Buddhist Royalty and Celebrity Status

Reader’s Response #2: Celebrity Status

Within Celebrity Status (Kurzman et al), the authors imagined a Weberian analysis of celebrity as a status group. This analysis is carried out in two ways. First, they examine Max Weber’s approach to the relationship between status group and capitalism and second, they introduce the celebrity system, four aspects of the Weberian concept of status, and then compare and contrast modern-status groups to pre-modern-status groups. To begin, Weber defined status as a group characteristic that is constructed upon a specific style of life, better described as honour. Weber hypothesized that status hierarchies would prospectively diminish as capitalism arose. He believed that capitalism would rationalize economic activity which would result in a lack of substance for high-status groups to claim authority and to usurp status honour from low-caste groups (349). In the modern era, after Weber’s prediction, status groups are depicted as remnants of pre-modern times. It is also important to note that in the modern era, one can be of high-status without any celebrity roots through occupation and intermarriage. Also, the celebrity status can be emphasized through media (magazines, gossip columns, films) and even politics and religion (ex. BET’s voting campaign and scientology).
If celebrity is in fact a status, then Weber is incorrect. Within the article, modern celebrity status disagrees with Weber’s idea of status. First, Weber had stated that status systems are under decline and dissolving under the rise of capitalism. Contrastingly, this article reveals that celebrity status participates in a symbiotic relationship with capitalism, possibly created by capitalism itself. Second, Weber predicted that honour would inbreed over the course of time. This statement is evidently incorrect because celebrity status has come to dominate status honour by different forms of privilege: interpersonal privilege, normative privilege, economic privilege and legal privilege.
The article also attempts to portray ways in which celebrity status mirrors Weber’s perception of a status group. Both definitions of status include:
Usurpation of honour
Past VS Present: high status groups did not have media to help reinforce their celebrity status in pre-modern times.
Interpersonal reference of human deference (low-caste is in awe within the presence of a celebrity)
Normative patterns (low-caste wants to be like the high-caste)
Past VS. Present: variability of celebrity influence was more stable for old-status groups
Grant of economic benefits (celebrity status is lucrative)
Past VS Present: in the pre-modern times celebrities only received a small fraction of pay for their work but celebrities of modern times can select the highest bidder to receive their services.
Past VS Present: used to monopolize economic niches but now celebrity status has become its own niche.
Legal privileges and exceptions (celebrities can claim special rites)

In modern times, it is also evident that the celebrity is always recruiting new members, unlike pre-modern times. This is to reinforce Andy Worhol’s quote: “everyone will be famous for 15 minutes” (354). Nonetheless, celebrity is in speed, but forms and decays quickly and has a directly proportional relationship with capitalism.

Structure of the article:
Easy to follow because the sequence of forthcoming topics were listed in chronological order, along with subheadings.
Authors used familiar examples of celebrity status such as “The Rachel” from Friends
Concisely pointed out differences between pre-modern and modern celebrity status
Clearly compared and contrasted Weber’s definitions of status