Celebrity Simulacra
Zendaya, Social Media, and the History of Celebrity Culture in the United States.
I’m not a fan of Zendaya. Rather, I think of myself as someone who could, possibly, maybe be her real-life friend. As unhinged as that sounds, I don’t think I’m alone in this belief. Zendaya has managed to curate the perfect celebrity image in a time when the very sinew of celebrity culture is fraying. A global pandemic, economic unrest, increased socioeconomic class stratification and social media have all attributed to the culture's bitter taste towards celebrities. And for their part, the mega-rich actors, pop-stars and entertainers can’t seem to stop putting their foot in their mouth. Gal Gadot’s now infamous “imagine” video was a perfect intersection of out-of-touch “activism” and patronizing messaging. When millions of people have died, lost their loved ones and suffered through financial loss, the idea of bonding over an unequal trauma feels unimaginable.
But Zendaya has only gained a stronger foot-hold in the pop-culture zeitgeist. She has risen from Disney star, to Emmy winning actress, taste-maker and fashion-icon. Her very presence at an event signals it’s legitimacy in the broader culture. Historian’s often look at the metamorphosis of “celebrity” and society's perception of them to measure larger cultural shifts, as described by Amy Henderson in “Media and the Rise of Celebrity Culture.” The Revolution Era of the United States turned to “heroes”, like George Washington, who represented the virtue of a country eagerly trying to define itself. Soon the country desired celebrities that would speak to a sense of optimism, so “celebrity” shifted to the “American Adam,” described by R.W.B Lewis; poets, historians, preachers who sought to “define a national narrative.” At the end of the century, hero-inventors like Edison and captains of industry like Rockefeller earned celebrity status. They were then replaced by people like Theodore Roosevelt. The 1900’s into the 1930’s gave rise to the more commonly known “performer” celebrity.
The most important advancements in celebrity culture:
Exposure: The 1880’s “Graphic Revolution” as described by Daniel Boorstin and Amy Henderson - “a boom in means for image reproduction and facilities for mass dispersion of information” including the invention of the “high speed presses, linotype, halftone photo reproduction” and “emergence of news-gathering organizations such as the Associated Press” which established daily newspapers as the central supplier of national and world news.
Access: Technology advanced in pace with demand for access to entertainers and in the 1920’s the invention of the silver screen granted the public access in their own homes.
Personality: America’s shift from desiring “characters” to “personalities” during the 1930’s, in response to the changing social order of the United States, as impacted by the rise of immigration, a desire to turn inward and the countries move towards consumerism. Personality became “a means to distinguish our individual selves from the masses.”
Image: The entertainment industry we understand today grew largely out of the Broadway boom in the late 1920’s and Hollywood’s subsequent film and television boom. During this time, media generated fame was concocted by a new broker network - agents, PR managers, photographers all facilitated the “movement and distribution of images, information, and money central to both economic and cultural formation. The focus of this was celebrity.” The packaging of the celebrity image was focal to Hollywood in the 1930’s as celebrities represented glamour, style and culture.
While constantly evolving, the traditional celebrity has consistently represented capital and aspiration, defined by audience perceptions. Celebrity has simultaneously been touted as a symbol of productivity, “an illustration of what a successful and moneyed life can be”, while also serving as a commodity for an entire industry. Both product and productive, as Alison Hearn and Stephanie Schoenhoff describe it. While historically important to traditional celebrities, image branding for the individual developed out of the economic shift towards “promotional culture.” This shift creates an image based culture of socialized production, where workers are expected to be “entrepreneurs of self.” Thus,the ability to perform “calculated posing becomes more important than actual skills” and “notoriety comes to serve as a proxy indicator of personal ability.” As described by Hern and Schoenhoff, “increased production of immaterial commodities, such as marketing and branding, demands new kinds of immaterial labor.” Self-help books in the 1990’s encouraged individuals to create their own brands, in an effort to monetize themselves in a volatile work economy. The growth of social media platforms offered individuals the opportunity to become promotional vehicles and fully monetized brands. The ability to be both product and productive was no longer solely the advantage and burden of celebrities.
The democratization of influence, as ushered in by promotional culture and self-branding efforts, developed a pseudo-celebrity that transcends social media. Influencers, with followings that rival the biggest Hollywood stars, have become even clearer symbols of productivity and capital. Their social media pages, which serve as extensions of themselves, are billboards for brands. Celebrity partnerships aren’t new, but influencers are relevant only for their ability to influence purchasing decisions. Unlike the former hero-celebrities who represented virtue, inventor celebrities who represented growth or entertainer celebrities who represented glamour, influencers represent consumerism. Has the broader culture been so deeply consumed by capitalism that there is no longer a need for a celebrity that reflects populous opinions, attitudes or tastes?
The increased importance of social media has been a difficult hurdle for celebrities. Public access through Instagram posts, story’s, tweets, and now TikTok videos has granted audiences a more personal look into the life, personality and opinions of celebrities. For some, this has proven beneficial. The comments on Jessica Chastain’s TikTok are overwhelmingly positive, praising her for “being the only celebrity to do this trend right” (a comment that is ironically under almost every celebrity video - these are trained performers lest we forget.) Ryan Reynolds sarcastic schtick on Instagram has earned him praise from his followers (and also apparently a lifetime deal with E! News instagram feed.) Young performers are often encouraged to develop strong social media followings as a way to signal a “proof of audience” to casting directors. But the tide of public opinion is fickle on social media and praise can quickly become critique. Even the beloved Mark Ruffalo isn’t safe from the internet mob. All’s fair in love and twitter I guess.
Trolls and hate comments aside, actors suffer a unique problem with social media. For an art-form that relies heavily on the artist’s ability to chamelionize themselves into different characters, too much access to their personal life limits their ability to become anything but the artist themself. When an actor becomes too big and their life is too public, all you see on the screen is The Actor Playing a Part. For me, this is people like Tom Cruise, Jennifer Lopez, and Reese Witherspoon. Alternatively, popstar careers are fueled by this very access - Olivia Rodrigo’s song Driver's License was so publicly about her ex Joshua Basset that TikTokers made compilation videos with paparazzi shots overlaid with the song. Social media engages audiences in the most direct way ever and is an uninhibited entry point for cultural influence. Actors who deny the public this access to their life risk their own relevance as celebrities. While incredibly successful and well-known, it’s hard not to wonder if actors like Tom Hardy or Saoise Ronan could be cultural icons with an increased social media presence.
But all this brings us back to Zendaya.
The actress has managed to bridge the gap between traditional celebrity and social media influencer with expert skill. Her ability to be present without overexposing herself has allowed her to remain influential in both the digital space and within the traditional entertainment industry. She interacts with her fans consistently but sparingly by replying to UGC tweets or instagram memes. She plays along when she’s being teased but doesn’t try to take over the narrative (I’m looking at you Gabbie Hanna.) She’s the star and producer of Euphoria - one of the only shows in the past few years to actually provide cultural influence. And although her filmography is relatively short, her work feels specific and inspired.
Zendaya is one of the few celebrities today that still represent society's general consensus of what a celebrity is. She symbolizes aspirational productivity and glamour, but most importantly she maintains a relationship with an engaged audience and an ability to influence broader culture. Other celebrities that have relinquished this relationship and influence serve only as commodities - brands with no productivity. In his 1983 work “Simulacra and Simulation” philosopher Jean Baudrillard explored the relationship between reality, symbolism and society. Baudrillard claimed that our reality is a simulation of symbols and significances that are either reproductions of truths or imitations of a constructed reality. Our current celebrity culture is a component of Baudrillard’s “precession of simulacra.” The dilution of “celebrity” through the growth and accessibility of social media influencers, as well as the increasingly niche nature of people’s interests, has created a culture where celebrity is no longer an unachievable status. When anyone can be a celebrity, is anyone a celebrity?