CELEBS,
FREAKS AND MEDIA LIT
Interview
with Joshua Gamson
In July 1998, Gamson and I met and chatted at a cafe in Chelsea. Wouldn't you know, he has excellent table manners, too. --CM
Stay Free! (Carrie McLaren): Fame has changed over the course of the century. People are no longer famous for what they've done, but simply for being famous. And there's been this shift away from celebrating character to celebrating personality. What are the main ways audiences have changed?
Joshua Gamsom: The main way has to do with the increasing visibility of the manufacture of fame. Earlier on, it was more hidden, mainly because of the studio system, where image-making was tightly controlled. I don't want to exaggerate the naiveté of people at the time, but there was probably more reverence and admiration for stars--although, even then there was a tabloid-driven, tear-'em-down impulse taking shape. The process of making fame is now a story in itself.
SF!: And celebrity image-making isn't the only thing being "revealed." MTV analyzes how videos get made. Newspapers report on how publicity drives book publishing. What do you make of Rosie O'Donnell and her big effect on Broadway ticket sales? A New York Times article argued that her style of on-air plugging has replaced the role of critics. She's "the best ad that Broadway can have."
Gamsom: She's kind of a walking ad for TV itself. The trick is that this is an "actual person," so there's a narrative--her life as a regular gal--that makes her plugging work.
SF!: She's also like us. She's famous for being a fan.
Gamsom: Totally. It's more a case of identifying with her than admiring her, although the two aren't mutually exclusive.
SF!: So why do people cheer for celebrities? Do you think it's similar to the way people cheer for certain companies?
Gamsom: Well, there are different kinds of fans. Obsessive fans, the stereotype, have something going on--some deep, psychological need--that I don't really understand. Most people integrate celebrity-watching in their lives with a lot less reverence. I remember meeting a woman at an awards show in Los Angeles. She was all dressed up, almost in a ball gown, waiting for Richard Gere, and she was really different from the rest of the fans. For them, it was more like a game. This woman was focused on a fantasy. While that is encouraged by the system, it's an almost old-fashioned way of responding. You have to screen out so much information . . .
SF!: Well, yeah, but a lot of people do that.
Gamsom: It depends on what you mean by a lot. If you're talking about a proportion of the population, I don't think it's a lot.
SF!: But everyone reads selectively. I mean, we don't acknowledge things that don't fit our preconceptions. You know how cultural studies types talk about audience "poaching," for example, the Star Trek fans making up their own storylines and characters . . .
Gamsom: Sure. But, again, that's a different relationship than the sort of obsessive, reverent fan. That's a game mentality rather than an identification fantasy. Of course, the same people can have both reverence and fantasies. I think Julia Roberts could turn me straight. I don't know why. At the same time, I'm totally irreverent about it. I think the more extreme fan behaviors get played up a lot and that obscures the more common, and interesting, ways of relating to the celebrity system.
SF!: What about people wearing Nike logos? They're identifying with Nike.
Gamsom: That's people identifying with a commercial image and using it to communicate. But that's different than saying, "I love Tommy Hilfiger," or "Perry Ellis is America."
SF!: But, really, what does it matter whether they're buying the company line whole hog or playing a game if they're still focussed on it? I think the difference is largely a matter of degree. Sure, some people take it farther than others. Some pay an extra $20 for a certain brand, others invent elaborate fantasies. I just saw some guys that had plastered a huge Nike swoosh on their car. They obviously didn't buy it so it wasn't strictly for status.
Gamsom: Right. It's not always about status, and it's more than just an "I believe in Nike" statement of brand loyalty. And, yes, on some level it doesn't really matter. Everything is in terms of consumption. That's what is truly disturbing. It's hard for people to imagine alternative ways to make themselves known to each other. I mean, there are rainbow flags all over here. It's the same basic thing--people marking themselves as a certain type of person, as gay or lesbian. It's become attached to marketing now, and there's a nationalism about being gay that I don't totally identify with, but I have a flag on my car. In a way that's not that different from marking yourself with . . .
SF!: What you buy?!?
Gamsom: Well, the content of what you're marking is different, but it's still communicating a symbol. For a time, at least, the flag was not used for advertising and consumption, which is sort of my point. The symbolic tools in our society are largely about consuming.
SF!: Because as soon as something that's not about consuming is created, it gets commodified.
Gamsom: Yes, but you need to look at what happens at the ground level. People are using available symbols in ways that they've always used available symbols. We need to understand that part of it and not just the corporate manipulation. What's disturbing is not that symbols are getting created--even if they're consumption symbols. People use what they use to communicate to each other, I don't fault them for using what's available.
SF!: But, really, who sees only corporate manipulation? A lot of critics emphasize that side not because they view audiences as passive receptors, but because these issues are so underrepresented elsewhere . . . whereas the joys of consuming most definitely aren't.
Gamsom: There's still plenty of room to point out corporate manipulation. But a lot of cultural criticism involves a bit of sneering at consumers.
SF!: In your conclusion to Claims to Fame, you discuss how the celebrity process is sustained by people who play games with media and who aren't all that concerned about what's real or fake, which is fine when it comes to entertainment. But when "game playing" is also the way people engage with politics or places where truth really does matter, it leaves no room for media criticism or reform.
Gamsom: Entertainment celebrity lends itself to game-playing because there aren't many consequences. And that's not the case for politics. There are signs that give me a little optimism, but I'm not so sure media criticism is the answer. Systems adapt, and one of the ways the star system has adapted is by integrating its own exposure into the system.
SF!: It incorporates the critique. People buy as much as ever, and use more media than ever.
Gamsom: Yes, that's how the system survives. It doesn't survive by suppressing dissent but by interesting people in things they are critical of. What sustains the system is people's actions within it--not their inaction and not their being duped. So when you do all this media literacy about it . . .
SF!: It just feeds the interest.
Gamsom: Yeah, and that's depressing. Other strategies are needed. A lot of the time media literacy gets pulled into the service of the entertainment industries.
SF!: So should critics just give up and call it a day?
Gamsom: No. I'm still trying to figure that out. Maybe we need new types of media literacy. The point is to create alternatives rather than just expose manipulation. I'm not pessimistic about people's capacities to live within the culture. And I don't think people are necessarily living terrible lives because of our focus on consumption. (When they're living terrible lives, it usually goes back to more old-fashioned forms of oppression and exploitation.) But you only get to alternatives when you take seriously where people are, taking into account the pleasures of consumption rather than telling people they shouldn't enjoy it. People are just going to say, "Fuck that." People do say, "Fuck that," and I say, "Fuck that!" I love the Spice Girls!
SF!: I don't mind the Spice Girls.
Gamsom: But talk about products! I mean, I could be a Spice Girl with the right manager.
SF!: They're not trying to be anything other than what they are.
Gamsom: Okay, so media criticism has worked. Here they are telling you that they're manufactured and fake.
SF!: But there are as many people focused on hating the Spice Girls as loving them. They're paying attention regardless.
Gamsom: Right. And people take a position.
SF!: You talk about celebrity-watching as a form of play. I agree that play is an essential part of life, but you don't seem willing to make any sort of value judgment.
Gamsom: I'm one of the most judgmental people I know!
SF!: But would you agree that some ways of playing are better than others? The book Out of the Garden (Steven Kline, Verso, 1993) comes to mind. It looks at ways kids play. They can play with blocks and refrigerator boxes on the one hand, or Power Rangers and Disney characters--which come with whole storylines and character traits. Kline argues that kids play with these differently, that character toys come with rules and limit imagination.
Gamsom: I agree. Now we're talking about kids, which is a bit different, but there are types of play that are less active, less creative, less self-determined.
SF!: I try to be accepting of what people choose but, you know, I hassle my roommate when he sits around literally all day playing video games.
Gamsom: Yeah, but it's not like there haven't been lazy people throughout history, right?
SF!: So what is one alternative?
Gamsom: Alternative uses of media is one, zines for instance. Plug, plug. But I'm thinking beyond media. The option for a walk in the park is always there but it's not institutionalized or encouraged, really.
SF!: We should be creating alternatives, though. We shouldn't expect them to come to us.
Gamsom: Yes, part of the question is why people aren't doing that. And I think that might be more important than media criticism. Of course, some of the lack of energy for creating alternatives is a creation of television passivity. I'll wait for alternatives to present themselves and in the meantime, I'll watch TV. In terms of social change, I think it's much more important for people to be putting energy into organizing different forms of spending their time. It sounds cheesy, but organize some people to go walking. It's the spirit of community gardens, which I love.
SF!: Me, too. So let's switch subjects and do talk shows. What was your agenda in writing Freaks Talk Back?
Gamsom: It was an ambivalent emotional response to begin with, to the shows and how disturbing they were in their representations of gay people and the excitement of seeing those representations on screen. And even more than that, the response to critics. On the one hand, I'm watching this stupid but extremely satisfying Ricki Lake show where the anti-gay bigots are coming off like a bunch of loons and the audience is cheering on the lesbians and gay men. And on the other hand I'm listening to Bill Bennett say talk shows are cultural rot. I'm thinking, "Uh-huh, you really want to shut us up, so why don't you just say that? The one crappy little place all kinds of `freaks' and `trash' get to be visible. . . " So there was an agenda to come out swinging in a talk show sort of way.
SF!: At your reading, you implied it was wrong to think talk shows are vulgar. Any shows I've seen, the people are so dumb, the shows are so exploitative and embarrassing . . .
Gamsom: Well, there are a lot of dumb and embarrassing people out there, and the evidence of exploitation is all over the book. I don't think it's wrong to think they're vulgar, but it's wrong to stop there. Plus, I guess I'm kind of a fan of certain kinds of "vulgarity."
SF!: Let's talk about your starting points. You start out acknowledging, yes, talk shows are exploitative, yes, they're there to make money. Yes, they're manufactured. But another one is the importance of media representation. And I was wondering if that should be an unquestioned given. For example, I'll hear women say "prime time TV sucks. There are no interesting women, there's no one on TV like me." Well, DUH. If you accept all these other givens--that TV is commercially motivated, that it's exploitative and formulaic--then why are you looking for deep, fleshed out, interesting characters there? There aren't going to be people like you.
Gamsom: Not necessarily.
SF!: Okay, if there's money to be made on people like you, there will be people like you.
Gamsom: Well, this is one of the things the book is about. Exploitation doesn't necessarily exclude in predictable ways. With talk shows, it has actually increased visibility for people most TV excludes. Do I think visibility should always be assumed to be a good thing? No. There's some freedom in being invisible. As visibility increases, certain problems get amplified. But being invisible, being written out of existence, is not something I'm going to advocate.
SF!: What about teaching people not to look for themselves in the mainstream media, on TV?
Gamsom: That can be very damaging, especially for people who are very isolated, to just say, "Get over it . . . "
SF!: Oh, c'mon, I'm not saying, "get over it." I'm saying look to other things.
Gamsom: But why do some people get to look for themselves and not others? And what other things are you offering?
SF!: Well, actual people--local organizations and groups.
Gamsom: What if those don't exist? I don't fully buy the statistics about higher suicide rates among gay, lesbian, and transgender teens but I know the damage of not having cultural imagery to locate yourself. And I know that thinking people like you don't exist, or that if they do they are ridiculous or hateful, can really be lethal. There are all kinds of obstacles at the grassroots level that are slowly being overcome, but in the mean time, there's nothing wrong with the shortcut of media visibility.
SF!: As a shortcut, I'm with you. But, at this point, if you want to see strong women in the real world, look around. Unless you live in a cardboard box, they shouldn't be difficult to find.
Gamsom: But visibility in the mass media has been very important for a lot of women--less crucial now, but still important--who didn't have other models of being women, who were growing up in communities with rigid or traditional sex roles. Talk shows and media coverage of the feminist movement, for instance, were really important for that. I don't think people should give up the fight to diversify images in the mass media. Doing that is simply saying to people who have more power, "You get all the goods and I'm not going to expect to be dignified with affirmation that I exist."
SF!: I'm not talking about wanting media visibility but seeking that as an unquestioned given. To get back to what you were saying about alternatives to consumption and media literacy--alternative strategies for social change--I think this is an important one to consider: to rely more on flesh-and-blood people than the tube.
Gamsom: Yes, I would never want to see a political change strategy depend on an industry that has so little interest in political change. In the gay and lesbian movement, people have been naive in sticking with the idea that visibility is the end. It was great having Ellen come out, but it sometimes obscures the fact that we still have no federal protection from discrimination and so on. Now that visibility has been met to a certain extent, things are more complicated.
SF!: What about advertising? What is won and lost when something like Virginia Slims becomes the champion of feminism?
Gamsom: You've come a long way, baby. Right, commodity feminism. You're free to choose your own brand of cigarettes. Out of my way, mister, I'm a feminist and I've got shopping to do! It's starting to happen with homosexuality. Operating in a commercial system, sure, dissent gets commodified. What's weird is that, although the act of commodifying it is regressive, the change that it represents can be progressive. It's a mixed blessing. I'm pleased to see, for example, that segments of the gay population are used as selling tools. There's a sense of, "Great, you've made it," in the terms of the dominant culture.
SF!: You're accepted enough for people to publicly model themselves after.
Gamsom: That is a major change, and it comes with all sorts of complications. It creates ambivalence, and ambivalence is not pathological, it's smart. But creating political strategy around ambivalence is kind of tough.
SF!: You quote Quintin Crisp saying that acceptance doesn't come through enlightenment but boredom. Do you think talk shows are more effective as boredom or enlightenment? Would you rather bore lots of people or enlighten a few?
Gamsom: Through TV, I'd rather bore. I can forget getting my ideas across on TV. Three seconds on Entertainment Tonight does not enlightenment make. There are certain spots on TV where maybe you can do that, but talk shows aren't one of them, at least not any more. TV works through repeated images, and that repetition, rather than some more complex process of cognitive transformation, is what can have a freeing effect.
SF!: Maybe repetition leads to acceptance but it's a superficial acceptance.
Gamsom: Well, it's not superficial for people who have been erased. Again, it's a starting point. It's not like being understood and accepted and loved, and it's no guarantee of political enfranchisement. But I think it's a mistake, which comes from privilege, to dismiss it. Your existence may be distorted, as it always is on television, but whether it's acceptance or tolerance or a superficial "Oh, hi, you're here too," at least it's not erased.
SF!: You write--I'm going to quote you now: "The public display of `private life,' especially sexuality, is not something classy people do. It is improper. . . . It is not so much gayness that is bothersome, it's the publicness." I'm going to play devil's advocate.
Gamsom: Please do.
SF!: Can't this be a defensible position? Part of this is, as you say, "This is my space. You do not belong here." But it's also, "Is nothing private or sacred?" Our whole culture cheapens sexuality and uses it to sell. Some straight people think they relate but really don't. And maybe they see public display and imagine their own sex life; and don't want to imagine their sex life on display. Or don't want to imagine their sex life as being the focus of their identify.
Gamsom: Homosexuality and gay existence comes to be a stand-in for propriety. I agree that it is more generic and not specific to gay people, that a lot of people legitimately don't want to see others touch. I just think people are often lying or wrong about what they're really objecting to. Saying you're gay in a speech act is somehow treated as a public display of sexuality. Walking down the street with a shirt that says you're a lesbian is "flaunting it." That's bullshit, and people need to be called on their double standards. Plus, I also think it's just about a lot of prudery.
SF!: Well, I'm prude! (laughs) I mean, I don't want people knowing anything about my sex life, or even if I'm dating someone.
Gamsom: I'm sorta the same way, and a lot of that probably has to do with our social background, but I'd be willing to enter an honest discussion with people who feel differently.
SF!: As for the speech act--I was talking with some high school friends and that was their take. They prefer gay people who don't talk about being gay all the time.
Gamsom: I'm willing to not talk about it the day it's not relevant politically. And the day they stop monopolizing the conversation.
SF!: So do you see it as a temporary thing?
Gamsom: There will be a time--maybe a couple hundred years from now--that really is post-gay, because of people talking about it all the time and organizing around it. Personally, I'm not really interested in my desire being the most prominent aspect of my life, and I don't really like talking about my sexuality. But I didn't make it politically and socially relevant, and I didn't set the standards which say heterosexuality will be the only publicly acceptable version.
SF!: Back to talk shows: At your reading, you mentioned that a lot of producers have integrity and are smart, politically engaged people who don't want to exploit talk show guests. But is it really integrity if their beliefs don't effect their actions?
Gamsom: Well, you're right, it's not exactly integrity. It's something else. But I can't really blame them for not quitting their jobs.
SF!: If we can't expect people who we agree with politically to act on their beliefs, though, what hope is there for change?
Gamsom: People do need to be held accountable, certainly. But it's important to recognize the institutional confines in which actions take place. To focus on individual accountability alone is a problem. In the case of talk show producers, I'm not sure what holding individuals accountable does, since the production system is strong enough to produce conformity regardless of individual beliefs, and replace people who don't do the job. So those with integrity leave. Great.
SF!: But every situation is like that. Everyone acts within institutions.
Gamsom: Exactly, though some institutions leave a lot more room for people to influence them from within. And I think it's important to try and make conditions to open up room within those institutions, and to focus on the people who are ultimately accountable, who call the shots. This is something media activism is really good for: writing letters to the advertisers, CEOS, boycotts, etc. I'm not saying "Whatever you do is okay," but rather broadening the picture of accountability.
JOSHUA GAMSON'S SUGGESTED READINGS
Leo Braudy, The Frenzy of Renown (Oxford University, 1986) The best history of fame available. The pursuit of fame goes way back, Braudy demonstrates, and he traces the various narratives, strategies, technologies, and contradictions of the pursuit by the famous, the aspiring, and the admiring, from ancient Greece to contemporary Hollywood.
Danae Clark, "Commodity Lesbianism" in H. Abelove et al., eds, The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader (Routledge, 1993) A complex, revealing essay demonstrating the strange relationship between consumer capitalism and identity politics--in this case lesbian identity politics. Clark analyzes "dual marketing" strategies that target gay consumers with subcultural codes that straight consumers are unlikely to notice, and traces the implications of these strategies for lesbian identity and politics.
Christine Gledhill, ed., Stardom: Industry of Desire (Routledge, 1991) A wide-ranging anthology of essays on the production, texts, and reception of celebrity.
P. David Marshall, Celebrity and Power (University of Minnesota, 1997) A theoretical and empirical investigation of the ideological and political dynamics of celebrity. Both a broad overview of the historical significance of stardom and a series of close case studies, this book covers such ground as the "affective power" of stars, the emergence of celebrities in different entertainment industries, and the role of celebrity in political culture.
Wayne Munson, All Talk (Temple University, 1993) A smart, theoretically informed analysis of television and radio talk: the talk about talk shows, the "postmodern" elements of the genre, the mix of scripting and spontaneity, and the social significance of silliness.
Michael Schudson, "Delectable Materialism: Were the Critics of Consumer Culture Wrong All Along?" American Prospect (Spring 1991) A brief, sharp, provocative critique of the critics of consumer culture by the author of Advertising: The Uneasy Persuasion. While sympathetic to the concerns of critics of materialism, Schudson argues that the satisfactions from commodities are far too easily dismissed.
Carrie's addendum: The argument about character and personality in my introductory remarks is articulated by Warren Susman in Culture as History (Pantheon, 1984). Daniel Boorstin writes about about the famous being known for their well-knowness in The Image: A Guide to Psuedo-Events in America (Harper and Row, 1961).