Branding, Icons and Religion

We are our own media companies. We create ourselves and ‘brand’ ourselves anyway we like. We are empowered by the web, and the web is empowered by us. But is this really the case? How much are we really in control of our own identity? As Einstein writes in her article, “identities are constructed through consuming”. Therefore, we are not the product of our hard work, dedication and beliefs, but a consequence of what we buy (clothes, cars, laptops etc.). The brands we wear and the things we buy are more than just goods and services, they play a vital role in communicating our ‘true’ identity to the rest of the world. This branding translates to the online world, where the things we share, tweet and like become the primary means of revealing our characters.

This communication is very critical for the “like generation”, not because it reveals their personalities but because it provides a source of validation, as well as connection to the celebrities and the online community. One source of validation comes from the idea of being liked by lots of people. If that happens, you become an icon, a secular source of  “divine representation” that can inspire others. This is where religion and identity branding meet. Tyler Oakley and Steven Fernandez are true icons in this sense, they have the capacity to induce powerful and transformative experiences within a group. Their fans look up to them for a number of reasons, either in search for a life advice or simply to be entertained. Neither Tyler nor Steven expected to reach these levels of followers at first, yet the idea of being liked and “worshiped” as a celebrity was definitely flattering.

After reaching this level of celebrity adoration, how much are they still in control of their own identities? It seems like both had to give up parts of who they are in order to reach that status. Inevitably, both of them had to adjust their content according to their needs or the desire of the fans, whether it was advertising their sponsors or adding naked girls to the videos. In the end, it seems like it’s the fans and the followers who are the true marketers, they have the ultimate power to make Tyler and Steven alter their identities in order to meet the demands of the web community.

Celebrity Worship=Self Worship?

Celebrity icons arouse the religious passions of followers in modern society who find spiritual meaning, personal fulfillment, and awe-inspiring motivation in the presence of these idols (Laderman, 64). Even though Laderman uses the words icon and idol interchangeably, there is a slight difference between them. In the Christian world, an icon is the representation of the divine, whether it is a portrait of Jesus, Mary or biblical stories, that provides a way to communicate with God. An idol is an object that replaces God and becomes worshiped itself. Celebrity icons and idols somewhat relate to these like religious terms. A celebrity becomes an icon if we simply want to be as successful or virtuous as them; and an idol if we start revering and glorifying them through different rituals. Nonetheless, celebrities play a the role of “spiritual” leaders, icons and idols, that move people to action and contemplation through their personal life stories that become the sacred canon about how to live one’s life.  

Americans look to the stars for guidance and inspiration, intimacy and ecstasy- powerful motives that bear on the sacred and can transform entertainment into revelation, escapism into liberation, and mortals into gods (Laderman, 72). Celebrities have the power to provide sacred meaning to our lives, instill power and liberation through otherwise profane actions of  amusement values. But how can these human beings have such a big impact on us? Clearly, celebrity worship must fulfill some of our personal needs that can’t be satisfied otherwise. Just like the simplicity of comic novels allow us to project ourselves onto them, celebrity veneration is a displacement of our deep human needs onto stars. People with low self-esteem and self-confidence look at celebrities for answers. For instance, thousands of people solve their body issues by emulating the perfect looks of the stars. This can lead to fanatic, unhealthy behavior, as in the case of Toby Sheldon who spent thousands of dollars to look like Justin Bieber.

By venerating celebrities we essentially venerate ourselves. Toby Sheldon idolizes Justin Bieber, but because of the plastic surgery, doesn’t that imply that he also idolizes himself? There’s something about human beings that makes them want to be worshiped celebrated and loved. To be a celebrity does not necessitate the possession of deep moral values, the attention of the media is enough to put anyone on that level. Celebrity worship thus provides an easier alternative to the established religions because the profane desire for material things, perfect bodies and achievement of fame is stronger than the hard path of acquiring sacred spiritual values.

Humanizing our Icons: Oprah

As much as our society worships celebrities, do we inherently want to see them fall from their pedestals when we can no longer be like them? Is there a point when a celebrity becomes too unattainable to be like that we bring them down? I think how Oprah has been treated in the media recently shows that sometimes we can’t bear when our celebrities become a lot larger than life, or at the very least, we want to recognize how they’re different from us, and how they’re a bit odd.

We crane our necks to see the night sky, and similarly, the stars are people we look up to. We do so because they have what we want: fame, money, and oftentimes, physical beauty. Celebrities in our culture are iconic because we want to be like them. Actually, the word icon comes from the Greek word eikon meaning “to be like.”

Many Americans think that Oprah’s mannerisms are iconic. Her book club, magazine, and show are things pretty unique to her. But are they really iconic? Do we want to do those things, or can we do them? I believe that Oprah is less iconic, or at least idolized, now because she has become so exclusive/elitist that we can’t really be like her anymore.

When Oprah first got her start, America saw a woman who worked her way up as an anchorwoman, overcame abusive relationships, and had a hard childhood. Oprah was one of the best rags-to-riches stories of the day; in the light of racism and sexism, Oprah’s life and success were “prime mythmaking material, uplighting and instructive” (Laderman 78).

After so many years as a super-power, Oprah has become detached from her beginnings for many people. For my generation, Oprah was never not famous. So it’s sometimes hard to cheer her on as she makes an exclusive tea or something like that, because she becomes more alien, with less attainable goals. Quite frankly, many (young) people try to emulate celebrities by trying to look like them. But as beautiful as Oprah is for someone for her age, many younger people won’t aspire for her looks. And as Oprah created an exclusive network not covered in regular cable television, she became more exclusive and harder to be like.

Oprah also just launched “The Life You Want Weekend” tour, and this became her most exclusive, unattainable thing yet. An article called “Has Oprah come to embody what’s wrong with modern American culture?” takes this celebrity idol and shows us her sins. You can be rich, but not greedy, our society says. And when Oprah said Thank you for your money, I know how hard you all work” to her fans paying anywhere from $199-$999 for a VIP seat, she had a small fall from grace. And people ate it up. She has become too foreign, too “other” for us to emulate.    

Buzzfeed.com, a pop-culture hub for many twenty-somethings, recently made a video “Things Oprah Does That’d Be Weird If You Did Them.” A woman named Ashley goes around and gives/throws pens for all her co-workers, only drinks Ashley” tea, and puts stickers on her favorite things. This took a more humorous for humanizing Oprah’s fame. It’s a parody, but it’s not out of spite. It’s our pop-cultural way to point out that Oprah does some pretty weird things. So when we try to be like her, it’s often with some humor because we know the bizarreness of it all.

We point out Oprah’s flaws because we want to see her as one of us. In celebrities, there’s a fine line between unique and being unattainable. Sure, I can never be Jennifer Laurence, but for many of us, she seems more “real,” easier to emulate and look like, than Oprah. Oprah has united thousands from around the world, used different aspects of faith to teach millions about spirituality, and her followers have undergone religious rituals like writing in journals at her advice. But when has it gone too much? In our society, there’s an interplay between the superpower and the powerful, and Oprah’s reputation in today’s culture demonstrates that.      

Icons and Idols

            Robert Maniura states, in “Icon/Image” that “in contemporary popular culture ‘icon’ is used almost interchangeably with ‘idol.’” This brings up a key question, which is, what is the difference between an icon and an idol? Although many would say that there is a clear-cut difference between an icon and an idol, I would say that it is more of a spectrum that differentiates the two, like a continuum. So lets start off with an icon. An icon starts of as being something or someone that is highly respected. Icons are related to “likeness” because as Maniura states, icons are “taken in certain respects to ‘look like’ what they depict.” Also, it is crucial to make note of the fact that icons can be touched and carried. In other words, they can include actual humanistic interactions from those who view them as iconic. Here is where the icon begins to turn into the idol, though. When a person begins to truly worship the icon, and they begin to get distracted from their God, they are committing “the ultimate sin of worshipping the wrong god,” based on the Judeo-Christian belief, as stated by Maniura. This is the point of the spectrum when icons begin to turn into idolatry. Although the idea of likeness manifests itself in icons, the idea of actually changing oneself to be like that icon is where idolatry begins to come into play.

         This has been an aspect of many religions throughout history, however it also shows up in pop culture, particularly in the realm of celebrities. It may start off with simple icons. Looking at celebrity magazines like People and Us, it is clear that celebrities are often iconic in the lives of many. However, there are other magazines, like People Style Watch, which is more closely related to idols because it is all about celebrity style. This magazine is all about celebrity style, makeup, hair, etc. and its all about getting the celebrities’ looks. This is where people begin to make themselves like these celebrities. There is a section called “the look for less,” so that people who idolize these celebrities can obtain the look for less money. This is a less extreme version of when people even pay thousands of dollars to physically change their bodies to look like celebrities, however they are the same concept.

         It is obvious, though, that many people idolize these celebrities, but the question now is why do we do it? The answer, in my opinion, is that there are human aspects of both icons and idols that we cannot avoid, and that aspect is likeness and following. These are both things that religion provides for people. People want to be like others because often times that is how communities form. People also want to follow something, because being a follower of some group or set of beliefs gives people the chance to form an identity within the world. These are both very humanistic characteristics that in some ways explain our reasoning for idolizing celebrities.

The Fall of an Icon

Americans demand the illusion of perfection from their cultural icons. As “cultural saints” who “establish meaningful and practical values for fans” (Laderman) celebrity icons need to maintain the illusion that they are unreachable figures to emulate. Their power comes from the image that these figures present to the world, not the reality of their actual personality. At the same these figures are held up as paragons to aspire to, there is a desire to find out how what sort of likeness the publicly presented icon has to the private image. This helps to explain the prevalence of tabloids focusing on celebrities. They humanize these icons in ways that make them more relatable while emphasizing their nature as secular icons.

Sometimes, learning more about a celebrity icon can actually destroy their image as a “cultural saint.” Lance Armstrong is the perfect example of this. After beating cancer Armstrong won professional cycling’s most prestigious and famous race, the Tour de France
, an unprecedented seven times in a row. Through partnerships with Nike and his own charitable foundation his image was used to help raise hundreds of millions of dollars for cancer research. For his fans Armstrong was an example of that showed adversity could be beaten, incredible things were possible, and charity was the proper reaction to success.

Throughout his professional career Armstrong was followed by persistent allegations that his victories were the result of performance enhancing drug use. Eventually it was determined that Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs, and was stripped of his titles. As a result Nike ended their use of his image, and his charitable foundation changed its name to remove any connection with Armstrong. Fans turned on Armstrong because the revelation of his cheating punctured the icon’s inspirational image. Armstrong went from a positive example of what could be achieved through hard work and dedication to a negative example of what could be lost through dishonesty. The genuine good he did for the as an icon was based on his image, not the object itself.