Larissa Oakley

Professor Padgett
ENGL 102
Feb3ruary 27th, 2016
Bibliography and Source Analysis
Inquiry: How is society affected by celebrity worship?
Proposed thesis: Society is too heavily influenced by celebrities.
Cashmore, Ellis. Celebrity/Culture. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2006. Google books.
This textbook is heavily based on modern society's view on celebrities. One chapter discusses the
relationship that fans have with celebrities. When discussing the history of celebrities, Cashmore
states "There's nothing unique, nor indeed unusual about bestowing divine status on mere
mortals" (Page 78). Cashmore talks about celebrities being an ideal part of society for as long as
history has been recorded. By using terms such as "millennial cults" (Page 78), Cashmore alludes
to the negativity behind our current generation's obsession with celebrities. Though some terms
are a little extreme, the underlying messages are true. Cashmore discusses how "we do get the
feeling that we 'know' celebrities"(Page 80). Cashmore tells how, even if we don't care, we all
have an "unavoidable relationship"(Page 80) with celebrities. This source is very helpful in my
argument. It discusses how even those in society who consider themselves indifferent on a
celebrity are still impacted by them. The source is a textbook, and the author is a Professor of
Culture Media and Sport, therefore I find it credible.

Caulfield, Timothy. "The Celebrity Illusion." The Chronicle of Higher Education. N.p., 13 Apr.
2015. Web. 27 Feb. 2016. <http://chronicle.com/article/The-Celebrity-Illusion/229197/>.

Comment [RJ1]: You used a lot of quotes

through out this whole thing which was really
nice.

Caulfield does an impressive job of incorporating a personal investigation into this Chronicle
Review article. Caulfield infiltrated an American Idol audition in the hopes to, as he states, "get
as close as I can to the phenomenon of celebrity". Caulfield discuses how celebrities influence all
aspects of our lives from health to career goals. Caulfield points out that if celebrities were not
huge influences on society, they would not be paid very much by advertisers. I find all of his
points to be extremely helpful for my research. Caulfield also discusses the relationship between
the "American Dream" and the realistic truth about our ability to move up the socioeconomic
ladder. Unrealistic goals like these cause celebrity ideology to harm our society. Caulfield
questions "Is it a coincidence that countries that fair relatively poorly with respect to social
mobility, happiness, and education also embrace celebrity culture and reach-for-the-stars
mentality?" The discoveries in this article help to put into perspective a lot of discoveries that
will help shape my argument. I find this source to be credible due to the fact that it comes from a
Peer-Review and seems to be extremely well thought out and executed.

Gamson, Joshua. Claims to Fame: Celebrity in Contemporary America. University of California

Press: Berkley and Los Angeles CA, 1994. Print.
This is the most dated of my sources. This book discusses the effect of celebrity on the twentiethcentury. Although, a lot of things have changed technologically since then, many concepts are
still the same. Gamson discusses how the public can "make people famous"(Page 39). The book
discusses that we are invested into celebrities because we feel like we chose them to be
celebrities. We want to "see through the publicity-generated, artificial self to the real, deserving,
special self"(Page 39). Gamson also talks about the "illusion of intimacy"(Page 44). The book
discusses the concepts of reality shows and talk shows that seem to throw us into a "sense of
familiarity"(Page 44). Small businesses can thrive off of displaying and bragging about

celebrities shopping, dining, or experiencing whatever service provided. Examples like this help
show how even small everyday tasks done by celebrities can cause a huge impact on our society.
In the conclusion, the book discusses the concept of how politics "mimics, and sometimes
borrows techniques directly from, entertainment celebrity"(Page 189). It talks about how
political figures grace magazine covers just as easily as entertainers, and the way politicians read
scripts written for them and are coached just like entertainers. If our political figures are treated
as celebrities, then how are we to be able to distinguish from the two. Our society is massively
effected by relating to people we feel willingly share themselves. I feel that this source is
credible because it brought a lot of concepts to my attention. I also noticed that it was referenced
in some of my other sources.
Kurzman, Charles., Chelise Anderson, Clinton Key, Youn Ok Lee, Mairead Moloney, Alexis
Silver, and Maria W. Van Ryn. Celebrity Status. Sociological Theory 25 (2007): 34767. JSTOR. Web. 27 Feb. 2016. < http://www.jstor.org/stable/20453088>.
This is an excerpt chapter from the textbook Sociological Theory. The excerpt is heavily
influenced by Weber's absence of celebrity and how celebrity does not fit into the ideology of a
status group. The excerpt talks about how "celebrities are a creature of capitalism"(Page 8). It
mentions that celebrities need a reputation and an audience in order to remain a celebrity. The
text mentions Public Relations aiding in celebrity status. In our society, celebrities who do
charitable work are considered good people. However, we do not usually stop to think about if
they are coming up with the ideas themselves. The excerpt discusses how "we recall every
instant that we-and our relatives and friends-spent near a celebrity"(Page 10). It discusses how
we "consider ourselves honored"(Page 11). It even discusses the concept of "groupies"(Page
11).. The excerpt talks about how these can be negative effects, which help my argument. Even if
an experience with a celebrity was unpleasant, we would still tell people about it. I find this to be

Comment [RJ2]: Just in general on all of your

annotations I would go into to why the source
is creditable.

extremely credible because it was published by the American Sociological Association. It was
written by multiple professors.
Lindenberg, Siegwart, Janneke F. Joly, and Diederik A. Stapel. The Norm-activating Power of
Celebrity: The Dynamics of Success and Influence. Social Psychology Quarterly74.1
(2011): 98120. JSTOR. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.
This is an excerpt from Social Psychology Quarterly. Early in the excerpt it states "Celebrities in
good standing generally have prestige, and we know from many studies that prestige makes
people special, gives them extra significance, and thereby increases the weight of their
opinions"(Page 102). The excerpt heavily discusses celebrities and how they influence social
norms. It states that certain goals can "greatly increase the potential influence of celebrities on a
norm activation by spreading the activation to a network of goal-related norms". Since celebrities
are prestigious, they hold power over us. They can influence us greatly especially if they are
associated with a specific social norm. The writers conducted two studies that involved showing
celebrities who endorse certain social norms, and then studied the participants willingness to
participate in these norms. The study showed that celebrities that are associated with certain
norms have an extreme impact. The study states "increasing the level of oughtness of social
norms can have considerable macro effects on norm conformity and social control"(Page 114).
Lesser known celebrities "had a negative influence on the activation of the particular norm"(Page
114). The study also showed that the celebrities still had an influence even if subjects of the
study stated they did not view the celebrity as a role model. This article may not be as helpful to
my argument because it is a little bit hard to understand the study results. However, the
conclusion statements are very helpful.

Tugend, Alina. "Sometimes Its Good Not to Forgive." The New York Times. The New York
Times, 22 Feb. 2013. Web. 27 Feb. 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/yourmoney/why-its-not-always-good-to-forgive.html?_r=0>.
This is probably the least credible of my sources. This comes from a commercial source.
However, I do think that the article makes some interesting points. This article talks about why
society is so easily forgiving of celebrities who commit crimes. The article talks about Lance
Armstrong's drug use, and Mike Tyson's rape conviction. The article written by Tugend states
that we "imbue celebrities with traits they don't have because that's the image they are trying to
sell". We forgive celebrities because we view it as the right thing to do. This helps my argument
because it shows that society holds celebrities to high standards, but refuses to hold them
accountable when they let us down. The article does make some compelling statements by
throwing it back on society when it states "We feel let down by them. That's more our fault than
theirs". This shows us that as a society we tend to be forgiving of celebrities because we feel
guilty for holding them to such high standards in the first place. I think celebrity crime
forgiveness can play a key role in my argument, but I feel that this article may not be able to
provide too much help.

Overall this was great! There really is not much I would change minus small little nit picky
things. Just adding why your sources are creditable and maybe cutting out some of the smaller
details from your annotations. Just decide what the main focal points of each source is.