Why Celebrities Shouldn't Be Privileged
Updated: Oct 9
Ms. Tamara Moskal's Synopsis
Celebrities, primarily created in the entertainment sector, are contemporary elites who enjoy privileges and socio-economic status similar to those once reserved for "nobility." Their worth is mainly measured by the quantity of their active followers and fame, not by their contribution to humanity.
The problem arises when celebrities are given privileges above others. Because of their popularity, superstars may enjoy privileges lesser-known folk don't have. Celebrity status shouldn't exempt anybody from civil duties; a person’s worth should be measured by merit and productivity, not fame.
***************************
"Sadly, the perceived worth of good ideas is completely dependant upon the popularity of the one that shares them" -- John Duran
Even with the major irrelevance of nobility, who used to manage the world by monarchies and oligarchies, it seems that today an alternative replacement has been created by humanity and by social media's popularity. It's a "nobility" so idolized that it can literally create "cults" of followers, in both a literal and usual sense of the word (AKA, people that support common franchises).
Most will probably not be remembered historically, due to the swift changes of contemporary relevance. Others might find themselves victims of their own misdeeds, their legacies forever stained by their moral sins, and be deemed infamous beyond redemption.
Regardless, it is safe to assume that this contemporary social elite class is probably one of the most privileged socio-economic statuses on the planet today, only second to global leaders and national leaders and their families. Our recent ancestors used to call them "idols", "rock stars", "legends", and so on, mostly for their talent in either acting, music, or any other type of mainstream entertainment fields. However, a more-general term for this new type of pseudo-nobility and pseudo-royalty is "celebrities".
(Note: It is possible to even become a celebrity in intellectual fields such as philosophy. Jordan Peterson is considered very much to be a philosophy icon/idol, etc.)
We have come to the days where the worth of a "celebrity" is not measured by their merit or by their cultural contribution to humanity, but mostly by their amount and engagement of followers, by their fame, and by their ability of grabbing our attention to the point of greater relevance.
With the increasing dominance of social media in our lives, anyone has the potential to become a celebrity at one point or another, long term or temporarily. Anyone with a computer and/or a phone who is appealing enough to attract a large audience of virtual followers can, in a short period of time, become so "important" that their content has the potential to affect the lives of countless people worldwide, regardless of the target audience. And of course, that effect can be monetized.
The "importance" of their influence is all well and good, but in my opinion, the problem arises when that importance gives them privileges no other person would have. This problem only reinforces the sense of pseudo-nobility in their individual lives and in society as a whole.
I also call it a pseudo-nobility because nobility is usually hereditary. Contemporary celebrities/pseudo-nobilities are, however, made rather than born. AKA, gain by the merit of appeal. They do so through content creation. And in contemporary times, it matters less, unfortunately, the quality or substance of a content piece. What matters, in this competitive world, is attention-grabbing. But, I digress.
Now, giving someone a privileged status simply because they are extremely popular and well-known, in a democratic country that is supposed to treat everyone equally under the law, can theoretically be considered as support of the country to the foundation and empowerment of the contemporary pseudo-nobility.
It is ironic because truly democratic societies would not give social privileges to specific demographics. Such privileges belonged to the true nobility of old, and were one of the ways that made them distinguished from the "common folk"
By letting celebrities be above the law where they should not, the law can lead to the rise of a new type of nobility/royalty. This future type is no longer "pseudo", but is official and written in black and white. It creates a normalized sense of superiority and might where such a sense should not exist in a society that should treat everyone as no worse and no better than any other citizen and/or resident. Much less so by social status, luxurious or otherwise.
What should we think of this? Should we think that having more followers on social media, a TV show, a public performance, and so on, deserve to give us privileges that the rest of the citizenry don't have? Should we use renown as a means to an end, such as being exempt from certain activities and features in society, purely because of our popularity?
Should we try to become famous not for the sake of being famous, but as a way to skip over obligations that are considered by any other citizen?
I argue that the worth of a person should not be measured by whether or not they are a celebrity, nor by whether or not they have an immense number of followers or otherwise. In a world devoid of nobility-class elements, the worth of a person would be best measured by merit and productivity; merit and productivity that exist regardless of their popularity. As such, there are jobs that are far more productive than other jobs that are luxurious in comparison (like working in a gaming facility).
Should humanity ever come to a point where a new nobility is born out of social media, let us not forget the logical fallacy known as the ad populum fallacy – the fact that more people support something or someone does not make them more right than someone else. Democracy indicates who is fit to lead in the eyes of the people. It does not mean that the majority are the most reliable source on what is true and what's not.
In conclusion, in a democratic entity, even if you are a well-known person with a celebrity status, you should in no way be above the demands of the law just because of your national or global renown. You are still a citizen, or at least a resident, in a country that should grant privileges that are granted by fame. After all, no one needs to be above the law in a proper democracy.
.jpg)