovato has been particularly exemplary in her willingness to take the public with her on her journeys through depression, eating disorders, drug addiction, and self-harm, among others. She’s a powerhouse of and on social media. According to Nielsen Social, Lovato’s 2016 Democratic National Convention speech spawned 10,600 response tweets from its start at 7:47 p.m.

“Save Your Life! Do What I Post!”

57

ET through the end of the broadcast at 11:22 p.m. ET, which indicates users were circulating her remarks throughout the event (Jones 2016). In a 2015 interview with Huffington Post, Lovato reveals, Speaking out about my mental illness was really difficult in the beginning because I kind of didn’t have a choice. Unfortunately, when you’re in the public eye, everyone knows your secrets whether you like it or not. I had an opportunity where I could say, “Yes, I went to treatment but I’m not going to talk about it,” but I felt like I could make a difference. I thought it was my responsibility and my purpose to speak about the things I believe in and what I was going through, because I want to use my voice in more ways than just singing.” (Holmes 2017)

Lovato did more than just post her experiences and her subsequent work toward healing on her social media sites. She launched Be Vocal, an organization that urges open and honest discussion (online and off) about issues related to depression. Of depression, Lovato notes, “People are wanting to talk about it and learn more about it because things are coming up in the news. What Be Vocal does is that it gives more to information to people. It’s important that people are vocal about mental illness and that they speak up for their community as well as themselves” (Holmes 2017). The overarching objective, while simple at face, is lofty: to de-stigmatize depression by encouraging conversation about it. Lovato recognizes that in order to change attitudes and drive people in need of help to find the resources they require, the topic needs to become visible and legitimized. Why? Ultimately, repetition breeds retention. The more someone sees the conversation happening, the more likely s/he is to absorb to content and use it to help him/ herself or others. And when rates of depression go down, suicide rates naturally follow. Luxton et al. (2012) studied the connections between social media and its influence on suicidal behavior, and the connections themselves are irrefutably present. The authors note that the relative newness and hyperfast evolution of social media platforms, trends, and behaviors of social media can prove challenging in collecting data on this topic, both positive and negative. However, in their exploration of these behaviors, they find and offer emerging data regarding the influence of the Internet and social media on suicide behavior. The data suggest that social media may introduce new opportunities for assistance and prevention. As they conclude, “Ultimately, proactively using social media to increase public awareness of and education on mental health issues is a logical modern public health approach that can potentially save lives” (Luxton, June, and Fairall 2012). Lovato’s Be Vocal is one example of a way that social media can provide connections between people who might not have found one another.

58

Deborah Bowen and Janelle Applequist

Thanks to the borderless Internet, geographical space is no longer a concern when creating community, and her site permits engagement that is critical to addressing depression and preventing suicides. Social media is a way for advocates to message/amplify/repeat to an audience unlimited by constraints of time and space, an audience that is potentially entirely receptive to learning and acting upon information that might save a life. REPRODUCTION OF THE KNOWLEDGE OR BEHAVIOR IN A NEW SOCIAL CONTEXT These issues are all mission critical: health, both mental and physical, are of paramount importance, and one would be hard-pressed to disagree with the merits of using social media platforms as springboards for outbound advocacy. Arguably, any of these examples can fulfill this criterion, since the behavior is taken from the virtual space of the Internet and translated into the real world. While these topics seem “natural” or “normal” for women to discuss openly, it is particularly striking when a male celebrity opens up about one of those “whisper words.” Such is the case with Ben Stiller’s revelation of his prostate cancer. While not strictly social media, Stiller did use a new medium—a blog post on medium.com—to announce his diagnosis and treatment. He revealed that the first action he took upon learning that yes, in fact, he had cancer, was to Google the names of survivors. Like Stiller, many readers might be surprised to know that actors Chris Evans and Robert De Niro, and admiral and former Secretary of State John Kerry, among many others, are survivors and thriving after their own diagnoses (Midgley 2016). Stiller’s own story is incredibly dramatic. On a suggestion from his physician, Stiller took a test for the antigen that indicates the presence of prostate cancer. Why was this so strange? Stiller was 46, several years below the traditional age at which that exam is usually administered, and he had shown no signs or symptoms of the disease. In fact, he had no family history of the cancer. Fluke? Coincidence? Either way, Stiller recognizes his luck. Stiller said prostate cancer “wasn’t on (his) radar at all” prior to taking the antigen tests annually, a process he attributes to saving his life (Kim 2016). What’s particularly interesting about Stiller’s example is the way in which he used his diagnosis as a springboard for two important issues: health advocacy, to be sure, and The Stiller Foundation, a nonprofit organization which “seeks to promote the well-being of children worldwide through initiatives that support education” (“About the Foundation” 2016). Drawing awareness to his cancer diagnosis and treatment allowed him to pull an entirely different audience to what seems to be his primary interest: the educational foundation.

“Save Your Life! Do What I Post!”

59

By discussing both of these on television talk shows, radio programs, his own Twitter, he is adhering to Bandura’s third premise of reproducing the knowledge in a different medium. A more strictly social media example of health advocacy—using multiple social platforms as Bandura’s “different media”—is the recent #BreakingBatten challenge. Unlike ALS (or, Lou Gehrig’s disease), the subject of the wildly successful Ice Bucket Challenge a few short years ago, Batten’s disease is largely unknown among the general public. The National Institutes of Health describes Batten’s: Batten disease is a fatal, inherited disorder of the nervous system that typically begins in childhood. Early symptoms of this disorder usually appear between the ages of 5 and 10 years, when parents or physicians may notice a previously normal child has begun to develop vision problems or seizures. (“Batten Disease Fact Sheet” 2017)

Bryan Cranston, star of Breaking Bad, accepted a fund-raising challenge from a co-star on one of his new projects, and the mission became to raise money for sufferers of Batten’s, including the two daughters of director Gordon Gray, himself diagnosed with the condition. Cranston was only one of a bill of new media stars, including Bill and Giuliana Rancic, social media influencers Nash Grier, Hayes Grier, Sammy Wilkinson, Alec Bailey, Wesley Stromberg, Bart Baker, and entrepreneur Shira Lazar. The goal of the challenge was to help raise $10 million to contribute to researching a cure (Cole 2015). The deliberately derivative formula of the campaign was intended to capitalize upon the success of the Ice Bucket Challenge. Participants were challenged to “Break Something,” record and share the breaking, and tag a friend or friends to do the same: “Film yourself breaking something and nominate some friends. Upload your video to ChallengedApp or your favorite social network. Be sure to use the hashtag #BreakingBatten when uploading. ChallengedApp will donate $1 for every submission on the app!” (“What’s #BreakingBatten?” 2015). While the original push was successful in achieving its initial publicized goal of $1 million (and exceeded it by one and third times!), #BreakingBatten never seemed to take off. The challenge website features a dynamic counter which, as of this writing, has been holding at 390,986 campaign supporters. #BreakingBatten, having launched in November 2015, is not halfway to its next goal of $5 million dollars (currently, per the website, the counter sits at $2,237,370). Granted, not every campaign is going to succeed. This campaign demands one of those “what happened?” case studies; by all measures, it should have

60

Deborah Bowen and Janelle Applequist

been a fantastic success. Was the premise not fun enough—was it too violent, too destructive? Did the message of healing not conflate with the visuals of destruction? Was the disease not “sexy” enough for the public? Despite its star power and cross-genre shareability, the campaign did not activate its potential stakeholders the way in which the Ice Bucket Challenge did. Even so, Bandura’s third point—Reproduction of the Knowledge or Behavior in a New Social Context—is appropriate to the #BreakingBatten challenge and vice versa. Not only did the challenge succeed in bringing awareness of the condition to an entirely new audience, the very foundation of the campaign was cross-pollination on multiple social media platforms. Small audience notwithstanding, the challenge did succeed to some degree in messaging to a brand new group of stakeholders. MOTIVATION TO REPRODUCE THE BEHAVIOR One way to measure efficacy of a campaign is to look at analytics (likes, impressions, retweets, etc.); another, more holistic way is to watch the campaign explode into a movement. This last example, one that has been so prevalent in the contemporaneous media, is not, strictly speaking, a disease or disorder, but it can be an emotional and physical game-changer for many of its victims. It can catalyze lifelong depression, anxiety, PTSD, and so on. It can render a victim incapable of physical and emotional intimacy. It can forever tilt a victim’s world on its axis. The issue is, of course, sexual harassment and/or assault, and the movement that is changing the way that many societies view and discuss the topic sprang from a single hashtag: #MeToo. While Alyssa Milano is often credited as being the first user of the #MeToo hashtag on Twitter, the movement actually began over a decade ago by a black activist named Tarana Burke. The then-catchphrase “Me Too” was part of a grassroots movement to offer assistance to victims in underserved communities, victims whose socioeconomic status often precludes them from having immediate (if any) access to services like counseling, and/or medical treatment. Burke wanted each victim—mostly women of color—in these communities to understand that she was not alone, and that despite an apparent lack of resources, women did not need to feel a lack of support (Rubin 2017). Milano unintentionally co-opted the phrase after seeing it, apparently, on a friend’s Facebook page. Without knowing its history, Milano’s use of the hashtag began two critical conversations: the overarching discussion was, of course, the firestorm of tweets and posts from women (and some men) who had experienced sexual violence of some type and the other, a subtext of the entire movement, boiled down to one question: why wasn’t Burke’s tireless

“Save Your Life! Do What I Post!”

61

work fostered and embraced in the same way as Milano’s quick tweet? Here were questions of whiteness and privilege, of attractiveness, of class and access. Why, many people wondered, had Burke’s mantle not been picked up by white feminists who had prominence in the women’s movement? One clear advantage Milano can claim over Burke is technology. When the MeToo (no hashtag) movement began, social media was in its nascent stages, and platforms like Twitter simply did not have the breadth and depth of reach that we see today. Burke had to rely on inexpensive “old-school” methods to promote her cause and to create her community. In the wake of a barrage of accusations levied at legendary producer Harvey Weinstein, Milano came forward, suggesting “If you’ve been sexually harassed or assaulted write ‘me too’ as a reply to this tweet.” And then followed up with her own #MeToo. The New York Times writes “After (Milano’s) tweet, social media was soon flooded with stories of harassment and assault, as #metoo became a way for users to tell their experience with sexual violence and stand in solidarity with other survivors. The hashtag was widely used on Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat and other platforms; on Facebook, it was shared in more than 12 million posts and reactions in the first 24 hours, according to The Associated Press.” (Garcia 2017)

This will be viewed as a watershed moment in cultural history: from silence to voice, from shame to ownership. The moment affects both sexes, since there are offenders and victims on both sides, and in a variety of power relationships. However, the bulk of the participants in the #MeToo movement are women, aligning with any number of published statistics and fact sheets about sexual assault, rape, and other subcategories of sex crimes. However, an ABC News/Washington Post poll that was published almost contemporaneously with the #MeToo movement gives some insight into why the hashtag went so viral so quickly. The poll numbers are staggering: “More than half of U.S. women have experienced unwanted and inappropriate sexual advances from men, three in 10 have put up with unwanted advances from male co-workers and a quarter have endured (advances) from men who had influence over their work situation” (Langer 2017). The telephone poll is highly significant. Their methodology accounts for the steep decline in landlines among younger Americans, and the questions were offered in both English and Spanish, allowing for a wider swath of the population to participate. From October 12–15, 2017, pollsters spoke to members of a random national sample of 1,260 adults (Langer 2017). An article in Fortune sums up the poll results nicely: “A new ABC NewsWashington Post poll out Tuesday shows why the campaign resonated with so many women: sexual harassment, especially in the workplace, is a

62

Deborah Bowen and Janelle Applequist

full-blown epidemic.” However, thanks to more open dialogue about the situation, which had seen a very slight uptick prior to the #MeToo movement, the poll painted a not-as-bleak picture about the future: 75% of Americans call workplace sexual harassment a problem, while 64% deem it a “serious” problem—that’s an increase of 11 and 17 percentage points, respectively, since the last similar poll in 2011. But despite wider awareness about sexual harassment in the workplace, it remains prevalent—to an alarming degree. (Zillman 2017)

Was it a surprise that the #MeToo movement took hold with such force, then? The #MeToo movement has demonstrated that unlike other, less successful online drives for social/cultural change, it is powerful. Certainly women are speaking out in ways and about subjects that have heretofore been taboo, whether because of fear of retribution or because of fear of not being believed. Women are telling their stories and “outing” their attackers like never before. While some might sardonically call this “slacktivism,” an effort to affect social change online in a way that requires very little effort, but in fact the number of participants, the social levels this has reached, and the speed with which the movement caught on around the world is resulting in some incredible payoffs. During the first two weeks of the #MeToo movement (following the sexual harassment allegations against Harvey Weinstein), Twitter reports that more than 1.7 million women and men have used the hashtag in 85 countries (LaMotte 2017). In Italy, women adopted “#QuellaVoltaChe,” which translates to “That time when,” while French women decided to name their harassers using “#BalanceTonPorc,” which roughly translates to “snitch out your pig.” At least nine well-known powerful men were accused of various forms of sexual assault, including former President George H.W. Bush, Hollywood producer James Toback, and journalist and author Mark Halperin, just in the immediate aftermath of #MeToo. And since #MeToo, California Rep. Jackie Speier has launched #MeTooCongress, asking Washington staffers to share their stories on harassment on the Hill (LaMotte 2017). In addition to creating a public community of support and solidarity, the #MeToo movement is destigmatizing the issues of sexual harassment and sexual assault. “When women came forward with allegations of sexual abuse and sexual harassment, the woman was the person blamed and the woman was not believed,” says Duana Welch of her time in graduate school. “I was very angry that I would pay the price for coming forward. I knew what would happen” (Jayson 2017).

“Save Your Life! Do What I Post!”

63

John Pryor, a professor of psychology emeritus at Illinois State University who has studied sexual harassment for more than 30 years, says Admissions of being a victim are stigmatizing. Research has shown that people with stigmatizing conditions that can be hidden often engage in what is called “label avoidance.” With regard to sexual harassment, the more people who come forward and say “me, too,” the less stigmatizing the label. (Jayson 2017)

For many victims, the risk of triggering a (post-) traumatic experience is lessened as more women step up and validate the experience. “You think less that it’s my fault and I did something wrong and you’re blaming yourself,” said Lucia Gilbert of San Jose, Calif., a professor emerita of psychology at Santa Clara University. “It validates that you have been validated. Now there’s a validation in the culture, and that’s huge” (Jayson 2017). The movement is too new to have commanded many reliable counts of behavioral change as a result of the movement, but it is undeniable that the culture will see spikes in speaking out, reporting, naming, and so on. How perfectly the #MeToo fits Bandura’s fourth premise: motivation to reproduce the behavior. Burke—via Milano’s celebrity reach—created a situation in which observable behavior could be replicated, amplified, and so on. And the motivations for repeating the behavior are both internal and external: self-advocacy, of course, but the need to be a part of something larger than oneself also comes into play here, as does the desire to pull other victims into the larger community. The incentive of seeing the accused perpetrator receive justice is likely also no small piece of the puzzle, and that is as legitimate a want/need as is the warmer, fuzzier part of the hashtag. CONCLUSION If you spend any time on any social media platform, you are inevitably confronted with celebrity presence, whether you actively sought it out—or you didn’t. With followers in the millions on a variety of platforms, and an entirely new species of celebrity—the YouTube star—on the rapid rise, our culture has imbued these men and women with even more power to influence, positively and negatively. Thanks to the always-on delivery system, which is inexpensive for users and consumers, we find more and more celebrities using the illusion of immediacy and accessibility to market everything from alcohol to sports gear. Fortunately, celebrities are also human, and most of them understand that the power they have over media consumers can easily be harnessed for a

64

Deborah Bowen and Janelle Applequist

common cause. It is these compassionate superstars who become the drivers of social change at what appears to be a grassroots level, allowing themselves to be open and vulnerable on these digital platforms that can, if desired, offer two-way communication, and certainly offer multiuser interaction. When delivered with compassion and authenticity, a single post or tweet or picture can spark an entire movement of advocacy, awareness, and self-care. How these messages are interpreted lies in the way they are both delivered and received by the media consumer. Keep Bandura’s social learning theory in mind as we engage with one another on social media, and as we watch events, news, politics, and entertainment unfold on these merging platforms. Celebrities play an everevolving role in the way in which we are messaged about social issues, and our job is to be mindful of what we accept and what we reject. It is becoming increasingly more important to each individual and to society as a whole to be both conscious and conscientious consumers of media and messages, adopting those behaviors that will change us—and the world—for the better. REFERENCES “25 Celebrities Who Attempted Suicide,” MSN.com, May 22, 2017, https​://ww​ w.msn​.com/​en-my​/ente​rtain​ment/​celeb​rity/​25-ce​lebri​ties-​who-a​ttemp​ted-s​uicid​e/ ss-​BBBrs​b3?li​=BBuW​lYP. “About the Foundation,” Stiller Foundation, 2016, https​://ww​w.the​still​erfou​ndati​ on.or​g/abo​ut. Bandura, Albert. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1977. Bandura, Albert. “Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective,” Asian Journal of Social Psychology 2, no. 1 (1999): 21–41. Bandura, Albert. “Social Cognitive Theory of Mass Communication,” In Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, edited by Jennings Bryant and Doli Zillmann, 121–153. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002. Bandura, Albert. “Health Promotion by Social Cognitive Means,” Health Education & Behavior 31, no. 2 (2004): 143–164, doi: 10.1177/1090198104263660. “Batten Disease Fact Sheet,” National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 2017, https​://ww​w.nin​ds.ni​h.gov​/Diso​rders​/Pati​ent-C​aregi​ver-E​ducat​ion/F​act-S​ heets​/Batt​en-Di​sease​-Fact​-Shee​t. Brett. “Lupus Awareness, Selena Gomez, and Data,” Lupus Corner, September 19, 2017, http:​//lup​uscor​ner.c​om/lu​pus-a​waren​ess-s​elena​-gome​z-dat​a/. Brockington, Dan, and Spensor Henson. “Signifying the Public: Celebrity Advocacy and Post-democratic Politics,” International Journal of Cultural Studies 18, no. 4 (2015): 431–448, doi: 10.1177/1367877914528532. Cole, Aidan. “Hollywood and Social Media Celebrities Unite to Raise Awareness for #BreakingBatten Challenge,” Social Media Week, November 9, 2015, https​ ://so​cialm​ediaw​eek.o​rg/bl​og/20​15/11​/brea​king-​batte​n-new​-soci​al-ch​allen​ge-ca​ mpaig​n/.

“Save Your Life! Do What I Post!”

65

Garcia, Sandra E. “The Woman Who Created #MeToo Long Before Hashtags,” The New York Times, October 20, 2017, https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​017/1​0/20/​us/me​ -too-​movem​ent-t​arana​-burk​e.htm​l. Holmes, Lindsay. “Demi Lovato on Fighting Mental Illness Stigma and Finding Peace,” Huffington Post, December 6, 2017, https​://ww​w.huf​fingt​onpos​t.com​/2015​ /06/0​1/dem​i-lov​ato-b​e-voc​al-me​ntal-​healt​h-bip​olar_​n_746​2100.​html.​ Jayson, Sharon. “#MeToo Isn’t Just a Hashtag, it’s Destigmatizing—and ‘That’s Huge’,” USA Today, November 20, 2017, https​://ww​w.usa​today​.com/​story​/news​/ nati​on/20​17/11​/20/m​etoo-​isnt-​just-​hasht​ag-it​s- actua​lly-d​estig​matiz​ing-a​nd-th​ats-h​ uge/8​82716​001/.​ Jones, Jaleesa M. “Why Celebrity Accounts of Depression Are Vital,” USA Today, August 31, 2016, https​://ww​w.usa​today​.com/​story​/life​/2016​/08/3​1/cel​ebrit​y-dis​ closu​res-d​epres​sion/​89418​486/.​ Kim, Eun Kyung. “Ben Stiller Opens Up for the First Time Since Revealing Cancer Diagnosis,” Today, November 22, 2016, https​://ww​w.tod​ay.co​m/hea​lth/b​en-st​iller​ -open​s-fir​st-ti​me-re​veali​ng-ca​ncer-​diagn​osis-​t1052​32. Kumar, Mrinal, Mark Dredze, Glen Coppersmith, and Munmun De Choudhury. “Detecting Changes in Suicide Content Manifested in Social Media Following Celebrity Suicides,” HT ACM Conf Hypertext Soc Media (2015): 85–94, doi: 10.1145/2700171.2791026. LaMotte, Sandee. “How #MeToo Could Move From Social Campaign to Social Change,” CNN, November 9, 2017, http:​//www​.cnn.​com/2​017/1​0/30/​healt​h/met​ oo-le​gacy/​index​.html​. Langer, Gary. “Unwanted Sexual Advances Not Just a Hollywood, Weinstein Story, Poll Finds,” ABC News, October 17, 2017, http:​//abc​news.​go.co​m/Pol​itics​/unwa​ nted-​sexua​l-adv​ances​-holl​ywood​-wein​stein​-stor​y-pol​l/sto​ry?id​=5052​1721.​ Luxton, David D., Jennifer J. Dune, and Jonathan M. Fairall. “Social Media and Suicide: A Public Health Perspective,” American Journal of Public Health 102, no. 2 (2012): S195–S2000, doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300608. Midgley, Dominic. “Hollywood’s Silent Killer: Ben Stiller Reveals Battle with Aggressive Prostate Cancer,” Express, October 5, 2016, https​://ww​w.exp​ress.​co.uk​ /cele​brity​-news​/7180​99/Ho​llywo​ods-s​ilent​-kill​er-Be​n-Sti​ller-​revea​ls-ba​ttle-​aggre​ ssive​-pros​tate-​cance​r. Pearl, Diana. “What Selena Gomez Has Said About Dealing with Her Health in the Public Eye,” People Magazine Online, November 21, 2017, http:​//peo​ple.c​om/bo​ dies/​selen​a-gom​ez-ta​lks-a​bout-​lupus​-diag​nosis​-reco​very/​. Rubin, Molly. “The #MeToo Movement was Actually Launched Over 10 Years Ago, by a Black Activist,” Quartz Media, October 18, 2017, https​://qz​.com/​11056​15/me​ too-t​he-mo​vemen​t-was​-actu​ally-​launc​hed-1​0-yea​rs-ag​o-by-​a-bla​ck-ac​tivis​t/. “What’s #BreakingBatten?” Breaking Batten, 2015, http://www.breakingbatten.org/. Won, Hong-Hee, Woojae Myung, Gil-Young Song, Won-Hee Lee, Jong-Won Kim, Bernard J. Carroll, and Doh Kwan Kim. “Predicting National Suicide Numbers with Social Media Data,” PLOS One, 2013, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061809. Zillman, Claire. “A New Poll on Sexual Harassment Suggests Why ‘Me Too’ Went so Insanely Viral,” Fortune, October 17, 2017, http:​//for​tune.​com/2​017/1​0/17/​ me-to​o-has​htag-​sexua​l-har​assme​nt-at​-work​-stat​s/.

Chapter 5

I’m Not a Doctor, But I Play One on TV Bad Celebrity Health Advice and Why We Follow It Carol M. Madere

Celebrities are often praised for using their fame to bring awareness to important health concerns. When Angelina Jolie shocked the world by having a preventative double mastectomy, women everywhere began to inquire about whether they carried the BRCA1 gene that would predispose them to breast cancer as well. When Katie Couric televised her colonoscopy in 2000, she raised awareness worldwide for the best way to fight colon cancer. But what about when they offer controversial and unproven health advice? Steven Salzberg, PhD, Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of biomedical engineering, computer science, and biostatistics at Johns Hopkins University, told Healthline, “‘Because celebrities have a big audience, they can have a big effect on people’s behavior,’ and if they give out bad advice, that can be very dangerous” (Gray 2017). Actress Gwyneth Paltrow offers health and lifestyle advice in her lifestyle publication Goop, in which she recommends that women put jade eggs in their vaginas for “better sex” and “overall well-being.” The eggs sell for $66 and are currently sold out, according to the Goop website, even though doctors warn that the eggs may pose some health risks (Gray 2017). Dr. George Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, says it’s risky for the general public to put their trust in celebrities. “Celebrities are seen through the lens of their fans as trusted messengers,” said Benjamin. “The challenge we have is making sure that those messages are correct and that those celebrities are well-informed. Frankly, sometimes, they’re simply wrong” (Gray 2017). 67

68

Carol M. Madere

Why does the public put so much faith in what celebrities say about health? Hoffman and Tan (2013) searched electronic databases Business Source Complete, Communications & Mass Media Complete, Humanities Abstracts, ProQuest Political Science, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Sociology Abstracts for studies which discussed the mechanisms of celebrity influence on people in any context and developed the following categories for celebrity influence: • Celebrity endorsements as signals—As celebrities, their endorsements seem superior to the contradictory information consumers of health information may receive from family, friends, health professionals, and online resources. • Celebrities leading the herd—People tend to make decisions based on what others have done in similar situations, especially when those others are favorite celebrities. • Meaning transfer from celebrities to consumers—Celebrities transfer important social or cultural meanings to products they endorse, and people in turn consume the endorsed products in hopes of being like them. • Halo effect—Celebrities are perceived to have greater credibility than their noncelebrity counterparts due to their professional success, which “biases people’s judgments of celebrities’ other traits and gives them a cloak of generalised trustworthiness that extends well beyond their industry or expertise.” • Classical conditioning—Consumers already have positive perceptions of celebrities, so when they offer medical advice, the perceptions of consumers are primed to be positive. • Self conception and celebrity endorsers—If consumers of health information are using celebrities to define how they see themselves, that celebrity’s advice would be very influential. • Cognitive dissonance—People may experience psychological discomfort when they ignore the medical advice of their favorite celebrity. • Celebrity advice spreads through social networks—Although their social ties to the average consumer of medical information are weak, their newsworthiness and the parasocial relationships which fans form with them help them to figure prominently in social networks and have great influence as medical advisers (Hoffman and Tan 2013). JENNY MCCARTHY AND THE ANTIVACCINATION MOVEMENT The anti-vaccination movement did not begin with activist and former Playboy model Jenny McCarthy, but she is certainly seen as its prettiest face and most outspoken voice. Although more active in the early part of the 2000s,

I’m Not a Doctor, But I Play One on TV

69

the anti-vaccination movement was in the news as recently as March 2018, when WebMD reported a study by Ousseny Zerbo which found that parents of children with autism are less likely to vaccinate their autistic child or his/ her siblings, leaving them “at greater risk of vaccine-preventable diseases” (Mozes 2018). Vaccine choice was also an issue raised in the 2016 presidential election when Donald Trump and Rand Paul both sided with anti-vaxxers on vaccine choice. Islamist militants are violently against vaccinations. In 2016, police in Pakistan had to guard health workers administering the polio vaccine to children, because militants believe the vaccines are a Western conspiracy to sterilize Pakistani children. Pakistan and Afghanistan are the only two countries where polio remains endemic (Newsweek Global 2016). Anti-vaxxers are reported to have existed in the early 1800s following Edward Jenner’s presentation of an article to the Royal Society of London in 1796, which detailed his success in preventing smallpox in 13 people by inoculation of live infectious material from people infected with cowpox. In fact, Jenner was the first to use the term “vaccine,” from vacca, the Latin for cow (Wolfe and Sharp 2002). When vaccination acts were passed between 1840 and 1867 making vaccination compulsory in Britain, anti-vaccination leagues challenged the laws as a violation of civil liberty, and violent rioting ensued. In 1898, the vaccination law was amended to allow exemption of parents based on conscience (Wolfe and Sharp 2002). Around the same time, anti-vaccination activity also increased in the United States as states attempted to enforce existing vaccination laws or pass new ones in the wake of a smallpox outbreak (Wolfe and Sharp 2002). According to Hussein et al. (2016), the nineteenth century was a major landmark for vaccination, because of Pasteur’s “Germ Theory of disease.” Other discoveries include vaccinations for tuberculosis, pneumococcus, and rabies. Early in the twentieth century, vaccines protecting against pertussis (1914), diphtheria (1926) and tetanus (1938) were developed. In 1948, these were combined and given as the DTP vaccine (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia 2014). In 1955, the polio vaccine was licensed, and Dr. Jonas Salk became an overnight hero. By the 1960s, vaccines to protect against measles, mumps, and rubella were developed. In 1971, these were combined into the MMR vaccine. Vaccines developed since then protect against hepatitis B, HPV (human papillomavirus), and meningitis. A vaccine against shingles was approved by the FDA in 20016, and in 2016, an NIH-supported clinical trial was launched to test a modified HIV vaccine. At times of disease outbreak, such as in the polio outbreak of the early 1950s when there were more than 15,000 cases of paralysis each year in the United States, vaccines were eagerly sought and few, if any protested their use. The March of Dimes, which raised money to support research into a

70

Carol M. Madere

polio vaccine, sprang from the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, which was created by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1938. Fundraising birthday balls were celebrated from 1938 on Roosevelt’s birthday (January 30) until his death in 1945 to raise money for victims of polio. According to the Smithsonian Natural Museum for American History, “The March of Dimes was a grassroots campaign run primarily by volunteers. Over the years, millions of people gave small amounts of money to support both the care of people who got polio and research into prevention and treatment. Those contributions financed Jonas Salk, Albert Sabin, and other researchers who developed polio vaccines that children around the world receive today” (Smithsonian Natural Museum for American History 2018). “Currently, all 50 states have laws requiring vaccination for school children, but they also allow medical exemptions for children with diseases whose health could be compromised by vaccinations. Religious exemptions are allowed in every state except Mississippi and West Virginia. Twenty more states allow exemptions for personal or moral beliefs. Applications for exemptions are on the rise, as are proposals by legislators to ease restrictions” (Parker 2015). However, doubts about vaccination continued into the 1980s, even before the alleged link to autism. In 1982, Mothering Magazine offered the following opinion to readers on whether or not to vaccinate their children: It is possible to prevent these diseases if we understand their causes. Vaccinations for creating an artificial immunity against sickness then become unnecessary; we can avoid the problem entirely by establishing and maintaining a healthy balance between the child and his or her environment. Vaccinations are routinely given for the following supposedly “infectious” diseases: tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis whooping cough), polio, measles, mumps, smallpox, and rubella (German measles). All these diseases are supposed to be caused by germs, that is, bacteria, or viruses, which are thought of as external agents that invade the body. In the 1860s Louis Pasteur developed the germ theory of diseases, which, in brief, claims that microscopic organisms of a pathogenic nature can invade a human organism, and thus cause disease. This theory met with mixed reactions in the medical community when it was first introduced; because of the extremely analytical and mechanistic intellectual climate at that time in Europe and America on the brink of the Industrial Age, this theory was eventually accepted and has been further refined up until the present. This radically dualistic theory implies that human beings are isolated objects existing in an alien environment and must therefore constantly be protected from invasion by noxious foreign substances. This same fearful and fragmented view of reality led to the general alienation of humans from their environment in the modern Industrial Age. (Jacobs 1982)

This advice foreshadows some of the claims anti-vaxxers make today: that vaccines are unnatural, that scientific theories may be questioned.

I’m Not a Doctor, But I Play One on TV

71

The current anti-vaccination movement began with the publication of an article written by Andrew Wakefield in the British medical journal Lancet in 1998, which linked autism to the MMR vaccine. Subsequently, Britain’s General Medical Council found Wakefield to have acted “dishonestly and irresponsibly” when the fact became known that two years before his paper appeared, lawyers seeking to sue vaccine makers had paid Wakefield the equivalent of $700,000. After the council’s decision, the Lancet retracted the article, but the damage had been done (Fumento 2010). Vaccination levels plummeted both in Britain and in the United States. “One person’s research set us back a decade and we’re just now recovering from that,” said Mark Sawyer, pediatrician and infectious disease specialist at Radey Children’s Hospital in San Diego (Fumento 2010). The present anti-vaxx movement is aided by the Internet and social media, with more than 180 anti-vaccination groups, and celebrity spokespeople, including Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey, Charlie Sheen, Alicia Silverstone, and Kirstie Alley. According to Anna Kata, who studied how anti-vaccination activists have made use of Web 2.0 technology, “If McCarthy tweets about autism or vaccines, over 450,000 followers (as of this writing) instantly receive her comments and can forward them on to others. Some users even use Twitter to ask her for medical advice” (Kata 2012). According to Kata (2012) the tactics of the anti-vaccination movement include skewing the science, shifting hypotheses, censorship, and attacking the opposition. Skewing the science—Science is praised when it bolsters their position that vaccines are harmful, but denigrated when it does not. Scientists, such as Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia and an outspoken critic of the anti-vaccination movement, are called “biostitutes,” whores for Big Pharma, but the research of David and Mark Geier, a father-son team whose study was overseen by Geier family members and a lawyer working on vaccine injury suits, is deemed a “good study” by anti-vaccination websites. Shifting hypotheses—Since numerous scientific studies have refuted the allegation that vaccines cause autism, anti-vaxxers next indicted thimerosal, a preservative that has not been in vaccines since 1999. Next, anti-vaxxers proposed that aluminum was the culprit. According to Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (2018), aluminum is found in numerous food and beverages, including baby food. In vaccines, it serves as an “adjuvant,” which means it boosts the immune response to the vaccine. However, aluminum adjuvants are not used in live viral vaccines, such as those for measles, mumps, or rubella. Another claim is “Too Many, Too Soon,” the notion that children receive too many vaccines at too young an age, thus overwhelming their immune systems. Sometimes, the anti-vaxxers make ambiguous claims, such as when Jenny McCarthy said she was not against vaccinations; she was for vaccine safety.

72

Carol M. Madere

Censorship—The anti-vaccination movement censors dissenting opinions. The Age of Autism blog refuses to post critical comments under the guise of comment moderating. Mothering.com hosts a community vaccination forum, which claims to not be an anti-vax forum, but clearly states that they are not interested in hosting discussions advocating for mandatory vaccination. Attacking the opposition—Anti-vaccine activists have filed lawsuits against their critics, including one filed by activist and co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center Barbara Loe Fisher against Dr. Offit and journalist Amy Wallace for a profile Wallace wrote about Offit in the magazine Wired. Offit has had to hire security personnel to protect him from anti-vaxxers when he gives public speeches. Another vaccine proponent, Dr. Peter Hotez, whose daughter has been diagnosed with autism, has been accused of “being in cahoots with pharmaceutical companies, conspiring to get rich off vaccines. “In one of the rare instances where he directly rebuked his adversaries, he demanded the retraction of a blog post accusing him of being a profiteer. ‘I’m making Chagas and schistosomiasis vaccines. These are for the poorest of the poor,’ he said. ‘I will never make any money on these vaccines, and no one else will either.’” (Beil 2017)

Kata (2012) next described common anti-vaccination tropes, many of which are logical fallacies: • “I’m not anti-vaccine, I’m pro-safe vaccine.” • “Vaccines are toxic” (referring to toxic ingredients supposedly found in vaccines, such as formaldehyde). • “Vaccines should be 100 percent safe!” (an argument that ignores the danger posed by vulnerability to the diseases they prevent). • “You can’t prove vaccines are safe.” • “Vaccines didn’t save us.” (Anti-vaxxers attribute improvements in public health to cleaner water and better sanitation, rather than vaccines.) • “Vaccines are unnatural.” (Anti-vaxxers make the simplistic argument that anything “natural” is good, while anything “unnatural” is bad. Thus, children should be allowed to be exposed to disease and acquire immunity naturally.) • “Choosing between diseases and vaccine injuries.” (Anti-vaxxers like to portray vaccination in terms of misleading dichotomies—e.g. the unlikelihood of catching a disease versus the supposedly greater likelihood of vaccine injury. This is the either/or fallacy.) • “Galileo was persecuted, too.” (Anti-vaxxers use the logic that great minds like Galileo were attacked by the science orthodoxy of their time, so eventually, their “science” will be accepted as well.) • “Science was wrong before.” (Vaccinations are equated with previous scientific errors such as Vioxx, Thalidomide, and cigarettes.)

I’m Not a Doctor, But I Play One on TV

73

• “So many people can’t all be wrong.” (Just because a lot of people have made claims about vaccine injury does not make them true. This is the classic bandwagon fallacy.) • “Skeptics believe.” (False motives are ascribed to vaccine supporters, who are labeled “skeptics,” thus creating straw men used to misrepresent pro-vaccine positions.) • “You’re in the pocket of Big Pharma.” (This trope alleges that those who defend vaccines do so because they are hired to promote pharmaceutical products for devious purposes or profit. This is the class ad hominem attack of trying to discredit the fact by discrediting the speaker of the fact.) • “I don’t believe in coincidences.” (This argument rejects that health problems may coincidentally occur after vaccination without having been caused by the vaccine. This is the post hoc logical fallacy of since event X followed event Y, event X must have caused event Y.) • “I’m an expert on my own child.” (Genuine authorities on vaccines are denigrated for having appropriate expertise, while parents consider themselves “experts” from having done their own research and knowing their child better than health authorities.) Kata (2012) adds that the anti-vaccination movement camouflages its rhetoric in unobjectionable terms, such as “informed consent,” “health freedom,” and “vaccine safety” to “take advantage of the current postmodern medical paradigm” of patient empowerment and shared decision-making. These tactics have been effective in getting many parents to request exemptions from mandatory vaccination laws and in pressuring lawmakers into making exemptions easier to obtain. One study of nonmedical exemptions from school vaccination mandates published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2014 noted that “exemption rates are increasing and occur in clusters; most exemptors questioned vaccine safety, although some exempted out of convenience. Easier state-level exemption procedures increased exemption rates and both individual and community disease risk” (Wang et al. 2014). Sadly, another indicator of anti-vaccination persuasiveness are recent measles outbreaks in the United States and around the world. According to Lena Sun’s article “Failure to Vaccinate is Likely Driver of U.S. Measles Outbreaks, Report Says” in the Washington Post, “In the latest findings, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed 1,789 measles cases among U.S. residents reported to the CDC from January 2001 through December 2015. They found that nearly 70 percent, or 1,243 individuals, were unvaccinated. Babies and toddlers had the least protection. Of 163 infants ages 6 to 11 months who became sick, only two had been vaccinated. Among 106 toddlers ages 12 to 15 months, 95 were unvaccinated”

74

Carol M. Madere

(Sun 2017). Not that this result would distress anti-vaccine advocates Dr. Jack Wolfson or Jenny McCarthy. Wolfson, a cardiologist and champion of the anti-vaxx movement, told the Arizona Republic, “We should be getting measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox. These are the rights of our children” (Kluger 2015). McCarthy said, “I do believe sadly it’s going to take some diseases coming back to realize that we need to change and develop vaccines that are safe. If the vaccine companies are not listening to us, it’s their f*cking fault that the diseases are coming back” (Kluger 2014). MEDIA INFLUENCE ON SUPPORT FOR THE ANTI-VACCINE MOVEMENT Media is the engine of celebrity, and thus complicit in spreading the bad health advice of celebrities far and wide. One way they do this is through false equivalence. CNN gave Wolfson a split-screen, point-counterpoint platform to argue the vaccine issue with another doctor, Dr. Armand Dorian (Kluger 2015). This was promoted on CNN.com as “Fiery Vaccine Debate,” which gave Wolfson’s position at least as much credibility and legitimacy as the other physician’s. In 2013, Jenny McCarthy joined the women on “The View” as a co-host. Although the program is basically a talk show, not a news program, it featured at the time groundbreaking newswoman Barbara Walters as a co-host and presented social issues for discussion. Allowing McCarthy to discuss her anti-scientific view of vaccinations on the program gives it the patina of legitimate news. In an article for Time magazine James Poniewozik argued: “ABC might argue that hiring McCarthy does not mean endorsing her antivaccine stance. But it’s just as dangerous to muddy a vital question of public health by framing it as a controversy that you can hash out in a roundtable before interviewing Bruce Willis about Red 2. Medical science is not a matter of views and opinion. It’s not like believing that capital-gains taxes should be lowered or gay marriage permitted. Things cause disease or they don’t” (Poniewozik 2013). Oprah Winfrey has featured more than one celebrity with dubious health advice to peddle. In 2009, Oprah invited Suzanne Somers to share her unusual secrets to staying young. Somers recommended the following health regimen: rubbing a potent estrogen cream into the skin on her arm each morning, smearing progesterone on her other arm two weeks a month, injecting estrogen directly into her vagina once a day and taking 60 vitamins and other supplements every day (Kosnova and Wingert 2009). Oprah acknowledged that doctors had criticized Somers’s regimen and allowed doctors seated in

I’m Not a Doctor, But I Play One on TV

75

the audience to raise concerns. But, according to Kosnova and Wingert, “It wasn’t quite a fair fight. The doctors who raised these concerns were seated down in the audience and had to wait to be called on. Somers sat on stage with Oprah, who defended her from attack” (Kosnova and Wingert 2009). In fact, Oprah said she found Somers’s self-help books “fascinating” and advised every woman to read them. Who could resist the sage wisdom of Oprah as she guides them through the conflicting health information her fans receive? In 2007, Oprah invited Jenny McCarthy to the show to talk about her struggle to help her young son stricken with autism. McCarthy presented her anecdotal evidence and personal conviction that vaccines were to blame without challenge, because Oprah did not invite physicians or scientists to counter McCarthy’s statements. Instead, she praised McCarthy’s bravery and read a brief statement from the Centers for Disease Control saying there was no science to prove a connection between vaccines and autism. Oprah then told viewers that McCarthy would be available to answer questions on Oprah.com. After that episode, McCarthy became a frequent guest on the show (Kosova and Wingert 2009). In 2013, Katie Couric surprised critics who had praised her televised colonoscopy in 2000 by airing “The HPV Vaccine Controversy,” in which she shared the story of a young woman who died 18 days after receiving the last HPV shot (Bamberger 2013). “We want to keep our kids safe, but is the vaccine the way to go?” Couric asked. The show then relegated most of the science concerning the vaccine’s safety and efficacy to the show’s website. As Bamberger notes, “She is a much more powerful and trusted voice than McCarthy, who, before her vaccine crusade, was known more for appearing in Playboy than for anything of substance” (Bamberger 2013). Bamberger wondered if Couric downplayed the uncontroversial information about vaccines in order to boost a fake controversy merely for the sake of ratings. Aside from the tendency by the media to sensationalize and dramatize health information by presenting it as if it’s controversial, there is also a tendency to publish “provocative medical research findings and failing to follow up when earlier theories were discarded or revised” (Goldenberg 2016). Also, when there is a huge amount of media coverage of vaccine safety, the public naturally concludes that there is no smoke without fire (Goldenberg 2016). This is simply the agenda-setting function of the media, which is to direct the public’s attention to particular issues. Another problem with media coverage is, as Nield notes, the media can move quickly from “early idealization to sudden condemnation” of vaccines as when a rotovirus vaccine was withdrawn in 1999. Citing a study by Danovaro, Holliday et. al, Nield reported that before the problem with the vaccine was found, only 2 of 88 reviewed newspaper articles were negative, while the

76

Carol M. Madere

rest were highly pro-vaccine. After the vaccine was withdrawn, 77 percent of reviewed articles were negative, with the vast majority highlighting potential adverse effects (Nield 2008). To sum up, the media provide a platform for celebrities offering health advice, because the media need celebrities as much as celebrities need media. The media set up a false equivalence between the views of the celebrity and respected medical authorities by having them appear side by side or even giving the celebrity an unfair advantage by having him or her onstage with Oprah and physician challengers just part of the audience or on a website. Associating celebrity pseudo-science with respected news figures offers the pseudo-science credibility, and dramatizing or idealizing/demonizing health news exacerbates public concern.

OFFIT VS. MCCARTHY CELEBRITY DEATH MATCH The real question is why would the public accept the views of a former Playboy model over a respected scientist concerning vaccine safety? There are a confluence of factors that make this phenomenon possible. First, there’s the problem of familiarity. Jenny McCarthy has a pretty, recognizable face. She’s been on talk shows, like Oprah’s; she’s been a co-host on “The View”; she’s even been a host on ABC’s “Rocking New Year’s Eve” program. However, most people, when asked to name a scientist, can name only Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson (Beil 2017). Also, most scientists eschew the limelight, preferring to communicate in dense, jargon-filled journal articles. In fact, as Beil 2017 notes, “Researchers whose celebrity exceeds their scientific output are not viewed favorably in academia. One journal refers to this degree of fame as the Kardashian Index.” So, medical researchers lack both the charisma and recognizability of a celebrity like Jenny McCarthy. Another problem is that the scientific community views concerned parents as an ignorant and irrational public, to whom they didactically offer “expertdriven definitive answers that the public can trust” (Goldenberg 2016). They discuss the need for herd immunity with parents who approach the question of vaccine safety from a different perspective—concern for their children. “These parents expressed vaccine fear that would not be relieved by reassurances that MMR was safe for the general public. They wanted to know: Is MMR safe for my child?” (Goldenberg 2016). Goldenberg adds: This effort by parents to figure out their own children’s risk of adverse events should not be read as ignorance of science or as an anti-science view. Instead, parents appear to be incorporating established knowledge that immune responses do vary and are trying to fill the knowledge gap regarding preceding or causal

I’m Not a Doctor, But I Play One on TV

77

events. This personalized approach is also not clearly demonstrative of fear or selfish disregard for public health either (albeit public health is threatened by this behavior). Instead, it shows attention to a parent’s priority—the well-being of his or her child. (2016)

The personalized approach to which Goldenberg refers is part of the postmodern medical paradigm that exists today. “In the 1970s, public health discourse adopted the language of choice, empowerment, personal responsibility and participation” (Goldenberg 2016). Patients are encouraged to accept responsibility for the effect of their lifestyle choices on their health, and, in fact, criticized when they don’t. Parents are expected to be advocates for their children’s health and well-being. Questioning the assumptions of the medical community, Goldenberg states, “In asking for active parents and compliant vaccinators, public health seems to want to have it both ways” (Goldenberg 2016). Lieberman (2015) points out that while anti-vaxxers are often portrayed as “less concerned about their children and more concerned about their privilege, their unreflective defiance of authority, and their need to feel empowered,” that doesn’t make them crazy. “First, it’s reasonable to be wary of any technological advance that claims to magically solve problems without creating new ones in their place. . . . Second, people are generally bad at weighing unseen and never-to-be seen future benefits—like not getting measles— against a present-day alternative that sounds undesirable” (Lieberman 2015). Goldenberg suggests that by broadening their view of the public they serve and by giving them a stake in establishing research priorities, public health professionals may begin fostering the kind of trust upon which compliance is built. Celebrity pseudo-science also has an advantage over the real thing in the postmodern world of Web 2.0 technology. As Kata describes it: Web 2.0 has furthered postmodern ideals by “flattening” truth; the infinite personalized truths presented online are portrayed as legitimate. This is supported by the postmodern characteristic of relativism—that there are no objective facts, but rather multiple meanings and ways of “knowing.” Web 2.0 places carefully scrutinized evidence next to the opinions of crusaders, critics and conspiracy theorists, potentially weakening messages from qualified experts. (Kata 2012)

It’s easy to see how active conspiracy theories are in the anti-vaccination movement. Vaccine researchers and pro-vaccine health professionals are portrayed as being corrupted by Big Pharma. Also, the doubters and deniers are empowered by the Internet, where there are many like-minded souls, and “anyone can attend what McCarthy calls ‘the University of Google’” (Wallace 2009) and call themselves an expert.

78

Carol M. Madere

Lastly, we cannot underestimate the effect of living in a risk society. Risk Communication Consultant Peter Sandman has developed a helpful equation to explain risk perception by the public: Risk = Hazard + Outrage. Sandman explains hazard as the scientifically determined risk level or how dangerous a risk is. Outrage is the public’s perceived risk level or how upsetting the risk is to the public. According to Sandman, if members of the public perceive a high risk, scientists will have a difficult time persuading them otherwise. In contrast, if the public perceives a small risk, scientists will have a difficult time persuading them otherwise (Ulmer, Sellnow, and Seeger 2011). In this case, the public perceives a high risk of vaccine injury, and the scientific community is having a difficult time persuading them otherwise. People today find themselves facing “global and personal threats, emerging and recurrent, which are growing in their variety—and indeed even frequently contradictory” (Vasconcellos-Silva, Casteil, and Griep 2015). These researchers make the argument that the degree of anxiety produced by these threats create a demand for rationalized certainties to which celebrities can more readily respond than scientists. From the point of view of consumers of health information, in the vacuum of certainties, it is more prudent to unite oneself with celebrity faces and biographies that sound familiar than, on the contrary, orient oneself by the averages of official statistics, which by nature are indeterminate and intangible. (Vasconcellos-Silva, Casteil, and Griep 2015)

Asserting that anti-vaxxers may be wrong, but not crazy, Liebermann (2015) puts it another way: Why is CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta a trusted source? Has he done research on vaccines? Has he read the original science himself? Maybe or maybe not. But he’s on CNN, he went to medical school, he looks nice and speaks eloquently. When these are the criteria we use to choose our scientific proxies, should we really be so outraged when others choose different pretty people as their trusted sources? (Libermann 2015)

CONSEQUENCES OF THE VACCINEAUTISM CONTROVERSY One of the consequences of the “controversy” over vaccines sustained by celebrities and the media is that it may be diverting attention and resources from actually discovering what really causes autism and from helping those who have it. According to vaccine advocate Dr. Peter Hotez, who understands the issue from both a parent’s and a scientist’s standpoint:

I’m Not a Doctor, But I Play One on TV

79

Not only are they putting kids in danger, it’s doing something else. It’s taking the oxygen out of an initiative to support kids with autism. Resources are especially scarce as they grow older,” he explained. “There’s so few special services available for adults with autism and why is that? I blame partly the anti-vaccine guys. Anytime autism is discussed at a high level, it’s all about vaccines. Nobody focuses on what kids really need.” (Beil 2017)

Another consequence is that it further erodes trust in science, in government, and in expert opinion. In 2007, Sense About Science (SAS), a charity that seeks to promote scientific accuracy in the United Kingdom, produced a leaflet warning celebrities of the dangers of misleading people on issues, such as child vaccination, and offers a helpline they can call to check the accuracy of statements before they make them (New Scientist 2007). “Celebrities often have a real effect on how members of the public view particular issues,” says John Toy, medical director of Cancer Research UK. “They therefore have a responsibility to be well-informed before they make statements endorsing particular treatments or products” (New Scientist 2007). Otherwise, when it comes to celebrity health advice, it’s better to follow the kind advising you to have a colonoscopy than the kind advising you not to vaccinate your children. REFERENCES Bamberger, Joanne. “Did Couric Put Ratings Above Science and Health?” USA Today. (December 6, 2013). Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost. http:​// ezp​roxy.​selu.​edu/l​ogin?​url=h​ttp:/​/sear​ch.eb​scoho​st.co​m/log​in.as​px?di​rect=​true&​ db=a9​h&AN=​J0E42​84273​78813​&site​=ehos​t-liv​e Beil, Laura. “Going Viral.” Texas Monthly. (December 2017). Centers for Disease Control. “U.S. Polio Elimination.” (November 28, 2017). Available at https://www.cdc.gov/polio/us/ Children’s Hospital of Philadelpha. “Vaccine History: Developments by Year.” (2014). https​://ww​w.cho​p.edu​/cent​ers-p​rogra​ms/va​ccine​-educ​ation​-cent​er/va​ccine​ -hist​ory/d​evelo​pment​s-by-​year ———. “Vaccine Ingredients—Aluminum.” (2018). https​://ww​w.cop​/edu/​cente​rs-pr​ ogram​s-vac​cine-​educa​tion-​cente​r/vac​cine-​incre​dient​s/alu​minum​ Fumento, Michael. “The Damage of the Anti-Vaccination Movement.” Los Angeles Times. (February 10, 2010). Accessed July 29, 2018. http:​//art​icles​.lati​mes.c​om/20​ 10/fe​b/05/​opini​on/la​-oe-f​ument​o5-20​10feb​05 Goldenberg, Maya J. “Public Misunderstanding of Science? Reframing the Problem of Vaccine Hesitancy.” Perspectives On Science. 23, no. 5 (September–October 2016): 552–581.

80

Carol M. Madere

Gray, Dan. “Celebrity Health Advice: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.” Healthline Newsletter. (February 1, 2017). https​://ww​w.hea​lthli​ne.co​m/hea​lth-n​ews/c​elebr​ ity-h​ealth​-advi​ce#1 Hoffman, Steven J. and Charlie Tan. “Following Celebrities’ Medical Advice: MetaNarrative Analysis.” British Medical Journal. (December 17, 2013): 347. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f7151. Hussein, Inaya H., Nour Chams, Sana chams, Skye El Sayegh, Reina Badran, Mohamad Raad, Alice Gerges-Geagea, Angelo Leone and Abdo Jurus. “Vaccines Through Centuries: Major Cornerstones of Global Health.” Front Public Health. 3: 269. Published online November 26, 2016. doi: 10.33389/fpubh.2015.00269. Jacob, Leonard. “Eating Well—The Best Medicine.” Mothering. 31 (Spring 1984): 17. Kata, Anna. “Anti-vaccine Activists, Web 2.0, and the Postmodern Paradigm—An Overview of Tactics and Tropes Used Online by the Anti-Vaccination Movement.” Vaccine. 30, no. 25 (May 28, 2012): 3778–3789. EBSCOhost (accessed July 29, 2018). http:​//ezp​roxy.​selu.​edu/l​ogin?​url=h​ttp:/​/sear​ch.eb​scoho​st.co​m/log​in.as​ px?di​rect=​true&​db=a9​h&AN=​75355​396&s​ite=e​host-​live Kluger, Jeffrey. “The Moment When You Must Have a Word with Jenny McCarthy.” Time.com. (April 15, 2014). http:​//tim​e.com​/6041​6/jen​ny-mc​carth​y-ant​i-vac​cine-​ white​wash/​ ———. “Meet the Latest Driver of the Anti-Vaccine Clown Car (Who Thinks You’re a Bad Mother.” Time.com. (February 3, 2015). http:​//tim​e.com​/3689​645/w​olfso​ n-ant​ivacc​ine-m​easle​s/ Kosova, Weston and Pat Wingert. “Crazy Talk.” Newsweek. 153, no. 23 (June 8, 2009): 54–63. Lieberman, Matthew D. “Anti-Vaxxers Love Their Children Too: They’re Wrong But That Does Not Make Them Crazy.” Psychology Today. (February 25, 2015). Available at https​://ww​w.psy​cholo​gytod​ay.co​m/us/​blog/​socia​l-bra​in-so​cial-​mind/​ 20150​2/ant​i-vax​xers-​love-​their​-chil​dren-​too Mozes, Alan. “Anti-Vaccine Movement Affecting Kids with Autism.” WebMD. (March 26, 2018). https​://ww​w.web​md.co​m/chi​ldren​/news​/2018​0326/​anti-​vacci​ ne-mo​vemen​t-aff​ectin​g-kid​s-wit​h-aut​ism#1​ New Scientist. “Fame in the Frame.” New Scientist. 193, no. 2585 (January 6, 2007): 5. Newsweek Global. “Anti-Vaxxers.” 166, no. 17: 8–9. Accessed December 22, 2017. http:​//web​.b.eb​scoho​st.co​m.ezp​roxy.​selu.​edu/e​host/​deliv​ery?s​id=2f​7 Nield Linda S. “Anti-vaccine Media: Its Impact—and Strategies to Combat It.” Consultant for Pediatricians. 7, no. 9 suppl (2008): S4–S7. Parker, Laura. “The Anti-Vaccine Generation: How Movement Against Shots Got Its Start.” National Geographic. (February 6, 2015). Accessed July 29, 2018. https​ ://ne​ws.na​tiona​lgeog​raphi​c.com​/news​/2015​/02/1​50206​-meas​les-v​accin​e-dis​neyoutbre​ak-po​lio-h​ealth​-scie​nce-i​nfocu​s/ Poniewozik, James. “Bad Medicine.” Time. 182, no. 5 (July 29, 2013): 55. Smithsonian Natural Museum of American History. “Whatever Happened to Polio?” Accessed July 27, 2018. Available at www.si.edu.

I’m Not a Doctor, But I Play One on TV

81

Sun, Lena H. “Failure to Vaccinate is Likely Driver of U.S. Measles Outbreaks, Report Says.” The Washington Post. (October 3, 2017). Available at https​://ww​ w.was​hingt​onpos​t.com​/news​/to-y​our-h​ealth​/wp/2​017/1​0/03/​failu​re-to​-vacc​inate​ -is-l​ikely​-driv​er-of​-u-s-​measl​es-ou​tbrea​ks-re​port-​says/​?utm_​term=​.3d59​6c9e0​cf Ulmer, Robert, Timothy Sellnow and Matthew W. Seeger. Effective Crisis Communication: Moving from Crisis to Opportunity. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 2011. Vasconcellos-Silva, Paulo R., Luis D. Casteil and Rosane H. Griep, “The MediaDrive Risk Society, the Anti-Vaccination Movement and Risk of Autismo.” Ciencia & Saude Coletvia. 20, no. 2 (2015): 607–616. Wallace, Amy. “An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endanger Us All.” Wired. (October 19, 2009). Available at https​://ww​w.wir​ed.co​m/200​ 9/10/​ff-wa​ronsc​ience​/ Wang, Eileen, Jessica Clymer, Cecilia Davis-Hayes and Allison Buttenheim. “Nonmedical Exemptions from School Immunization Requirements: A Systematic Review.” American Journal of Public Health. 104, no. 11 (November 2014): e62– e84. Published online November 2014. doi 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302190. Wolfe, Robert M. and L.K. Sharp. “Anti-vaccinationists Past and Present.” British Medical Journal. 325, no. 7361 (August 24, 2002): 430–432.

Chapter 6

The Hunger Games for Orphans? Angelina Jolie and the Limits of Celebrity Humanitarianism Meg Tully and Michelle Colpean

As part of a promotional cycle for her 2017 Netflix film First They Killed My Father (FTKMF), Angelina Jolie sat down with Vanity Fair reporter Evgenia Peretz to discuss the film project, her family, and her life following her 2016 split from husband Brad Pitt. While some criticized the profile for its heavyhanded attempts to frame Jolie as a relatable, ordinary mother (Bromley 2017), many more were outraged by Jolie’s description of her casting process for her film (Percival 2017). The profile explains: To cast the children in the film, Jolie looked at orphanages, circuses, and slum schools, specifically seeking children who had experienced hardship. In order to find their lead, to play young Loung Ung [author of the memoir upon which the film is based], the casting directors set up a game, rather disturbing in its realism: they put money on the table and asked the child to think of something she needed the money for, and then to snatch it away. The director would pretend to catch the child, and the child would have to come up with a lie. “Srey Moch [the girl ultimately chosen for the part] was the only child that stared at the money for a very, very long time,” Jolie says. “When she was forced to give it back, she became overwhelmed with emotion. All these different things came flooding back.” Jolie then tears up. “When she was asked later what the money was for, she said her grandfather had died, and they didn’t have enough money for a nice funeral.” That authentic connection to pain was awakened in everyone involved. (Peretz 2017)

Although she is often lauded for her humanitarian work around the globe, Jolie immediately came under fire for her exploitation of child actors. Jolie quickly denied the audition story, calling it “false and upsetting,” and asked 83

84

Meg Tully and Michelle Colpean

that Vanity Fair issue a retraction (Izadi 2017). Vanity Fair responded by releasing a transcription of the interview that corroborates Peretz’s profile and issued no corrections (Vanity Fair 2017). The backlash to Jolie’s Vanity Fair profile was harsh and swift, as many people took to social media and celebrity culture outlets to condemn the “exploitative” and “cruel” casting process for the film (Gordon 2017). On Twitter, NPR journalist Sam Sanders referred to the process as playing “orphan Hunger Games” (Ma 2017), while Guardian columnist Marina Hyde (2017) critiqued Jolie’s “narcissistic altruism” and called her “batshit crazy.” This public outcry aligned with a substantial body of literature, which casts a critical eye on the inherently fraught politics of celebrity humanitarianism, ranging from exploitative attempts to rehabilitate public images, to the reification of white Western bodies and ideologies, to spotlighting spectacle and quick fixes in a way that distracts from the complicated geopolitics that cause these human rights violations in the first place (see Wilkins 2015; Shome 2014; Tsaliki, Frangonikolopoulos, and Huliaras 2014). These valid critiques of the troubling casting process for the film briefly brought these issues of white saviordom and exploitation to the forefront of public discourse about celebrity humanitarianism and transnational activist politics. Interestingly, this rupture of Jolie’s image as an untouchable humanitarian coincided with news of her messy divorce from Pitt. Charting this collapse of her reputation as a “global mother” (Shome 2014) to impoverished children across the world alongside a major disruption in her family life, media outlets critiqued Jolie for posing on the red carpet with her own children as a way to “deflect attention away from the embarrassment of her recent scuffle with Vanity Fair” (Bromley 2017). Indeed, the Vanity Fair profile directly collapsed Jolie’s personal and humanitarian lives, as Peretz framed FTKMF as both Jolie’s political tribute to Cambodia and a personal way to connect her eldest son Maddox to his home country, while also highlighting the actresses’ transition to life as a single mother. The combination of these scandals led audiences to question the authenticity of Jolie’s mothering instincts in both her humanitarian work and in her personal family life. In this essay, we seek to understand the conditions under which the impure politics of Jolie’s global humanitarianism finally came under such broad public scrutiny. In doing so, we tie our explanation not only to the egregious nature of her casting controversy but also to the larger collapse of her image as a global mother. Focusing on entertainment media coverage of the casting incident, much of which draws heavily from public discussions happening on Twitter, alongside a broader media framing of Jolie’s life post-divorce, we focus on the way her image has changed in popular press outlets. First, we briefly review literature on celebrity humanitarianism, global motherhood, and the evolution of Jolie’s reputation in media and popular culture. Then,

The Hunger Games for Orphans?

85

we unpack Jolie’s casting “game” and its criticisms in popular media outlets, grounding them in larger critiques of the politics of celebrity activism. Centering gendered expectations of mothering, we then examine how Jolie’s divorce compounds accusations of child endangerment and alters her public image once again. CELEBRITY HUMANITARIANISM, GLOBAL MOTHERHOOD, AND ANGELINA JOLIE From Bono’s RED campaign for AIDS relief, to Oprah’s Leadership Academy in South Africa, to Matt Damon’s efforts with Water.org, an everincreasing number of celebrities are tying themselves to humanitarian causes. We live in an age in which “entertainment stars play a prominent role as ‘humanitarians’ in world politics,” and often link their public personas to causes focused on human rights and humanitarian aid (Kapoor 2013, 30). Generally, the relationship between celebrities and their chosen causes is one of mutual benefit. Stars are viewed as altruistic and generous, while the organization or issue benefits from increased awareness, recognition, or funding. While celebrity engagement with charitable causes is nothing new, current media landscapes allow for a heightened prominence of these relief efforts and organizations. As Andrew Cooper (2008) explains, “The advantages of linking individual star power to a collective project are clear. Celebrities have the power to frame issues in a matter that attracts visibility and new channels of communication at the mass as well as the elite levels.” Although the spotlight and financial benefit brought to these causes are meaningful and often worthy of legitimate praise, the politics of celebrity humanitarian aid are arguably also inherently compromised. Celebrity humanitarianism has been critiqued from a number of perspectives, from skepticism about the authenticity of the celebrity’s actions to the inefficacy of the aid to meaningfully intervene in a given cause. Inherently, celebrity activists are challenged with “overcoming the international image of Hollywood as one of America’s most powerful global marketing machines” (Volcic and Erjavec 2015, 357). That is, their philanthropy is often tainted by suspicions that celebrities are simply engaging in aid work as a branding strategy. Celebrity activists are also accused of speaking for impoverished or racialized communities of which they are not part and turning suffering into a spectacle (Wilkins 2015). Lillie Chouliaraki (2012) explains that celebrity activists encourage spectators to “feel for the celebrity’s feelings for the feelings of the sufferer,” often erasing the voices of those whom the celebrity is ostensibly trying to help (16). Finally, there are concerns that celebrity humanitarianism is ineffective, as celebrities can eclipse the causes they were

86

Meg Tully and Michelle Colpean

enlisted to serve (Volcic and Erjavec 2015) or “suppress awareness of the preponderance and root causes of inequality and injustice” (Fridell and Konings 2013, 7). Western celebrities engaging in transnational humanitarianism also run the risk of imposing Western ideologies on other countries or reproducing dangerous racial stereotypes and colonialist histories (Shome 2014). Humanitarianism, like most elements of culture and public discourse, is also deeply gendered. As Wendy Hesford (2011) argues, “The humanitarian response follows the logic of cultural recognition and its limitations in addressing social injustices,” meaning that we are drawn to particular subjects and causes that we often culturally view as in need of protection (195). Thus, women and children are often the popularized subjects of appealing humanitarian relief campaigns, governed by paternalistic logics both nationally and internationally (Hesford 2011). However, it is not only the targets of this aid that are gendered, but those participating in humanitarian or aid work as well. Kapoor (2013) explains that “gendered humanitarianism mirrors idealized nationalist (and Christianized) notions of womanhood,” wherein women are often expected to be mothering figures entrusted with “the preservation and reproduction of family and kinship” (37). As such, high-profile women are often tethered to humanitarian causes that help women and children both domestically and internationally. From iconic images of Princess Diana cradling emaciated children to the extremely personal and intimate trend of transnational adoption among celebrities such as Madonna and Charlize Theron, the gendered link between activism and womanhood is enduring and prevalent. The embodiment of the role of transnational caretaker, performed through mothering or other nurturing acts, is especially pronounced among the humanitarian work of white female celebrities. Female celebrity philanthropists in particular, from Audrey Hepburn to Jennifer Aniston, “are expected to play the role of mother” by privileging work with children above all other causes (Wilkins 2015, 174). Raka Shome (2014) mobilizes the term global motherhood to refer to the “logic or imagination through which white women’s bodies today are spilling into the global community and offering visions and hopes of a multicultural family” (113). Global motherhood hinges on (Western) white women’s representation as healthy, modern caretakers, and they are often juxtaposed against unhealthy or endangered children from the Global South. Since these global mothers are usually volunteering with or taking care of impoverished children, these representations reflect rescue narratives of white saviordom (Shome 2014, 130). A literal and highly visible example of global motherhood is transnational adoption, which functions as “a site of morality where celebrities enact and embody forms of public femininities” (Favara 2015, 627). For female celebrities, transnational adoption as a symbol of a globalized ethic of care and mothering is “indicative of a deeper investment

The Hunger Games for Orphans?

87

in constructing their public image,” which intimately ties their public commitments to humanitarian causes to the most intimate parts of their private lives (Favara 2015, 629). To audiences interpreting the public personas of these celebrity humanitarians, these acts of transnational adoption both legitimize the nurturing femininity of the adopter and authenticate their entrance into a particular culture or geography (see Favara 2015; Shome 2014). Transnational adoption and global motherhood play particularly important roles in Jolie’s transition from Hollywood wild child to global political actor. As Raka Shome (2014) notes, Jolie’s career was defined through her reputation as “wild girl, bad girl, always on the high, sexually reckless, and emotionally disturbed” (147). She specialized in “dark, volatile characters” and won an Academy Award for her work in Girl, Interrupted, in which she played a woman with borderline personality disorder (Peretz 2017). Her personal life was similarly chaotic, as Jolie has openly discussed her history of heroin abuse and self-harm. During her marriage to Billy Bob Thornton, the couple notoriously wore vials of each other’s blood and boasted of their nontraditional sex lives. Jolie also received criticism for bringing her brother, James, to the 2000 Oscar ceremony and kissing him with “unsettling intimacy” (Peretz 2017). Her sexual charge and obvious attractiveness made her a perfect media vixen, especially after it was revealed that Jolie and Thornton married while Thornton’s then-fiancée Laura Dern was traveling, setting up Jolie’s longstanding reputation as a husband-stealer. Despite her tendency to share details of her personal life, Jolie was often read as over-the-top and inauthentic, largely because her persona as a dangerous sex symbol was a violation of traditional femininity. Jolie’s public perception shifted, however, as she turned to humanitarianism and began adopting children. While filming her breakout role in Lara Croft: Tomb Raider in Cambodia, Jolie “made a cathartic personal transformation” once she “witnessed what real suffering looked like: poverty, the loss of limbs from land mines, a generation of relatives wiped out” (Peretz 2017). Interestingly, Peretz’s (2017) Vanity Fair profile frames Jolie’s transformation as falling in line with her wild personality, noting that Loung Ung was impressed Jolie “didn’t mind getting dirty” to help others. After her transformative introduction to Cambodia, Jolie adopted three children from other countries: son Maddox from Cambodia, daughter Zahara from Ethiopia, and son Pax from Vietnam, permanently linking Jolie to transnational adoptions and positioning her as “the super mother of the twenty-first century” (Shome 2014, 147). Along with her three biological children with ex-husband Pitt, Jolie is the head of a multicultural, socially conscious, globe-trotting family of six. Jolie’s reputation is now closely tied to global motherhood, even rescuing her from the scandal surrounding her romance (and possible affair) with

88

Meg Tully and Michelle Colpean

then-married Pitt (Bromley 2017). Despite Jolie’s work with the Jolie-Pitt Foundation, her service as a U.N. Goodwill Ambassador, and donations of her personal time and money to global charities, refugee agencies, and relief organizations, “it is perhaps for her role as mother and transnational-adoptions advocate that Jolie is best known” (Kapoor 2013, 29). While some still believes Jolie was “trying too hard” (O’Connor 2013), press coverage of Jolie often centers her life as a mother and her contradictory reputation of “extraordinary ordinariness,” in which she is simultaneously a regular mom, a global political actor and an A-list celebrity (Chouliaraki 2012, 10). Indeed, Peretz’ (2017) Vanity Fair profile largely centered Jolie’s life as a “loving, exasperated,” mother and her family’s adjustment to her divorce. Her film, FTKMF, is also directly tied to Jolie’s global motherhood. Her “most personal film yet,” FTKMF is Jolie’s tribute to her son, Maddox, who encouraged his mother to make the film, served as an executive producer, and offered notes on the script (Peretz 2017). In many ways, Jolie’s personal and professional reputations are inextricably tied to motherhood. While Jolie is widely lauded for her humanitarian work and mothering, many critics have noted that Jolie’s humanitarianism is, in part, self-serving and couched in white savior politics. Lillie Chouliaraki (2012) explains that Jolie’s altruism is a “conscious lifestyle choice” in which Jolie engages in aid work for her own personal gain. She writes, “Instead of a natural inclination [toward service work], Jolie’s engagement with suffering others is constructed as part of a trajectory towards personal self-fulfillment” (11). That is, Jolie’s humanitarian work often reframes the horrors of war, poverty, and abandonment as “raw material for her self-transformation” from reckless celebrity to perfect mother (Volcic and Erjavec 2015, 358). Jolie is also able to claim global motherhood because of her status as a privileged white woman who “rescues” impoverished children from foreign countries. For Angelina Jolie and other celebrities, “black and brown babies constitute the grounds” upon which white women are rehabilitated and granted status as good mothers (Shome 2014, 147). For Jolie, motherhood has been a doubleedged sword because it granted her both relatability and an aura of perfection. As we argue later, the casting scandal combined with her divorce to shatter Jolie’s “untouchable” status. “IT’S THE KIND OF THING I’D EXPECT IN A BORAT-STYLE PARODY”: MEDIA BACKLASH TO JOLIE’S CASTING PROCESS Peretz’s (2017) Vanity Fair profile labeled FTKMF “a thank-you to the nation that transformed her,” inherently linking the film’s creation to Jolie’s longtime

The Hunger Games for Orphans?

89

aid work in Cambodia and around the world.1 The profile does extensive work to relay the authenticity and personal connection Jolie has worked to establish throughout the development of the film. Through building a close friendship with Loung Ung, upon whose memoir about the Khmer Rouge genocide the film is based, recruiting Cambodian filmmaker Rithy Panh to help lead the project, and mobilizing 3,500 Cambodians to be involved in its production, Jolie explains that the movie was “made by the country” (Peretz 2017). Thus, because of its close connection to her personal humanitarian mission, critiques about the film’s production and casting process are also a reflection on Jolie’s work as a widely recognized humanitarian. Critical media reactions to Jolie’s Vanity Fair profile largely centered on the exploitative casting politics behind FTKMF. By Jolie’s admission, she searched “orphanages, circuses, and slum schools, specifically seeking children who had experienced hardship” (Peretz 2017). Many people were quick to point out that Jolie was re-traumatizing vulnerable children by asking them to utilize their personal hardships to make their acting more authentic (see Gordon 2017; Percival 2017). One Twitter user asked, “Why in the HELL were Angelina Jolie and Co traumatizing poor cambodian children for ‘casting’? How is this applause worthy?,” simultaneously condemning the casting of the movie and Vanity Fair for utilizing the story to rehabilitate Jolie’s image (Gordon 2017). As Elahe Izadi (2017) points out in the Washington Post, the Vanity Fair profile quickly went viral among critics who have long viewed Jolie’s humanitarian work as “exploitative or emblematic of a ‘white savior complex.’” Guardian columnist Marina Hyde (2017) wrote, “Even by Hollywood’s questionable human resources standards, auditioning vulnerable children like this seems . . . idiosyncratic.” Echoing scholars’ longstanding concern that celebrity humanitarianism exploits trauma (Chouliaraki 2012), popular media outlets roundly condemned Jolie’s casting choices as problematic and psychologically damaging. Skepticism surrounding celebrity humanitarianism usually stems from two characteristics: “commodification, which spectacularizes suffering, and neocolonialism, which denies sufferers their own voice” (Chouliaraki 2012, 4). The accusation of commodification often implies manipulating the dramatic nature of a situation for some sort of personal or monetary gain. In this case, Jolie is commodifying Cambodian suffering on multiple levels: she is profiting off of real and imagined suffering from her actors and crew, and she is utilizing these stories to rehabilitate her image following her divorce from Pitt. In another anecdote, Jolie tells Vanity Fair that the film employed an on-set therapist because it triggered flashbacks and nightmares (Peretz 2017). Jolie’s casting politics are also exploitative because they follow neocolonialist histories that manipulate black and brown bodies for Western gain. Neocolonialism implies indirect control over previously colonized countries.

90

Meg Tully and Michelle Colpean

Under neocolonialist ideologies, people from historically marginalized populations are rarely granted the ability to speak for themselves or granted the same dignity and recognition as people from a more privileged group. Drawing upon neocolonialist histories of silencing black and brown children, novelist Sunny Singh tweeted of Jolie’s casting game, “This is psychopathic. It would not be allowed to be done to Western children so why the adoring write-up” (Percival 2017). These popular reactions publicize a long history of critique about the problematic elements of interventionist aid from wellmeaning white celebrities. Public responses from socially conscious Twitter users were published in many popular press outlets, granting legitimacy to these arguments and broadcasting them to a larger audience. Furthermore, by listing several Tweets in a row, popular press outlets demonstrate how widespread these criticisms are. Wendy Hesford (2011) calls for scholars and audiences to interrogate the humanitarian aid politics that “jointly incorporate victim subjects into social relations that support the logic of a global morality market that privileges Westerners as world citizens” (9). Critics of the film’s casting politics are doing just that, as they highlight the disparity between expectations of Western bodies to care for the troubled citizens of the Third World and the realities of their casting politics as exploiting legitimate pain for art. The heavy focus on these Tweets from outraged internet users weighs their critiques equally against Jolie’s denials of the problematic nature of the casting politics, lending a public space to important conversations about identity politics in outlets that would be unlikely to tackle them otherwise. Importantly, mass media coverage of this controversy functions to publicize and popularize critiques about savior politics and exploitation in outlets more commonly known for celebrity gossip and publicity, challenging readers to critically engage with the tensions inherent to celebrity humanitarianism. FROM “ETHEREAL WOOD NYMPH” TO “REMOVED ICE QUEEN”: AUTHENTICITY, MOTHERHOOD, AND CELEBRITY Clearly, Jolie’s Vanity Fair interview marked an explosion of public controversy and critique around the star’s professional and humanitarian interventions in Cambodia, bringing significant public attention to the impure politics of celebrity humanitarianism.2,3 While these necessary and important critiques finally received national coverage, longstanding criticisms of celebrity activist politics have lingered among concerned academics and other critical consumers of popular culture without gaining much traction in mainstream

The Hunger Games for Orphans?

91

media coverage. This leads us to ask, then, why are these legitimate critiques of Jolie finally garnering such significant attention? What is unique about Jolie, her public persona, and her activism that cast a spotlight on the potentially exploitative dimensions of the Cambodian casting controversy? Many critics argue that the egregious nature of the “casting game” was enough to warrant significant public attention. However, we argue that this controversy combines with Jolie’s unique public persona and struggles with authenticity to invite these criticisms on a wide scale. The publicization of the casting incident and its presentation alongside Jolie’s messy divorce from Pitt ruptured her image as an impeccable global mother figure within her own family and as a humanitarian. While much of the justifiable public criticism of Jolie focuses solely on the exploitation of vulnerable Others in this specific casting incident, we widen our lens to account for the gendered roles played by motherhood and authenticity. Thus, in this section, we unpack how motherhood has consistently granted Jolie authenticity, how her divorce impacted her reputation, and how it invited criticisms of Jolie as a global and personal mother. As an iconic celebrity, Jolie has struggled to be viewed as “authentic.” Hollywood authenticity is “a break from artifice and facade” that normally define celebrities, although the very nature of acting makes authenticity impossible to determine (Tupitsyn 2014). Jolie’s status as a superstar—one who is so unconcerned with her image that she does not employ a publicist— makes her seem both unknowable and otherworldly, leading to charges of inauthenticity. Indeed, the first line of Peretz’s (2017) Vanity Fair profile is, “Like most things involving Angelina Jolie, stepping foot into her house is an experience so heightened one wonders if it’s for real or the product of careful orchestration.” When Jolie enters the room, Peretz (2017) describes her as “a beneficent, ethereal wood nymph” and is surprised that Jolie is “normalperson friendly and practical, even chitchatty.” As the daughter of actor Jon Voight and actress and humanitarian Marcheline Bertrand, Jolie represents Hollywood royalty “clearly destined to be a spectacular beauty” (In Style 2017). Despite her earlier reputation as a “ravishing goth weirdo” (Buckley 2017), Jolie’s foray into superstardom paralleled her entrance into humanitarian work (Peretz 2017). This sudden change in reputation, coupled with her divorce from actor Billy Bob Thornton and her adoption of Maddox, led to a life “bursting at the seams—with acting, directing, humanitarian work, parenting six kids, and guest-lecturing on women’s rights at the London School of Economics” (Peretz 2017). Her hectic life, award-winning acting career, and high-profile romance with Pitt made Jolie a tabloid mainstay, but Jolie rarely granted interviews or sought publicity for herself, leading to claims of inauthenticity. In 2013, she appeared on Star magazine’s list of the 20 mosthated celebrities because she both “tries too hard” through her aid work and

92

Meg Tully and Michelle Colpean

committed “crimes against other celebrities” by allegedly stealing Pitt from then-wife Jennifer Aniston (O’Connor 2013). Despite her status as a widely lauded humanitarian, there has always been a perception that Jolie is unknowable or guarded. In an era where celebrities are expected to be accessible on social media and have fun on late night television shows, Jolie violates what many audiences want from their superstars. However, Jolie’s status as a global mother and humanitarian has granted her some semblance of authenticity. In celebrity aid work, authenticity refers to “the performative strategies by which a celebrity renders her impersonations of altruism credible and legitimate” (Chouliaraki 2012, 4). Before the casting scandal, Jolie was granted authenticity in several ways. First, her three adopted children directly tied her to the foreign nations from which she adopted them, literally bringing her humanitarianism home with her. As Shome (2014) explains, Jolie’s adopted children were “routes through which she became (positioned) as the super mother of the 21st century,” thus providing her with an authentic, material tie to the locations in which many of her humanitarian projects are based (147). Second, Jolie often surrounds herself with locals while on aid missions, as she did in the making of FTKMF. As one Bosnian news report noted, Jolie “loves to be photographed with ‘authentic’ locals in order to appear even more ‘authentic’ herself” (Volcic and Erjavec 2015, 364). Finally, Jolie’s role as Special Envoy for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as well as various other humanitarian awards, appear to confirm that Jolie does significant work with renowned aid agencies. In her personal life, motherhood also granted Jolie an air of authenticity. While she was often accused of breaking apart Pitt’s marriage to Jennifer Aniston, Jolie’s humanitarian work and status as a mother boosted her reputation. By turning Pitt into a father and a partner in global aid work, “An extraordinary twist of perception occurred: all the do-gooding wiped away any residual blame Brad might have received for the end of marriage No. 1 (not to mention the memories of Angelina’s blood vial necklace), and instead a halo-topped Brangelina rose from the ashes” (Blomley 2017). Indeed, some said Pitt was forced into the arms of another woman because Jolie was willing to provide him with the children he always wanted (Blomley 2017). Jolie’s status as a mother lent her an “extraordinary ordinariness,” as she could be both a relatable mother and a global celebrity (Chouliaraki 2012, 10). As Natalie Finn (2017) of E! News explains, her children “illustrate one of the few relatable aspects of Jolie’s life—the joys and stresses of raising six kids between the ages of 9 and 15.” Both personal and global motherhood were enough to grant an A-list actress, humanitarian, director, and producer some semblance of authenticity.

The Hunger Games for Orphans?

93

While motherhood used to safeguard Jolie’s reputation, her messy split from Pitt threatened her status as a supermom. While on a private plane, Pitt reportedly got into a verbal and physical fight with eldest child Maddox, leading to investigations of child abuse by the FBI and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Peretz 2017).4 Pitt later admitted that he had a serious problem with alcohol abuse (Paterniti 2017). The public and dramatic nature of their divorce is unusual by Hollywood standards, with promises of amicable break-ups and conscious uncoupling. Significantly for Jolie, the incident on the plane directly endangered her children, rupturing her perfect mother image. Despite Pitt’s substance abuse, E! News labeled Jolie “the villain” in her divorce since she did not rehabilitate her image in the same way Pitt did (Bromley 2017).5 No longer an “untouchable” global or personal mother, the divorce left Jolie open to accusations that she cannot adequately take care of children, in her own life and, as the casting controversy demonstrates, on a global scale (Bromley 2017). Many of the public critiques of Jolie’s casting game focused specifically on the troubling relationship that she had with the children auditioning for FTKMF. This is meaningful not only because children are seen as especially vulnerable, but it is particularly jarring given Jolie’s positioning as a global mother. One horrified Twitter user wondered, “How is this woman an ambassador for children?” (Percival 2017), while another wrote, “Angelina Jolie is crazy. What a cruel psychological game to play with impoverished children” (Gordon 2017). The public outrage centered not only on the exploitative nature of these auditions in general, but on Jolie’s gross violation of her role as a nurturing mother figure and her insensitivity toward children. Twitter reactions were also fixated on the seemingly deliberate trauma Jolie inflicted on children for something as trivial as a movie role. As one user wrote, “Stop for a moment and consider what Angelina Jolie is doing to these children. ‘We’ll take that money back, and no you didn’t get the part’” (Gordon 2017). As this comment reflects, people were outraged that Jolie tapped into children’s real-life hardships, as if they could simply turn off their feelings after the audition was over. While the film is a tribute to Cambodia and reflects real activist work, it is still a commercial product and is tied to Jolie’s career as an entertainer. Thus, audiences charge Jolie with visibly reaping personal gain from the tragedies of Cambodian orphans, grossly violating her authentic care for the country and its people and highlighting the commodified nature of celebrity activism. Although the Vanity Fair profile works hard to portray Jolie as “messy, relaxed, normal” and “just like every other exasperated, loving mother in America,” these attempts at constructing a narrative of authenticity fell short (Peretz 2017). As entertainment writer Melanie Bromley (2017) noted,

94

Meg Tully and Michelle Colpean

“Some of Angelina’s recent interviews have missed the mark at making her seem vulnerable and in touch with other single moms. It’s going to take more than an anecdote about throw pillows in Vanity Fair to do that.” Because of her massive starpower, Jolie is already inherently put on a pedestal, as subject to hero worship as she is to heightened criticism. The construction of her identity around tropes of motherhood only functions to make this tension more pronounced, given that “mothers of status are showered with public accolades and scrutiny” alike (Fixmer-Oraiz 2015, 130). Jolie’s visibility as a mother to both her own children as well as the children she works with through her professional and humanitarian endeavors are under a constant level of gendered scrutiny. Further, the skepticism regarding the authenticity of celebrity humanitarians, and its intimate connections to Jolie’s globally assembled family, tie all of these elements of Jolie’s life closely together. When one aspect of her persona is subject to criticism, it seeps into the others as well. Jolie’s casting scandal ruptures many of the dominant logics that underlie our cultural expectations of celebrity humanitarian work, wherein beautiful white women are often “seen as having some innate power to heal and care,” for vulnerable and underprivileged people around the world (Shome 2014, 124). These romanticized images of stars providing aid to those who need it across the world are appealing, as “celebrating celebrity in global development spotlights spectacle, curtaining our gaze from the backstage dirt and pretending authenticity exists without rehearsal” (Wilkins 2015, 178). But in the case of Jolie, an attempt to establish the “authenticity” of young child actor Srey Moch Sareum in the Vanity Fair profile exposes the “backstage dirt” of a troubling process. Many were horrified that this particular story about the casting process was used to craft a reputation of authenticity for the project. As one Twitter user responded, “Thats insane, It’s the kind of thing I’d expect in a borat style parody—and then for vanity fair to be like ‘cute story’ is reprehensible” (Percival 2017). Comments like these reflect one of the oddities of Jolie’s Vanity Fair profile. For someone with as carefully crafted a reputation as Jolie, why would she brag about this type of violation? The answer seems to lie in her refusal to acknowledge the problematic nature of her “casting game.” Given that Jolie insists the Vanity Fair story was “a mischaracterization” of the casting process (Buckley 2017)—despite Vanity Fair releasing the transcript to confirm the story—it appears that Jolie does not understand what people are taking issue with: the troubling relationship between whiteness, power, and internationalism. The critical spotlight on Jolie is larger than the controversy surrounding her film or her public divorce, but also incorporates “the destruction of her almost perfect image” as a global mother (Bromley 2017). As her divorce from Pitt

The Hunger Games for Orphans?

95

ultimately demonstrates, removing just one aspect of Jolie’s “untouchable” life dismantles the others. She is no longer Angelina Jolie: actress, humanitarian, (global) mother. She is Angelina Jolie: “Groom Raider” (Callahan 2017)6 and an abuser of children. Despite Pitt’s potentially violent role in their divorce, Jolie has been branded “the removed ice queen to Mr. Pitt’s affable down-home Missouri boy” (Buckley 2017). Demonstrating an incredibly gendered backlash, Jolie has even been labeled “the villain” in her divorce from Pitt for both the casting scandal and her refusal to reveal intimate personal details in a tell-all interview (Bromley 2017). These criticisms directly tie to Jolie’s larger relationship to motherhood and authenticity. Now that she has lost her status as a perfect global mother, Jolie has “confirm[ed] what her harshest critics think they already know about Angelina, that she is not all that she seems” (Bromley 2017). The “casting game” is granted publicity because it is an undeniably horrific abuse by a celebrity. However, this perfect storm of controversy in Jolie’s personal and professional lives the ways they are so inextricably linked allows the story to gain international media attention and spark a conversation that troubles the conversation about celebrity, humanitarianism, and public culture. “NO FAVES ARE SAFE”: CELEBRITY CALLOUT CULTURE AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS The collapse of Jolie’s image as a transnational humanitarian through her troubling casting process in Cambodia, projected alongside stories of her violent personal struggles with Pitt, calls into question her abilities to properly enact mothering in all facets of her personal and public life.7 From her globally assembled family, to her humanitarian work, to her film, the authenticity of her public persona is deeply grounded in her identity as a mother. Thus, the casting controversy caused a serious rupture in her reputation as a nurturing global mother, seeping into her public personas a whole and turning her back into “America’s vixen” (Buckley 2017). While the justified call-out of Jolie facilitated an important, albeit brief, conversation about exploitation, whiteness, and global humanitarian projects, it is significant to reflect upon the gendered dimensions through which it was enabled. Jolie was going through a messy public divorce which threatened her image as a perfect mother, while publicizing FTKMF, a project she intimately tied to her personal life. It is impossible to untangle FTKMF from the Jolie-Pitt family, in large part because of how Jolie herself discusses the film. Because of these direct linkages, Jolie’s cruel casting “game” seemed to confirm that she is an unfit (global) mother. Indeed, in the public’s mind, if Jolie is willing to exploit other people’s children, how can she be trusted with her own?

96

Meg Tully and Michelle Colpean

What suspicions does this arouse about her relationship with her globally assembled family? This essay contributes to a larger conversation about celebrity humanitarianism, especially as it relates to transnationality, authenticity, and gendered expectations such as mothering. Scholars of media and celebrity such as Raka Shome (2014) and Lillie Chouliaraki (2012) have previously identified many of the problematic dimensions of famous white women’s transnational aid projects, especially in regard to personal gain, exploitation of the Other, and an ethic of saviordom. As a case study, this casting controversy extends their important discussions of the impure politics of Jolie’s public image as a celebrity humanitarian. Because the casting controversy brought these oftenniche critiques into the popular spotlight in entertainment outlets from Marie Claire to Harper’s Bazaar, we are able to analyze the gendered elements and expectations of public culture that allow this scandal to publicly highlight the often troubling nature of these types of transnational outreach projects. While we argue that the casting scandal disrupted Jolie’s reputation, the public outcry was brief. Indeed, First They Killed My Father was even nominated for a 2018 Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture—Foreign Language. The scandal may point to larger problems with celebrity call-out culture, or the act of publicly criticizing Hollywood figures for some sort of problematic behavior. Although celebrity call-out culture can be a valuable tool for social justice, scandals such as these are often short-lived and easily replaced. In part, this is due to the fast-moving nature of celebrity gossip. Rapid media cycles and a constant frenzy for presence in entertainment media ensure that there will never be any shortage of celebrity news and scandal. But this is also due to the specificity of the casting scandal, which requires larger conversations about Western ideologies and global aid. Not only are popular press outlets ill-equipped to lead these conversations, but they would require serious engagement and self-reflection among white, Western audiences. In the same way that Hollywood whitewashing is often called out in popular media, it is easy to point to celebrities’ flawed racial politics, but it is much more difficult to change or even fully recognize the Western-centric cultural biases and structures that perpetuate those politics. The feel-good images of celebrity global mothers helping children often function to obscure the “material violence that produce such states of despair” in the first place (Shome 2014). Disrupting these sentimental narratives with stories of exploitation and unnecessary trauma, as is the case in Jolie’s casting scandal, forces an engagement with a complicated, concerning network of geopolitical histories and realities that Western publics are unlikely to engage with for long. In other words, it is fairly easy to identify “re-traumatizing Cambodian orphans” as bad, but it is a different matter entirely to confront the long legacies of power and oppression that enable their traumatic conditions in the first place.

The Hunger Games for Orphans?

97

While the scandal was short-lived, there is evidence that Jolie’s reputation has been damaged. A quick Google search reveals that the top three headlines about Jolie pit her against other famous women associated with ex-husband Pitt, including Jennifer Aniston, from whom Jolie has never been able to escape, and Kate Hudson, a rumored fling of Pitt’s (Johnson 2018; Weiss 2018a, b). While her post-divorce interviews have centered her identity as a mother, tabloid coverage has returned Jolie to her roles as “ice queen” and homewrecker. Significantly, all of Jolie’s interviews and speeches following the Vanity Fair profile have centered her identity as a mother (Buckley 2017; Falcone 2017; Elle Staff 2018). Even a brief People magazine cover story reassured readers that Jolie continues “being a super mom,” and her acceptance speech for an award at a U.N. Correspondents Association dinner focused on her children’s identities as global citizens (Falcone 2017). It is difficult to read these profiles and their glorifications of Jolie as a mother as anything but responses to Vanity Fair. Jolie’s casting scandal also foregrounds questions of celebrity motherhood and authenticity. Although motherhood is culturally valued and has been “retooled as the penultimate achievement of twenty-first century feminism,” mothers remain under intense scrutiny (Fixmer-Oraiz 2015, 129). This scrutiny is intensified for celebrity mothers like Jolie, as media outlets revel in publicizing moments of failure. The scandal also reinforces how closely women are tied to motherhood and expectations of being nurturing caretakers. Women like Jolie cannot make mistakes without calling into question their mothering abilities. While its gendered dimensions are surely troubling, Jolie’s iconic public image as a global mother made the rupture caused by her casting controversy especially pronounced. The scandal ushered in a much-needed conversation that attended to the issues of power and racial exploitation in global activist projects.

NOTES 1. Quoted in Percival 2017. 2. Peretz 2017. 3. Buckley 2017. 4. No charges were filed against Pitt. 5. For his part, Pitt was profiled by GQ Style magazine and opens up about his history of substance abuse, the collapse of his marriage, and his attempts to rebuild his life. Through the profile, Pitt returned to his previous “cool bachelor” image. 6. Jennifer Aniston’s alleged nickname for Jolie. 7. Quoted in Percival 2017.

98

Meg Tully and Michelle Colpean

REFERENCES Bromley, Melanie. “How Angelina Jolie Ended Up the Villain in Her Divorce from Brad Pitt.” E! News, September 14, 2017. http:​//www​.eonl​ine.c​om/ne​ws/88​0076/​ how-a​ngeli​na-jo​lie-e​nded-​up-as​-the-​villa​in-in​-her-​divor​ce-fr​om-br​ad-pi​tt. Buckley, Cara. “Angelina Jolie, Unbroken.” New York Times, September 13, 2017. https​://mo​bile.​nytim​es.co​m/201​7/09/​13/mo​vies/​angel​ina-j​olie-​brad-​pitt-​first​-they​ -kill​ed-my​-fath​er.ht​ml. Callahan, Maureen. “Angelina May Have the Kids, but Brad Has Custody of Hollywood.” Page Six, February 19, 2017. https​://pa​gesix​.com/​2017/​02/19​/ange​lina-​ may-h​ave-t​he-ki​ds-bu​t-bra​d-has​-cust​ody-o​f-hol​lywoo​d/. Chouliaraki, Lillie. “The Theatricality of Humanitarianism: A Critique of Celebrity Advocacy.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 9, no. 1 (2012): 1–21. doi: 10.1080/14791420.2011.637055. Cooper, Andrew. Celebrity Diplomacy. New York: Routledge, 2008. Elle Staff. “Should She Run?” Elle, March 18, 2018. Falcone, Dana. “Inside the Jolie-Pitt’s Kids’ Lives Now: Homeschooling and Visits with Brad.” People Magazine, December 20, 2017. http:​//peo​ple.c​om/mo​vies/​jolie​ -pitt​-kids​-live​s-now​/. Favara, Jeremy. “A Maternal Heart: Angelina Jolie, Choices of Maternity, and Hegemonic Femininity in People Magazine.” Feminist Media Studies 15, no. 4 (2015): 626–42. doi: 10.1080/14680777.2015.1009929. Finn, Natalie. “Why Angelina Jolie’s Post-Divorce Life Looks Nothing Like Brad Pitt’s.” E! News, July 26, 2017. http:​//www​.eonl​ine.c​om/ne​ws/86​9437/​why-a​ngeli​ na-jo​lie-s​-post​-divo​rce-l​ife-l​ooks-​nothi​ng-li​ke-br​ad-pi​tt-s.​ Fixmer-Oraiz, Natalie. “Contemplating Homeland Maternity.” Women’s Studies in Communication 38, no. 2 (2015): 129–34. doi: 10.1080/07491409.2015.1034630. Fridell, Gavin, and Martijn Konings. Introduction to Age of Icons: Exploring Philanthrocapitalism in the Contemporary World, edited by Gavin Fridell and Martijn Konings, 1–25. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013. Gordon, Naomi. “Angelina Jolie Denies ‘Cruel’ Audition Process for Cambodia Documentary.” Harper’s Bazaar, August 2, 2017. http:​//www​.harp​ersba​zaar.​com/ u​k/cul​ture/​news/​a4297​8/ang​elina​-joli​e-cru​el-au​ditio​n-doc​ument​ary/.​ Hesford, Wendy. Spectacular Rhetorics: Human Rights Visions, Recognitions, Feminisms. Durham: Duke University Press, 2011. Hyde, Marina. “Of Course Angelina is an Aid Icon—Look How She Cast a Cambodian Child Actor.” The Guardian, July 28, 2017. https​://ww​w.the​guard​ian.c​om/co​ mment​isfre​e/201​7/jul​/28/a​ngeli​na-ai​d-ico​n-cas​t-cam​bodia​n-chi​ld-ac​tor. In Style. “Angelina Jolie’s Changing Looks.” InStyle, 2017. http:​//www​.inst​yle.c​om/ ce​lebri​ty/tr​ansfo​rmati​ons/a​ngeli​na-jo​lies-​chang​ing-l​ooks.​ Izadi, Elahe. “Angelina Jolie Says Vanity Fair Account of How She Cast Child Actors is ‘False and Upsetting.’” Washington Post, July 31, 2017. https​://ww​ w.was​hingt​onpos​t.com​/news​/arts​-and-​enter​tainm​ent/w​p/201​7/07/​31/an​gelin​a-jol​ ie-sa​ys-va​nity-​fair-​accou​nt-of​-how-​she-c​ast-c​hild-​actor​s-is-​false​-and-​upset​ting/​ ?utm_​term=​.5dd9​d5dba​d16.

The Hunger Games for Orphans?

99

Johnson, Zach. “Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie to Present at the 2018 Golden Globes.” E! News, January 4, 2018. http:​//www​.eonl​ine.c​om/ne​ws/90​3621/​jenni​ fer-a​nisto​n-and​-ange​lina-​jolie​-to-p​resen​t-at-​the-2​018-g​olden​-glob​es. Kapoor, Ilan. “Humanitarian Heroes?” In Age of Icons: Exploring Philanthrocapitalism in the Contemporary World, edited by Gavin Fridell and Martijn Koning, 26–49. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013. Ma, Alexandra. “Angelina Jolie Attacks ‘False and Upsetting’ Claims She Exploited Cambodian Orphans to Make Her New Film.” Business Insider, July 31, 2017. http:​//www​.busi​nessi​nside​r.com​/ange​lina-​jolie​-atta​cks-v​anity​-fair​-camb​odia-​ khmer​-rogu​e-fil​m-201​7-7. O’Connor, Maureen. “The Twenty Most-Hated Celebrities: Why We Hate Them.” The Cut, April 22, 2013. https​://ww​w.the​cut.c​om/20​13/04​/20-m​ost-h​ated-​celeb​ ritie​s-why​-we-h​ate-t​hem.h​tml. Paterniti, Michael. “Brad Pitt Talks Divorce, Quitting Drinking, and Becoming a Better Man.” GQ Style, May 3, 2017. https​://ww​w.gq.​com/s​tory/​brad-​pitt-​gq-st​ yle-c​over-​story​. Percival, Ash. “Angelina Jolie Faces Backlash Over Process for Casting Cambodian Children in Netflix Film.” Huffington Post, July 27, 2017. http:​//www​.huff​i ngto​ npost​.co.u​k/ent​ry/an​gelin​a-jol​ie-fi​rst-t​hey-k​illed​-my-f​ather​-netf​lix-c​astin​g-chi​ ldren​-camb​odia_​uk_59​79ef5​7e4b0​2a4eb​b736f​48. Peretz, Evgenia. “Angelina Jolie Solo.” Vanity Fair, July 26, 2017. https​://ww​w.van​ ityfa​ir.co​m/hol​lywoo​d/201​7/07/​angel​ina-j​olie-​cover​-stor​y. Shome, Raka. Diana and Beyond: White Femininity, National Identity, and Contemporary Media Culture. Urbana: Illinois University Press, 2014. Tsaliki, Liza, Christos A. Frangonikolopoulos, and Asteris Huliaras. Transnational Celebrity Activism in Global Politics. Bristol: Intellect Books Ltd., 2014. Tupitsyn, Masha. “The Acting Personality: Just How ‘Authentic’ is Jennifer Lawrence?” IndieWire, March 4, 2014. http:​//www​.indi​ewire​.com/​2013/​03/th​e-act​ ing-p​erson​ality​-just​-how-​authe​ntic-​is-je​nnife​r-law​rence​-1338​44/. Vanity Fair. “Vanity Fair Responds to Angelina Jolie’s Comments Related to Its September Cover Story.” Vanity Fair, August 3, 2017. https​://ww​w.van​ityfa​ir.co​ m/hol​lywoo​d/201​7/08/​vanit​y-fai​r-res​ponds​-to-a​ngeli​na-jo​lies-​comme​nts-r​elate​ d-to-​its-s​eptem​ber-c​over-​story​. Volcic, Zala, and Karmen Erjavec. “Transnational Celebrity Activism in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Local Responses to Angelina Jolie’s Film In the Land of Blood and Honey.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 18, no. 3 (2015): 356–75. doi: 10.1177/1367549414526728. Weiss, Shari. “Angelina Jolie, Kate Hudson Never Had Golden Globes ‘Showdown,’ Despite 2017 Claim.” Gossip Cop, January 4, 2018. https​://ww​w.gos​sipco​p.com​/ ange​lina-​jolie​-gold​en-gl​obes-​kate-​hudso​n-sho​wdown​/. Weiss, Shari. “Brad Pitt Did NOT Ask Jennifer Aniston to Marry Him After Angelina Jolie Split.” Gossip Cop, January 4, 2018. https​://ww​w.gos​sipco​p.com​/brad​-pitt​ -marr​y-jen​nifer​-anis​ton-s​plit-​angel​ina-j​olie/​. Wilkins, Karin. 2015. “Celebrity as Celebration of Privatization in Global Development: A Critical Feminist Analysis of Oprah, Madonna, and Angelina,” Communication, Culture, and Critique 8 (2015): 163–81. doi: 10.1111/cccr.12080.

Chapter 7

Colin Kaepernick, Civil Disobedience, and Self-Sacrificial Leadership Joseph Mirando

On September 1, 2016, the music for the national anthem was about to begin just before the start of a pre-season exhibition National Football League game between the San Diego Chargers and the San Francisco 49ers. The players, spectators, photographers and sports writers covering the game at San Diego’s Qualcomm Stadium focused their attention not just on the sight of the American flag, but also on the 49ers sideline bench. For San Francisco’s previous three exhibition games, quarterback Colin Kaepernick was seen sitting down during the playing of the anthem, an action historically considered disrespectful. He did not inform the team about what he planned to do, although he did discuss his feelings with his family. During the first two of the three games, Kaepernick’s sitting down was largely ignored because he was suffering from a sore shoulder and would not play in either game. In the third game, on August 26, 2016, at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, Calif. against the Green Bay Packers, Kaepernick took a seat again during the national anthem near the water coolers while his teammates stood even though he would play in the game. Immediately after the Green Bay game he had no comment as reporters gathered for a news conference. But within a day he had spoken out on his Twitter feed, and in an interview that appeared on the NFL Media website, he was quoted as saying, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.” As the New York Times later reported, Kaepernick, “took a stand by not standing.” Though he had taken a seat during “The Star Spangled Banner” as a way of protesting police brutality and social injustice, the reaction nation-wide focused on whether he acted within his legal rights as an employee of an NFL team and as an American citizen. 101

102

Joseph Mirando

Critics argued that Kaepernick intended to cast disparagement upon the U.S. military and that he had insulted his entire country by not displaying the proper behavior during the flag ceremony, a fact not lost on fans who gathered for the 49ers-Chargers game, which was promoted as San Diego’s 26th “Salute to the Military Night.” To make matters worse, photographs appeared on the Internet of Kaepernick wearing socks that featured cartoon pigs with police officers’ caps. As Kaepernick entered the field for warmups he was booed by fans. This time, however, instead of sitting again during the playing of the national anthem, Kaepernick knelt in reverence. He was booed again. And he was booed nearly every time the 49ers lined up for a play with Kaepernick on the field. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE As he took a knee for the first time, Kaepernick was supported by both a teammate, Eric Reed, and an invited guest, a former Army Green Beret named Nate Boyer. “I’m not anti-American,” Kaepernick told the New York Times after the game. “I love America. I love people. That’s why I’m doing this. I want to help make America better. I think having these conversations helps everybody have a better understanding of where everybody is coming from.” It was difficult to deny the strength of Kaepernick’s logic. Detractors could point out that Kaepernick’s contract for the 2016 season was more than $10 million. An African American, he is thus one of the oppressed people his protest is supposed to help, but as a 30-year-old American citizen, with that much money guaranteed to him for just one year of employment, he could live in luxury for the rest of his life regardless of being oppressed. On the other hand, coming from a rich person or a poor person, his words still address one of the main problems of current American society, and thus they resonate with people who care about America. In this way, Kaepernick’s actions embodied at least some of the traits of effective civil disobedience. Among these, a clear perception of the existence of injustice and legitimacy through nonviolent action. A Clear Perception of the Existence of Injustice Violence and overt racism toward black people are well-documented phenomena of American history. Two and a half centuries of slavery for black people in America officially ended with the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment, but this period was only followed by segregation and

Colin Kaepernick, Civil Disobedience, and Self-Sacrificial Leadership

103

disenfranchisement. The Civil Rights movement was led by, among others, Martin Luther King, Jr., who was an advocate of civil disobedience. The battleground today focuses on police brutality, uneven treatment by the justice system and racial profiling. The Black Lives Matter movement, started in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting and the Ferguson, Missouri race riots, has emerged as the leading voice of African American activism because of its efficient use of social media and traditional mass media forms. During the 2010s, dozens of incidents involving suspicious circumstances surrounding the killings of black people by police officers and white supremacists have dominated the news. “I think he (Kaepernick) cares about some real, legitimate issues that have to be talked about,” President Barack Obama told reporters during a visit to China while the 2016 presidential election was in its final stages. “And if nothing else, what he’s done is he’s generated more conversation around some topics that need to be talked about.” Legitimacy through Non-violent Action A lot of gestures that do not involve inflicting physical harm upon another still carry with them the stigma of hate, insensitivity, negative connotations or just unreasonableness. Holding a fist up in the air or locking arms could be intended as symbols of unity, but may also be seen as threatening. Raising one’s voice or remaining silent and standing at attention but with a stern facial expression could be meant as a sign of strength, but also convey hostility. Sitting down or looking away can be perceived as acts of arrogance or defiance. Purely as a physical action, Kaepernick’s taking a knee is likely to become an enduring gesture of civil disobedience long after his name fades into history and he is no longer remembered as the individual who did it. Kneeling down involves the action of lowering one’s body and does not project an intimidating or menacing attribute, even with a stern facial expression. It is a simple act of humble acceptance often connected with loyalty, prayerfulness and servitude. For centuries this was the way humans demonstrated allegiance to their leaders or displayed their honor for a principle, for a spiritual concept, for a deity or for the deceased. In reference to flag ceremonies, there’s even legal precedent. In the Barnette v. West Virginia Supreme Court case of 1943, two girls, ages 9 and 11, were told by their parents not to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance for religious reasons connected to their faith as Jehovah’s Witnesses. The law of the state of West Virginia required that students be expelled and they and their parents could face criminal prosecution for such action. On Flag Day in 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that the girls were not required to salute the flag, and the justices made clear that their decision did not apply

104

Joseph Mirando

just to schools or religious freedom: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” By simply kneeling, Kaepernick was not just exercising his First Amendment right; he was honoring the memory of many individuals down through history who took the same action. A WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF DISOBEDIENCE After the exhibition game against the Chargers, the 49ers began their 2016 regular-season schedule. Kaepernick, who had lost his place in the starting lineup midway through the 2015 season, started the season as the backup quarterback and from his place on the bench he could clearly hear ugly comments from the stands. In October 2016, Kaepernick returned to the starting lineup, and except for one game, remained the starter right through to the 49ers’ final game on January 1. There were pockets of fans who praised his protest, and Kaepernick’s jersey became the NFL’s top seller. But he was roundly booed during every game, although it is difficult to ascertain whether the booing reserved for him was more of a reflection of his play on the field or the team’s overall performance. The 49ers won just once with Kaepernick as starting quarterback and finished with their worst record since 2004 and tied for the second worst record in the team’s history. With his team playing badly, there were few highlights to celebrate, and thus Kaepernick began drawing even more than his share of attention. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg became one of the many nonsports figures to criticize his protest. Though in principle she sided with his right to exercise his First Amendment freedom, Ginsburg disparaged players who followed Kaepernick’s example and took a knee in an interview with journalist Katie Couric. “Would I arrest them for doing it? No. I think it’s dumb and disrespectful” (Hauser 2016). Ginsburg later expressed regret for her comments, saying she knew little of the protest, that her comments were “inappropriately dismissive,” and that she should not have commented on the matter. The New York Times provided insight into Kaepernick’s state of mind in reaction to Judge Ginsburg’s comment. Kaepernick said he had been reading an article that referred to “the white critique of black protests and how they try to delegitimize it by calling it ‘idiotic, dumb, stupid,’ things of that nature, so they can sidestep the real issue. As I was reading that, I saw more and more

Colin Kaepernick, Civil Disobedience, and Self-Sacrificial Leadership

105

truth how this has been approached by people in power and white people in power in particular” (Liptak 2016). The strongest criticisms of Kaepernick’s protests have come from Donald Trump. As a presidential candidate, Trump commented on Kaepernick’s earliest sitting down protest during the first three exhibition games of the 2016 season, calling it a “terrible thing. . . . Maybe he should find another country that works better for him. Let him try. It won’t happen” (Reilly 2016). A month and a half later Trump suggested that Kaepernick would have brought an end to his taking a knee if the NFL suspended him for one game. Trump’s toughest words came after he had been elected president just before the start of the 2017 football regular season. At a rally to support the Senate candidacy of Alabama’s Luther Strange, Trump said, “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners when somebody disrespects our flag to say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, out. He’s fired. He’s fired!” (Serwer 2017). According to The Atlantic magazine, “The crowd of supporters erupted in cheers.” SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP According to the New York Times, “Living mostly in New York, Kaepernick has stayed out of the spotlight, friends said, because he wants the conversation to be not about him, but about the issues he has raised” (Branch 2017). Other than taking a knee during the national anthem, Kaepernick has not initiated any scheduled special major activities or events related to his protest. Nearly all of his activism has been in the form of a response. In response to Justice Ginsburg, Kaepernick said he was disappointed that a Supreme Court judge would show insensitivity for a protest against injustice. In response to President Trump’s suggesting that he should leave the country, Kaepernick suggested that the president ought to have conversations with the black families who had a son murdered. Kaepernick’s most powerful response has been his pledge to devote $1 million of his own money to causes that support standing against racial injustice. Unlike a foundation set up as a tax shelter with staff and operating expenses and competitive grants awarded after an application and presentation process, Kaepernick simply surfs the Internet looking for causes to support and then just writes a check, or, in some cases, delivers the money personally or even shows up with his arms full of goods ready to distribute to those in need. Between October 2016 and December 2017, as documented by Sports Illustrated, he provided $900,000 to 31 individuals or organizations with a final $100,000 scheduled to be distributed by the end of 2017 (Bishop and Baskin 2017, p. 65).

106

Joseph Mirando

Equally impressive has been Kaepernick’s “Know Your Rights Camp,” which is a series of workshops he and fellow activists present to youths. Topics include empowerment, financial literacy, physical fitness, higher education and interacting with law enforcement officials. Individuals have criticized the camps’ 10-point system which, according to the New York Daily News, was modeled on a plan used by the Black Panther Party (King 2016). But the 10 points Kaepernick teaches are very reasonable guides for children on how to conduct their lives, regardless of their race, religion or gender (2018):  1. You have the right to be free.  2. You have the right to be healthy.  3. You have the right to be brilliant.  4. You have the right to be safe.  5. You have the right be loved.  6. You have the right to be courageous.  7. You have the right to be alive.  8. You have the right to be trusted.  9. You have the right to be educated. 10. You have the right to know your rights (Kaepernick 2018). Kaepernick avoids promoting the camps on-line other than providing a brief description on his website and makes no attempt to attract corporate sponsors or news media attention. Consistent with main tenets of self-sacrificial leadership, it is clear that Kaepernick has worked hard avoiding or at least downplaying personal benefits that may come to him because of his protest and stayed true to his own fundamental values. Even the personal accolades he has piled up because of his protest have been accepted by Kaepernick with as little fanfare as possible and used largely as opportunities to further his cause. When he was presented with an American Civil Liberties Union award for courageous behavior, his attendance was not announced before the awards event, and he used the occasion to give a short speech on a citizen’s obligation to stand up for human rights. In accepting Sports Illustrated’s Muhammad Ali Legacy Award at the SI Sportsperson of the Year ceremony, he told the audience of his commitment to “protest systemic oppression, racialized injustice and the dire consequences of anti-blackness in America” (“SI Sportsperson of the Year,” 2018) For the Gentlemen’s Quarterly Citizen of the Year Award, he agreed to accept it as another jab at President Trump, so he could “reclaim the narrative of his protest, which has been hijacked by a president eager to make this moment about himself” (Garcia 2017). Other than taking a knee, it is possible that the most famous example of Colin Kaepernick’s leadership style will be his willingness to place his

Colin Kaepernick, Civil Disobedience, and Self-Sacrificial Leadership

107

professional football career at risk. At the start of the 2014 season Kaepernick had signed a six-year contract extension worth up to $126 million. The previous two seasons were his best so far, leading the 49ers to the Super Bowl once and leading them twice to a conference championship game, which is just one step below the Super Bowl. However, the next two seasons were not strong ones for him. In 2014 the 49ers finished with a mediocre .500 record, and in 2015 Kaepernick missed the final month and a half with injuries as the 49ers won just five of 16 games. According to the New York Times, in October 2016 Kaepernick renegotiated his contract in return for regaining his starting job (Nocera 2016). His strategy was to play the rest of the season and then take his chances as a free agent playing for another team in 2017. So in March 2017 he opted out of his contract and waited for another team to offer him a new contract. For the 2017 season, other players took a knee, including players on college teams and high school teams, athletes in other sports as well as a cheerleading team and even the New York City Council. But Kaepernick never did take a knee during the entire 2017 season because he had no public opportunity to do so. No team would offer him a contract. Football analysts throughout the 2017 season maintained that Kaepernick’s performance during the 2016 season showed he still possessed the athletic ability to warrant a contract, but teams were likely shying away from him because of the national anthem controversy and fear of retribution from President Trump. Meanwhile Kaepernick filed a complaint against the NFL charging that team owners had colluded to prevent him from playing football. For the future, debate will no doubt continue about whether Kaepernick’s kneeling reverently while others stood during the playing of “The StarSpangled Banner” was an unpatriotic action as well as a way to show disrespect toward the military and the government or was it a thoughtful gesture and a fitting exercise of freedom of expression. In Spring 2018 National Football League team owners decided to fine teams whose players do not stand for the national anthem, although they will be allowed to stay in the locker room during the anthem. At the same time Kaepernick, still unemployed as a professional football player, spoke of “Love” as being “at the root of our resistance” (Editors 2018) in accepting the Ambassador of Conscience Award from Amnesty International. Communication professionals will argue whether Kaepernick’s brand of civil disobedience and self-sacrificial leadership was effective in an American society experiencing change in its attitudes toward diversity, professional sports and mass-mediated communication. But there can be no denying that Colin Kaepernick used his celebrity to ignite a worthwhile discussion about culture.

108

Joseph Mirando

REFERENCES Alcindor, Yamiche. “Colin Kaepernick Says Presidential Candidates Were Trying to ‘Debate Who Is Less Racist’,” The New York Times, September 28, 2016. https​ ://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​016/0​9/29/​us/co​lin-k​aeper​nick-​says-​presi​denti​al-ca​ndida​ tes-w​ere-t​rying​-to-d​ebate​-whos​-less​-raci​st.ht​ml?ac​tion=​click​&cont​entCo​llect​ ion=U​.S.&m​odule​=Rela​tedCo​verag​e®​ion=E​ndOfA​rticl​e&pgt​ype=a​rticl​e. Associated Press. “Papa John’s Founder Out as CEO Weeks after NFL Comments,” The Daily Star, Hammond, La., December 22, 2017. Belson, Ken. “Kaepernick vs. the NFL: A Primer on his Collusion Case,” The New York Times, Accessed December 10, 2017. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​017/1​ 2/08/​sport​s/kae​perni​ck-co​llusi​on.ht​ml?em​c=edi​t_th_​20171​210&n​l=tod​ayshe​adlin​ es&nl​id=20​42900​2. ———. “Kaepernick’s Protest Cascades into Protests Over His Job Situation,” The New York Times, August 23, 2017. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​017/0​8/23/​sport​s/ foo​tball​/nfl-​prote​st-co​lin-k​aeper​nick.​html?​actio​n=cli​ck&co​ntent​Colle​ction​=Spor​ ts&mo​dule=​Relat​edCov​erage​®i​on=En​dOfAr​ticle​&pgty​pe=ar​ticle​. ———. “An Awkward Alignment of Flag and Football,” The New York Times, September 11, 2016. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​016/0​9/12/​sport​s/foo​tball​/9-11​ -trib​utes-​focus​-on-f​l ags-​and-a​nthem​.html​?acti​on=cl​ick&c​onten​tColl​ectio​n=Spo​ rts&m​odule​=Rela​tedCo​verag​e®​ion=E​ndOfA​rticl​e&pgt​ype=a​rticl​e. Bishop, Greg and Baskin, Ben. “The Kap Effect,” Sports Illustrated, December 11, 2017. Borden, Sam. “Colin Kaepernick’s Anthem Protest Underlines Union of Sports and Patriotism,” The New York Times, August 30, 2016. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​ 016/0​8/31/​sport​s/foo​tball​/coli​n-kae​perni​cks-a​nthem​-prot​est-u​nderl​ines-​union​ -of-s​ports​-and-​patri​otism​.html​?acti​on=cl​ick&c​onten​tColl​ectio​n=Pro​%20Fo​otbal​ l&mod​ule=R​elate​dCove​rage&​regio​n=End​OfArt​icle&​pgtyp​e=art​iclen​. Branch, John. “National Anthem Protests Sidelined by Ambiguity,” The New York Times, January 1, 2018. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​018/0​1/01/​sport​s/nfl​-nati​onal-​ anthe​m-pro​tests​.html​?emc=​edit_​th_20​18010​2&nl=​today​shead​lines​&nlid​=2042​ 9002&​_r=0.​ ———. “The Awakening of Colin Kaepernick,” The New York Times, September 7, 2017. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​017/0​9/07/​sport​s/col​in-ka​epern​ick-n​fl-pr​otest​ s.htm​l?act​ion=c​lick&​conte​ntCol​lecti​on=Sp​orts&​modul​e=Rel​atedC​overa​ge&re​ gion=​EndOf​Artic​le&pg​type=​artic​le&_r​=0. Clarey, Christopher. “In 2017 Many Athletes Found their Voices,” The New York Times, December 22, 2017. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​017/1​2/20/​sport​s/yea​r-spo​ rts-p​rotes​ts.ht​ml?em​c=edi​t_th_​20171​222&n​l=tod​ayshe​adlin​es&nl​id=20​42900​2. Colin Kaepernick Foundation. Accessed July 18, 2018. www.Kaepernick7.com. Editors. “Colin Kaepernick: ‘Love Is at the Root of our Resistance’,” The New York Times, May 4, 2018. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​018/0​5/04/​opini​on/co​lin-k​aeper​ nick-​amnes​ty-in​terna​tiona​l-spe​ech.h​tml. Eligon, John and Cacciola, Scott. “As Colin Kaepernick’s Gesture Spreads, a Spirit Long Dormant Is Revived,” The New York Times, September 12, 2016. https​://

Colin Kaepernick, Civil Disobedience, and Self-Sacrificial Leadership

109

ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​016/0​9/13/​sport​s/col​in-ka​epern​ick-a​thlet​e-pro​tests​.html​?acti​ on=cl​ick&c​onten​tColl​ectio​n=Spo​rts&m​odule​=Rela​tedCo​verag​e®​ion=E​ndOfA​ rticl​e&pgt​ype=a​rticl​e. Elmahrek, Adam. “California High School Football Player can’t be Forced to Stand for National Anthem, Court Rules,” Los Angeles Times, December 30, 2017. http:​// bet​a.lat​imes.​com/l​ocal/​lanow​/la-m​e-ln-​stude​nt-at​hlete​-knee​l-201​71229​-stor​y.htm​l. Garcia, Ahiza. “Colin Kaepernick is GQ’s ‘Citizen of the Year’,” CNN, November 13, 2017. http:​//mon​ey.cn​n.com​/2017​/11/1​3/med​ia/co​lin-k​aeper​nick-​gq-ma​gazin​e/ ind​ex.ht​ml?ii​d=EL.​ Gilmore, Glenda E. “Colin Kaepernick and the Myth of the ‘Good’ Protest,” The New York Times, November 20, 2017. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​017/1​1/20/​opini​on/ ka​epern​ick-p​rotes​t-kne​el-nf​l .htm​l?em_​pos=l​arge&​emc=e​dit_t​y_201​71121​&nl=o​ pinio​n-tod​ay&nl​id=20​42900​2&ref​=head​line&​te=1&​_r=0.​ Gregory, Sean. “2017 The Short List: No. 6 The Idealist; Colin Kaepernick,” Time, December 18, 2017. Hauser, Christine. “Ruth Bader Ginsburg Calls Kaepernick’s National Anthem Protest ‘Dumb’,” The New York Times, October 11, 2016. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​ com/2​016/1​0/12/​us/ru​th-ba​der-g​insbu​rg-ca​lls-c​olin-​kaepe​rnick​s-nat​ional​-anth​ em-pr​otest​-dumb​.html​. ———. “Why Colin Kaepernick didn’t Stand for the National Anthem,” The New York Times, August 27, 2016. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​016/0​8/28/​sport​s/foo​tball​ /coli​n-kae​perni​ck-na​tiona​l-ant​hem-4​9ers-​stand​.html​?acti​on=cl​ick&c​onten​tColl​ ectio​n=U.S​.&mod​ule=R​elate​dCove​rage&​regio​n=End​OfArt​icle&​pgtyp​e=art​icle.​ Herreria, Carla. “Donald Trump: Colin Kaepernick would have Stopped Protest if NFL Suspended Him,” Huffington Post, October 16, 2016. https​://ww​w.huf​fingt​ onpos​t.com​/entr​y/tru​mp-nf​l -sus​pensi​on-wo​uld-s​top-c​olin-​kaepe​rnick​_us_5​9dea7​ 78e4b​0fdad​73b1e​7c1. Jabbar, Kareem. “Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: Don’t Tell Colin Kaepernick to ‘Stick to Sports’,” Hollywood Reporter, August 1, 2017. https​://ww​w.hol​lywoo​drepo​rter.​ com/n​ews/k​areem​-abdu​l-jab​bar-d​on-t-​tell-​colin​-kaep​ernic​k-sti​ck-sp​orts-​10256​92. Kaepernick, Colin. “10 Points.” Kaepernick7.com. Retrieved August 28, 2018. https​ ://ka​epern​ick7.​com/k​now-y​our-r​ights​-camp​/. Kang, Jay C. “How Colin Kaepernick’s Protest Is Connecting Playing Fields to the Streets,” The New York Times Magazine, October 11, 2016. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​ com/2​016/1​0/16/​magaz​ine/h​ow-co​lin-k​aeper​nicks​-prot​est-i​s-con​necti​ng-pl​aying​ -fiel​ds-to​-the-​stree​ts.ht​ml. King, Shaun. “KING: Colin Kaepernick’s ‘I Know My Rights Camp’ Cements His Status as a Cultural Superhero in the Black Community,” New York Daily News, October 29, 2016. http:​//www​.nyda​ilyne​ws.co​m/new​s/nat​ional​/king​-kaep​ernic​ k-cam​p-cem​ents-​statu​s-bla​ck-co​mmuni​ty-ar​ticle​-1.28​50326​. Liptak, Adam. “Ruth Bader Ginsburg Regrets Speaking Out Colin on Kaepernick,” The New York Times, October 14, 2016. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​016/1​0/15/​us/ ru​th-ba​der-g​insbu​rg-co​lin-k​aeper​nick-​natio​nal-a​nthem​.html​?acti​on=cl​ick&c​onten​ tColl​ectio​n=Spo​rts&m​odule​=Rela​tedCo​verag​e®​ion=E​ndOfA​rticl​e&pgt​ype=​ articl​e.

110

Joseph Mirando

Macur, Juliet. “Long Before Kaepernick, There Was Navratilova,” The New York Times, October 16, 2016. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​016/1​0/17/​sport​s/mar​tina-​ navra​tilov​a-col​in-ka​epern​ick-p​rotes​t.htm​l?act​ion=c​lick&​conte​ntCol​lecti​on=Pr​ o%20F​ootba​ll&mo​dule=​Relat​edCov​erage​®i​on=En​dOfAr​ticle​&pgty​pe=ar​ticle​. Martin, Jill. “Colin Kaepernick honored with ACLU Award,” CNN, December 4, 2017. http:​//www​.cnn.​com/2​017/1​2/04/​sport​/coli​n-kae​perni​ck-ho​nored​-with​-aclu​ -awar​d/ind​ex.ht​ml. Mather, Victor. “Kaepernick is Unemployed. Is It because of His Arm or His Knee?” The New York Times, March 27, 2017. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​017/0​3/27/​sport​ s/foo​tball​/free​-agen​t-col​in-ka​epern​ick-n​ation​al-an​them-​prote​st.ht​ml?ac​tion=​click​ &cont​entCo​llect​ion=S​ports​&modu​le=Re​lated​Cover​age&r​egion​=EndO​fArti​cle&p​ gtype​=arti​cle. ———. “Colin Kaepernick to Start at Quarterback for 49ers,” The New York Times, October 11, 2016. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​016/1​0/12/​sport​s/foo​tball​/ coli​n-kae​perni​ck-to​-star​t-at-​quart​erbac​k-for​-49er​s.htm​l?act​ion=c​lick&​conte​ntCol​ lecti​on=U.​S.&mo​dule=​Relat​edCov​erage​®i​on=En​dOfAr​ticle​&pgty​pe=ar​ticle​. ———. “With the focus on His Play, 49ers’ Colin Kaepernick is Brought to His Knees,” The New York Times, October 16, 2016. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​016/1​ 0/17/​sport​s/foo​tball​/sf-4​9ers-​colin​-kaep​ernic​k-buf​falo-​bills​.html​?acti​on=cl​ick&c​ onten​tColl​ectio​n=Pro​%20Fo​otbal​l&mod​ule=R​elate​dCove​rage&​regio​n=End​OfArt​ icle&​pgtyp​e=art​icle.​ Morris, Wesley. “Colin Kaepernick and the Question of Who Gets to be Called a ‘Patriot’,” The New York Times Magazine, September 12, 2016. https​://ww​w.nyt​ imes.​com/2​016/0​9/18/​magaz​ine/w​ho-ge​ts-to​-be-c​alled​-a-pa​triot​.html​?acti​on=cl ​ ick&c​onten​tColl​ectio​n=Pro​%20Fo​otbal​l&mod​ule=R​elate​dCove​rage&​regio​n=End​ OfArt​icle&​pgtyp​e=art​icle.​ Nocera, Joe. “Is it a risk for the 49ers to Start Colin Kaepernick? Not for them,” The New York Times, October 14, 2016. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​016/1​0/15/​sport​ s/foo​tball​/49er​s-to-​start​-coli​n-kae​perni​ck-co​ntrac​t-inj​uries​.html​?acti​on=cl​ick&c ​ onten​tColl​ectio​n=Pro​%20Fo​otbal​l&mod​ule=R​elate​dCove​rage&​regio​n=End​OfArt​ icle&​pgtyp​e=art​icle.​ Peter, Josh. “In Wake of Trump’s Harsh Words, It’s Time for NFL Owners to Sign Colin Kaepernick,” USA Today, September 24, 2017. https​://ww​w.usa​today​.com/​ story​/spor​ts/co​lumni​st/jo​sh-pe​ter/2​017/0​9/24/​presi​dent-​trump​-nfl-​owner​s-sig​n-col​ in-ka​epern​ick/6​98436​001/.​ Powell, Michael. “Colin Kaepernick Finds His Voice,” The New York Times, September 13, 2016. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​016/0​9/14/​sport​s/foo​tball​/coli​n-kae​ perni​ck-mo​nday-​night​-nati​onal-​anthe​m.htm​l?act​ion=c​lick&​conte​ntCol​lecti​on=Pr​ o%20F​ootba​ll&mo​dule=​Relat​edCov​erage​®i​on=En​dOfAr​ticle​&pgty​pe=ar​ticle​. Rapapaport, Daniel. “Kaepernick Vows to Continue Combating Racial Injustice ‘With or With the NFL’,” Sports Illustrated, December 5, 2017. https​://ww​w.si.​ com/n​fl/20​17/12​/05/c​olin-​kaepe​rnick​-spor​ts-il​lustr​ated-​muham​mad-a​li-aw​ardaccept​ance-​speec​h. Reilly, Mollie. “Donald Trump Suggests Colin Kaepernick ‘Find A New Country’ After National Anthem Protest,” Huffington Post, August 29, 2016. https​://

Colin Kaepernick, Civil Disobedience, and Self-Sacrificial Leadership

111

ww​w.huf​fingt​onpos​t.com​/entr​y/don​ald-t​rump-​colin​-kaep​ernic​k_us_​57c4a​458e4​ b0664​f13ca​10a3.​ Remnick, David. “During Rally, Trump refers to Colin Kaepernick as a ‘son of a b***itch—Here’s How His Mom Responded,” Daily Dot, September 23, 2017. https​://ww​w.dai​lydot​.com/​layer​8/don​ald-t​rump-​colin​-kaep​ernic​k-ala​bama/​. ———. “The Racial Demagoguery of Trump’s Assaults on Colin Kaepernick and Steph Curry,” New Yorker, September 23, 2017. https​://ww​w.new​yorke​r.com​ /news​/dail​y-com​ment/​the-r​acial​-dema​gogue​ry-of​-trum​ps-as​sault​s-on-​colin​-kaep ​ ernic​k-and​-step​h-cur​ry. Rosenberg, Michael. “Colin Kaepernick Is Recipient of 2017 Sports Illustrated Muhammad Ali Legacy Award,” Sports Illustrated, November 30, 2017, https​ ://ww​w.si.​com/s​ports​perso​n/201​7/11/​30/co​lin-k​aeper​nick-​muham​mad-a​li-le​gacy-​ award​. Samuelson, K. “Nationalists Defending Anthems,” Time, December 25, 2017–January 1, 2018. Serwer, Adam. “Trump’s War of Words with Black Athletes,” The Atlantic, September 23, 2017. https​://ww​w.the​atlan​tic.c​om/po​litic​s/arc​hive/​2017/​09/tr​ump-u​rges-​ nfl-o​wners​-to-f​i re-p​layer​s-who​-prot​est/5​40897​/. Shear, Michael D. “Trump, in Twitter Rant, Revisits Grievances Against Sports Figures,” The New York Times, November 22, 2017. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​017/1​ 1/22/​us/po​litic​s/tru​mp-uc​la-fa​ther-​fool.​html?​emc=e​dit_n​n_201​71126​&nl=m​ornin​ g-bri​efing​&nlid​=7136​2854&​te=1&​_r=0.​ “SI Sportsperson of the Year: Colin Kaepernick wins SI Muhammad Ali Legacy Award,” NBC Sports, May 8, 2018. https​://ww​w.nbc​sport​s.com​/vide​o/col​in-ka​ epern​ick-r​eceiv​es-si​-muha​mmad-​ali-l​egacy​-awar​d-bey​once.​ Staples, Brent. “Colin Kaepernick and the Legacy of the Negro National Anthem,” The New York Times, November 21, 2017. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​017/1​ 1/21/​opini​on/ka​epern​ick-n​egro-​natio​nal-a​nthem​.html​?em_p​os=sm​all&e​mc=ed​ it_ty​_2017​1122&​nl=op​inion​-toda​y&nl_​art=6​&nlid​=2042​9002&​ref=h​eadli​ne&te​ =1&_r​=0. Sullivan, Sean. “Trump Slams Colin Kaepernick: ‘Maybe He should Find a Country that Works Better for Him’,” The Washington Post, August 29, 2016. https​://ww​ w.was​hingt​onpos​t.com​/news​/post​-poli​tics/​wp/20​16/08​/29/t​rump-​slams​-coli​n-kae​ perni​ck-ma​ybe-h​e-sho​uld-f​i nd-a​-coun​try-t​hat-w​orks-​bette​r-for​-him/​?utm_​term=​ .2aef​ef95c​df8. Turkewitz, Julie. “Protest Started by Colin Kaepernick Spreads to High School Students,” The New York Times, October 3, 2016. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​ 016/1​0/04/​us/na​tiona​l-ant​hem-p​rotes​ts-hi​gh-sc​hools​.html​?acti​on=cl​ick&c​onten​ tColl​ectio​n=Pro​%20Fo​otbal​l&mod​ule=R​elate​dCove​rage&​regio​n=End​OfArt​icle&​ pgtyp​e=art​icle.​ Van Gundy, Stan. “Athlete Who Protest Are Patriots,” Time, December 11, 2017, p. 34. Victor, Daniel. “Obama Says Colin Kaepernick Is ‘Exercising His Constitutional Right’,” The New York Times, September 5, 2016. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​ 016/1​0/04/​us/na​tiona​l-ant​hem-p​rotes​ts-hi​gh-sc​hools​.html​?acti​on=cl​ick&c​onten​

112

Joseph Mirando

tColl​ectio​n=Pro​%20Fo​otbal​l&mod​ule=R​elate​dCove​rage&​regio​n=End​OfArt​icle&​ pgtyp​e=art​icle.​ Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). Witz, Billy. “This Time, Colin Kaepernick Takes a Stand by Kneeling,” The New York Times, September 1, 2016. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​016/0​9/02/​sport​s/foo​ tball​/coli​n-kae​perni​ck-kn​eels-​natio​nal-a​nthem​-prot​est.h​tml.

Chapter 8

Celebrity Suicide How Responsible Reporting Prevents Further Tragedy Bradley Wolfe and Meghann Droeger

Suicide is the tenth leading cause of death in the United States (“Leading Causes of Death” 2017). Suicide is a public health issue caused by a complex interaction of psychological and environmental factors, and it is almost always preceded by warning signs. This chapter presents numerous case studies of celebrities who have died by suicide with an emphasis on how these deaths were portrayed in the media. The degree to which a reporter follows ethical guidelines when reporting suicide can be a matter of life and death. Studies show that irresponsible coverage of suicide increases the likelihood of suicide amongst vulnerable individuals in the general population (“Recommendation for Reporting on Suicide” 2015). It is not unheard of for a person to emotionally react to the death of a celebrity they admire the way they would react to the death of a close friend. Reporters need to be sensitive to this fact by using the celebrity death as an opportunity to educate readers on the importance of mental health and provide resources to those who are struggling (Cohen and Hoffman 2016). Research shows that when a celebrity dies by suicide, internet searches for both helpful and harmful suicide-related information increase (Arendt and Scherr 2017). The media has an ethical responsibility to promote the former (“Recommendations” 2015). One example of how media can be used positively to affect suicide-related discourse is the 2017 MTV Video Music Awards. The show strayed from the media’s tendency to glamorize suicide by instead glamorizing the decision to live. One of the most memorable moments of the night was when rapper Logic performed his hit song 1-800-273-8255, which is also the number to the suicide prevention hotline. In the performance, Logic is joined onstage by 113

114

Bradley Wolfe and Meghann Droeger

dozens of suicide survivors; he sings from the perspective of someone who wants to give up but then resolves to stay on the path of life. Following this performance, calls to the suicide prevention hotline increased by 50 percent (Hitt 2017). The selected cases studies show both the highs and lows of media reporting on suicide. Details were carefully selected to showcase the media reactions while attempting to minimize the prominence of the act and method of suicide. However, with all reporting on suicide, at-risk individuals should be careful about their engagement with stories surrounding suicide. SUICIDES BY PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES Dozens of professional athletes have died by suicide, attracting media attention to potential brain damage from the physical contact sports they played. The association between brain injuries and suicide spans multiple sports, including hockey, boxing, and football (People in Sports 2018). In this section, we will focus on the latter by examining the deaths of three athletes: Junior Seau, Aaron Hernandez, and Kenny McKinley. Junior Seau (January 19, 1969–May 2, 2012) Seau was an acclaimed linebacker in the NFL who reached Pro Bowl twelve times, among other accolades. Growing up in Oceanside, California, Seau excelled in a variety of sports, but once he started college at the University of Southern California, he focused his efforts on football. Seau was selected fifth overall in the 1990 NFL draft by the Chargers, with whom he played for thirteen seasons. His NFL career ended in 2009 (“Junior Seau” 2018). Despite his successful NFL career, Junior Seau is most remembered for his tragic death and the advocacy it spurred. Medical experts studied the late athlete’s brain and determined he had suffered from Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), a progressive brain disorder that is triggered by repeated head injuries and known to cause dementia, memory loss, and depression (Greene 2015). Many media reports focused on the medical issues that may have contributed to Seau’s suicide rather than on the suicide itself, thereby adhering to official guidelines for reporting suicide and enhancing medical advocacy. Other media reports sensationalized Seau’s death. His girlfriend’s 911 call to police was released, and the media treated his family’s non-expert opinions on a complex medical issue as the definitive truth. While many insights from his family were misleading, some were helpful. Seau’s ex-wife disclosed how he suffered concussions regularly without seeking medical help. She also

Celebrity Suicide

115

disclosed that Seau was afraid of letting his teammates down, so he would have his trainer come to his house before practice to administer treatment (Greene 2015). Even though best practices for reporting suicide were not always followed with Junior Seau, the overall message conveyed by the media—that football players need better protection from concussions—was positive. The media effectively mixed facts from medical experts with testimonies from Seau’s family to push a previously ignored problem into the mainstream. The effective coverage downplayed the actual suicide while focusing on facts from medical experts on the specific case and the wider issue of safety standards in professional sports (Daniels 2013). Aaron Hernandez (November 6, 1989–April 19, 2017) Hernandez was a tight end for the New England Patriots who suffered a much more severe type of CTE. His career was cut short by his lethal violence, which is thought to be a side effect of the disorder. On April 15, 2015, Hernandez was convicted of first-degree murder; two years later, he died by suicide in his jail cell. Shortly after Hernandez’s death, his murder conviction was overturned in accordance with Massachusetts law, which states that a conviction must be vacated if the defendant dies before having the opportunity to appeal his or her case (“Aaron Hernandez Biography. com” 2018). Boston University posthumously diagnosed Hernandez with the most severe case of CTE observed in someone in their late twenties (Kilgore 2017), and medical experts speculated how the disorder may have negatively affected his judgment and decision-making. The medical examiners, on the other hand, could not conclusively tie his lethal behavior to brain damage (Belson 2017). Nonetheless, the media painted a picture of direct causation. The media also failed to follow suicide reporting guidelines by giving graphic details of the death, depicting it as yet another violent crime Hernandez had committed (Levenson and Simko-Bednarski 2017). The media frequently listed the athlete’s criminal history and described how his conviction was lifted, implying that Hernandez got away with his crimes by committing suicide (Levenson and Yan 2017). Even though Hernandez may not have lived a respectable life, the media needs to respect the at-risk individuals and survivors of suicide who view the news. The reporting painted those who contemplate suicide with a broad brush, leaving the impression suicide comes from violent tendencies instead of treatable mental health issues. Media personnel need to be more mindful when reporting on suicide because of the proven influence on the public perception of mental health issues (“Recommendations” 2015).

116

Bradley Wolfe and Meghann Droeger

Kenny McKinley (January 31, 1987–September 20, 2010) McKinley was starting his second year in the NFL with the Denver Broncos when he ended his life. Media reports cited a knee injury, depression, and financial debts as reasons behind McKinley’s suicide. Unlike Junior Seau, Aaron Hernadez, and many other NFL players, McKinley’s injury did not directly impact his mental state, but he disclosed to at least three friends having suicidal ideation in relation to his injury (Klis 2010; Mitchell and Jones 2010). The variety of red flags surrounding McKinley’s suicide were all used as individual, competing explanations for his suicide. Reports focused on opinions from his friends and family who shared how McKinley was depressed because he was unable to play or regularly practice with his teammates. Those close to him say McKinley hid the severity of the depression behind his outgoing personality and beaming smile (“Broncos Address Kenny McKinley Death” 2010). With suicide, there never is a simple cause. Over 90 percent of people who die by suicide have treatable mental disorders (“Recommendations” 2015), but male athletes may feel reluctant to come forward with their suffering due to the “tough” persona expected in their industry (Sharp 2010). The media can counter this macho mentality by including all genders in conversations about mental health, and by challenging the notion that those who seek help are weak. The media should also focus on expert opinions, avoid reporting gory details of suicides that take place, and emphasize the availability of treatment for mental health conditions (“Recommendations” 2015). SUICIDES BY MUSICIANS In the 1990s, four bands dominated the Seattle grunge scene: Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Alice In Chains, and Soundgarden (Music Lover 2018). The lead songwriters of two of those bands died young—Kurt Cobain from Nirvana by shooting himself in 1994 (“Kurt Cobain Biography.com” 2017), and Layne Staley from Alice In Chains by overdosing on drugs in 2003 (“Layne Staley” 2018). Fourteen years later, Eddie Vedder from Pearl Jam and Chris Cornell from Soundgarden were stable family men who seemed fortunate enough to overcome the despair evident in their early song lyrics. They were survivors. And so when Chris Cornell ended his life in May 2017, the rock community was stunned. “That’s not the way that book was supposed to end,” said Jerry Cantrell, co-founder of Alice In Chains. “And it was not the way that book was going” (Fricke 2017).

Celebrity Suicide

117

Chris Cornell (July 20, 1964–May 18, 2017) Cornell was born in Seattle, Washington. His father, a pharmacist, and his mother, an accountant, were both alcoholics (Lynskey 2017) who divorced when Cornell was a teenager. Cornell, along with his two brothers and three sisters, took his mother’s maiden name (“Chris Cornell” 2018a). In middle school, Cornell was kicked out of school three times before transferring to an alternative high school. Around this same time, Cornell started experimenting with drugs (Runtagh 2017). At age 14, he had a negative experience with PCP and developed a panic disorder. For the following two years, Cornell was completely isolated—he had no friends because he was too afraid to leave his house (Lynskey 2017). As a teenager, music helped Cornell deal with his anxiety. Music also gave him a sense of purpose, helping him stay drug-free during his late teenage years (Runtagh 2017). In 1984, he founded the band Soundgarden. With heavy guitar rifts, melodic vocals, and existential lyrics, Soundgarden gained a solid underground following in the late 80s, but didn’t achieve international acclaim until the multiplatinum release of SuperUnknown in 1994. Though Soundgarden dissolved in 1997, they reunited in 2012 to record their sixth album, King Animal (Erlewine 2018). In 2001, Cornell teamed with former Rage Against the Machine members to form the multiplatinum rock band Audioslave (Wilson 2018). Chris Cornell also released four solo albums, ranging in genre from psychedelic rock to dance-pop (“Chris Cornell” 2018b). Despite his success, depression stalked Cornell into adulthood. In the 1990s, Cornell lost several music industry friends, from the overdose of his roommate and Mother of the Love Bone singer Andrew Wood, to the drowning of his friend and acclaimed singer-songwriter Jeff Buckley. Cornell was also shaken by the 1994 suicide of Nirvana’s lead vocalist Kurt Cobain, even though the two had only met a handful of times. In an interview with Vulture Magazine, Cornell referred to these losses as tragedies he carried with him all the time (Gopalan 2012). Naturally reclusive, Cornell also struggled with widespread recognition; for him, fame was an isolating force that both reignited and enabled his addiction (Lynskey 2017). In 2003, Cornell checked into rehab for Oxycontin and alcohol (SPIN Staff 2003). Cornell managed to stay sober for many years leading up to his death. However, on the last night of his life, he abused Ativan, ingesting approximately five times the average dose. (Kreps 2017). Cornell’s wife Vicky believed the anti-anxiety medication catalyzed her husband’s death, claiming that he was not in his right mind hours before, and that the Chris she knew would never hurt his children by taking his own life (Drysdale 2017).

118

Bradley Wolfe and Meghann Droeger

Cornell’s toxicology report, on the other hand, ruled out drugs as a contributing factor (Kreps 2017). At the end of the day, nobody will ever know what was going through Cornell’s mind when he decided to take his life. Like all suicide survivors, those who loved Cornell will spend the rest of their lives asking the unanswerable question, “Why?” Chester Bennington (March 20, 1976–July 20, 2017), Bennington, lead singer of the American band Linkin Park, was Cornell’s good friend. When Cornell was found dead in his hotel room on May 17, 2017, Bennington was devastated. In a letter to the late musician, Bennington wrote, “I can’t imagine a world without you in it” (Calvario 2017). Nevertheless, Bennington vowed not to collapse under grief, telling friend Rena Meta, “We have to stick together . . . we have so much to live for” (Grow 2017a). Following Cornell’s death, Bennington reached a creative peak, tweeting that he had had just finished writing six songs and was happy with them all (Bennington 2017a). He also tweeted about the joy of seeing his daughter graduate. (Bennington 2017b). In a video from July 19, Bennington is seen laughing as he plays games with his family (Reed 2017). Nobody expected him to die by suicide 36 hours later. In a 2017 interview, Bennington opened up about his depression, stating “The place between my ears, that’s a bad neighborhood, I should not be in there alone” (Bryant 2008). Bennington’s troubles traced back to his childhood in Arizona, where his parents divorced when he was 11. From ages 7 to 13, Bennington was sexually abused by a family friend and bullied by his peers at school. As a teenager, Bennington turned to drugs and alcohol to cope with his pain, although he managed to get clean before reaching adulthood (Sweeting 2017). Bennington also found solace in artistic expression, writing poetry and songs to understand his feelings (Bryant 2008). In 1999, Bennington joined Linkin Park as lead vocalist. A year later, the band achieved international fame with their debut album Hybrid Theory, which sold almost 5 million copies the year it debuted. Linkin Park subsequently released six more albums, two achieving multiplatinum status (Apar 2018). Over the course of their 16-year career, Linkin Park won two Grammy awards, five American Music Awards, and four MTV Video Music Awards (“Linkin Park Awards” 2018). Bennington participated in several side projects, including lending lead vocals to the band Stone Temple Pilots (“Chester Bennington: A Life in Pictures” 2018). Bennington had a thriving personal life as well. By all accounts, Bennington had a happy marriage with ex-playmate Talinda Bentley. Whenever Bennington talked about his children, he wore a beaming smile (Grow 2017a). Bennington had a strong network of friends, including his bandmates who

Celebrity Suicide

119

were like brothers to him (Munro 2017). Still, Bennington could not overcome his sadness. In an interview with Music Choice, Bennington admitted that even when his life was going well, he felt uncomfortable, (102.7KIISFM 2017) echoing a sentiment Chris Cornell had expressed a few years earlier: No matter how happy you are, you can wake up one day without any specific thing occurring to bring you into a darker place, and you’ll just be in a darker place anyway. To me, that was always a terrifying thought, because that’s something that—as far as I know—we don’t necessarily have control over. (Grow 2017b)

Bennington used the same suicide method as Chris Cornell, and he died on what would have been the Soundgarden singer’s 53rd birthday. The media speculates a relationship between the two deaths, and Julie Cerel, president of the American Association of Suicidology, points out that birthdays are a time of great risk for suicide survivors because they are confronted with the depressing reality that their loved one is no longer here (Stolworthy 2017). Bennington’s close friend, Sean Dowdell, believed Bennington’s suicide landing on Cornell’s birthday was a coincidence, but he also stated that Cornell’s death was kindling for the depressive fire burning in Bennington’s mind (Grow 2017a). Dowdell’s opinion reflects research which states suicide is rarely a reaction to a single event (“Recommendations” 2015). Studies show that suicide is contagious not only when it happens to friends and family, but also to public figures. After Cornell and Bennington died, experts worried about a rise in suicide among the general population, a phenomenon known as suicide contagion. According to studies, publicity surrounding suicide is linked to an increase in national suicide rates, especially among young people (Sanger-Katz 2014). When a public figure takes his or her life, suicide is seen as an accessible, viable option, potentially compromising the ability of already suicidal people to control self-destructive urges (Sandler 2009). Furthermore, when the media glamorizes people who have ended their lives, the public might interpret suicide as a path to status. For this reason, reports of suicide should not glorify the victim or imply that suicide will enhance their legacy (Digital Communications Division 2014). Mindy McCready (November 30, 1975–February 17, 2013) In her last interview before her death, described the suicide of her boyfriend David Wilson, which took place three weeks earlier. McCready’s voice shakes as she recalls finding her youngest child’s father sprawled on the ground of their lake house porch with a gunshot wound to the head: “I just started screaming, calling 911. I laid down next to him and just pleaded with

120

Bradley Wolfe and Meghann Droeger

him not to die.” McCready referred to Wilson as her life and her soulmate. She described his death as the most painful tragedy she had ever endured or would ever endure (ThePutinNews 2013). Sadly, this proved true. Just nineteen days after the interview, the 37-year-old country singer ended her life (People Staff 2013). McCready was born in Florida in 1975. She became a country music sensation in 1996 with her multiplatinum debut album Ten Thousand Angels, which generated four chart-topping singles, including the #1 country music hit “Guys Do It All the Time.” McCready’s subsequent release If I Don’t Stay the Night achieved gold certification, but its sales were still below her first album’s. McCready’s third collection I’m Not So Tough was a commercial letdown, causing BNA Records to drop her from their label. Capitol Records took on McCready for her 2002 album Mindy McCready, but dropped her when the release flopped (“Mindy McCready Biography.com” 2014). Though fans loved McCready for her strong voice and pro-female lyrics (Burchard 2016), the media focused on her personal troubles, which started many years before Wilson’s suicide. In 2004, McCready pled guilty to obtaining Oxycontin with a fake prescription. The next year, she was hospitalized for injuries sustained from then boyfriend Billy McKnight. Following the incident, McCready attempted suicide twice. In 2007, McCready was arrested following a physical altercation with her mother, who held custody of McCready’s son Zander. Following the custody loss, McCready made headlines for attempting suicide for a third time, and for attempting to kidnap her child from her mother in 2011 (Dukes 2013). Andrea McCanning, the last journalist to interview McCready, compared McCready’s life to a sad country music song (ThePutinNews 2013), a sentiment later echoed by Dallas Morning News contributor Jacquielynn Floyd (2013): “[McCready’s] sad, untimely death Sunday was the final act of a tragic pop-culture opera played out on a remorselessly public stage.” Floyd believed the mentality of celebrity culture—that it’s better to achieve fame through failure than to drift into anonymity—played a role in Mindy’s downfall. When Mindy could no longer attract the spotlight with her music, she lured it with her problems. McCready regularly gave interviews on her battles with men, addiction, mental health, and the law. She participated in three reality TV shows, including Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew Pinsky, who was later criticized for exploiting the late singer and failing to treat her with evidence-based practices (Szalavitz 2013). When McCready died, she won a spot on the cover of People Magazine (People Staff 2013). “For all the good it did her,” Floyd (2013) writes, “she was globally famous one last time.” Following McCready’s death, headlines that the singer had “committed suicide” exploded. Two of McCready’s former lovers came forward to say they were not surprised by the news (Monde 2013; Sobieraj Westfall 2013).

Celebrity Suicide

121

Giving spotlight to ex-boyfriends who saw McCready’s suicide coming paints a picture of suicide as the inevitable reaction to prolonged suffering. It also portrays suicide as a solution to a problem (“Recommendations” 2015). Hollywood Life published the article “Mindy McCready: The Real Reason She Committed Suicide,” in which they blame Mindy having received a court order to relinquish custody of her children to her mother (Longeretta 2013). Blaming McCready’s suicide on one single factor promotes a simplistic understanding of a complex phenomenon. Further, writing that McCready “committed suicide” stigmatizes suicidal individuals by suggesting that suicide is a crime (“Recommendations” 2015). Mental health organizations such as AFSP have set clear guidelines for reporting celebrity suicide. By and large, these were not followed in the coverage of McCready. McCready’s drug addiction, mental health, and legal issues were sensationalized, and her tragic death was presented as the natural conclusion to a painful existence. The reality that her life did not need to end the way it did was ignored, leaving vulnerable media consumers with the dangerous and wildly inaccurate impression that life cannot go on in the face of prolonged suffering. ROBIN WILLIAMS’S SUICIDE Robin Williams (1951–2014) was an American comedian and actor who died following a battle with mental and physical health disorders (Burnett 2015). Early accounts of his suicide cited depression as the main killer and caused a public debate surrounding suicide as a result of mental illness (Burnett 2014). However, his widow, Susan Williams, later corrected those accounts in a People Magazine interview. She shared her belief that “depression was one of let’s call it 50 symptoms and it was a small one” (Warner 2015). Nonetheless, the media used his mental health struggle as a catalyst to build awareness for resources surrounding suicide prevention. Robin Williams came to prominence as an alien named Mork, first in Happy Days and then in the spinoff series Mork and Mindy. Throughout his career, he played roles in family comedies such as Mrs. Doubtfire, Patch Adams, and Jumanji. He also acted in dramatic roles, which earned him four academy award nominations, including one win for his supporting role in the 1998 film Good Will Hunting (“Robin Williams: Biography” 2018). Williams was also known for his charitable contributions. A strong advocate for healthcare and research, he served on the board of directors for the Christopher and Dana Reeves Foundation. He also appeared in commercials for St. Jude’s Children Research Hospital, and volunteered his comedic talents to entertain military troops (Sheridan 2014).

122

Bradley Wolfe and Meghann Droeger

Throughout his career, Williams had been open about his struggle with mental health and addiction. While never officially diagnosed with a mental disorder, he shared in media interviews about his depression, anxiety, and manic behaviors. Williams said he incorporated these tendencies into his comedy routines, which made the best out of these otherwise challenging mental health conditions. Sometimes Williams resorted to self-medicating with alcohol and drugs (Heine 2014), but addiction did not play a direct role in his death, as his autopsy revealed only therapeutic levels of prescribed medication in his system (Larimer 2014). The majority of media reactions to the actor’s death highlighted his artistic and charitable contributions. Fans shared how many of his roles in the films helped them through their own mental health struggles. Williams was unafraid to take on powerfully emotional roles, such as in Dead Poets Society, that directly address mental health concerns. His acting capabilities helped him learn with the audience about grief, depression, and just being different (Griffo 2017). The Academy of Motion Pictures commemorated him through one of his characters by tweeting a picture of the Genie alongside the caption: “You’re free, Genie.” Although this post garnered over 330,000 retweets, it was also accused of inadvertently promoting suicide as a solution to suffering (Alexson 2014). While many people shared the positive influence Williams had on their life through social media (Griffo 2017), others decided to use the medium to mock his suicide. Fox News host Shepard Smith regrettably called him a coward for leaving his family behind. Other people sent judgmental messages and photoshopped images of Robin Williams to his daughter Zelda Williams. As a result, Zelda Williams left social media to avoid the harassment (Alexson 2014). While not in direct relation to the Williams case, social media sites have recently been strengthening their anti-abuse measures to silence harassment online (Perez 2017). Social media necessitates a responsibility on behalf of users to be ethical about what stories they share and how they interact with others on the site. The National Suicide Prevention Hotline (1-800-273-8255) received an increase of 50 percent more calls for the weeks following Williams’s death. While all suicides publicized in the media cause some temporary increase in accessing mental health resources, Robin Williams’s death was a milestone in the national suicide hotlines phone calls because the increase in calls never went back down to the original amount. In June 2014, the average number of daily calls was 3,500, but since his death the average number has been steady around 4,300 (Schonfeld 2015). Celebrity suicide does not increase the amount of mental health issues in a nation, but the deaths can influence how people deal with their existing conditions. One avenue of influence is when the suicide creates awareness

Celebrity Suicide

123

of the underlying mental health conditions and encourages people to seek help (Russell 2014). One research study found the majority of respondents thought Robin Williams’s death showed how suicide and underlying mental illness can happen to anyone (Dillman Carpentier and Parrott 2016). The new approachability of mental illness made it more acceptable to reach out for help. AVOID MISINFORMATION AND OFFER HOPE Studies show that news coverage of suicide influences suicide rates in the general population. Ineffective coverage can trigger suicidal impulses in already vulnerable media consumers, while effective coverage can encourage them to get help by leading them toward valuable mental health resources. The case studies in this chapter were used to demonstrate examples of both. Reporters can obtain further information on the responsible reporting of suicide by visiting the website ReportingOnSuicide.org. This website acknowledges the complexity of suicide by advising reporters to avoid reporting a single cause. Circumstances around suicide are often complex, with over ninety percent of victims suffering from underlying mental disorders and/or substance abuse. Journalists should consider reaching out to mental health professionals to gather information on causes, warning signs, and treatment options available. Last, journalists should always provide local and national resources for mental health treatment options and information (“Recommendations” 2015). The case studies in this chapter exemplify the importance of using these tips when reporting on suicide. REFERENCES 102.7KIISFM. “Chester Bennington Live With JoJo.” YouTube.com. February 21, 2017. https​://ww​w.you​tube.​com/w​atch?​v=jky​8GTCI​uYA. “Aaron Hernandez Biography.com.” Biography.com. May 9, 2017. https​://ww​w.bio​ graph​y.com​/peop​le/aa​ron-h​ernan​dez-2​12697​41. Apar, Corey. “Chester Bennington.” AllMusic.com. Accessed January 2018. https​:// ww​w.all​music​.com/​artis​t/che​ster-​benni​ngton​-mn00​00111​882. Arendt, Florian and Sebastian Scherr, “The Impact of a Highly Publicized Celebrity Suicide on Suicide-Related Online Information Seeking.” Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention 38 (2017): 207–09. Axelson, Ben. “‘Genie, You’re Free’: Robin Williams’ Suicide Sparks Controversial Statements.” Syracuse.com. August 13, 2014. http:​//www​.syra​cuse.​com/n​ews/i​ ndex.​ssf/2​014/0​8/rob​in_wi​lliam​s_dea​th_su​icide​_geni​e_you​re_fr​ee.ht​ml. Belson, Ken. “Aaron Hernandez Had Severe C.T.E. When He Died at Age 27.” NYTimes.com. September 21, 2017. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​017/0​9/21/​sport​s/ aar​on-he​rnand​ez-ct​e-bra​in.ht​ml.

124

Bradley Wolfe and Meghann Droeger

Bennington, Chester. Twitter Post. May 27, 2017a, 9:58 AM. https​://tw​itter​.com/​ Chest​erBe/​statu​s/868​51175​26646​53824​. Bennington, Chester. Twitter Post. May 28, 2017b, 5:00 PM. https​://tw​itter​.com/​ Chest​erBe/​statu​s/868​98039​79625​43110​. Bryant, Tom. “Linkin Park – Kerrang!” Tom-Bryant.com. January 23, 2008. http:​// www​.tom-​bryan​t.com​/link​in-pa​rk-ke​rrang​--tom​-brya​nt.ht​ml. Burchard, Jeremy. “Remembering the Empowering Songs and Career of Mindy McCready.” WideOpenCountry.com. November 2016. http:​//www​.wide​openc​ ountr​y.com​/reme​mberi​ng-mi​ndy-m​ccrea​dy/. Burnett, Dean. “Robin Williams, Depression and Dementia: The Clinical.” TheGuardian.com. November 5, 2015. https​://ww​w.the​guard​ian.c​om/sc​ience​/brai​n-fla​ pping​/2015​/nov/​04/ro​bin-w​illia​ms-de​press​ion-a​nd-de​menti​a-the​-clin​ical-​pictu​re. Burnett, Dean. “Robin Williams’s Death: A Reminder that Suicide and Depression are not Selfish.” TheGuardian.com. August 12, 2014. https​://ww​w.the​guard​ian. c​om/sc​ience​/brai​n-fla​pping​/2014​/aug/​12/ro​bin-w​illia​ms-su​icide​-and-​depre​ssion​ -are-​not-s​elfis​h. Calvario, Liz. “Read Chester Bennington’s Heartbreaking Letter to Chris Cornell: ‘Can’t Imagine A World Without You’.” ETOnline.com. July 21, 2017. http:​//www​.eton​line.​ com/m​usic/​22210​4_rea​d_che​ster_​benni​ngton​_hear​tbrea​king_​lette​r_to_​chris​_corn​ell. “Chester Bennington: A Life in Pictures.” EOnline.com. Accessed January 2018. http:​ //www​.eonl​ine.c​om/ph​otos/​21704​/ches​ter-b​ennin​gton-​a-lif​e-in-​pictu​res/7​80027​. “Chris Cornell.” IMDb.com. Accessed January 5, 2018a. http://www.imdb.com/ name/nm0180225/bio. “Chris Cornell.” SputnikMusic.com. Accessed January 2018b. https​://ww​w.spu​tnikm​ usic.​com/b​ands/​Chris​-Corn​ell/1​924/.​ Cohen, Elizabeth and Hoffner, Cynthia. “Finding Meaning in a Celebrity’s Death: The Relationship Between Parasocial Attachment, Grief, and Sharing Educational Health Information Related to Robin Williams on Social Network Sites.” Computers in Human Behavior 65 (2016): 643–50. Daniels, Tim. “Junior Seau Test Results Showing CTE Exemplify Why NFL Concussion Rules Are Key.” BleacherReport.com. January 10, 2013. http:​//ble​ acher​repor​t.com​/arti​cles/​14790​19-ju​nior-​seau-​test-​resul​ts-sh​owing​-cte-​exemp​lify-​ why-n​fl-co​ncuss​ion-r​ules-​are-k​ey. Digital Communications Division. “What does ‘suicide contagion’ mean, and what can be done to prevent it?” HHS.gov. September 16, 2014. https​://ww​w.hhs​.gov/​ answe​rs/me​ntal-​healt​h-and​-subs​tance​-abus​e/wha​t-doe​s-sui​cide-​conta​gion-​mean/​ index​.html​. Dillman Carpentier, Francesca and Parrott, M. Scott. “Young Adults’ Information Seeking Following Celebrity Suicide: Considering Involvement With the Celebrity and Emotional Distress in Health Communication Strategies.” Health Communication 31, no. 11 (2016): 1334–44. https​://do​i-org​/10.1​080/1​04102​36.20​15.10​ 56329​. Drysdale, Jennifer. “Chris Cornell Repeatedly Told Wife, ‘I Am Just Tired’ Before Death, Police Report Says.” ETOnline.com. May 19, 2017. http:​//www​.eton​line.​ com/n​ews/2​17899​_chri​s_cor​nell_​repea​tedly​_told​_wife​_i_am​_just​_tire​d_bef​ore_​ death_​polic​e_rep​ort_s​ays.

Celebrity Suicide

125

Dukes, Billy. “The Life and Death of Mindy McCready – A Timeline of Tragedy.” TasteofCountry.com. February 29, 2013. http:​//tas​teofc​ountr​y.com​/mind​y-mcc​ ready​-time​line/​. Erlewine, Stephen. “Soundgarden.” AllMusic.com. Accessed January 2018. https​:// ww​w.all​music​.com/​artis​t/sou​ndgar​den-m​n0000​00109​8/bio​graph​y. Fainaru-Wada, Mark, Jim Avila and Steve Fainaru. “Doctors: Junior Seau’s brain had CTE.” ESPN.com. January 11, 2013. http:​//www​.espn​.com/​espn/​otl/s​tory/​_/ id/​88303​44/st​udy-j​unior​-seau​-brai​n-sho​ws-ch​ronic​-brai​n-dam​age-f​ound-​other​-nfl-​ footb​all-p​layer​s. Floyd, Jacquielynn. “A sad final act for country singer Mindy McCready.” DallasNews.com. February 18, 2013. https​://ww​w.dal​lasne​ws.co​m/new​s/new​s/201​3/02/​ 18/a-​sad-f​i nal-​act-f​or-co​untry​-sing​er-mi​ndy-m​ccrea​dy. Fricke, David. “Chris Cornell: Inside Soundgarden, Audioslave Singer’s Final Days.” RollingStone.com. May 29, 2017. https​://ww​w.rol​lings​tone.​com/m​usic/​featu​res/ chris-​corne​ll-da​vid-f​ricke​-on-s​oundg​arden​-sing​er-fi​nal-d​ays-w​48456​0. Gopalan, Nisha. “Chris Cornell on Soundgarden’s New Album, the Queen of England, and Axl Rose.” Vulture.com. http:​//www​.vult​ure.c​om/20​12/11​/soun​dgard​ en-ch​ris-c​ornel​l-int​ervie​w.htm​l. Greene, David. “Seau’s Suicide Helped To Make Concussions In Football A National Issue.” NPR.org. December 22, 2015. https​://ww​w.npr​.org/​2015/​12/22​/4606​56805​ /juni​or-se​aus-s​uicid​e-hel​ped-t​o-mak​e-con​cussi​ons-i​n-foo​tball​-a-na​tiona​l-iss​ue. Griffo, Megan. “14 Robin Williams Movies That Have Helped People Through Depression.” TheMighty.com. August 11, 2017. https​://th​emigh​ty.co​m/201​7/08/​ robin​-will​iams-​movie​s-dep​ressi​on/. Grow, Kory. “Chester Bennington’s Last Days: Linkin Park Singer’s Mix of Hope, Heaviness.” RollingStone.com. August 4, 2017a. https​://ww​w.rol​lings​tone.​com/m​ usic/​news/​insid​e-lin​kin-p​ark-s​inger​-ches​ter-b​ennin​gtons​-last​-days​-w495​942. Grow, Kory. “Soundgarden’s Chris Cornell on ‘Superunknown,’ Depression and Kurt Cobain.” RollingStone.com. May 19, 2017b. https​://ww​w.rol​lings​tone.​com/m​usic/​ featu​res/s​oundg​arden​s-chr​is-co​rnell​-on-s​uperu​nknow​n-dep​ressi​on-w4​83113​. Heine, Kurt. “Robin Williams On Depression: ‘I Get Bummed’.” HuffingtonPost.com. August 11, 2014. https​://ww​w.huf​fingt​onpos​t.com​/2014​/08/1​1/rob​in-​­williams-​men​ tal-i​llnes​s_n_5​67036​7.htm​l. Hitt, Caitlyn. “Suicide Hotlines See Spike in Call Volume after Logic’s 2017 VMAs Performance.” NYDailyNews.com. August 30, 2017. http:​//www​.nyda​ilyne​ws.co​ m/ent​ertai​nment​/musi​c/sui​cide-​hotli​nes-s​pike-​calls​-logi​c-vma​-perf​orman​ce-ar​ticle​ -1.34​54392​. “Junior Seau.” IMDb.com. Accessed January 2018. http://www.imdb.com/name/ nm1294758/bio. Kilgore, Adam. “Aaron Hernandez Suffered from Most Severe CTE Ever Found in a Person His Age.” WashingtonPost.com. November 9, 2017. https​://ww​w.was​hingt​ onpos​t.com​/spor​ts/aa​ron-h​ernan​dez-s​uffer​ed-fr​om-mo​st-se​vere-​cte-e​ver-f​ound-​in-a-​ perso​n-his​-age/​2017/​11/09​/fa7c​d204-​c57b-​11e7-​afe9-​4f60b​5a6c4​a0_st​ory.h​tml. Klis, Mike. “Report: McKinley Suffered from Depression Following Knee Surgery.” DenverPost.com. September 21, 2010. http:​//blo​gs.de​nverp​ost.c​om/br​oncos​/2010​ /09/2​1/rep​ort-m​ckinl​ey-su​ffere​d-fro​m-dep​ressi​on-fo​llowi​ng-kn​ee-su​rgery​/5286​/.

126

Bradley Wolfe and Meghann Droeger

Kreps, Daniel. “Chris Cornell Autopsy Report: ‘Drugs Did Not Contribute’ to Death.” RollingStones.com. June 2, 2017. https​://ww​w.rol​lings​tone.​com/m​usic/​ news/​chris​-corn​ell-a​utops​y-and​-toxi​colog​y-rep​ort-r​eleas​ed-w4​84309​. “Kurt Cobain Biography.com.” Biography.com. April 27, 2017. https​://ww​w.bio​ graph​y.com​/peop​le/ku​rt-co​bain-​95421​79. Larimer, Sarah. “Robin Williams Coroner’s Report: Paranoia, Depression and Parkinson’s, but No Alcohol or Illegal Drugs.” WashingtonPost.com. November 7, 2014. https​://ww​w.was​hingt​onpos​t.com​/news​/arts​-and-​enter​tainm​ent/w​p/201​4/11/​ 07/ro​bin-w​illia​ms-au​topsy​-no-a​lcoho​l-or-​illeg​al-dr​ugs-i​n-his​-syst​em. “Layne Staley.” IMDb.com. Accessed January 2018. http://www.imdb.com/name/ nm0821655/bio. “Leading Causes of Death Reports.” CDC.gov. Last modified February 2017. https​:// we​bappa​.cdc.​gov/s​asweb​/ncip​c/lea​dcaus​e.htm​l. Levenson, Eric and Evan Simko-Bednarski. “New Details on Aaron Hernandez’s Apparent Suicide in Prison.” CNN.com. May 5, 2017. http:​//www​.cnn.​com/2​017/0​ 5/04/​us/aa​ron-h​ernan​dez-d​eath-​repor​t/ind​ex.ht​ml. Levenson, Eric and Holly Yan. “Aaron Hernandez’s Murder Conviction Cleared After Suicide.” CNN.com. May 9, 2017. http:​//www​.cnn.​com/2​017/0​5/09/​us/aa​ ron-h​ernan​dez-m​urder​-conv​ictio​n-aba​ted/i​ndex.​html.​ “Linkin Park Awards.” AceShowBiz.com. Accessed January 2018. https​://ww​w.ace​ showb​iz.co​m/cel​ebrit​y/lin​kin_p​ark/a​wards​.html​. Longeretta, Emily. “Mindy McCready: The Real Reason She Committed Suicide— Report.” HollywoodLife.com. February 20, 2013. http:​//hol​lywoo​dlife​.com/​2013/​ 02/20​/mind​y-mcc​ready​-suic​ide-r​eason​-deat​h/. Lynskey, Dorian. “Chris Cornell’s 2006 Interview on Audioslave, Addiction, and Reinventing Rock.” Spin.com. May 17, 2017. https​://ww​w.spi​n.com​/2017​/05/c​ hris-​corne​ll-au​diosl​ave-i​nterv​iew/.​ “Mindy McCready Biography.com.” Biography.com. Last modified April 2, 2014. https​://ww​w.bio​graph​y.com​/peop​le/mi​ndy-m​ccrea​dy-20​63860​3. Mitchell, Kirk and Lindsay Jones. “Signs of Trouble for Kenny McKinley: Debts and a Gun.” DenverPost.com. December 1, 2010. https​://ww​w.den​verpo​st.co​m/201​ 0/12/​01/si​gns-o​f-tro​uble-​for-k​enny-​mckin​ley-d​ebts-​and-a​-gun/​. Monde, Chiderah. “Mindy McCready Dead at 37: Singer’s Ex-Boyfriend, Father of Her Son Says Suicide ‘Didn’t Come as a Major Shock’.” NYDailyNews.com. February 18, 2013. http:​//www​.nyda​ilyne​ws.co​m/ent​ertai​nment​/goss​ip/mi​ndy-m​ccrea​ dy-de​ad-37​-bill​y-mck​night​-isn-​surpr​ised-​suici​de-ar​ticle​-1.12​66820​. Munro, Scott. “Mike Shinoda Opens Up About Chester Bennington: We Were Like Brothers.” iHeart.com. November 3, 2017. https​://ww​w.ihe​art.c​om/co​ntent​/ 2017​-11-0​3-mik​e-shi​noda-​opens​-up-a​bout-​chest​er-be​nning​ton-w​e-wer​e-lik​e-bro​ thers​/. Music Lover. “The Best Selling Grunge Bands.” Ranker.com. Accessed January 2018. https​://ww​w.ran​ker.c​om/li​st/be​st-se​lling​-grun​ge-ba​nds/m​usic-​lover​. People in Sports. “86 Athletes Who Committed Suicide.” Ranker.com. Access January 2018. https​://ww​w.ran​ker.c​om/li​st/at​hlete​s-who​-comm​itted​-suic​ide/p​eople​ -in-s​ports​.

Celebrity Suicide

127

People Staff. “Mindy McCready Faced Losing Her Children Days Before Suicide.” People.com. February 20, 2013. http:​//peo​ple.c​om/ce​lebri​ty/mi​ndy-m​ccrea​dy-su​ icide​-peop​le-ma​gazin​e-cov​er-st​ory-a​bout-​her-f​i nal-​days/​. Perez, Sarah. “Twitter Adds More Anti-Abuse Measures Focused on Banning Accounts, Silencing Bullying.” TechCrunch.com. March 1, 2017. https​://te​chcru​ nch.c​om/20​17/03​/01/t​witte​r-add​s-mor​e-ant​i-abu​se-me​asure​s-foc​used-​on-ba​nning​ -acco​unts-​silen​cing-​bully​ing/.​ “Recommendations for Reporting on Suicide.” ReportingonSuicide.org. 2015. http:​// rep​ortin​gonsu​icide​.org/​recom​menda​tions​/. Reed, Ryan. “Chester Bennington’s Widow: ‘Depression Doesn’t Have a Face or a Mood’.” RollingStone.com. September 18, 2017. https​://ww​w.rol​lings​tone.​com/m​ usic/​news/​chest​er-be​nning​tons-​widow​-depr​essio​n-doe​snt-h​ave-a​-face​-or-a​-mood​ -w503​934. “Robin Williams.” IMDb.com. Accessed January 2018. http:​//www​.imdb​.com/​name/​ nm000​0245/​bio?r​ef_=n​m_ov_​bio_s​m. Runtagh, Jordan. “Chris Cornell: From Drugs at 13 to One of the Most Influential Voices of the Seattle Scene.” People.com. May 18, 2017. http:​//peo​ple.c​om/mu​sic/ c​hris-​corne​ll-li​fe-in​fluen​tial-​seatt​le-sc​ene/.​ Russell, John. “Did Robin Williams Open Door to More Suicides?” IndyStar.com. August 13, 2014. https​://ww​w.ind​ystar​.com/​story​/news​/2014​/08/1​2/dea​th-ro​bin-w​ illia​ms-he​lp-de​press​ed-pe​ople-​push/​13970​687. Sandler, Elana. “Celebrity Death and Suicide Contagion.” PsychologyToday.com. August 24, 2009. https​://ww​w.psy​cholo​gytod​ay.co​m/blo​g/pro​motin​g-hop​e-pre​ venti​ng-su​icide​/2009​08/ce​lebri​ty-de​ath-a​nd-su​icide​-cont​agion​. Sanger-Katz, Margot. “The Science Behind Suicide Contagion.” NYTimes.com. August 13, 2014. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​com/2​014/0​8/14/​upsho​t/the​-scie​nce-b​ehind​ -suic​ide-c​ontag​ion.h​tml. Schonfeld, Zach. “Robin Williams Left ‘Unprecendented’ Mark on Suicide Hotlines.” Newsweek.com. August 11, 2015. http:​//www​.news​week.​com/r​obin-​willi​ ams-d​eath-​made-​unpre​ceden​ted-m​ark-s​uicid​e-lif​eline​s-361​790. Sheridan, Patrick. “Robin Williams’ Legacy: A Big Heart for Charity.” CNN.com. August 12, 2014. http:​//mon​ey.cn​n.com​/2014​/08/1​2/new​s/com​panie​s/rob​in-wi​ lliam​s-cha​rity/​index​.html​. Sobieraj Westfall, Sandra. “Dean Cain ‘Not Surprised’ By Mindy McCready’s Death.” People.com. February 21, 2013. http:​//peo​ple.c​om/ce​lebri​ty/mi​ndy-m​ccrea​ dy-pe​ople-​cover​-stor​y-dea​n-cai​n-not​-surp​rised​-by-s​uicid​e/. SPIN Staff. “Come Clean.” Spin.com. June 23, 2003. https://www.spin.com/2003/06/ come-clean. Stolworthy, Jacob. “Chester Bennington Dead: Linkin Park Singer Died on Chris Cornell’s Birthday—Here’s Why the Date is Important.” Independent.co.uk. July 21, 2017. http:​//www​.inde​pende​nt.co​.uk/a​rts-e​ntert​ainme​nt/mu​sic/n​ews/c​heste​ r-ben​ningt​on-de​ad-li​nkin-​park-​suici​de-ch​ris-c​ornel​l-bir​thday​-date​-impo​rtant​-a785​ 2216.​html.​ Sweeting, Adam. “Chester Bennington Obituary.” TheGuardian.com. July 21, 2017. https​://ww​w.the​guard​ian.c​om/mu​sic/2​017/j​ul/21​/ches​ter-b​ennin​gton-​obitu​ary.

128

Bradley Wolfe and Meghann Droeger

Szalavitz, Maia. “Is Dr. Drew Too Risky for Prime Time?” TheFix.com. February, 21, 2013. https​://ww​w.the​fix.c​om/co​ntent​/dr-d​rew-m​indy-​mccre​ady-c​elebr​ity-rehab-​ suici​de810​2. ThePutinNews. “Mindy McCready Last Interview Before Her Death.” YouTube.com. February 17, 2013. https​://ww​w.you​tube.​com/w​atch?​v=_Tq​YSWws​MJw&t​. Warner, Kara. “‘It Was Not Depression That Killed Robin’: Susan Williams Opens up to PEOPLE About Husband’s Battle with Lewy Body Dementia.” People.com. November 3, 2015. http:​//peo​ple.c​om/ce​lebri​ty/ro​bin-w​illia​ms-wi​dow-s​usan-​willi​ ams-o​pens-​up-to​-peop​le. Wilson, MacKenzie. “Audioslave.” AllMusic.com. Accessed January 2018. https​:// ww​w.all​music​.com/​artis​t/aud​iosla​ve-mn​00000​40743​/biog​raphy​.

Chapter 9

The Naked Truth Postfeminism in News Discourse in Response to the Kardashians’ Nude Magazine Images Joy Jenkins and J. David Wolfgang

In November 2014, Paper magazine unveiled covers featuring reality television star Kim Kardashian, with one prominently displaying her exposed backside. The image, one of four showing Kardashian in various stages of undress, accompanied an interview examining her fame, family, and social media presence. In response, journalists questioned Kardashian’s intentions as well as those of the magazine and photographer. In December, Kardashian’s sister Kourtney posed partially nude at nine months pregnant for a photo shoot for online magazine DuJour. Media outlets responded by both praising and deriding Kourtney’s photos and, in many cases, comparing them to Kim’s. Within this coverage, many outlets not only covered the photos but also interpreted the motivations of the women. Media discourse regarding the images shed light on the meanings media attach to celebrity women’s decisions to display their bodies. News organizations used the coverage to assess the acceptability of appearing nude; the authenticity of the representations; and what the attention the images drew implies for societal understandings of body image, race, and sexuality. This coverage reinforced the pervasiveness of postfeminism in contemporary media culture, highlighting news organizations’ continued emphasis on female sexuality, commodification, objectification, and body monitoring (Gill 2007a). The coverage, however, also showed evidence of postfeminism’s potential to empower and emancipate through presenting women grappling with contemporary feminist struggles (Lotz 2001). Through providing venues for both Kim and Kourtney to express their motivations for appearing nude, 129

130

Joy Jenkins and J. David Wolfgang

some organizations emphasized the women’s subjectivity in choosing how they would be displayed. This study considered how news organizations analyzed and interpreted the Kardashians’ nude magazine images and how this coverage reinforced postfeminist sensibilities and traditional media gender representations as well as presented more contemporary understandings of power and feminist solutions (Gill 2007a). WOMEN’S BODIES AS SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONS The body has emerged as the chief means through which women express and maintain their femininity. Bordo (1997) calls the body a medium on which the norms of a particular culture, as well as historical definitions of selfhood, masculinity, and femininity, are inscribed. In response, women are spending more time managing and disciplining their bodies in pursuit of an “everchanging, homogenizing, elusive ideal of femininity” (91). This continual monitoring, which crosses the boundaries of race, class, and sexual orientation, represents a form of social control (Bordo 1997) through which women have internalized societally constructed ideals of beauty, resulting in bodies that increasingly look the same (Gill 2015). The dominant visual economy is still organized according to gender lines (Van Zoonen 1994). As a result, the cultural “rules” for femininity have been disseminated through images that tell women what clothes, body shapes, movements, and behaviors are acceptable (Bordo 1997). In particular, slenderness, which is emphasized in media depictions, has come to represent power, will, mastery over one’s body, and potential for success (Bordo 1997). As Bordo writes, “Between the media images of self-containment and self-mastery and the reality of constant, everyday stress and anxiety about one’s appearance lies the chasm which produces bodies habituated to self-monitoring and self-normalization” (336). In fact, research has shown that media image and body image are inseparable: “Bodies become through images (body-image)” (Coleman 2008, 175). Therefore, images that capture the public’s and the media’s attention can contribute to shaping cultural norms of femininity. Images of celebrities have become an increasingly pervasive part of women’s everyday lives and contribute to how they construct identity (Marwick and boyd 2015). Marwick and boyd describe celebrity as a practice through which individuals navigate between cultivating a public persona and an “authentic” self, with the former defined by tabloid magazines, paparazzi photos, and gossip columns claiming to show what the celebrity is “really” like. Fans enjoy trying to differentiate between the two personas, resulting in

The Naked Truth

131

celebrity women becoming role models whose power emanates from their roles as subjects desiring male attention and objects desired by men (Dines 2015). THE MEDIA AND “OTHER” FEMALE BODIES An emphasis on slenderness persists despite the resistance of racial and ethnic differences in beauty norms. As a result, “other” bodies have become sites of fascination and appropriation (hooks 1997). Media images have exploited stereotypes of black female bodies, equating them with accessibility, availability, and sexual deviance (hooks 1997). These over-the-top representations result from ethnic women’s bodies being deemed excessive, too pregnant, or too sexual (McKay and Johnson 2015). Bodies are fetishized as the “sexually grotesque,” in that they are exotic and erotic yet deviant and repulsive. The idea of the sexually grotesque comes from Hobson (2003), who examined how European explorers depicted African women’s bodies as mythic and monstrous. Later, “sexually grotesque” referred to Saartjie Baartman, a South African woman who was labeled the “Hottentot Venus” and whose hyper-muscular, hypersexual body was put on display (Hobson 2003). Similarly, news coverage of the Kardashians has scrutinized and sexualized their bodies, affording them a mythic quality. In particular, Kim’s body has been “not just publically sexualized but publically raced” (Sastre 2013, 129), as she cultivated fame through blending a heavily monitored “white body” with the curves, exoticness, and sexuality typically associated with the “non-white body.” Pregnant bodies have also become highly visible, public, and subject to scrutiny (Nash 2012). In particular, “Naked pregnant portraits of celebrities in women’s magazines embody the ethos of the ‘sexy’ and slender ‘yummy mummy’: this performance of a glamorous pregnancy is critical for maintaining celebrity currency” (Nash 2012, 47). As a result of celebrities documenting their pregnancies in lifestyle magazines, women may feel increasingly pressured to remain slim and beautiful while pregnant (Nash 2012). POSTFEMINIST MEDIA CULTURE Media have become intertwined with the logic of advertising, which celebrates commodity culture, supplanting substance with lifestyle, and prioritizing individual gratification over the public good (Vavrus 2002). Similarly, postfeminism, a strand of third-wave feminism, encourages women’s private, consumer lifestyles rather than cultivating a desire for public life and political activism (Vavrus 2002). Postfeminism invokes feminism to suggest

132

Joy Jenkins and J. David Wolfgang

that equality has been achieved and is no longer needed (McRobbie 2004). Because media have become key sites for defining postfeminism, this new postfeminist subject has become complicit in “commercially produced sexual representations which actively invoke hostility to assumed feminist positions from the past in order to endorse a new regime of sexual meanings based on female consent, equality, participation and pleasure, free of politics” (McRobbie 2004, 260). Gill (2007b) suggests that arguments about postfeminism reflect the mutual relationship between transformations in feminisms and transformations in media culture. Postfeminism, then, does not represent a new type of feminism or a theoretical stance but a sensibility evident in media messages (Gill 2007a, b). Gill (2007b) urges researchers not to consider postfeminism as an analytical perspective but as a critical object. Considering postfeminism this way, Gill identifies key features of postfeminist discourse: femininity as a bodily property; the shift from objectification to subjectification; an emphasis on selfsurveillance, monitoring, and discipline; a focus on individualism, choice, and empowerment; the dominance of a makeover paradigm; a resurgence in ideas of natural sexual difference; a marked sexualization of culture; and an emphasis on consumerism and the commodification of difference. Postfeminism’s emphasis on the body as a key source of identity represents a shift from a femininity rooted in psychological components, such as caring and nurturing (Gill 2007b). The body is presented as a source of power but one that also requires “constant monitoring, surveillance, discipline, and remodeling (and consumer spending)” (Gill 2007b, 5). The objectified female body is no longer a symbol of subordination but a site of women’s pleasure and power. This “commodity feminism” suggests that personal freedom is located in the visual construction of self-appearance through consumption, and sexuality is deployed by choice not because of gender expectations (Goldman, Heath, and Smith 1991). Sexual subjectivity is connected to playfulness, freedom, and choice, with women not seeking men’s approval but pleasuring themselves. The external male gaze has shifted to an internal gaze through which women seek beautification as self-fulfillment (Gill 2007b). The makeover paradigm is evident in women’s acknowledgement that their life is lacking or flawed in some way. They turn to relationship, design, or lifestyle experts—particularly the media—for reinvention or transformation (Gill 2007b). Through regulating their bodies and remodeling their interior life, women can effectively “fix the self” and take control (Gill 2007a). The sexualization of culture has been evident in a proliferation of discourses about sex and sexuality (Gill 2007a), including the erotic presentation of bodies in public spaces. Gill (2012) urges researchers to consider the sexism inherent in sexualization—“specifying more carefully how those aspects of social and cultural life we collect together under this label operate in particular contexts—paying attention to power” (742).

The Naked Truth

133

Lastly, an emphasis on consumerism and the commodification of difference suggests that gender is connected to other forms of marginalization, such as post-colonialism (Gill 2007a), through which women who veer from the white, slender, heterosexual norm are “othered” in media depictions. This theme also encompasses the idea that purchasing a product can make a significant change in a person’s life. Feminism is presented as a lifestyle and an attitude. Postfeminist discourses reflect tensions related to feminism as well as opportunities for emancipation and action. For example, Lotz (2001) suggests that postfeminist texts can present narratives that explore women’s diverse relations to power, depict varied feminist solutions and strategies for activism, deconstruct and contest binary categories of gender and sexuality, and address contemporary struggles faced by women. ANALYTICAL APPROACH We used critical discourse analysis to assess the dominant themes present in news coverage about Kim and Kourtney Kardashian’s nude photos. We considered the postfeminist sensibility within the discourse as well as how the articles reinforced and subverted media’s typical gender representations. The study analyzed content from a one-month period starting with the release of Kim Kardashian’s first photos (November 11) and lasting until nine days after Kourtney’s photos were released (December 11). We used Factiva to collect all U.S. articles published during the period that referenced “Kardashian,” “magazine,” and “nude” or “naked.” This search yielded 72 results from 19 different publications. Critical discourse analysis looks at how powerful institutions, such as the press, reinforce social standards and norms including hegemonic ideas regarding race, gender, and class (Van Dijk 2001). For feminist work (Van Dijk 2001), CDA reveals how texts contribute to cultural constructions of gender and reinforce “patterns of inequality, domination, and oppression” (Gill 2009, 351). Feminist researchers go beyond meanings to identify patterns understood within broader cultural contexts (Gill 2009) and shed light on prevailing sensibilities (Fürsich 2009). We looked for four key features of the liberating potential of postfeminist discourse: narratives that explore women’s diverse relationships to power, depictions of varied feminist solutions, attempts to reconstruct the binaries of gender and sexuality, and illustrations of contemporary struggles (Lotz 2001). We also considered key themes of postfeminist media culture: femininity as a bodily property; a shift from objectification to subjectification; self-surveillance, monitoring, and discipline; individualism, choice, and empowerment;

134

Joy Jenkins and J. David Wolfgang

the makeover paradigm; an entanglement of feminist and anti-feminist ideas; sexualization of culture; and an emphasis on consumerism and the commodification of difference (Gill 2007a). After an initial analysis, we discussed common themes and patterns from the texts. We engaged with the most frequent codes from the initial analysis and used a focused approach to sort through and synthesize those codes. We then developed the final themes and patterns for analysis. This is consistent with the traditional method for qualitative analysis of large amounts of textual data and the constant comparative method (Glaser and Strauss 1968; Charmaz 2014). “I DO IT BECAUSE I’M PROUD OF IT”: THE BODY AS A SOURCE OF IDENTITY The coverage of Kim and Kourtney Kardashian’s nude magazine images reinforced the postfeminist focus on the body as the nexus of women’s sense of femininity and a source of individuality and empowerment. Articles used Kim’s photos to spur conversations about broader cultural themes. A Time article (Blaise 2014) compared Kim to Saartjie Baartman, whose “striking proportions” made her a popular performer as well as a “symbol of racism, colonization, and the objectification of the black female body.” The piece suggested that Kim and Baartman experienced a similar public fascination with their nude bodies, although, unlike Baartman, “Kardashian West has been able to capitalize on the public’s fascination with her body and likeness both financially and socially.” The author, however, raises questions about whether Kim’s success is rooted in a problematic curiosity. A Washington Post article (Butler 2014) compared Kim to Baartman and considered the fact that Kim “has been able to capitalize on her body in a way that black women historically have not.” A Salon (Moyer and Kirkpatrick 2014) article addressed the Instagram comments spurred by Kim’s Paper photos. These concerns included “mommy-shaming,” or those who criticized the nude photos because of Kim’s role as a mother. Other critiques—plastic surgery allegations, slut-shaming, class-shaming—emerged as well, “revealing just how conflicted we are about women’s sexuality, the female form, and celebrity culture.” Media coverage also offered subjectivity to Kim and Kourtney by addressing their perspectives on the photos and why they saw them as positive representations. However, few articles quoted Kim and Kourtney directly, instead presenting quotes from other media. For example, an article in ABC News (Rothman 2014) proclaimed in its headline, “Kim Kardashian

The Naked Truth

135

Leaves Little to Imagination in Raciest Magazine Cover Yet” but also noted that Kim had shared the photo on her Instagram and included her commentary, “Shot this in Paris. Can't wait for you to see the whole issue.” Although the article emphasized the salacious aspects of the photos, the inclusion of Kim’s personal branding of the images offered her subjectivity as well. Many articles provided a look “behind the scenes” of the photo shoots, particularly Kim’s, to show how she was styled, how she responded to the photographer’s requests, and the magazine’s goals. The Boston Herald (O’Leary 2014) suggested the photo shoot was designed to “push the proverbial envelope” but that Kim “pushed it even further” by posing nude. The article described Kim “peeling” out of her dress while her makeup artist rubbed her with oil, and as she saw previews of the images and received encouragement, she felt more comfortable. This suggested that rather than feeling objectified, she chose to pose nude. Media coverage also scrutinized Kim’s facial expression in her fully nude photos, which was called “raunchy” (Smith and Gordon 2014), but an article in Salon (Keane 2014) called it a “delighted, open-mouthed laugh” that defied the typical “sexy pout” or “come-hither smile” and presented Kim as a woman in “complete control of her presentation at all times.” Several articles published Kim’s quotes from an interview on an Australian talk show. Kim said she was “thrilled” with the photos and referred to them as an “art project” and “something that was going to make me feel confident and me feel good” (Messer 2014b). These comments addressed why she participated while also suggesting that in addition to providing “art” for viewers, the images afforded her a sense of empowerment. Kim also said she would support her daughter if she chose to pose nude. “I don’t do anything with the intention to promote anyone else doing it—that’s not even what I’m trying to do. I do it because I’m proud of it” (Gordon 2014). In this, Kim defends the photos as a matter of individual choice and personal fulfillment, rather than a trend for others to emulate. However, in the same Australian interview, Kim suggested that posing for the photos “empowered me to feel good about myself after I had gained 500 pounds and looked like a huge slob for so long” (Gordon 2014). Another article (O’Leary 2014) suggested that adulation from Kim’s husband, Kanye West, as well as “100 squats a friend says Kardashian does every single morning,” gave her the confidence to participate in the photo shoot. These comments suggested that although Kim found confidence in posing nude, she also felt a need for her body to look a certain way before going on display, suggesting an emphasis on self-surveillance and body monitoring to determine what version of herself was acceptable for public consumption.

136

Joy Jenkins and J. David Wolfgang

“WHAT A WOMAN’S BODY WAS MADE TO DO”: PREGNANCY ON DISPLAY Like Kim, Kourtney suggested that she felt confident about her body, but unlike Kim, she wanted to display her pregnant form, rather than her postpregnancy figure. As a Huffington Post article (Sieczkowski 2014) noted, Kourtney said, “It’s what a woman’s body is made to do, so I hope it’s maybe seen as something that’s artistic.” She also said, “I’m not trying to impress anybody or be something that I’m not. [. . .] I did this because I wanted to and it made me happy.” Even more than Kim, Kourtney presented the photos as an individual choice and source of personal fulfillment, rather than emphasizing public consumption. The quotes were presented without commentary, further highlighting Kourtney’s perspective. In contrast, when articles included the journalist’s view, they juxtaposed Kourtney’s motivations with descriptions of the photos emphasizing how her body appeared. The New York Daily News (Ramisetti 2014) said, “Unlike her famous sister, Kourtney isn’t trying to ‘break the internet’ with the artsy shots, which included showing her in a wet T-shirt and a feather necklace.” Although the article noted that Kourtney took the photos as a personal chronicle of her child’s life, the descriptions of what she wore reinforced the sensational nature of posing nude while pregnant. Kourtney also emphasized that the photos reflected her intentions and were not forced upon her. Media discourses legitimized this view, such as a New York Post article (Kupfer 2014) that said, “Though Kim’s recent full-frontal Paper magazine shoot showed off her svelte post-baby body, Kourtney says she only did the nude shoot because she was expecting,” and she wanted to capture her authentic pregnant body. US Weekly (Takeda 2014) quoted Kourtney from the DuJour article saying, “It’s a wonderful thing to be able to show my children these photographs one day and say, ‘This was you inside.’” Unlike Kim’s more individually focused motivations, Kourtney’s were presented as genuine and even “uncontroversial” (Moyer and Kirkpatrick 2014), and “positive, “eloquent,” and potentially “feminist.” The caption read, “To me, nudity is not something to be ashamed of. [. . .] I'm at my best when I'm pregnant,” which challenges female body norms while also essentializing what makes their bodies valuable. “HER BABY-MAKER HAS ALWAYS BEEN HER MONEY-MAKER”: SEXUALIZATION, SENSATIONALISM, AND CONSUMERISM Media coverage undermined the empowerment narratives associated with Kim and Kourtney’s decisions to appear nude by emphasizing Kim’s business acumen, sensationalizing Kim and Kourtney’s sexuality, questioning why Kim and

The Naked Truth

137

Kourtney participated in the nude photo shoots, and questioning the authenticity of the photos. By drawing attention to these qualities, news coverage created an “otherness” based on sexuality and personal choices that presented the Kardashians as curiosities or incessant fameseekers rather than role models. Many articles assumed a commercial intent in Kim’s choice to pose naked, suggesting that she used her sexuality to improve her brand. A number of articles referenced her sex tape from 2003 as the catalyst for her business career (Kerpen 2014; Pesce 2014). She was described as having gained fame from her skill for “dropping her clothes” (Pesce 2014). Also, “[The magazine photos] won’t hurt Kim K.’s ‘bottom line’—because her baby-maker has always been her money-maker” (Pesce 2014). Others used subtle references to establish that Kim is more focused on financial success by referring to her as “Kim Karda$hian” (Clark 2014) or referring to her butt as her “assets” (Rothman 2014; O’Leary 2014; Kerpen 2014; Dillon and Siemaszko 2014; Smith and Gordon 2014). This phrase became a consistent narrative about Kim’s body as a tool for gaining wealth and power. One prominent depiction was the use of sensationalism to describe the photos and Kim and Kourtney’s decision to pose for them. Kim’s were frequently referred to as “racy” (Messer 2014a; Rothman 2014; Shields 2014; Clark 2014), “risqué” (Robertson 2014; Butler 2014), and “tawdry” (Durundo 2014a, b). This highlights the sexualization of culture but also surveillance of the body, as the terms imply that Kim’s actions fell outside the bounds of acceptable behavior. Other outlets referred to the photos as “badonkadonk” (Pesce 2014) or “bootylicious” (Fox News 2014). Authors described Kim’s butt as a “glistening posterior” (Robertson 2014), “a glazed Krispy Kreme donut” (Stampler 2014), and a “shiny ski slope” (Oldenburg and Puente 2014). She was also described as having “killer curves” (Pesce 2014), a “Ponderosa-like dorsal region,” and a “porny gape” (Derakhshani 2014). The descriptions of Kim’s body imply reliance on the commodification of difference, or efforts to profit from “exotic” or otherwise “othered” subjects, and the surveillance of the body, or media narratives that evaluate and suggest improvements for women’s bodies, by implying that her body is impossibly different but also an ideal to be sought. After Kourtney posed nude, some journalists compared the photos. Kim’s photos were more “racy” and less “tasteful,” while Kourtney’s were “stunning” (Sieczkowski 2014). Others, however, treated Kourtney similarly to Kim. After Kourtney posed nude, US Weekly stated it was “your move, Kim,” as if she should compete with Kourtney (Takeda 2014). Others described Kourtney’s photos as an attempt to mimic Kim (Frizell 2014; Durundo 2014c; Kupfer 2014; Taylor 2014). These descriptions use a surveillance narrative to critique both women. Some journalists suggested that Kim’s photo shoot represented her continual attempt to remain relevant, saying “she had no other way to get attention”

138

Joy Jenkins and J. David Wolfgang

(Jones 2014), it would “put her on the center stage” (Bussel 2014), and it would help her “big ego” (Maresca 2014). The New York Daily News referred to the magazine spread as an attempt by Kim to “top a semi-nude Kim Kardashian” (Pesce 2014). These narratives relied heavily on the sexualization of culture and an emphasis on using the body to generate commercial gain. Questions also arose over whether Kim’s photos were authentic. One author referred to them as “freakish” because she had “an impossibly narrow waist set off by a wide behind” (Oldenburg and Puente 2014). Another author claimed, without any citation, that the photos had been retouched (Derakhshani 2014). However, others, including some involved in the photo shoot, argued the photos were not retouched and she did not undergo any surgery (O’Leary 2014; Bussel 2014). This argument reflects how self-surveillance and monitoring can lead others to attempt to achieve an impossible ideal. “THESE WOMEN WERE BOLD AND SO STRONG”: SUBVERTING POSTFEMINIST SENSIBILITIES Although many articles focused on evaluating how Kim and Kourtney’s bodies appeared in the images, as well as their reasons for participating, others presented more diverse discourses, considering the women’s positions as role models and using the nude images to spark dialogue about race and bodily representation. Articles addressed Kim’s boldness in appearing nude as evidence of a shift in assumptions regarding beauty ideals. A New York Post article (Peyser 2014) said, “Women (and some men) finally get it. Stick figures are out. Real bodies are in. Thank you for sharing your stuff, Kim Kardashian.” Although this author made light of Kim’s photos, referring to them as Kim “sharing her stuff,” she also recognized the value of the images in promoting fuller-figured women as alluring. Another article (Howorth 2014) suggested, “Maybe some moms will feel sexually reinvigorated or newly liberated by Kim.” This framed Kim as a role model who is creating acceptability for mothers to embrace their sexuality. Three articles compared Kim’s photo shoot and the exploitation of Saartijie Baartman in the 19th century. One focused on how Baartman had her body sexualized without agency, while Kim chose to pose nude and highlight her figure for sexual purposes (Butler 2014). However, the author also questioned whether Kim’s choice was disempowering because she seemingly made the choice for commercial purposes (Butler 2014). Another argued that while Kim had agency, unlike Baartman, Kim still posed nude within a culture that objectifies female bodies and sees her body and that of Baartman as exotic curiosities (Blaise 2014).

The Naked Truth

139

Some argued that Kim re-appropriated black culture by establishing herself as a brand using traditionally black cultural elements. “[The photo shoot], which evoked controversial images of black women, has staked an ongoing debate over how black women are represented (or not) in mainstream media” (Butler 2014). The photographs featured Kim in almost the same champagnepouring pose as Grace Jones, who was also photographed by Jean-Pual Goude. One journalist argued that Kim “gets to represent black bodies that black women don’t get to represent themselves” (Lee 2014). Through historical and racial Through comparisons between Kim, Baartman, and Jones, these news discourses seem to show that any advancements in the treatment of women could be challenged by continued surveillance of women’s bodies and the disingenuous depiction of race through re-appropriation. The narratives used the Kardashians’ images as opportunities for assessing current feminist challenges. CONCLUSION The discourse in response to the Kardashians’ nude images revealed not only how the media perpetuate particular understandings of how women’s bodies should look but also shed light on socially constructed ideals for beauty (Gill 2015). : In particular, news coverage often focused on deconstructing how Kim and Kourtney appeared in their photo shoots. Articles evaluated almost every detail of the images, critiquing what the women wore (or didn’t), their facial expressions, their poses, and their body shape. For Kim, news reports often poked fun at her figure, using terms like “bootylicious” and comparing her to a Krispy Kreme donut. In doing so, news organizations disciplined and monitored Kim’s body, suggesting that by posing nude, she opened herself to scrutiny and ridicule. News coverage also suggested that her appearance, including her clothing, body shape, and behaviors, break cultural “rules” for femininity (Bordo 1997). Further, attention to Kim’s physique reinforced the cultural emphasis on slenderness as a representation of power, control, and potential for success (Bordo 1997). Because Kim’s appearance diverges from the slender norm, her body has become a site of both public fascination and appropriation (hooks 1997), with the media minimizing Kim’s appeal while also profiting from it by using her nude images to draw readers. Although articles praised Kim’s confidence in her body image, she was also referred to as being “freakish” for her “impossibly narrow waist. . . and wide behind” (Oldenburg and Puente 2014). Coverage also frequently quoted Kim as saying that she refused to appear nude until her body met her personal standards for

140

Joy Jenkins and J. David Wolfgang

post-pregnancy appearance, suggesting that she had internalized slim-focused ideals. Although Kim’s popularity suggests a shift toward more inclusive standards for beauty, news coverage can undermine this evolution. Kourtney’s decision to appear nude also attracted media monitoring, but the discourse presented these images as feminine and almost artful. These news articles praised Kourtney for remaining slim, sexy, and glamorous while pregnant and reinforced the need for non-celebrity women to discipline their bodies during pregnancy (Nash 2012). The intense scrutiny of the photos, actions, and choices of Kim and Kourtney suggest that media accept these celebrity women as contemporary role models (Dines 2015) and reinforce their ability to contribute to how women construct feminine identity (Marwick and boyd 2015). Through navigating between her public persona and her “authentic self” as described by Marwick and boyd (2015), Kim has crafted an impossible standard that the media cultivate through depictions highlighting her hypersexual features. However, the choice for Kim and Kourtney to pose nude was challenged by a number of critics, raising questions about how one can be feminine in celebrity culture. This aligns with Dines’ (2015) statements about attempts by women to define femininity based on one’s hypersexual status and her body image. Kim was othered and treated as a cultural curiosity—represented as sexually deviant and accessible because of her distinctive appearance (hooks 1997)—but then challenged for appropriating black culture. Some articles tied Kim to Saartijie Baartman by arguing that they had both taken on mythic qualities because of their status as curiosities (Hobson 2003), their race, and the structure of their bodies (Blaise 2014; Butler 2014). Although Kim had the agency to decide to pose naked, she was criticized because she did so for seemingly commercial purposes. She tried to capitalize off her own mythic qualities. Overall, media coverage both reflected and subverted postfeminist media culture. The coverage emphasized Kim and Kourtney’s agency in determining how they would appear as well as the pleasure they received from participating (McRobbie 2004), but it also maintained postfeminist ideals by relegating this feminine empowerment to lifestyle and attitude choices (Vavrus 2002). That is, the articles equated the nude images with the Kardashians’ desires to fulfill personal goals and promote their brands rather than to serve broader aims, such as influencing more inclusive beauty standards. Media discourse also supported postfeminism’s emphasis on the body as a key source of identity (Gill 2007b). For the Kardashians, as represented in the articles, appearing nude made them feel confident, powerful, and in control of their images. They equated their subjectivity not with the approval their images would garner from men but with their own playfulness, freedom, and choice (Gill 2007b). However, they offered requirements that limited what

The Naked Truth

141

versions of their bodies they could portray—a post-baby body for Kim and a pregnant body for Kourtney. The Kardashians did not present natural versions of their bodies. They dressed them up with jewelry, high fashion, and intricate styling to enhance and commodify their self-appearances (Goldman et al. 1991). Therefore, the Kardashians operated according to an internalized gaze that required them to construct their female sexual agency in specific, society-approved ways (Gill 2008). Media coverage also presented opportunities for postfeminist emancipation and action. Some news organizations used the photos to bring attention to questions related to gender and race. Articles, for example, recognized the popularity of the images as evidence of changing beauty standards that embrace women of varying sizes and who are pregnant or mothers. Others critiqued the photos as representations of post-colonial control over women of color’s bodies and how they are presented. In doing so, news organizations provided opportunities for women of a variety of backgrounds to explore their relationships to power and whether they agreed or disagreed with the Kardashians’ approaches. Therefore, rather than considering the nude photos as insignificant, this media coverage highlighted the images as evidence of contemporary challenges and questions that women and feminists face (Lotz 2001).

REFERENCES Blaise, Jordyne. “Kim Kardashian’s nude photos and Saartjie’s choice: History’s problem with fascinating bodies,” Time, November 14, 2014, http:​//tim​e.com​/3586​ 176/k​im-ka​rdash​ian-s​aartj​ie-ba​artma​n/. Bordo, Susan. “The body and the reproduction of femininity.” In Writing on the Body, edited by Katie Conboy, Nadia Medina, and Sarah Stanbury, 90–110. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997. Bussel, Rachel Kramer. “I can’t help but admire Kim Kardashian’s devotion to staying famous,” Time, November 13, 2014, http:​//tim​e.com​/3584​255/k​im-ka​rdash​ ian-b​utt-f​ame/.​ Butler, Bethonie. “Yes, those Kim Kardashian photos are about race,” Washington Post, November 22, 2014, http:​//www​.wash​ingto​npost​.com/​blogs​/she-​the-p​eople​/ wp/2​014/1​1/21/​yes-t​hose-​kim-k​ardas​hian-​photo​s-are​-abou​t-rac​e/. Charmaz, Kathy. Constructing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2014. Clark, Cindy. “Art or not? Kim Kardashian bares her nude booty for ‘Paper’ mag,” USA Today, November 12, 2014, http:​//ent​ertai​nthis​.usat​oday.​com/2​014/1​1/12/​ art-o​r-not​-kim-​karda​shian​-bare​s-her​-nude​-boot​y-for​-pape​r-mag​/. Coleman, Rebecca. “The becoming of bodies: Girls, media effects, and body image.” Feminist Media Studies 8, no. 2 (2008): 163–179.

142

Joy Jenkins and J. David Wolfgang

Derakhshani, Tirdad. “Sideshow: Kim K. reveals all,” Philly.com, November 15, 2014, http:​//art​icles​.phil​ly.co​m/201​4-11-​15/ne​ws/56​39480​3_1_k​im-k-​buddy​-vala​ stro-​cake-​boss.​ Dillon, Nancy and Corky Siemaszko. “Man who smeared Kim Kardashian in baby oil for controversial butt pic talks photo shoot,” New York Daily News, November 14, 2014, http:​//www​.nyda​ilyne​ws.co​m/ent​ertai​nment​/goss​ip/me​et-ma​n-sme​ared-​ kim-k​ardas​hian-​baby-​oil-a​rticl​e-1.2​00980​9. Dines, Gail. “Growing up female in a celebrity-based pop culture.” In Gender, Race, and Class in Media: A Critical Reader (4th ed.), edited by Gail Dines and Jean M. Humez, 433–440. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2015. Durundo, Jessica. “First take: Is Kim Kardashian baring all news?” USA Today, November 14, 2014a, http:​//www​.usat​oday.​com/s​tory/​news/​natio​n-now​/2014​/11/1​ 3/kim​-kard​ashia​n-pap​er-ma​gazin​e/189​62093​/. Durundo, Jessica. “‘World’s Best Father’ fixes the Internet with Kim Kardashian parody,” USA Today, November 20, 2014b, http:​//www​.usat​oday.​com/s​tory/​news/​ natio​n-now​/2014​/11/2​0/wor​lds-b​est-f​ather​-fix-​the-i​ntern​et/19​31517​5/. Durundo, Jessica. “Kourtney Kardashian poses pregnant, nude for magazine,” USA Today, December 2, 2014c, http:​//www​.usat​oday.​com/s​tory/​news/​natio​n-now​ /2014​/12/0​2/kou​rtney​-kard​ashia​n-pre​gnant​-dujo​ur/19​80481​5/. Fox News. “Celebrities react to Kim Kardashian’s butt-baring magazine cover,” Fox News, November 12, 2014, http:​//www​.foxb​angor​.com/​natio​nal-n​ews/c​elebr​ities​ -reac​t-to-​kim-k​ardas​hians​-butt​-bari​ng-ma​gazin​e-cov​er.ht​ml. Frizell, Sam. “Kourtney Kardashian posed nude while pregnant,” Time, December 3, 2014, http:​//tim​e.com​/3615​791/k​ourtn​ey-ka​rdash​ian-k​im-nu​de-pr​egnan​t-duj​our/.​ Fürsich, Elfriede. “In defense of textual analysis: Restoring a challenged method for journalism and media studies.” Journalism Studies 10, no. 2 (2009): 238–252. Gill, Rosalind. Gender and the Media. Malden, MA: Polity, 2007a. Gill, Rosalind. “Postfeminist media culture: Elements of a sensibility.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 10, no. 2 (2007b): 147–166. Gill, Rosalind. “Empowerment/sexism: Figuring female sexual agency in contemporary advertising.” Feminism & Psychology 18, no. 1 (2008): 35–60. Gill, Rosalind. “Mediated intimacy and postfeminism: A discourse analytic examination of sex and relationships advice in a women’s magazine.” Discourse & Communication 3, no. 4 (2009): 345–369. Gill, Rosalind. “Media, empowerment and the ‘sexualization of culture’ debates.” Sex Roles 66, no. 11–12 (2012): 736–745. Gill, Rosalind. “Supersexualize me! Advertising and the ‘midriffs’.” In Gender, Race, and Class in Media: A Critical Reader (4th ed.), edited by Gail Dines and Jean M. Humez, 278–284. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2015. Glaser, Barney and Anselm Strauss. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1968. Goldman, Robert, Deborah Heath, and Sharon L. Smith. “Commodity feminism.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 8, no. 3 (1991): 333–351. Gordon, Julie. “Kim says it’s OK for North to pose nude when she grows up,” New York Post, November 20, 2014, http:​//pag​esix.​com/2​014/1​1/20/​kim-s​ays-i​ts-ok​ -for-​north​-to-p​ose-n​ude-w​hen-s​he-gr​ows-u​p/.

The Naked Truth

143

Hobson, Janell. “The ‘batty’ politic: Toward an aesthetic of the black female body.” Hypatia 18, no. 4 (2003): 87–105. hooks, bell. “Selling hot pussy: Representations of black female sexuality in the cultural marketplace.” In Writing on the Body, edited by Katie Conboy, Nadia Medina, and Sarah Stanbury, 113–128. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997. Howorth, Claire. “Butt out! In defense of hot moms,” Time, November 14, 2014, http:​ //tim​e.com​/3584​587/k​im-ka​rdash​ian-b​utt-b​reak-​the-i​ntern​et-ho​t-mom​s/. Jones, Solomon. “Kim got nekked, but Soloman’s mad at Kanye,” Philly.com, November 18, 2014, http:​//www​.phil​ly.co​m/phi​lly/l​iving​/2014​1118_​Kim_g​ot_ne​ kked_​_but_​Solom​on _s_mad_at_Kanye.html. Keane, Erin. “Forget Kim Kardashian’s butt: The trailblazing goofiness of her nude photo-shoot face,” Salon, November 13, 2014, http:​//www​.salo​n.com​/2014​/11/1​ 3/for​get_k​im_ karda​shian​s_but​t_the​_trai​lblaz​ing_g​oofin​ess_o​f_her​_nude​_phot​ o_sho​ot_fa​ce/. Kerpen, Carrie. “Why women struggle with Kim Kardashian’s greatest business ‘asset’,” Forbes, November 19, 2014, http:​//www​.forb​es.co​m/sit​es/ca​rriek​erpen​ /2014​/11/1​9/why​-wome​n-str​uggle​-with​-kim-​karda​shian​s-gre​atest​-busi​ness-​asset​/. Kupfer, Lindsey. “Another Kardashian sister poses nude,” New York Post, December 2, 2014, http:​//pag​esix.​com/2​014/1​2/02/​anoth​er-ka​rdash​ian-s​ister​-pose​s-nud​e/. Lee, Jolie. “Kardashian photo plays off controversial black imagery,” USA Today, November 13, 2014, http:​//www​.usat​oday.​com/s​tory/​news/​natio​n-now​/2014​/11/1​ 3/kim​-kard​ashia​n-pho​to-bl​ack-f​emale​-bodi​es-gr​io/18​96260​3/. Lotz, Amanda D. “Postfeminist television criticism: Rehabilitating critical terms and identifying postfeminist attributes.” Feminist Media Studies 1, no. 1 (2001): 105–121. Maresca, Rachel. “Nude pix were all for Kim’s big. . . ego,” New York Daily News, November 19, 2014, http:​//www​.nyda​ilyne​ws.co​m/ent​ertai​nment​/goss​ip/ki​m-kar​ dashi​an-de​cisio​n-nud​e-pap​er-ma​gazin​e-art​icle-​1.201​4714.​ Marwick, Alice and danah boyd. “To see and be seen: Celebrity practice on Twitter.” In Gender, Race, and Class in Media: A Critical Reader (4th ed.), edited by Gail Dines and Jean M. Humez, 306–317. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2015. McKay, James and Helen Johnson. “Pornographic eroticism and sexual grotesquerie in representations of African American sportswomen.” In Gender, Race, and Class in Media: A Critical Reader (4th ed), edited by Gail Dines and Jean M. Humez, 118–127. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2015. McRobbie, Angela. “Postfeminism and popular culture.” Feminist Media Studies 4, no. 3 (2004): 255–264. Messer, Lesley. “Kim Kardashian’s history with showing nudity in magazines,” ABC News, November 14, 2014a, http:​//abc​news.​go.co​m/Ent​ertai​nment​/kim-​karda​shian​ s-his​tory-​showi​ng-nu​dity-​magaz​ines/​story​?id=2​69143​81. Messer, Lesley. “Kim Kardashian said her back hurt for a week after nude photo shoot,” ABC News, November 19, 2014b, http:​//abc​news.​go.co​m/Ent​ertai​nment​/ kim-​karda​shian​-back​-hurt​-week​-nude​-phot​o-sho​ot/st​ory?i​d=269​98270​. Moyer, Justin and Nick Kirkpatrick. “Step aside, Kourtney Kardashian—Demi Moore made it cool to be naked and pregnant,” Washington Post, November

144

Joy Jenkins and J. David Wolfgang

12, 2014, http:​//www​.wash​ingto​npost​.com/​news/​morni​ng-mi​x/wp/​2014/​12/03​/step​ -asid​e-kou​rtney​-kard​ashia​n-dem​i-moo​re-ma​de-it​-cool​-to-b​e-nak​ed-an​d-pre​gnant​/. Nash, Meredith. Making ‘Postmodern’ Mothers: Pregnant Embodiment, Baby Bumps and Body Image. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Oldenburg, Ann and Maria Puente. “Kim K’s behind in ‘Paper’: Is it real or is it Photoshop?” USA Today, November 12, 2014, http:​//www​.usat​oday.​com/s​tory/​ life/​peopl​e/201​4/11/​12/ kim-k​s-beh​ind-i​s-it-​real-​or-is​-it-p​hotos​hop/1​89287​75/. O’Leary, Kevin. “Behind Kim Kardashian’s choice to bare her famous gum—and everything else—in a racy shoot,” Boston Herald, November 24, 2014, http:​// www​.bost​onher​ald.c​om/in​side_​track​/cele​brity​_news​/2014​/11/b​ehind​_kim_​karda​ shian​s_cho​ice_t​o_bar​e_her​_famo​us_bu​m_and​. Pesce, N.L. “Laugh if you want, she is a big success,” New York Daily News, November 14, 2014, http:​//www​.nyda​ilyne​ws.co​m/ent​ertai​nment​/goss​ip/ki​m-kar​dashi​ an-br​andin​g-gen​ius-e​xpert​s-art​icle-​1.200​9923.​ Peyser, Andrea. “Kardashian, Lopez, Minaj bring pride to asses everywhere,” New York Post, November 13, 2014, http:​//nyp​ost.c​om/20​14/11​/13/k​ardas​hian-​lopez​ -mina​j-bri​ng-pr​ide-t​o-ass​es-ev​erywh​ere/.​ Ramisetti, Kirthana. “Kourtney Kardashian poses naked at nine months pregnant: ‘This is what my body was meant to do,’” New York Daily News, December 2, 2014, http:​//www​.nyda​ilyne​ws.co​m/ent​ertai​nment​/goss​ip/ko​urtne​y-kar​dashi​an-po​ ses-n​aked-​month​s-pre​gnant​-arti​cle-1​.2030​644. Robertson, Erin C.J. “Kris Humphries reacts to Kim Kardashian West ‘breaking the Internet’: The Wizard breaks his silence on his ex-wife’s full-frontal photo spread for Paper magazine,” The Washington Post, November 14, 2014, http://www. washingtonpost.com /blog​s/rel​iable​-sour​ce/wp​/2014​/11/1​4/kri​s-hum​phrie​s-rea​cts-t​ o-kim​-kard​ashia​n-wes​t-bre​aking​-the-​inter​net/.​ Rothman, Michael. “Kim Kardashian leaves little to imagination in raciest magazine cover yet,” ABC News, November 12, 2014, http:​//abc​news.​go.co​m/Ent​ertai​nment​/ kim-​karda​shian​-leav​es-im​agina​tion-​racy-​magaz​ine-c​over/​story​?id=2​68579​61. Sastre, Alexandra. “Hottentot in the age of reality TV: Sexuality, race, and Kim Kardashian’s visible body.” Celebrity Studies 5, no. 1–2 (2014): 123–137. Shields, Mike. “Kim Kardashian doesn’t break Paper Magazine’s servers—at least not yet,” The Wall Street Journal, November 14, 2014, http:​//blo​gs.ws​j.com​/cmo/​ 2014/​11/13​/kim-​karda​shian​-does​nt-br​eak-p​aper-​magaz​ines-​serve​rs-at​-leas​t-not​ -yet/​. Sieczkowski, Cavan. “Pregnant Kourtney Kardashian poses nude for DuJour magazine,” Huffington Post, December 3, 2014, http:​//www​.huff​i ngto​npost​.com/​2014/​ 12/03​/ kourt​ney-k​ardas​hian-​pregn​ant-n​ude-d​ujour​_n_62​61748​.html​. Smith, Stephanie and Julie Gordon. “Kim goes full frontal in new spread,” New York Post, November 12, 2014, http:​//pag​esix.​com/2​014/1​1/12/​kim-k​ardas​hian-​strip​ s-dow​n-and​-bare​s-abs​olute​ly-al​l/. Stampler, Laura. “Kim Kardashian shares her latest magazine cover with a cupcake,” Time, November 25, 2014, http:​//tim​e.com​/3604​602/k​im-ka​rdash​ian-e​lle-c​over/​. Takeda, Allison. “Pregnant Kourtney Kardashian poses nude in provocative photo shoot: See the pictures!” US Weekly, December 2, 2014, http:​//www​.usma​gazin​

The Naked Truth

145

e.com​/cele​brity​-body​/news​/preg​nant-​kourt​ney-k​ardas​hian-​poses​-comp​letel​y-nud​ e-for​-dujo​ur-pi​cture​-2014​212. Taylor, Derrick Bryson. “Kim’s dad knew her body would ‘lead to attention from men.’” New York Post, December 3, 2014, http:​//pag​esix.​com/2​014/1​2/03/​kims-​ dad-k​new-h​er-bo​dy-wo​uld-l​ead-t​o-att​entio​n-fro​m-men​/. Van Dijk, Tuen. “Critical discourse analysis.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, edited by Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi Hamilton, 352–371. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2001. Van Zoonen, Liesbet. Feminist Media Studies (Vol. 9). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994. Vavrus, Mary Douglas. Postfeminist News: Political Women in Media Culture. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2002.

Chapter 10

How to Be a Postfeminist A Critical Discourse Analysis of Celebrity Culture, Sexual Messages, and Feminism in Amber Rose’s How to Be a Bad Bitch Melvin L. Williams and Tia C. M. Tyree

When some think of Amber Levonchuck (Amber Rose), it is most likely they think of her as rapper Kanye West’s ex-girlfriend or perhaps the ex-wife of rapper Cameron Jibril “Wiz Khalifa” Thomaz. Still, others might think of her as a video vixen, former stripper, and the star of an uploaded “bottomless” photograph on Instagram and Twitter, which exposed her unshaven pubic area in June 2017 and “broke the Internet.” While it was simply accompanied by the hashtag for her Slut Walk on Instagram and a direct link to its website, her “fire ass feminist post,” as she referred to it, sparked controversy, copycat posts, and a call to “bring back the bush” (Rose 2017). Within Amber Rose’s commercial endeavors, she is described as a mother, philanthropist, feminist, and entrepreneur as well as a model, actress, socialite, pop culture maven, and self-proclaimed “bad bitch.” Slut is also a term she has embraced. With “slut” having a longstanding negative sexual connotation for women, Rose embraced the term in October 2015, as she introduced the Slut Walk. Negating the history of the word “slut,” the “movement” was described as inspired by a word that exploded into a new, but disturbing, context after a Toronto, Canada police officer told a crowd of college women that if they wanted to avoid sexual assault, they should not dress like sluts (Crotty 2015). With speakers, sponsors, panels, and an actual walk, this clear commodification of her hypersexual celebrity status was to highlight and reject victim blaming, derogatory language, sexual injustice, and inequality. Over the years, the event has grown in popularity. In fact, in 2018, it had several major sponsors, including popular brands such as clothier Fashion Nova, ridesharing company Lyft, and premium bottled water brand Essentia, and it also 147

148

Melvin L. Williams and Tia C. M. Tyree

had 20,000 attendees; garnered support from several high-profile celebrities, such as (p. 148) Nick Cannon, Milan Christopher, and Natalie Friedman; and obtained over 1 billion media (digital, print and social) impressions. The marketing of her sex appeal for activism and profit did not stop there. In October 2015, Rose released her self-help book titled How to Be a Bad Bitch. It was published by Simon & Schuster, one of the largest, most well-respected international book publishers, which has a long-track record of publishing bestsellers and popular books, including former United States presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton’s What Happened? With an emphasis on confidence and self-acceptance, the book provides advice and personal anecdotes regarding several topics, such as fashion, beauty, love, finances, career, and embracing femininity and sexuality. Upon its arrival to the marketplace, the book earned media attention in several popular magazines, including GQ, Entertainment Weekly, Billboard, and Cosmopolitan, and it has since earned high customer review ratings, such as 4.1 of 5 on Amazon and 3.4 of out 5 on GoodReads, the world’s largest site for readers and book recommendations. By releasing a book based on her personal experiences, Rose joined a long list of black female celebrities, such as comedian Aisha Tyler, video vixen Karrine Steffans, and musician Tina Turner, with memoirs including their sexual experiences and thoughts on society. She also became a part of a multibillion-dollar-per-year industry, which, as noted by Gerald Rosen (1987), is both heralded and criticized for offering solutions that can serve educative and preventive functions, but are not based on empirical testing. It is important to note there are a significant number of self-help books, written by single women, which exist as a site for resistance and offer alternatives to the ideology of marriage and family. However, as a genre, their content often offers an “individualist, agentic rhetoric, which ignores many of the structural, sociopolitical constraints imposed upon women” with an overall message said to be a part of a “therapeutic, neo-liberal culture” (Lahad 2016). Since releasing her book, Rose has appeared in several media outlets, including ABC News and the OWN Network, advocating against the slut shaming of women and domestic violence (ABC News 2016). Moreover, Rose continued to embrace the identities of a radical feminist and neofeminist. In September 2015 on Instagram, she stated that her Slut Walk and book were “what radical feminism looked like” (Rose 2015). Comparably, during a June 2016 interview with Hip-Hop radio station Hot 97.5, Rose described herself as a modern day neofeminist. Additionally, Rose started a weekly talk show on VH1 in July 2016, a show that discussed topics, such as feminism, pop culture, and women’s issues (Goldberg 2016). It was cancelled after just one season. As the intersections of celebrity culture, Hip-Hop, and feminism are often discussed and critiqued in U.S. society, this chapter offers a unique

How to Be a Postfeminist

149

opportunity to situate Rose’s How to Be a Bad Bitch within this milieu. It, too, allows for a much-needed analysis of a pop culture feminist of color to be added to celebrity culture scholarship. Further, given Rose’s feminist proclamation, it is highly appropriate to ask the following question: Does How to Be a Bad Bitch align with certain types of feminist thought, or is it a continuation of celebrity culture’s rising obsession with claiming feminist identity as part of a branding mechanism that disregards the history of political activism present in feminism foundation? More specifically, this investigation sought to uncover whether tenets of Hip-Hop and postfeminism were present in the book’s text and reflected in its visual representations as well as to consider how celebrity culture is enabling a select group of women to be seen as what Lee described as “erotic revolutionaries” who capitalize on being women of color, sexual, and relevant in popular culture (Lee 2010). AMBER ROSE’S RISE TO FAME Amber Rose was raised in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania by foreign-born parents, and she identifies as Creole, not African American or black, as many often label her (Diaz 2016). However, it is critical to note Creoles and Creole subculture are all a part of the U.S. black diaspora rooted in Southern states (Conniff and Davis 2004). On her official websites, she is described as “a mother, philanthropist, feminist and entrepreneur” as well as a “renowned model, actress, socialite, pop culture maven and self-proclaimed “bad bitch.” Originally, Rose was mainly known as being the “girlfriend of” (Thompson 2016). Her entrance into the entertainment industry started as a video model. She infamously dated West from 2008 to 2010, after he noticed her on the video shoot for rapper Christopher “Ludacris” Bridges’s 2008 song, “What Them Girls Like” (Dodge 2016). Ultimately, Rose’s personal life was always and still is often covered in the media, especially celebrity gossip blogs and magazines, and may have largely played a role in catapulting her into the forefront of many pop culture conversations. Originally, she was mainly known as being the “girlfriend of” (Thompson 2016). During her initial relationship with West, she caught the attention of The Ford Modeling Agency or Ford Models and joined as an official model for a short period in 2011. During this brief contractual relationship, Rose represented popular brands, such as Smirnoff Vodka, and covered several magazines, including Complex, Elle, XXL and Vibe. In 2011, she started dating rapper Thomaz, later married him and had a child, Sebastian Taylor Thomaz, in 2013, and then filed for divorce in 2014 amid cheating allegations (Dostis 2016). Despite her failed relationships with West and Wiz Khalifa, Rose continued to work in the entertainment industry, create new entrepreneurial endeavors,

150

Melvin L. Williams and Tia C. M. Tyree

and build in popularity. Her celebrity brand is rife with much criticism and issues. From former lovers reminding fans of her time as a stripper and leaked naked pictures on the Internet to open Twitter beefs with other celebrities and scantily-clad selfies prompting online personal attacks, her sexuality is often celebrated and criticized by men and women who find her openness about her sexual affairs to be against the status quo. As of October 2018, she has a large number of fans and social media followers, including over 18 million on ­Instagram and over four million followers on Twitter. Elisa Tate investigated the misogynistic online experiences of three feminists, including Amber Rose, who often experience bullying through slut shaming. She found Rose did use her “social media presence to respond to her online categorization as a slut . . . recreate the feminist self, and to highlight her involvement in feminist causes” (Tate 2016). In response to her fame, role model status and need to be true to herself, despite what happened to her online and offline, she noted, “I guess social media did help create the feminist monster that I’ve become” (Tate 2016). CELEBRITY CULTURE, HIP-HOP, AND POSTFEMINISM When attempting to investigate Amber Rose’s How to Be a Bad Bitch within the context of feminism, it becomes apparent her feminist identity could intersect with a wide range of feminist ideologies. Rose claims a sex-positive, feminist identity, offers stern critiques of media double standards concerning female sexuality, and politically organizes to address feminist issues through her annual Slut Walk and nonprofit foundation. In contrast, Rose is a female celebrity operating in a neoliberal and postfeminist celebrity culture that produces gendered norms through its socioeconomic and consumer-oriented practices and expectations (Evans and Riley 2013). In addition, and perhaps even more contradictory, Rose is a staple in Hip-Hop culture through her former work as a music video model, past relationships with popular rappers, engagement with its longstanding history of hypersexuality, misogyny, and scantily clad women in music videos and her own musical releases as a fledgling Rap artist. For example, Rose released two songs (“Fame” and “Loaded”) in 2012 and rapped on two of her ex-husband’s songs, including “Never Been (Part Two)” and “Rise Above.” As a female celebrity who is linked to Hip-Hop culture, the inclusion of Hip-Hop feminist tenets in this chapter’s analytical framework is highly appropriate. In When Chickheads Come Home to Roost: A Hip-Hop Feminist Breaks It Down, Joan Morgan advanced the concept of “Hip-Hop feminism” as an extension of black feminism that was “committed to keeping it real” and brave enough to “fuck with the grays,” who were often chastised by black

How to Be a Postfeminist

151

feminists, such as bell hooks and Patricia Hill Collins (Morgan 1999). For Morgan, Hip-Hop feminism represented a functional feminism for post-civil rights and post-soul children of Hip-Hop who were in dire need for the truth and a feminism that spoke to their lived experiences. Hip-Hop feminist Aisha Durham argues “Hip-Hop feminism extends black feminist thought by looking at Hip-Hop self-representations—representations created and reproduced within Hip-Hop culture—to talk about everyday experience and the operation of power” (Durham 2013). Hip-Hop feminism challenges the oppression faced by black women in the fields of feminist studies, Hip-Hop studies, and media and cultural studies, while encouraging black women to assert agency and control of their sexuality (Tyree and Williams 2016). In a comparative analysis of black and Hip-Hop feminisms, Peoples (2007) highlighted three themes present in Hip-Hop feminist scholarship, which were 1) empowerment, 2) the importance of images and representation, and 3) black women’s involvement in coalitional politics. Together, these themes highlight the agency Hip-Hop feminist politics offers for girls and women of color who identify with Hip-Hop culture (Durham, Cooper, and Morris 2013). Further, the goals of Hip-Hop feminism could align greatly with Rose’s lived experiences and potential feminist messages. Like Hip-Hop, celebrity culture affects gender politics, particularly as contemporary female celebrity is produced within a “context of postfeminism, sexualized consumerism, and neoliberalism” (Evans and Riley 2013). Since its inception in the early 1980s, postfeminism has become a common term for the attitudes and behaviors of young women in contemporary American popular culture (Butler 2013). Postfeminism is anchored in individual choice and empowerment, offering these options to young women as substitutes for more radical feminist political activity (Williams 2016). Time magazine defined postfeminism as a linear or as a logical endpoint in a historical trajectory from “pre-feminism” through “feminism” into the current “postfeminism” movement (Bellafante 1999). Still, the boundaries of its definition remain vague, particularly as terms such as “antifeminism,” “retrosexism,” and most relevant to the current chapter, “neofeminism” (a feminist identity embraced by Rose) are used synonymously with postfeminism (Douglas 2010). Postfeminism represents a backlash against older generations of feminist waves and movements and advances contradictory discourses that entangle both feminist and antifeminist themes within them through popular culture (Sommers 1994). Through the ideological forces of popular culture, postfeminism becomes a plan for living, or ideal social life for all “women,” as female audiences are presented with “fierce,” “sexually empowered,” and often-contradictory female celebrities (Williams 2016). In mass media, celebrity sex symbols, such as Beyoncé, Marilyn Monroe, Madonna, and Rihanna,

152

Melvin L. Williams and Tia C. M. Tyree

have been credited with taboo breaking relieving women of their sexually repressed characters, and revealing the cultural narrative of women’s entry and engagement in and around discourses of sexuality (Dyer 1986). Through their embodiment of confident “up for it” femininities, constantly made-up images, and sexual allure, female celebrities often personify conflicting, hyperfeminine performances of sexuality that are indicative of Rosalind Gill and Angela McRobbie’s analyses of celebrity culture and postfeminism. According to McRobbie (2009), postfeminism manifests in celebrity culture through carefully constructed images of women in mass media. In celebrity culture, a spotlight is placed on women who are able to achieve visibility as long they encourage agency, visibility, and capacity through participation in consumer culture and do not challenge the “patriarchal and political power structures that subtly, and not so subtly oppress women in American society” (McRobbie 2009). Their audiences are encouraged to channel their desires into more traditional forms of femininity, where a selected group of women in mass media (namely white, middle-to-upper class, female celebrities) are positioned as experts in forms of consumption that are feminine and heterosexual (Butler 2013). Thus, the contemporary female celebrity sex symbol privileges a version of white femininity and sexuality that dually represents non-white women as sexually constrained and victimized in converse to sexually liberated white women (Butler 2013). As a popular culture figure, the female celebrity sex symbol is 1) highly manufactured and extremely well managed; 2) the opposite of a female identity based on expressed sexuality beyond the confines of existing patriarch order; and 3) a quasi-godlike, posthuman persona. When effective, mass media’s affinity for this specific type of celebrity figure commodifies female sexuality, depoliticizes feminist issues, and constantly underscores the ordinary women’s inability to measure up through exclusionary practices that limit and police the number of women of color showcased in celebrity culture (Paglia 1990). Acknowledging the contradictory nature of female celebrity and postfeminist gender politics, Rosalind Gill (2007) noted, “postfeminism is best understood as a distinctive sensibility made up of a number of interrelated themes.” As a result, Gill considered a narrative, performance or text to be postfeminist if it incorporated one or more of the following characteristics: defines femininity as a bodily property; marks a shift from sexual objectification to sexual subjectification; encourages self-surveillance, self-discipline, and a makeover paradigm; emphasizes individualism, choice, and empowerment as primary routes to women’s agency; and a reassertion of ideas about sexual difference (Gill 2007). Gill’s postfeminist characteristics reveal the ways in which postfeminism’s consumer-based logic conflates feminism and femininity, individualism and liberation, and consumption and activism to the

How to Be a Postfeminist

153

extent that “women apparently choose to be seen as sexual objects because it suits their liberated interests” (Goldman, Health, and Smith 1991). ANALYZING HOW TO BE A BAD BITCH FOR HIP-HOP AND POSTFEMINIST MESSAGES Using critical discourse analysis as well as semiotics, the authors of this chapter investigated how Rose’s book addressed specific feminist themes of Hip-Hop and postfeminism as asserted by Rosalind Gill, and Whitney Peoples, respectively. More specifically, the analysis included examining information related to defining femininity as a bodily property; encouraging self-surveillance and the makeover paradigm; emphasizing individualism, choice, empowerment as a central route to women’s agency; reinforcing ideas about sexual difference and involvement in coalitional politics. For communication researchers, critical discourse analysis is an interpretive social science meta theory designed to investigate meanings as socially constructed within talk or text, and it further allows for the study of how individuals “present themselves, manage their relationships, assign responsibility and blame, create organizations, enact culture, persuade others and make sense of social members’ ongoing interactional practices” (Tracy 2008). Critical discourse analysis allows researchers to analyze language as a social practice and investigate how it produces and reproduces ideology and belief systems that are accepted as “common sense” in society (Wodak 2011). At the cornerstone of its usage is the idea that critical discourse analysis works for social transformation and emancipation, which is central to the goals of feminism. Further, the coupling of critical discourse analysis and feminist studies is also appropriate as both work to identify sources of power and the role discourse plays in maintaining a hierarchically gendered social order (Lazar 2005). A data collection sheet was created with details of each of the specific tenets, and the authors noted specific passages, stories, and ideas Rose presented that coincided with them. As noted and instructed by Lopez-Bonilla (2011), authors of this chapter were careful to identify the discursive practices and social contexts in which Rose’s narration was presented in the book, as this was necessary to impart an understanding of how she used language to create new meanings and recreate her existence in the world. Further, by working carefully to interpret her discourse and specific word usage to describe her life and teachings, the authors sought to understand how she used her words to create meaning, express experiences, and construct herself through relationships with others who often imparted their own gaze and positioning upon her (Nkoane 2012).

154

Melvin L. Williams and Tia C. M. Tyree

The analysis investigated all of the content within her book, including the pictures. Semiotics was used to analyze the 118 photographs and cover art. The researchers looked at Rose’s clothing color, style and fit; styling and color of her hair and makeup; body position and facial expressions; inclusion of other individuals and their positioning or interactions with her; and the composition of shots, including her actions or activities being done as well as props and setting. As noted by Perry Nodelman (1988) in his book Words about Pictures, pictures in a narrative text help to convey a tone of voice that the words may lack, and objects in those pictures have significant cultural meaning for readers. Furthermore, Marianne Jorgensen and Louise Phillips (2002) stated discourse encompasses spoken and written language as well as visual images, and it is necessary in the analysis of texts containing visual images to assess the special characteristics of visual semiotics and the relationship that exist between images and language. UNDERSTANDING ROSE’S BOOK AS POSTFEMINIST LITERATURE Much of Rose’s career is shaped by her deep connection to sexuality, and the book was an unofficial timeline of how she became the sexually free woman she is today. She also challenged gender norms, which is a critical foundational principle of feminism. In fact, her goal was always to consistently defy and challenge “boring definitions of normality” in her look, lifestyle and sexual pursuits, and she encouraged women to do the same (Rose 2015). From dating as a teen, flirting, seducing men, booty calls, exotic dancing, and fellatio, Rose covered many sexual topics in her book to help women understand and navigate various sexual experiences. Readers were encouraged to have sex. She also acknowledged it was not women’s fault that society had a double standard that allowed men to be free to do what they wanted sexually “without anyone making a fuss about it” (Rose 2015). Rose advised women to be sexually proactive, always use condoms and enjoy both sexual intercourse and oral sex. To her, sex was supposed to be fun and feel good, and women should take control of their bodies and sexual experiences. Readers were told it is acceptable to be a “nasty freak in the bedroom,” date around, enjoy their bodies, and discover “what your man likes in bed and make sure he gets it” (Rose 2015). As open as Rose was about her sexuality and her efforts to persuade readers to be the same, there was a limit. What Rose did not encourage was women accepting poor treatment from men in relationships or in sexual trysts. She, too, was against other women who saw sexual freedom and liberal attitudes about sex as a reason to attack or shame

How to Be a Postfeminist

155

women who possessed her same radical sexual thinking. Rose’s refusal to be oppressed by conventional standards for appropriate female behavior undergirded her passion to speak out against slut shaming in How to Be a Bad Bitch. Rose embraces sex-positive messages in her life, which are those that promote, support and embrace sexuality and sexual expression, and in the book, she, too, represented herself as a true sex-positive, postfeminist. Rose made it clear that she wanted her readers to be go-getters both in and outside of the bedroom. Moreover, she coupled these messages with revealing photos that were equally nostalgic and sex-positive. First, Rose insisted she was “born a bad bitch,” and she used pictures of her family, herself experimenting with different hair and fashion styles as well as candid everyday shots to explain her life growing up in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. These photographs documented her journey toward celebrity life and provided visual proof of how she was different from her peers. Second, she included photographs with her entertainment industry friends, including Pamela Anderson, Nick Cannon, Angela “Blac Chyna” White, Gwen Stefani, Paris Hilton, and Steven Tyler among others, to reinforce her celebrity and show how she could embrace her sexuality through celebrity “bad bitch” role models. The book incorporated many professional photographs. These images often showed Rose naked or highlighted her curvy figure in tight dresses, seethrough dresses, bathing suits, or clothing in which she revealed her cleavage or legs. Often, she was in sexual positions, posing in sexually suggestive ways or posturing in a way to emphasize her butt, lips, tongue or breasts. These photographs worked in congruence with Rose’s sexual messages to support the sex-positive feminist narratives present in the text. However, the sexual nature of Rose’s photographs equally contradicted her feminist messages of women’s sexual health and constructed a type of femininity for her readers that was consistent with the oppressive gender relations in pornography culture. For example, in support of her advice for women to allow men to ejaculate on their faces during sexual intercourse, Rose posed for a photograph with her mouth open, tongue out, and finger pointed to her face as an invitation for viewers to vicariously achieve the “money shot” often depicted in mainstream pornography. In pornography, the “money shot” is a term used by pornographers to describe the final scene in which the man ejaculates on the body or into the eye of the woman; an act that has been tied to numerous sexually transmitted diseases, such as HIV, syphilis, and eye gonorrhea (Dines 2012). Given Rose’s message that “a bad bitch always practices safe sex,” her visual images could be interpreted as counteractive to How to Be a Bad Bitch’s written messages, for they encouraged women to construct themselves as sexual objects, closely related to the heterosexual male fantasy found in pornography (Williams 2016).

156

Melvin L. Williams and Tia C. M. Tyree

THE EMPOWERING, CONTRADICTORY THEMES WITHIN HOW TO BE A BAD BITCH Whether intentionally or unintentionally, Amber Rose’s book was rife with postfeminist themes that could be interpreted as both empowering and contradictory. Consistent with Rosalind Gill’s research, Rose encouraged women to view femininity as a bodily property, present themselves as active desiring sexual subjects, monitor their personal lives for improvement purposes, exercise individualism and choice in their daily actions, and understand presumed sexual differences between men and women. For Rose, being a bad bitch was as much in the details of her speech as it was in the grand gestures of her behaviors, and as a result, her life required constant monitoring through personal and professional surveillance and upkeep. Stressing femininity as a bodily property used for upward mobility, Rose discussed the importance of personal maintenance for women, stating, “Maintenance is everything,” and “A bad bitch stops traffic” (Rose 2015). Despite telling women to find themselves from the inside out, Rose dedicated two chapters to beauty and fashion advice, and continually reminded readers to find a signature look and not let themselves look like a “clown.” This is a critical connection as embracing her sexuality in this manner aligns with the marketing of sex, which is done through the lens of appearance, fashion, and beauty (Attwood 2005). In her chapters, she provided tips for women to exercise to achieve fitness goals, find their personal fashion style, ways to be creative and expressive with their hair, and techniques to properly apply makeup to create what she coined as a “polished, signature look” (Rose 2015). She presented readers with the idea of taking care of themselves as the foundation for everything they did in their lives. Rose also described numerous times how the process of cutting her hair as a teenager and finding a signature look helped her to find herself and progress professionally. For example, in the “Beauty” chapter, Rose stated, “Finding my look did that for me. The power and confidence it gave me busted all doors open for me and eventually launched my career” (Rose 2015). By presenting this epiphany as a “makeover paradigm” for readers, Rose situated herself as an advice expert on beauty, distinctive personal branding, and fashion. Further, growing up the daughter of a single mother who worked as a waitress and understanding the diversity of her following, her narrative focused on women needing little money to be fashionable. She advised women to achieve a signature look on a budget by shopping at thrift stores, buying fashion magazines and using them as creative inspiration, and watching free beauty tutorial videos on YouTube. In addition to encouraging women to view beauty as a key source of power, Rose noted she found power in her body and curves. As a result, she

How to Be a Postfeminist

157

encouraged women to embrace their bodies. With regard to sex and sexuality, Rose used How to Be a Bitch to advance her own sex-positive postfeminist philosophy to readers, as she advised women to embrace their sexual desires, use charm and sex appeal for personal and professional advancement, and “fuck a guy” at the end of the day, if they desired. Rose’s views on sexuality stemmed from her background living in the inner city and her job as an exotic dancer, an experience she claimed birthed her “inner bad bitch.” The former exotic dancer noted, “I think much of my inner bad bitch came from being an exotic dancer. I learned how to seduce a man at a very young age. I’m not ashamed of that at all, because it’s power plain and simple” (Rose 2015). Amber Rose made distinctions between the actions of men and women in personal and professional relationships. She argued women were “more patient, compassionate, and loving” than men, who could “be attracted to other women and make mistakes while being in love with their wives and partners.” In Rose’s opinion, men were inherently weak to seductive gestures made by women. However, contrary to Gill’s research on postfeminist media culture, Rose did not use sexual difference as a reason for women to excuse mistreatment from men. In fact, she encouraged women to have one-night stands, flirt, be seductive, make “booty calls,” discouraged acceptance of infidelity from men, and pushed for women to be independent lovers who are in a relationship for the companionship and support, not just sex. Perhaps the most evident postfeminist characteristic present in How to Be a Bad Bitch was Rose’s push for individualism, choice and empowerment as primary routes to women’s agency. According to Rose, “A bad bitch is not in the business of pleasing other people,” and as a result, she advised women to be independent, own their personal identities and sexualities, and “do something” for themselves with “no fucks given” (Rose 2015). Personal choice was emphasized throughout the book as she charged women to stand for their rights to be individuals, dress sexy for themselves rather than for a guy, and make personal choices to “run their own shit.” Self-empowerment was also a major underpinning, as Rose told women to unapologetically command their own personal stage unapologetically with confidence, attitude and grace. These messages echo those of other women in Hip-Hop, such as female rappers, who worked to use their positions to liberate women through messages of female empowerment, agency, and independence (Rose 1994). ROSE’S USE OF HIP-HOP FEMINISM TO EMPOWER AND TEACH WOMEN In Hip-Hop culture, women are often silenced and victims of misogynistic lyrics and representations, especially in videos. However, with her

158

Melvin L. Williams and Tia C. M. Tyree

connection to Hip-Hop, Rose used her celebrity to carve out a unique space where she taught women to be empowered, support each other and speak out against attacks on other women who embrace their sexuality. Capitalizing on her fanciful attendance in the “University of Hard Knocks,” Rose focused heavily on teaching women how to be empowered. Her “bad ass” attitude was used to encourage women to find the power of living for themselves, speak their minds, ignore what others think of them, avoid being manipulated and embrace those moments that do not go their way with a “fuck it” attitude. She was confident in her ability to tell women they had power, and they just needed to “own it.” For Rose, empowerment was the byproduct of self-confidence, selfacceptance, individuality and authenticity. Encouraging women to keep their heads up high in the face of adversity, she wanted women to understand radiating power and self-acceptance translated to others, and so, too, did self-respect. Women were told to control their own life experiences, demand respect, never give up their power in relationships and, most importantly, to be themselves. Women were equally charged to view difficulties in life as chances to become stronger, better and “badder” bitches. According to Rose, a bad bitch gets her way “by any means necessary,” and regardless of life’s circumstances, she remains strong, powerful, fierce, intelligent and honest. While Rose taught women to be empowered in a variety of ways, empowerment was often rooted in image and representation. She stressed finding her signature look meant finding herself, and as an extension of this idea, she was then presenting the best “me possible.” The consciousness of her outer appearance began at a young age, and this unique understanding of the importance of how a female’s body, hair and clothing were interpreted by others drove her to do whatever she could to stand out in her neighborhood and yearn to be in Hollywood where she could “look ‘crazy’ without anyone saying anything” (Rose 2015). She warned readers that it was important— both online and offline—to have “control of your own look and its impact.” Rose insisted, “A bad bitch always takes the high road” and will “keep it classy” (Rose 2015). She was equally as conscious of her behavior as she was her look. Rose carefully analyzed who was in her presence and how they perceived her actions, and she warned readers to have “control” over their surroundings, understand the impact their actions had on the world, and not to be “that girl” who is drunk in public. She stressed women needed to be “on point” with their behavior in every part of their personal and professional lives to ensure no one had an excuse to deny them anything because of their actions and how they represented themselves. As a sex-positive, postfeminist in the new millennium, there was no real way for Rose to ignore social media and their pervasiveness in the world. Thus, cyberbullying and slut shamming were two critical social issues

How to Be a Postfeminist

159

addressed in her book, which is critical as the Internet allows the distribution of images and information to be spread more quickly and extensively (Dooley 2009). Such permeation increases the stress and damage to cyberbullying victims (Ntang-Beb and Williams 2016). Therefore, Rose chose to address what occurs online and provide women with simple ways to deal with and not get involved in cyberbullying. As a victim herself, Rose was very open about how comments from online users can be hurtful and harmful to those individuals they are aimed toward, as well as how she felt attacked by critics who claimed she used Photoshop to improve her appearance on social media. Rose also instructed women to refrain from using social media when they are not feeling well, as the negativity is intense and can make them feel worse by viewing mean comments posted about them or even others. She told women to abstain from sending nude photographs out of fear of their potential posting on social media, which often occurs in cases of revenge porn resulting in a decrease of trust in intimate relationships as well as grave emotional and dignitary harms (Citron and Franks 2014). Rose also suggested readers refrain from posting negative comments, ignore any negative comments posted about them, block users who are being rude and simply avoid posting on social media at all, since a bad bitch is “too busy and fabulous to post comments” (Rose 2015). Rose had a strong message to women: support other women. According to her, if a woman finds she is no longer able to do so, she should simply remove herself from the other woman’s life. Rose was straightforward in advising women to never be judgmental toward other women or try “tearing” down another woman. Instead, women should appreciate other women’s beauty, value the differences that exist among women and avoid creating unnecessary competition between them. She spoke of the importance of women finding mentors who could help them and being supportive and friendly with female coworkers. Most importantly, she was clear about women understanding that other women’s sexual behaviors were their own prerogative. Slut shaming, something Rose admits she did in her childhood, was one tactic women used to hurt each other in society. As a result, Rose not only supported women being open about their sexual desires and feeling free to have sex whenever, however and with whomever they chose, but discouraged women from speaking negatively about any woman’s personal choices to shed her sexual inhibitions. CONCLUSION Rose’s brand is centered on her dedication to women’s empowerment issues, and she worked to advance her feminist platform in How to Be a Bad Bitch.

160

Melvin L. Williams and Tia C. M. Tyree

She defined the term “bad bitch” as “a self-respecting, strong female who has everything together. This consisted of body, mind, finances, and swagger; a woman who gets her way by any means necessary.” Yet, the use of the word bitch makes a bolder statement in Hip-Hop culture. In Hip-Hop and Rap, “bitch,” “ho” and other words are often used to degrade and sexually objectify black women (Tyree and Jones 2013), but “bitch” is now reappropriated in Hip-Hop culture and acceptable to use as a term of endearment (Tyree and Kirby 2008). Rose joins several other celebrities in offering a counternarrative not often present in Hip-Hop culture by embracing and redefining the term. Rose’s “fiercely fearless guide” emphasized the importance of authenticity, confidence and positive self-acceptance, and it delivered an overall message to all women to love themselves, work hard, embrace their femininity and sexuality as well as be the best they could be. However, so much of what Rose attempted to do with How to Be a Bad Bitch tied well into the reasons many author self-help books. While the purpose of a self-help book is to guide readers through a variety of personal issues, they are written by and instrumental to the author’s entrepreneurial strategies of commercial success (Nehring, Hendricks, Kerrigan, and Alvarado 2016). Further, self-help books, which are saturated with the idea of achieving happiness, are often rooted in ideas of changing emotions and moods for economic success and self-awareness (Binkley 2011). The narrative provided by Rose’s How to Be a Bad Bitch was indicative of this trend, as she positioned her readers as beneficiaries who could learn from her past mistakes. Her “handbook” was a collection of her lapses in judgment and hard-learned lessons in dating, relationships, sexual experiences, life and career. By purchasing it, readers were now enrolled in her “Bad Bitch Finishing School” and could then benefit from her story by avoiding the “setbacks” of her life. She used her life experiences as the cornerstones to her teachings, and through hindsight, she gained clarity on much of what occurred in her life and passed her knowledge to readers. Throughout How to Be a Bad Bitch, Rose proclaimed she was born a bad bitch, and her desire was to help readers reach their personal best and receive the “gift” of finding their inner bad bitch. With regard to feminist ideology, How to Be a Bad Bitch presented discourse corresponding with tenets of Hip-Hop feminism and postfeminism. However, it bears noting How to Be a Bad Bitch contained significantly more postfeminist discourse than Hip-Hop feminist discourse. Rose encouraged women to capitalize on the desirability of their bodies for upward mobility, monitor their bodies for purposes of upkeep, and be unapologetically hypersexual under the veil of “you only live once” and “a bad bitch does what she chooses to do.” On the other hand, Rose’s views on sexuality were also integral to her discussions, as she encouraged women to challenge double

How to Be a Postfeminist

161

standards, exercise contraception and choice when engaging in sexual intercourse, avoid slut shaming other women, and be united as a group for political purposes. Overall, How to Be a Bad Bitch presented a multilayered narrative combining several tenets of feminism, including women’s empowerment and sexual freedom, which secured her work as a sex-positive, postfeminist contribution in the self-help book genre. Celebrity culture undoubtedly impacts gender politics (Tyler and Bennett 2010), and for this reason, it is important to consider the sociopolitical ramifications of Rose’s book. Ultimately, the book solidly positions her as a postfeminist author. Unconventional, shocking and cringe-worthy as some of her candid accounts of her life might be for some women to read, the book shares her experiences to bring empowerment and strength to other women. From her acceptance of her sexuality and push to have others do the same to her quest to stop slut shaming and encourage solidarity among women, Rose’s How to Be a Bad Bitch stands as a practical, easy to read, 21st-century guide for women to follow in their attempts to understand their fashion style, sexuality, individuality, and strength.

REFERENCES ABC News. “Why Amber Rose Defended Kim Kardashian’s Nude Selfie.” Accessed May 10, 2016, http:​//abc​news.​go.co​m/Ent​ertai​nment​/ambe​r-ros​e-def​ended​-kim-​ karda​shian​s-nud​e-sel​fie/s​tory?​id=37​56472​9. Amber Rose. “Home.” Accessed May 4, 2016, http:​//www​.ambe​rrose​slutw​alk.c​om/ am​ber-r​ose/.​ Amber Rose Slut Walk. “Home.” Accessed October 3, 2017, http://amberroseslutwalk.com/. Attwood, Feona. “Fashion and Passion: Marketing Sex to Women.” Sexualities 8:4 (2005): 392–406. Bellafante, Ginia. “Feminism: It’s All About Me.” Time 151:25 (1999): 54–60. Binkley, Sam. “Psychological Life as Enterprise: Social Practice and the Government of Neoliberal Interiority.” History of the Human Sciences 24:3 (2011): 83–102. Bossip Staff. “Here’s What Happened after Draya and Orlando Scandrick’s Alleged Breakup.” Bossip. Accessed January 14, 2016, http://bossip.com/1272076/hereswhat- happe​ned-a​fter-​draya​-orla​ndo-s​candr​icks-​alleg​ed-br​eakup​/9/. Butler, Jes. “For White Girls Only? Postfeminism and the Politics of Inclusion.” Feminist Formations 25:1 (2013): 35–58. Citron, Danielle and Franks, Mary Anne. “Criminalizing Revenge Porn.” Wake Forest Law Review 49 (2014): 345–391. Conniff, Michael and Davis, Thomas. Africans in the Americas: A History of the Black Diaspora. Caldwell, NJ: Blackburn Press 2004.

162

Melvin L. Williams and Tia C. M. Tyree

Crotty, Nora. “Amber Rose Breaks Down During Slut Walk, Forgives Kanye West.” Accessed October 5, 2015, https​://ww​w.yah​oo.co​m/lif​estyl​e/amb​er-ro​se-br​eaks-​ down-​durin​g- slutwalk-forgives-174538039.html. Diaz, Evelyn. “Amber Rose Reveals Her Family Didn’t Attend Wedding because Wiz Khalifa is Black.” Accessed May 4, 2016, http:​//www​.bet.​com/n​ews/c​elebr​ ities​/2015​/01/1​9/amb​er-ro​se-re​veals​-her-​famil​y-did​nt- atten​d-wed​ding-​becau​se-wi​ z-kha​lifa-​is-bl​ack.h​tml. Dines, Gail. “Porn, Syphilis, and the Politics of the Money Shot.” The Guardian. Accessed August 28, 2012, https​://ww​w.the​guard​ian.c​om/co​mment​isfre​e/201​2/ aug​/28/p​orn- syphilis-money-shot-condoms. Dodge, Shyam. “As Amber Rose Fires Off a VERY Explicit Insight Into Her Sex Life With Ex Kanye West, A Look Back at Their Volatile History.” Accessed May 4, 2016, http:​//www​.dail​ymail​.co.u​k/tvs​howbi​z/art​icle-​34199​18/As​-Ambe​r-Ros​e-fir​ es-ex​plici​t- insig​ht-se​x-lif​e-ex-​Kanye​-West​-look​-vola​tile-​histo​ry.ht​ml. Dooley, Julian, Pyżalski, Jacek, and Cross, Donna. “Cyberbullying Versus Face-ToFace Bullying: A Theoretical and Conceptual Review.” Zeitschrift für Psychologie/ Journal of Psychology 214:4 (2009): 182–188. Dostis, Melanie. “Amber Rose Says She Never Loved Kanye West, Calls Wiz Khalifa ‘Love of Her Life’.” Accessed May 4, 2016, http:​//www​.nyda​ilyne​ws.co​m/ent​ ertai​nment​/goss​ip/am​ber- rose-loved-kanye-west-article-1.2514670. Douglas, Susan. Enlightened Sexism. New York, NY: Times Books, 2010. Durham, Aisha. Home with Hip-Hop Feminism: Performances in Communication and Culture. New York, NY: Peterlang Publishing, Incorporated, 2014. Durham, Aisha, Cooper, Brittney, and Morris, Susana. “The Stage Hip-Hop Feminism Built: A New Directions Essay.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 38:3 (2013): 721–737. Dyer, Richard. Heavenly Bodies: Film Stars and Society. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986. Evans, Adrienne and Riley, Sarah. “Immaculate Consumption: Negotiating the Sex Symbol in Postfeminist Celebrity Culture.” Journal of Gender Studies 22:3 (2013): 268–281. Gill, Rosalind. “Postfeminist Media Culture: Elements of a Sensibility.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 10:2 (2007): 147–166. Gill, Rosalind. “Beyond the Sexualization of Culture thesis: An Intersectional Analysis of Sixpacks, Midriffs, and Hot Lesbians in Advertising.” Sexualities 12:2 (2009): 137–160. Goldberg, Lesley. “Amber Rose Scores Weekly Dr. Phil-Produced Talk Show on VH1 (Exclusive).” Accessed May 6, 2016, http:​//www​.holl​ywood​repor​ter.c​om/li​ ve-fe​ed/am​ber- rose-scores-weekly-dr-889682. Goldman, Robert, Heath, Deborah, and Smith, Sharon. “Commodity Feminism.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 8:3 (1991): 333–351. Hot 97. “Amber Rose Announces She is Taking over Loveline Plus Wanting Another Kid with Wiz,” YouTube Video, 43:06, June 16, 2016, https​://ww​w.you​tube.​com/ w​atch?​v=SMn​mPTRa​4ls.

How to Be a Postfeminist

163

Jorgensen, Marianne and Phillips, Louis. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London, UK: Sage Publications, 2002. Lahad, Kinneret. “Stop Waiting! Hegemonic and Alternative Scripts of Single Women’s Subjectivity.” Time & Society (2016): 1–22. DOI: doi.org/10.1177/ 0961463X16639324 Lazar, Michelle. “Politicizing Gender in Discourse: Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis as Political Perspective and Praxis.” In Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Gender, Power, and Ideology in Discourse, edited by Michelle Lazar, 1–28. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillian, 2005. Lee, Shayne. Erotic Revolutionaries: Black Women, Sexuality, and Popular Culture. Lanham, MD: Hamilton Books, 2010. Lopez-Bonilla, Guadalupe. “Narratives of Exclusion and he Construction of the Self.” In An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education, edited by Rebecca Rogers, 46–67. New York, NY: Routledge, 2011. McRobbie, Angela. The Aftermath of Feminism: Gender, Culture, and Social Change. London: Sage Publications, 2009. Morgan, Joan. When Chickenheads Come Home to Roost: A Hip-Hop Feminist Breaks It Down. New York: Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, 1999. Nehring, Daniel, Hendricks, Eric, Kerrigan, Dylan, and Alvarado, Emmanuel. Transnational Popular Psychology and the Global Self-Help Industry: The Politics of Contemporary Social Change. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. Nkoane, Molebatsi.“Critical Emancipatory Research for Social Justice and Democratic Citizenship.” Perspectives in Education 30:4 (2012): 98–104. Nodelman, Perry. Words about Pictures: The Narrative Art of Children’s Picture Books. Athens, GA: University of Georgia, 1988. Ntang-Beb, Jean Louis, and Williams, Leticia. “The Dark Side of Social Media: A Qualitative Meta-Analysis of Cyberbullying.” In Social Media: Culture and Identity, edited by Kehbuma Langmia and Tia Tyree, 63–90. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2016. Paglia, Camile. Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson. New York: Random House, 1990. Peoples, Whitney. “Under Construction: Identifying Foundations of Hip-Hop Feminism and Exploring Bridges Between Black Second-Wave and Hip-Hop Feminisms.” Meridians 8 (2008): 19–52. Rose, Amber. How to Be a Bad Bitch. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster Incorporated, 2015. Rose, Tricia. Black Noise: Rap Music and Black Culture in Contemporary America. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1994. Rosen, Gerald. “Self-Help Treatment Books and the Commercialization of Psychotherapy.” American Psychologist 42:1 (1987): 46–51. Sommers, Christina. Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1994.

164

Melvin L. Williams and Tia C. M. Tyree

Tate, Elisa. “Challenging Women’s Digital Agency: The Frequency of Slut Shaming in Social Media.” The iJournal: Graduate Student Journal of the Faculty of Information 1:1 (2016): 37–41. Thompson, Eliza. “Amber Rose Talks Sex, Stripping, and How the Internet Made Her a Feminist Monster.” Accessed May 4, 2016, http:​//www​.cosm​opoli​tan.c​om/ en​terta​inmen​t/cel​ebs/a​40004​/ambe​r-ros​e-int​ernet​s-mos​t- fascinating/. Tracy, Karen. “Discourse Analysis in Communication.” In The Handbook of Discourse Handbook, edited by Deborah Tannen, Deborah Schiffrin, and Heidi Hamilton, 57. Madlen, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Tyler, Imogen and Bennett, Bruce. “Celebrity Chav: Fame, Femininity and Social Class.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 13:3 (2009): 1–18. Tyree, Tia and Jones, Michelle. “The ‘Adored’ Women in Rap: An Analysis of The Presence of Philogyny in Rap Music.” Women’s Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 44 (2014): 54–83. Tyree, Tia and Kirby, Morgan. “#THOTsBeLike: The Construction of the New Female Sexual Stereotype in Social Media.” In Social Media: Culture and Identity, edited by Kehbuma Langmia and Tia Tyree, 3–26. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2016. Tyree, Tia and Williams, Melvin. “Flawless Feminist or Fallible Freak? An Analysis of Feminism, Empowerment, and Gender in Beyoncé’s Lyrics.” In The Beyoncé Effect: Essays on Sexuality, Race, and Feminism, edited by Adrienne Trier-Bieniek, 124–142. Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company Incorporated Publishers, 2016. Williams, Melvin. “My Job Is to Be a Bad Bitch: Locating Women of Color in Postfeminist Media Culture on Love and Hip-Hop: Atlanta.” Race, Gender, and Class: The Journal 23:3/4 (2016): 68–88. Wodak, Ruth. “What CDA is About: A Summary of its History, Important Concepts, and its Development.” In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, edited by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 1–12. London, UK: Sage Publications, 2011.

Chapter 11

Sex, Likes, and Instagram Celebrity Self-Presentation on Instagram Riva Tukachinsky, Holeka Inaba, Kristina Kraus, Dominique Schubert, and Michelle Williams

Over the past decade, usage of Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook grew pervasive among celebrities and their fans alike. Although some celebrities, including Jennifer Lawrence, George Clooney, and Mila Kunis, famously rejected social networking sites (Price 2017), many celebrities enthusiastically embraced them, posting daily on social media accounts and are eagerly followed by their fans (Stever and Lawson 2013). According to recent studies, about 70 percent of adolescents follow their favorite media persona on social media (Bond 2016). Today, the list of the most followed individuals on social network sites is firmly occupied by popular music performers, actors, and reality TV personalities, who have millions of social media followers (e.g., Instagram 2016). While fans have always sought out ways to be close to their idols, traditional media provided a narrow set of institutionalized and censored representations of celebrities. Moreover, traditional media offer limited to nonexistent opportunities for direct interaction with the celebrity. Similarly, from the celebrities’ perspective, traditional media afford limited control over their own image, and does not provide celebrities with direct and synchronous feedback from their fans. Social media platforms have revolutionized the relationship between celebrities and their fanbase. The opportunity to interact with celebrities became one of the main appeals of social network websites since their early days (boyd 2007), allowing fans to peer into the private lives of their favorite media celebrities and feel closer to them by engaging in what sometimes feels like a real interaction (Cohen and Tyler 2016). Social media platforms also offer celebrities a greater agency, as they now can address their audiences directly and exercise control over the image they wish to project (Marwick 2011). 165

166

Riva Tukachinsky et al.

The immediacy afforded by social media fosters direct interactions and mobilization of the fanbase. In fact, arguably, celebrities use social media platforms strategically, as a brand-building device (Marshall 2010). They manage and negotiate their identities by employing social presentation strategies, seeking to strengthen and expand their relationships with followers. Media consumers’ comments, “likes,” and dissemination of the celebrities’ posts (e.g., by “sharing” and “re-tweeting”) constitute valuable meta-data that provide celebrities with important diagnostic information. Celebrities can use this continuous feedback from their audiences to assess how well their self-presentation efforts have been received and fine-tune their strategy accordingly. Arguably, celebrities’ ability to successfully engage their audience can have high stakes with major implications for these celebrities’ career (Burns 2009). The present study explores the use of two self-presentation strategies in celebrities’ Instagram posts: sexualization and presentation of an authentic self. The goal of the present study is twofold. First, the study examines the prevalence of these two self-presentation strategies. Next, the extent to which these strategies prove to be successful by soliciting “likes” from the audiences is examined. Instagram was chosen due to its wide popularity—it encompassed over 400 million active users at the time the study was conducted (Instagram 2016) and it was the chief social network used by adolescents to follow their favorite media figures (Bond 2016). Furthermore, compared to other popular social sites, Instagram is geared toward disseminating images, making it particularly appropriate for considering sexualization in self-presentation. CELEBRITIES’ SELF-PRESENTATION ON SOCIAL MEDIA Goffman’s (1974) self-presentation theory asserts that individuals constantly engage in self-presentation through selective self-disclosure to form and maintain a particular impression of their persona. The theory distinguishes between the frontstage—interactions with others in which individuals present self, and the backstage—behaviors occurring away from the public eye when one is seemingly free to assume his or her authentic self. Celebrities can use social media to construct an image of their presumably authentic self (Marwick 2011) in contrast to traditional media that serve as the “frontstage.” Specifically, by posting personal rather than professional information, celebrities offer fans glimpses into their alleged “backstage.” Indeed, some celebrities who were reluctant to engage with fans on social media commented on it as an infringement of their privacy and erosion of

Sex, Likes, and Instagram

167

their “backstage.” For example, reportedly, George Clooney expressed concerns that his backstage will be revealed if he used social media: “All the things you might think in the quiet of your drunken evening are suddenly blasted around the entire world before you wake up.” Similarly, Scarlett Johansson was quoted saying: “I can’t think of anything I’d rather do less than have to continuously share details of my everyday life [. . .] I’d rather that people had less access to my personal life” (Price 2017). However, contrary to this sentiment, other celebrities routinely disclose personal information on social media (Stever and Lawson 2013). Without doubt, social media posts are almost always carefully selected and often manipulated or altered to promote a certain impression. Thus, it is not argued here that the authenticity of these images is genuine. Rather, celebrities can provide a sense of a peek at their inner, real self (Marwick 2011) even if the image choices may be strategic, in a conscious attempt to connect and affiliate with the fans. Since the early days of digital media, media consumers were known to form profound emotional bonds with media persona, termed “parasocial relationships” (Horton and Wohl 1956). Social media take this experience of illusionary relationship and intimacy further by seeking a glimpse into the real life of a fan’s favorite media figures (Bond 2016). In this regard, following celebrities’ social media creates a sense of “knowing” the media figures as real persons (Kapidzic and Herring 2015). Indeed, both professional and personal information that create a sense of authentic interaction are important motivations guiding media consumers’ social media following of celebrities and feeling of affiliation with them (Bond 2016; Cohen and Tyler 2016; Kawalcyck 2016; Kim and Song 2016). CELEBRITIES, SEXUALIZATION, AND SOCIAL MEDIA Another self-presentation strategy considered in this study is sexualization. This presentation characteristic has been of particular interest because traditional media, ranging from print (e.g., Browne 1998) and television advertisements (e.g., Coltrane and Messineo 2000) to music videos (Aubrey and Frisby 2011) and computer games (Downs and Smith 2010), are inundated with highly sexualized images. Women, in particular, are likely to be depicted scantily clad and pictured in submissive sexual poses (e.g., for review: Collins 2011). The hypersexualized media culture has been criticized for degrading women and reducing them to mere sexual objects for men’s pleasure. Ample theoretical advances and empirical media research cautioned against the possible effects of such images on sexual socialization, deeming it detrimental to both men and women’s health and psychological well-being (for review, see Brooks 1995; Szymanski, Moffitt, and Carr 2010). Women were

168

Riva Tukachinsky et al.

hypothesized to come to accept these gendered sexual norms and engage in self-objectification, namely self-enforcing and reproducing oppressive sexual values (Szymanski et al. 2010). Social media similarly offers a platform for objectification and sexual socialization. For example, research examining noncelebrity users reveal that Facebook images stress women’s attractiveness and depict them as dependent (Rose, Mackey-Kallis, Shyles, Barry, Biagini, Hart, and Jack 2012). A content analysis of chatroom profile images of adolescents uncovered trends similar to the one identified in the traditional media. Specifically, compared to males, female teens are more likely to post images in revealing clothing and featuring a seductive gaze (Kapidzic and Herring 2011; Kapidzic and Herring 2014). Self-sexualization on social media has been assumed to be driven by attempts to gain attention and approval from followers (Chua and Chang 2015; Mascheroni, Vincent, and Jimenez 2015). In a cyclical and dynamic process, exposure to others’ sexualized self-presentation in social media can pressure girls to construct gendered and sexualized online identities (Ringrose and Barajas 2011). Indeed, women report feeling pressure, or at least believe to be rewarded for posting sexualized images (Manago, Graham, Greenfield, and Salimkhan 2008), thus perpetuating the sexualization trend further. This research on sexual representations on social media is, however, limited to noncelebrity users. To our knowledge, no research has examined online self-objectification of celebrities overall. Research specifically examining athletes’ use of social media found that although athletes are often hypersexualized in traditional media, both men and women athletes rarely post sexually suggestive (broadly defined) images (Geurin-Eagleman and Burch 2015; Smith and Sanderson 2015). Nonetheless, once posted, such images are met with enthusiasm as indicated by significantly higher number of “likes” (Geurin-Eagleman and Burch 2015). These findings, although important, are limited to athletes, who constitute a unique subcategory of celebrities. Taken together, content analysis research has demonstrated that (a) traditional media often depict celebrities in a sexualized manner, and that (b) noncelebrities tend to post self-objectification and sexualized imagery on social media. It is, therefore, logical to deduce that celebrities are also likely to use a sexualized self-presentation strategy in social media. However, there are also two reasons to assume why this might not be the case. First, while celebrity images in traditional media are constructed by producers, directors, editors and other third parties, celebrities have control over their self-presentation on social media. Thus, analysis of celebrities’ social media provides a curious opportunity to examine the extent to which patterns of sexualization in traditional media hold in the realm of new media formats

Sex, Likes, and Instagram

169

where media figures can exercise control over their image. Celebrities’ ability to depart from the sexualized stereotypes was documented in analyses of athletes’ social media images (Geurin-Eagleman and Burch 2015; Smith and Sanderson 2015). Second, noncelebrities use self-sexualization to draw followers an increase their online visibility in social media (Chua and Chang 2015; Mascheroni, Vincent, and Jimenez 2015). However, presumably, celebrities whose status has been already established are no longer compelled to resort to constructing a sexualized identity for self-promotion. STRATEGIES FOR SELF-PRESENTATION The current study aims to examine the prevalence and characterization of self-presentation strategies in celebrity Instagram images. The first goal of the study was to identify the prevalence of two types of celebrity self-presentation strategies on Instagram: “backstage” self-presentation and self-sexualization. Specifically, the study reveals how common each of these two strategies is. Next, the possible relationship between self-presentation strategies and celebrity characteristics is considered. As noted above, according to selfobjectification theory (Szymanski et al. 2010) socialization into sexually objectifying culture leads women to come to internalize the male-dominated culture and to sexually objectify themselves. In support of this assertion, research on noncelebrities’ use of social media has demonstrated sexualization as an important self-presentation strategy in women (Kapidzic and Martins 2015). In the case of celebrities, women are not only exposed to media-generated sexual standards, but they are actively participating in creating and maintaining them, and thus are even more likely to conform to these sexual norms. Another important demographic characteristic that can relate to selfpresentation is the celebrity’s race/ethnicity. Several studies that analyzed traditional media have found that racial and ethnic minorities tend to be more sexualized compared to their White counterparts (Mastro and BehmMorawitz 2005; Mastro and Stern 2003; Tuachinsky, Mastro, and Yarchi 2015). However, some studies did not find race differences in sexualization patterns in traditional media (Coltrane and Messineo 2000; Millard and Grant 2006). Moreover, there is no evidence or theoretical work suggesting that ethnic minorities in the U.S. internalize and embrace this stereotype in the way that women overall internalize and comply with sexual objectification. In fact, a content analysis of teen chatroom profile images suggests that Blacks are no more sexually suggestive than their White counterparts, and they might, in fact, be even more conservatively dressed (Kapidzic and Herring 2014).

170

Riva Tukachinsky et al.

Furthermore, it is possible that sexualization is used by less established celebrities who still work to gain and secure their status. However, celebrities who have already solidified their career, will have the choice whether they wish to continue playing by the media’s playbook or opt to rewrite the script. Following this logic, one can hypothesize that high-earning celebrities will post less sexualized images than lower-earning celebrities. However, the opposite scenario is also plausible. Since sexualization presumably attracts wider audiences, it is conceivable that the more provocative and sexualized celebrities are also the highest paid ones. Considering this diverse literature, the second goal of the study was to see if there is an association between the celebrities’ sex, race/ethnicity, net worth and sexual objectification level in their images. Finally, it is important to consider the way these self-presentation efforts are received. Past studies have used “likes” as a way to gauge social validation and the extent to which followers engage with posts (Geurin-Eagleman and Burch 2015). The present study is concerned with the extent to which audiences “like” celebrity Instagram posts as a function of the self-presentation strategy employed by the celebrity. In other words, the study examines whether the self-presentation strategy (sexualization and “backstage”) in images posted by celebrities on Instagram associated with the amount of likes these images receive. ANALYSIS OF CELEBRITIES’ INSTAGRAM SELF-PRESENTATION STRATEGIES To answer above questions, a content analysis of celebrity Instagram pictures was conducted. First, a list of 54 celebrities was generated by randomly sampling A-list celebrities as defined by leading celebrity magazines US Weekly and People Magazine in 2015–2016. To be included in the sample, the celebrity had to have a verified Instagram account (i.e., not a fan account) that was active during 2015. The celebrity sample included mostly women (82 percent). The majority (78 percent) were White and the rest were Black (15 percent), and Latino (6 percent) with one Native American. Their ages ranged from 21 to 49 (M = 35.19). The celebrities were mostly actors (46 percent) or music performers (35 percent), and the rest were reality TV stars (9 percent), fashion models (5 percent) or were coded as “other.” For each celebrity, 30 images were randomly sampled throughout the year of 2015. To be included in the sample, the celebrity him or herself had to be featured in the picture. The final sample comprised a total of 1,588 images posted on the celebrities’ Instagram account. Screen shots of the celebrities’ account information and the sampled photographs were coded for demographics and sexual objectification. Four coders

Sex, Likes, and Instagram

171

completed comprehensive training on a sample of images outside the actual study sample. Once reliability was established, coders worked individually on different parts of the data corpus, but 10 percent of images were coded by all four coders to ensure continued reliability (reported below for each variable). The analysis included the background information about each celebrity as well as information specific for each image. These two levels of analysis are called “celebrity-level” (because this information is constant for all the images posted by a given celebrity, such as the celebrity’s sex) and “imagelevel” (capturing information specific to each image). Please see Appendix for coding reliabilities and details on the statistical analyses. Celebrity-level Variables The statistical procedure used in the study enables to estimate the unique effect of self-presentation strategy on “likes,” independently of other possible factors that facilitate likes such as number of followers, the celebrity’s sex, and so on. Thus, celebrities were coded for various demographics and other background characteristics. In terms of sex (coded as male, female, or other), none of the celebrities were coded as “other.” Age was determined by locating publicly available biographical sketches. Race/ethnicity included the following categories: Asian/Black/Latino/Native American/White/Other. In line with other research on media and race (e.g., Tukachinsky et al. 2015), to be considered a member of an ethnic minority group, the celebrity had to have at least one parent from that ethnic group. However, to be coded as White, both of the celebrity’s parents had to be White. The celebrity’s primary current source of fame was coded as: reality TV (e.g., Sam Brody Jenner); fashion modeling (e.g., Gisele Bundchen), music industry (e.g., Justin Biber), TV or movie acting (e.g., Sofia Vergara), or other (e.g., Victoria Beckham who originally gained celebrity status in the 1990s due to her music career, but whose current fame stems from a career in design, being one of the wealthiest women in the United Kingdom, and her marriage to a former celebrity soccer player). Some celebrities have careers in more than one industry. Coders were instructed to choose the career that the celebrity is most identified with at the time the data for the study were collected (e.g., a celebrity that had their breakthrough in a reality TV show but then went on and established a thriving acting or music career will be coded for their current career in music or film). Net worth was determined using the website celebritynetworth.com. In addition to the demographic variables, the number of followers reported on the celebrity’s Instagram account was coded since individuals who have more followers are likely to receive more “likes” merely because more people are exposed to their posts.

172

Riva Tukachinsky et al.

Photograph-Level Variables On the image level, each photograph was coded for the variables listed below. Subordinate Body Positioning This variable is based on Goffman’s (1979) concept of ritualization of subordination, according to which women in the media are objectificatied by being depicted in submissive, lowered position. Building on operationalizations of this variable in past research (e.g., Hall, West, and McIntyre 2012) the coded categories included sitting or lying on a sofa or on the ground; sitting or lying on the bed; or non-sexualized poses, such as standing. For further analyses, the categories were collapsed into a binary subordination/no subordination. Sexual readiness. For each image, coders determined whether the pose of the celebrity displays sexual readiness and/or positioning to receive sexual activity. Subordination through camera angle. According to Goffman (1979) objectification can be achieved through camera angle. For each image coders determined whether or not the photograph was taken from above the eye level. Nudity. Building on coding schemes used in past research (e.g., Hall et al. 2012; Kapidzic and Herring 2014) the celebrity’s attire was coded as fully clothed (e.g., knee long skirt or pants); revealing clothing (e.g., strapless dress, mini-skirt); partially clothed (swimwear, underwear); nude; or unknown (e.g., body chopped photo). The categories were then collapsed to create a binary variable (fully clothed/non-fully clothed). Body-ism. The extent to which the image focuses on the celebrity’s body was assessed using a code scheme adopted from past research (Kapidzic and Martins 2015; Smith and Sanderson 2015). The categories included: Head shot; half body (up to the waistline); full body (below the waist) or other (e.g., extreme close-up image of the person’s manicure). These categories were later combined to produce a binary variable (head shot vs. body display). Feminine touch. The variable, adopted from Goffman (1978), refers to delicate touching, cradling or caressing objects, other people or oneself (Kang 1997). Photographs were coded for cradling or caressing an object or person; self-touching; displaying both touching behaviors; or displaying no touching behaviors. The categories were then combined to produce a binary present/ absent variable. Body chopping. Also termed “dehumanization,” body chopping was defined as images that focus on the person’s sexual organs but exclude the person’s face (Cortese 2007). However, since only two such images have been located in the entire sample, this variable was excluded from further analyses.

Sex, Likes, and Instagram

173

Context. The context of the image (professional or personal) was determined. Professional context was defined as photographs featuring locations and events directly associated with the celebrity’s source of fame (e.g., red carpet photography, behind the scenes of a TV show shooting, photos taken during a musical concert). Time since posted. Since longer online presence affords more opportunities for followers to respond to the image, it is important to control for the time since the image has been posted. The time was measured in weeks, as indicated on the Instagram image itself. Likes. The amount of likes given for each photograph as identified on Instagram. PREVALENCE AND PREDICTORS OF “BACKSTAGE” AND SEXUAL SELF-PRESENTATION Overall, personal (backstage) images of celebrities were slightly more common than professional imagery. In the sample, 46.3 percent of the images depicted a professional context and 53.7 percent displayed a personal context. To assess sexualization, a single index of sexual objectifications was created. The five indicators of sexual objectification were combined into a single scale ranging from 0 (no objectification features) to 6 (all of these objectification features are present). There was a meaningful variability in terms of levels of sexual objectification (range: 0–5), however, overall levels of sexual objectification were low. There were not many images depicting the celebrity nude (2.4 percent) or in a sexual readiness position (1.4 percent). CELEBRITY CHARACTERISTIC AND SELF-PRESENTATION Backstage images of celebrities were significantly more common among women celebrities (55.2 percent) than among men (46.6 percent) and among ethnic minority celebrities (55.2 percent) than White celebrities (48.2 percent) Sex differences also emerged between men and women on most dimensions of sexualization. For example, the vast majority (83.4 percent) of men but only 59.8 percent of women have posted pictures of themselves fully clothed. Furthermore, 26.2 percent of women but only 19.8 percent of men were depicted in subordinate position sitting or lying on a bad or a sofa, and although poses that convey passive sexual readiness were rare overall, they

174

Riva Tukachinsky et al.

were more than twice as common for women compared to men (2.8 percent vs 1 percent). In examining the relationship between sexualization and celebrity characteristics, it is critical to account for the celebrity-level variance. In other words, since each celebrity contributed a number of pictures to the dataset, individual differences between the celebrities might mask the effects of interest. Indeed, some celebrities in the sample, like Naomi Campbell and Selena Gomez, systematically post more provocative images, while some celebrities (e.g., Taylor Swift and Joe Jonas) consistently receive more likes compared to other celebrities. Thus, to isolate the effect of the variables of interest over and beyond the celebrity-specific variance, an advanced statistical approach (called multilevel modeling) has been employed. The analyses revealed that in line with research on noncelebrity social media, celebrity’s sex was associated with greater sexualization (see Appendix for statistical details). Specifically, female celebrities’ images were significantly more sexualized then male celebrities’ photographs. However, no significant relationships between other demographics and sexualization have emerged. White celebrities did not differ in their sexualization compared to ethnic minorities and net worth was not associated with sexualization. AUDIENCE RESPONSE TO CELEBRITY SELF-PRESENTATION Next, we asked whether self-presentation strategy (sexualization and backstage) will be associated with more likes. Here again, the multilevel statistical analysis was performed to predict the likes as a function of sexualization, backstage context, and all other predictors. Because having a larger base of followers and being posted for a longer time provide more opportunities for individuals to “like” a picture, these two variables were added as controls. Interestingly, on average, controlling for other factors, men celebrities received more likes than women celebrities. Additionally, photographs taken in personal contexts received significantly more likes than photographs in a professional setting. Taken together, while sexualization of celebrity images was not associated with more likes, the backstage self-presentation was related to more likes (see Appendix for statistical details). CONCLUSION This study systematically examined the prevalence of two self-presentation strategies in celebrity Instagram photographs and identifies the audiences’

Sex, Likes, and Instagram

175

response to these strategies (defined as the number of “likes” in response to the posts). Past research suggests that sexulization is inherent to traditional media representations and it is used by noncelebrities to promote following on social media. Contrary to this research, the current study revealed that celebrities, on the whole, did not typically employ this self-presentation strategy. When sexualization was present, it was, in accordance with research on traditional media, limited largely to female celebrities (even controlling for other demographic variables). However, contrary to traditional media, no differences were found between White and ethnic minority celebrities. Interestingly, sexualization did not play a role in the media consumers’ response to the images. At first glance this finding appears to contradict that of Geurin-Eagleman and Burch (2015) who found that sexually suggestive images of Olympic athletes received more likes. However, their study examined each explanatory variable in isolation from others, such that the effect of sexual objectification could stem from confounding factors. For instance, it is possible that sexualized images in that sample were also depicting the athletes in more personal contexts creating the illusion that sexualization (rather than context) generates likes. In accordance with this line of reasoning, the current study shows that controlling for other factors, media consumers gave more likes to photographs taken in non-professional contexts compared to professional ones. This implies that media consumers use Instagram to connect with the media figures as peers, or quasi-friends, getting insight into their personal and off-stage life. For instance, the most “liked” photograph in this study’s sample is Taylor Swift’s childhood photograph depicting her on the first day of school. This image received close to three million likes, making it an outlier excluded for the analysis. However, this image nonetheless embodies a general tendency of media consumers to award personal images with more likes. Perhaps, honeymoon photos and selfies in the bathroom allow viewers to peek into the celebrities’ private life, fostering the parasocial bonding and a sense of actual friendship with the celebrity in a way that red carpet photos or images bluntly promoting a forthcoming album or movie cannot. The present study supports the notion that “backstage” self-presentation, that gives viewers a sense of a glimpse into the celebrity’s private inner self, is critical to the media consumers’ engagement with celebrities’ social media. This could, perhaps, explain the lack of effect of sexual objectification on the number of likes. It is not the case that media consumers actively dislike sexualized images (there was no negative effect of sexualization on likes). Rather, there is no evidence that consumers prefer either sexualized or non-sexualized ones. Sexualized celebrity images are plentiful in the traditional media. The appeal of Instagram, therefore, lies in offering images that are less accessible through traditional media, similarly to the allure of

176

Riva Tukachinsky et al.

paparazzi images featuring celebrities involved in mundane everyday activities (Mortensen and Jerslev 2014). Importantly, however, while gossip magazines and celebrity news websites invade the celebrities’ privacy and provide media consumers with a voyeuristic experience, celebrities on social media cultivate what appears to be a welcomed reciprocal relationship by directly addressing the fans and inviting them to observe the ordinary parts of their lives. INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND WITHIN-CELEBRITY VARIABILITY It is important to note that overall, celebrities’ Instagram images were not highly sexualized. For example, women were often portrayed dressed in a revealing manner (30.1 percent), but they were rarely nude (2.4 percent) or partially dressed (4.1 percent). That being said, there was a significant variability in the level of sexual objectification between celebrities but also within each celebrity’s account. Naomi Campbell posted the most sexualized images with an average of 2.07 sexual components per image. However, her photographic choices ranged from displaying none to five (out of possible six) sexual characteristics. She was followed by Selena Gomez, Kathrine McPhee, and Gisele Bundchen. On the other end of the spectrum, Justin Timberlake and Brad Paisley posted the least sexual images with most images displaying no sexual characteristics at all. Thus, although discourse in the traditional media often makes salient particular hypersexualized images (e.g., Kim Kardashian’s nude selfies drew attention from media outlets from Elle 2016 to the New York Times), systematic analysis of a large, representative data set indicates that celebrities post relatively few suggestive photographs. The majority of images posted by even the most provocative celebrities are not sexual in nature, and the levels of sexualization in social media are far from being “pornified” (to use Ringrose and Barajas’s 2011 term). Nonetheless, the study demonstrates a systematic difference between male and female celebrities adored by many young people, a finding that warrants further investigation of the possible effects of exposure to such images on both male and female followers. FUTURE DIRECTIONS We studied a large corpus of randomly sampled celebrity Instagram images. Although this approach ensures representativeness of the celebrities, the consequent under-representation of ethnic minorities and sex-imbalance in the

Sex, Likes, and Instagram

177

sample prevents more nuanced analysis of trends within each ethnic group, and examination of possible interactions between sex and ethnicity. Another limitation involves the use of likes as a measure of the audience’s engagement with and approval of the image. Although this is conceptually meaningful (Manago et al. 2008) and an accepted operationalization (e.g., Geurin-Eagleman and Burch 2015), it nonetheless constitutes a very crude measure. A more nuanced measure of reception of the images and a breakdown of responses by audience demographics could advance further the understanding of how media consumers perceive and respond to celebrity images. For example, it is likely that men and women followers respond differently to sexualized Instragram images of their favorite media personalities. Additionally, it could be that audience members’ prior parasocial relationships with the celebrity could determine their response to the sexualized images. For example, non-fans of the celebrity might be, perhaps, more prone to “like” a racy image of the celebrity merely because of its sexual appeal. Conversely, someone who has a meaningful parasocial bond with the celebrity would be more interested in the “backstage” images of the celebrity than sexual imagery. Finally, the present study found no relationship between the celebrity’s net worth and sexual objectification. As discussed in the introduction section, it is possible that two opposite processes take place simultaneously cancelling each other out: Established celebrities may feel secure enough to break the sexualization playbook, but at the same time, playing by these rules could have brought them to their current status. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the possible effect of net worth on celebrity sexualization, a longitudinal study examining the evolution of sexual objectification in images of celebrities over the course of their career is warranted. Finally, the focus of the present study was specifically on celebrity social media. However, in the future, it would be interesting to examine the extent to which celebrities’ social media images differ from those of noncelebrities. Conceivably, noncelebrity social media users are more pressured to engage in self-sexualization than celebrities to get more likes.

REFERENCES Aubrey, Jennifer Stevens, and Cynthia M. Frisby. “Sexual objectification in music videos: A content analysis comparing gender and genre.” Mass Communication and Society 14, no. 4 (2011): 475–501. Behm-Morawitz, Elizabeth, and Dana Mastro. “The effects of the sexualization of female video game characters on gender stereotyping and female self-concept.” Sex Roles 61, no. 11–12 (2009): 808–823.

178

Riva Tukachinsky et al.

Bond, Bradley J. “Following your ‘friend’: Social media and the strength of adolescents’ parasocial relationships with media personae.” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 19, no. 11 (2016): 656–660. boyd, danah. “Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life.” MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning–Youth, Identity, and Digital Media 17 (2007): 119–142. Brooks, Gary R. The Centerfold Syndrome: How Men can Overcome Objectification and Achieve Intimacy with Women. Jossey-Bass, 1995. Browne, Beverly A. “Gender stereotypes in advertising on children’s television in the 1990s: A cross-national analysis.” Journal of Advertising 27, no. 1 (1998): 83–96. Burns, Kelli S. Celeb 2.0: How Social Media Foster our Fascination With Popular Culture. ABC-CLIO, 2009. Cohen, E.L., and W.J. Tyler. “Examining perceived distance and personal authenticity as mediators of the effects of ghosttweeting on parasocial interaction.” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 19 (2016): 342–346. Collins, Rebecca L. “Content analysis of gender roles in media: Where are we now and where should we go?” Sex Roles 64, no. 3–4 (2011): 290–298. Coltrane, Scott, and Melinda Messineo. “The perpetuation of subtle prejudice: Race and gender imagery in 1990s television advertising.” Sex Roles 42, no. 5 (2000): 363–389. Cortese, Anthony J. Provocateur: Images of Women and MinoritiesiIn Advertising. Rowman and Littlefield, 2015. Downs, Edward, and Stacy L. Smith. “Keeping abreast of hypersexuality: A video game character content analysis.” Sex Roles 62, no. 11–12 (2010): 721–733. Elle. “The Evolution of the Kim Kardashian Naked Instagram Selfie.” April 15, 2016, http:​//www​.elle​.com/​cultu​re/ce​lebri​ties/​g2812​6/kim​-kard​ashia​n-nak​ed-se​lfies​/. Geurin-Eagleman, Andrea N., and Lauren M. Burch. “Communicating via photographs: A gendered analysis of Olympic athletes’ visual self-presentation on Instagram.” Sport Management Review 19, no. 2 (2016): 133–145. Goffman, Erving. Doubleday. New York, 1959. Goffman, Erving. Gender Advertisements. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978. Grabe, Shelly, and Janet Shibley Hyde. “Body objectification, MTV, and psychological outcomes among female adolescents.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 39, no. 12 (2009): 2840–2858. Hall, P. Cougar, Joshua H. West, and Emily McIntyre. “Female self-sexualization in MySpace. com personal profile photographs.” Sexuality and Culture 16, no. 1 (2012): 1–16. Horton, Donald, and R. Richard Wohl. “Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance.” Psychiatry 19, no. 3 (1956): 215–229. Instagram, Top 100 Instagram users by followers, 2016, https​://so​cialb​lade.​com/i​ nstag​ram/t​op/10​0/fol​lower​s. Instagram. Stats, 2016. Retrieved from https://www.instagram.com/press/?hl=en. Kang, Mee-Eun. “The portrayal of women’s images in magazine advertisements: Goffman’s gender analysis revisited.” Sex Roles 37, no. 11 (1997): 979–996.

Sex, Likes, and Instagram

179

Kapidzic, Sanja, and Susan C. Herring. “Gender, communication, and selfpresentation in teen chatrooms revisited: Have patterns changed?” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 17, no. 1 (2011): 39–59. Kapidzic, Sanja, and Susan C. Herring. “Race, gender, and self-presentation in teen profile photographs.” New Media and Society 17, no. 6 (2015): 958–976. Kapidzic, Sanja, and Nicole Martins. “Mirroring the media: The relationship between media consumption, media internalization, and profile picture characteristics on Facebook.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 59, no. 2 (2015): 278–297. Kim, Jihyun, and Hayeon Song. “Celebrity’s self-disclosure on Twitter and parasocial relationships: A mediating role of social presence.” Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016): 570–577. Kowalczyk, Christine M., Christine M. Kowalczyk, Kathrynn R. Pounders, and Kathrynn R. Pounders. “Transforming celebrities through social media: The role of authenticity and emotional attachment.” Journal of Product and Brand Management 25, no. 4 (2016): 345–356. Manago, Adriana M., Michael B. Graham, Patricia M. Greenfield, and Goldie Salimkhan. “Self-presentation and gender on MySpace.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 29, no. 6 (2008): 446–458. Marshall, P. David. “The promotion and presentation of the self: Celebrity as marker of presentational media.” Celebrity Studies 1, no. 1 (2010): 35–48. Marwick, Alice, and danah boyd. “To see and be seen: Celebrity practice on Twitter.” Convergence 17, no. 2 (2011): 139–158. Mastro, Dana E., and Elizabeth Behm-Morawitz. “Latino representation on primetime television.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 82, no. 1 (2005): 110–130. Mastro, Dana E., and Susannah R. Stern. “Representations of race in television commercials: A content analysis of prime-time advertising.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 47, no. 4 (2003): 638–647. Millard, Jennifer E., and Peter R. Grant. “The stereotypes of Black and White women in fashion magazine photographs: The pose of the model and the impression she creates.” Sex Roles 54, no. 9–10 (2006): 659–673. Mortensen, Mette, and Anne Jerslev. “Taking the extra out of the extraordinary: Paparazzi photography as an online celebrity news genre.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 17, no. 6 (2014): 619–636. Price, Lydia. “15 celebrities who are really, really, not into social media.” People, May 8, 2017, http:​//peo​ple.c​om/ce​lebri​ty/an​ti-so​cial-​media​-cele​bs/em​ily-b​lunt/.​ Ringrose, Jessica, and Katarina Eriksson Barajas. “Gendered risks and opportunities? Exploring teen girls’ digitized sexual identities in postfeminist media contexts.” International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics 7, no. 2 (2011): 121–138. Rose, Jessica, Susan Mackey-Kallis, Len Shyles, Kelly Barry, Danielle Biagini, Colleen Hart, and Lauren Jack. “Face it: The impact of gender on social media images.” Communication Quarterly 60, no. 5 (2012): 588–607. Smith, Lauren Reichart, and Jimmy Sanderson. “I’m going to instagram it! An analysis of athlete self-presentation on instagram.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 59, no. 2 (2015): 342–358.

180

Riva Tukachinsky et al.

Stever, Gayle S., and Kevin Lawson. “Twitter as a way for celebrities to communicate with fans: Implications for the study of parasocial interaction.” North American Journal of Psychology 15, no. 2 (2013): 339. Szymanski, D.M., L.B. Moffitt, and E.R. Carr. “Sexual objectification of women: Advances to theory and research 1ψ7.” The Counseling Psychologist 39, no. 1 (2011): 6–38. Tolentino, Jia. “How ‘empowerment’ bcame something for women to buy.” New York Times, April 12, 2016, http:​//www​.nyti​mes.c​om/20​16/04​/17/m​agazi​ne/ho​ w-emp​owerm​ent-b​ecame​-some​thing​-for-​women​-to-b​uy.ht​ml. Tukachinsky, Riva, Dana Mastro, and Moran Yarchi. “Documenting portrayals of race/ethnicity on primetime television over a 20-year span and their association with national-level racial/ethnic attitudes.” Journal of Social Issues 71, no. 1 (2015): 17–38.

METHODOLOGICAL APPENDIX Coding reliability: Krippendorff’s α for each coded variable: Sex .96; age: .97; Race/ethnicity .77; source of fame .80; net worth .95; number of followers .93; subordinate position .88; sexual readiness .84; subordination camera angle .64; nudit2y .82; body-ism .96; touch .72; body chopping .79; time since posted .94; number of likes .90. Predicting sexual objectification: Multi-level modeling using SPSS Mixed Model with celebrity level variables (sex, age, ethnicity, net worth, and occupation) serving as level 1variables. The context in which the photograph has been taken (personal vs. professional) was used as a level 2 variable (-2 Restricted Log Likelihood = 4042.68). Celebrity was used as a random effect (B = .07, S.E. = .02, p