Page 1 of 2

Critics have bemoaned celebrity worship for degrading society's moral values and blamed the mass media for promoting it. Yet, according to psychologist James Houran, fascination with the famous is human nature and a psychological state of mind, rather than a mental disorder. Only a small percentage of fans have an unhealthy interest which borders on the pathological. Both Elvis Presley and Princess Diana have their band of followers who identify with them and want to emulate them. A scrutiny of the qualities they aspire to emulate suggests that they do not degrade society's values, rather the reverse. Both Presley and Diana were charismatic personalities who have posthumously reached cult icon status. It has even been suggested that the veneration given to each carries the hallmark of incipient religions.

A person without past-times is surely a bored and boring person. Most of us are interested in something. But when is an interest a hobby, and when does it become an obsession? Is celebrity worship healthy, or have we lost our sense of proportion when sportsmen, film stars, pop stars and people who are just famous for being famous gain more adulation than religious or secular "great people"? Why do people react so strongly to some personalities and not to others? These are some of the questions addressed in this article with particular reference to Elvis Presley and Diana, Princess of Wales.

It is more acceptable to be an keen fan of, say a cricketer, footballer or opera singer than of a popular music singer. Apparently, there is something intrinsically more worthy and noble about watching physical contests and attending classical concerts than about attending popular music concerts. In sport, maybe it is related to people striving to excel, to win, to push back boundaries. Sport has been venerated from ancient times. For classical music, the enjoyment is more cerebral and refined. But popular music comes low in the hierarchy as far as intellectual exercise is concerned.

Rightly or wrongly, classical music is correlated in people's minds with middle class, education and educated people, while pop singers are correlated with working class and less education. Even in a time of supposedly egalitarian values, scholars deem the popular but irreverent, working class or "low-culture" individual unworthy to be the subject of academic works (Elms, 2003?). For example, there is only a small body of research on Elvis Presley and not much written by way of serious psychoanalysis. Attitudes rub off onto people who are fans of these so-called low-brow individuals.

Both Elvis Presley and Diana now have fan clubs world-wide. Elvis Presley shot to fame from grinding poverty. He left school at 18, not having excelled as a student. Nevertheless, he had a quick wit and an excellent memory, and he read widely. Princess Diana, on the other hand, was very upper class and reputedly not overly intelligent. The outpourings of grief at her death were mainly from women, many of whom were themselves astounded at their own reactions (Coleman, no date). So we have a working class hero and an upper class heroine, each with a following of fans. Many may consider the adulation associated with both celebrities to be over-reaction. What motivates it?

Based on a survey of 600 people, Houran developed a "celebrity attitude scale" consisting of three levels: - "entertainment social", "intense personal" and "borderline pathological".

The first level, "entertainment social" describes people with a casual interest in celebrities.

According to Houran, people at the next level, "intense personal", cannot separate fantasy from reality. In Houran's survey, such people endorsed statements as "I consider my favourite celebrity to be my soul mate". People's lives may revolve around their idol. Just think of all those people holding vigil outside the courthouse during Michael Jackson's trial.

The final, most intense stage of celebrity worship identified by Houran is "borderline pathological" which can be marked by criminal or dangerous behaviour such as stalking, pestering and harassing, or even murder. People at this level start acting on the belief that they have a close, personal connection with a particular celebrity. Examples of actions carried out by such people include:

Duffett (nd) disagrees with the notion of the "crazed fan" who cannot draw the line between fantasy and reality. Chapman had been a Beatles fan but no longer was - he got close to Lennon by pretending to be a fan. He killed Lennon for being a hypocrite. Moreover, he did not begin as a sane fan who turned psychotic: he had a lifelong history of mental illness. People believe in the stereotype of the crazed fan because it normalises the non-fan and reflects the anxieties of contemporary culture.

Thus, although most fans are probably sane and realistic, they are not viewed as such. Looking at the way the media treats Elvis Presley fans, we might conclude that, whereas most fans probably fit somewhere between the "entertainment social" and the "intense personal" stages, they are generally treated by the media as "borderline pathological", or even as straight pathological. This is why there is a stigma attached to being called an Elvis fan. I doubt that a majority of fans really believed that Presley was still physically alive after his reported death, yet journalists persist in keeping this question alive. Elvis fans have a love-hate relationship with the media because the media keeps Elvis's name in the public eye, but at the same time focuses on the more extreme fans, such as people who dress up in jumpsuits and/or those who make their houses shrines to Elvis. Princess Diana had a love-hate relationship with the media too: she knew how to exploit them, but was pursued and hounded by them.

What is the attraction of celebrity? Celebrity is a by-product of modern life and enhanced by the modern mass media. The media, especially television, presents their audiences with celebrities, "shimmering disembodied companions" with whom to identify ("A grief observed", 1997). But does the celebrity companion provide an empty and unfulfilling relationship? There is certainly an assumption that the world we see depicted in the media is somehow more important, or charged with higher meaning than the environment the majority of us face in every-day life (Winter, R, 1998). This results in a distorted attitudes toward the people who appear to inhabit the "mega-world". It turns celebrities into sociocultural icons undeservedly. This happens not just in the perceptions of marginal or unstable people, but also among the most practical and balanced of us. Our media icons may be prove to be phoney heroes, empty and unsatisfying soul-mates.

Another way of looking at celebrity worship is the view that the postmodern self is no longer willing to "lose itself in irreversible admiration" and that our lack of heroes is a sign not of the lack of heroism in our age, but of our lack of interest in recognizing it (Gans, 1997). Our age prefers celebrity to fame, and we identify with celebrities to console ourselves for our own inferiority and lack of importance in our local setting. Fans of celebrities may or may not agree that they are compensating for being nonentities.

So what is the distinction between celebrity and fame? Chambers Dictionary is not particularly helpful. It defines celebrity as "fame, notoriety", or "a person of distinction or fame", and fame as "renown or celebrity, chiefly in a good sense". Schotman (2005) distinguishes between credit and fame, defining credit as recognition by one's peers and others on a personal level, while fame pertains to a person's public image. Celebrity certainly relates to a person's public image, whereas fame could imply that a person has contributed something lasting to humankind. A better comparison is to say that heroes carry out activities for the good of society, while celebrities live for themselves (Fraser & Brown, 2002, p.184). In popular culture, a singer or group may shoot to fame as a "one-hit wonder" and disappear equally quickly into obscurity. It was Andy Warhol who said "In the future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes" ("Andy Warhol", c1994-2005).

In the end, to be admired in an ongoing fashion, celebrities must be exceptionally good at whatever they do. And the truly great, the heroes, must surely be remembered for making a lasting contribution to society.

Being famous is not the same as being good. Not all famous historical figures have been good people. In fact, those who want to be famous without wanting to serve society often have big egos and may be thoroughly unpleasant people. Good people, such as Mother Teresa, will be remembered for leading by example in her efforts to reduce suffering, and not for posturing in the public eye.

Nevertheless, celebrities are usually known for something. Zsa Zsa Gabor appeared in a number of major films (notably Moulin Rouge) and made a number of spectacular marriages (Gans, 1997). And Princess Diana was at one point the future Queen of England. According to Gans, the celebrity's fame is never fully stable and justified. Diana's reputedly limited intelligence served her in good stead, as did her eating disorders and even her amatory self-indulgence. "The inclusion of Di in the same category as Winston Churchill is a naively hyperbolic expression of the dynamism of celebrity. If she were really on Churchill's level, there would be nothing to gain from asserting it; it would be a simple fact, not an act of faith."

The National Review ("A grief observed ...", 1997) was alarmed at the grief expressed at Princess Diana's funeral, considering that identification with celebrities provided no real relationship and exacerbated loneliness and social estrangement. Many celebrities are famous for very little. Again, according to the National Review, Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe were two of the greatest icons and had talent, but neither was a genius. What they both had was personal charisma, which can be a dangerous attribute.

There are other points of view as to the reason for celebrities' posthumous cult status. Hills (2002, p. 142) considers that enigma is the factor keeping cult icons in the public eye. He maintains that Presley's death cannot be assigned a meaning and therefore contributes to an endlessly deferred narrative. Unresolvable conspiracy theories add to the enimga. There exist conspiracy theories about the deaths of Presley and Princess Diana. Enigma undoubtedly keeps the media interested: they cannot understand the fans' affection for Presley, given the myth of his lifestyle and circumstances of his death. There are inherent contradictions in the Presley story, especially between what people have written and said about him and the aura that emanates from him in his recorded music

Some people bemoan the rise of celebrity in general, and of commercial celebrity in particular, fearing that, as celebrities replace heroes, our culture is degraded, and our morals corrupted. The result can be celebrities who provide poor role models. However, it is hard to believe we are all so gullible. While needing to be uplifted in a mundane and depressing life, the majority of us are still grounded in reality.

Because of a desire to emulate another person, an individual may adopt that other person's behaviour. Kelman proposed three processes of social influence: compliance, identification, and internalisation (Fraser & Brown, 2002, p.188). The Elvis impersonator is the classic example of a person trying to be like his (or sometimes her) role model.

Thus, people selectively integrate the perceived values and behaviours they see in celebrities they admire, and adopt them into their own lives (Fraser & Brown, 2002, pp.200-201.) Fans adopt their perceived attributes, resulting in a transformation of personal values and changed social and personal lives.

For instance, Elvis fans identify with Elvis in various ways, seeing him as father figure, relative, lover, personal friend and as a multicultural symbol. The values the fans seek to emulate include being generous, respecting authority, respecting one's parents, being loyal, having good manners, caring for others, being patriotic, believing in racial equality, and being a spiritual person.

But stop and think a minute: aren't these LAUDABLE values?

There is even a web page ("Tool of God", The M Files, nd) claiming Elvis was sent by God, his mission to bring people back to spiritual values, to fight racism in the 1950s/1960s, and to fight organised crime in Las Vegas in the 1970s. It looks as though Elvis is taking on the role of a saviour figure in the mind of at least one webmaster.