
Paris Hilton And Celebrity Scapegoats
PARIS Hilton is medicre. Paris Hilton is talented.
Fabian Tassano writes:
Some months ago Celia Green wrote about Paris Hilton, suggesting that the case involving her imprisonment could be interpreted somewhat differently from the way most commentators were suggesting. Interestingly, this aroused negative reactions in at least one reader, who complained that Green should not defend a “mediocre airhead”, and argued that Hilton should be viewed critically because “she never earned her fortune, she inherited it”.This misses the point. Hilton is a celebrity because she is good at pretending to be mediocre or ’stupid’. Contrary to prejudice, it actually takes a good deal of talent to do that. If this isn’t talent of the most interesting kind, blame mediocracy not Miss Hilton. The demand that advantages be “earned” is also illustrative of mediocracy, which insists that only those who satisfy mass taste should be allowed to be significantly better off than average — partly, perhaps, because it makes it easier to insist that they should be answerable to society for their privileges. (The mass giveth, and the mass taketh away.)
Of course, blaming the individual is precisely what mediocracy is about, and it will deliberately create opportunities for doing so. Setting up royalty for the purpose of knocking them down later is a human motivation recognised since Frazer’s Golden Bough, but it reaches a shrill extreme in a mediocracy.
More recently, we had a repeat of the hate-Hilton effect, with Britney Spears, who unlike Hilton did derive her position entirely from ‘earning it’. Green has just written a piece about the case here. Hate can take subtle forms, such as being assessed and evaluated by supposed experts. In this case, the ‘experts’ include our old friend Oliver James.
Of course, Hilton is American Royalty…
Posted: 12th, January 2008 | In: Celebrities, Paris Hilton, Twitterings Comments (2) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments





January 12th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
As already mentioned, Paris earns her own money from various work (acting, singing and writing are considered work or famous for something when others do it) and has her own business ventures. I’d disagree about the music album being “mediocre” though. Au contraire, I don’t think it got treated fairly by the public (many of whom asked around for illegal downloads because they apparently felt too stigmatised to buy a Paris product or admit to their curiousity or interest). It was a interesting pop album that mixed different styles into a coherent whole and deserved to be a hit, but a lot of people have an illogical grudge against Paris and want her to fail at every opportunity. Despite this, through media and her various business/entertainment ventures, Paris has made her very definite mark on the world and don’t the haters just hate it! Good for Paris and her fans
January 12th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
I would like to point out one interesting flaw in the facts. The comment “she never earned her fortune, she inherited it” is completely wrong. You inherit money when someone dies. She has not inherited anything yet, and it seems she will not get very much from her grandfather in the future. Hilton does come from a wealthy family, but for the last several years she has earned $7,000,000 or more a year doing what she does. She is indeed a self-made millionaire. She wrote two books that were on the New York Times bestseller list. You may not like the books, but they made money. She made money on a mediocre record, while quality music goes unsought. She was a star of a successful TV show for five years. Finally, although I have no idea why, how many of us can command $100,000 for a few hours to come dance on a table at an upper scale club? Ironically, she made her money the old-fashioned way; she earned it.