In Guattari’s (1995) “Regimes, Pathways, Subjects”, he introduces the concept of machinic subjectivation. As students of his work, it is for us to redefine and build on this concept. The idea of the ‘machine’ ties in closely with the term the ‘culture industry’, put forward by Adorno and Horkheimer (1944). It suggests the idea that we live in a culture which is made for the masses and “produces safe, standardized products geared to the larger demands of the capitalist economy” (During 1993: 29). Drawing from the idea that the media acts as a machine, this machine seems to have the power to construct us (the mass, the audience) into become ‘manipulated’ consumers who have immense desires. Moreover, these desires can only be satisfied if we consume commodities created by capitalistic-driven media producers.
Taking from here, machinic subjectivation becomes a concept that we as receptors of the media machine are susceptible to. How much of the products we receive from the media (these of which are supposed to be a representation of reality) are actually ‘processed’ by the machine into something that is actually deceiving and manipulative? Are we exposed to a reality that moulds us into consumers with endless consumption power? Does the basic idea boil down to us (the masses) being subordinates to the capitalistic nature of society? With all these factors to consider, it seems that the concept of knowledge acquired from the machine is highly subjective and the idea of “what is real” becomes an issue that needs to be acknowledged.
Firstly, we have to attempt to understand how the media machine works. Going back to the fundamentals of how a machine functions: it has to have input before it produces output. I put forward the abstract idea that the machine ’sucks’ the audiences in as input. What they extract from us are our likes, dislikes, fantasies, discourses, experiences etc and our basic characteristics such as our biology, age, race etc. The media machine then packages these symbolic, identifiable information, into products (i.e. television shows, films, celebrities). At the same time, this capitalistic-driven machine commodifies these information, giving it value such that consuming certain commodities becomes highly desirable to the audiences. By consuming these commodities, they satisfy their desires to achieve status, identity, and perhaps ultimately, ‘happiness’.
Celebrities play an important function in this machine. They not only act as “an embodiment of collective configuration within individual representation” (Marshall 1997: 51), they act as a site for meaning and ‘representation’ to the masses. This coincides with the idea of ‘interpellation’, put forward by Louis Althusser (1971), where “ideology ‘calls on’ individuals and constitutes them as subjects of and to itself” (Martin 2003: 214). The audience constantly acts as the subject that is “temporarily positioned or called by himself or herself as having relational reality to the text” (Marshall 1997: 64). With celebrities acting as a site of collective of the masses, subjectivity of the audiences is enabled as they act to identify with, or get ‘hailed’ by the qualities or ideologies (i.e. what makes a man masculine? What makes a female masculine? etc) that these celebrities act to display. However, how do commodification come into the picture?
Ever wondered why the life of a celebrity is so desirable, yet far-fetched? I would argue that this is because the life of the celebrity is not realistic. It is one that is cleverly constructed by personal managers, image consultants, PR firms, advertisers– workers of the media machine. A celebrity is arguably a collective site of us, but the idea that it ‘represents’ us is one that involves “myth-making and power struggles” (Redmond and Holmes 2007: 258). According to Redmond et.al. (2007: 258), “[representation] has a relationship with social reality in the sense that it is informed by the real, is the ‘real’, and shapes one’s understanding of the real”. As a product of the media machine, celebrities work along side the capitalist ideology (Ricoeur 1986 cited in Colman 2007: Lecture) of “distortion, legitimization, and integration”.
Firstly, the machine works on the identifiable-with-the-masses qualities that these celebrities possess (male, female, short, tall, young, old etc). Next, it builds on this concept of identifiability. Let us put this into context. Take for example, I, an audience of television can relate to Blake Lively from “Gossip Girls” because by my standards, she is what I define as a beautiful woman.
Moreover, she may have been one I would deem as beautiful even before she was given the whole celebrity package (this of which is the stage where she has not been made into a commodity). However, she has since been ‘processed’ by the machine and her beauty becomes commodified. Distortion: Attached to her natural flawless skin comes with beauty products and cosmetics to make her look more beautiful. She is made to wear clothes that brings out her ‘natural’ qualities such as her lengthiness and good figure by wearing high-waisted, tight-fitting skirts in the photo shoot. Legitimization: These commodities i.e clothings (high waisted skirts), cosmetics (foundation, powder, bronzer) then becomes desirable to me as an audience/consumer because I see that Lively looks good in it. Therefore, if i want to look as “good” as she does, these commodities become essential. Besides that, I may prefer wearing high heel shoes to look taller because I think taller girls are more attractive. I may not exactly want to look like her, however, her qualities (tall, fit, long legs, long hair, blonde etc.) become desirable to me as an audience/ consumer. These ideas and qualities becomes “naturalized’ in my social realm. Integration: On the other hand, underneath these desirable qualities, promotes the dominant ideology of what makes a beautiful female. To achieve beauty, a woman would have to be slim, tall, have long hair, nice skin etc., this of which consuming commodities (signing up with a gym, buying high heel shoes, putting on makeup) can achieve.
On a side note, see how some audience take desirability to the extremes.
More examples of celebrity wannabes here.
Furthermore, celebrities can sell lifestyles as well. In pictures, celebrities seem to display immeasurable amount of wealth. Their everyday life seems to revolve around “no-brainer” activities such as shopping, eating, beautifying themselves, and attending parties. They seem to lead the lifestyle that the masses desire. One that consists of wealth, fun and enjoyment without having the need to work for it.
However, we as consumers know that such a lifestyle can never be achieved in our reality. We can only desire, envy, and consume some parts of their lifestyle (i.e. going for parties, shopping at places celebrities shop at), but we can never fully obtain it.
The food that these celebrities consume suddenly becomes one that is a high-end product as well because it represents the consuming of the taste that the high lifestyle enjoys. This, is an example of how celebrities have ‘unintentionally’ advertised and attached an added value to a coffee brand (of which i reckon serves only mediocre coffee):
Dyer (1991 cited in Marshall 1991: 19) suggests that the celebrity is the “epitome of the individual for identification and idealization in society”. If that is the case, this seems to suggest that consumers will have endless desires, of which they believe can be satisfied if they continuously consume commodities which are sold through these celebrities. However, the standards of idealization can never seem to be fully obtainable by the masses because social order is never stable. This means standards of idealization is constantly changing and redefined by the machine.
Therefore, this is the process which fuels the capitalist economy of which the machine is an agent of.
Lastly, is there any way out of this desirability of the celebrity lifestyle?
Music critiquing the mainstream celebrity industry is seen more commonly amongst underground bands who write about anti-establishment. However, why did the then, pop princess Britney Spears, attempt a song at anti-establishment as well?
It may be more ‘normal’ for P!nk to sing such songs because she was marketed to be that way– writing songs that expresses her angsty-ness individualism, political-ness. However, the fact that she is still categorized under mainstream music does not make her any much more different from a commodified product of the media machine.
Through these texts, you read that the life of a celebrity is not all about glitz and glamour. These songs talk about the misery and suffering these stars have to go through for being a celebrity. Does this mean that texts produced by the machine is becoming less ‘processed’ and more realistic? Does this allow for the audiences’ subjectivity to be one that is less influenced by the machine? Is what these songs singing about a real self-reflexive of what goes behind the media machine or is it just another media ’scam’ to blur our subjectivity of the system (thinking that these are the negative aspects to the life of a celebrity, but in actual fact, it is much more chaotic than that?)?
With capitalist ideology as an active fuel for the media industry, I doubt our subjectivity can ever be one that is based on ‘real’ and ‘factual’ information.
Bibliography:
Felicity Colman (13/03/2008), “Week 2 lecture notes: Idols of the world: TV machines”, Lecture.
Felix Guattari (1995), “Regimes, Pathways, Subjects” in Soft Subversions, S. Lotringer (ed). New York: Semiotext (e), 112-130.
Fran Martin (2003), “Glossary” in Interpreting Everyday Culture, F. Martin (ed). Great Britain: Arnold Publishers, 209-220.
P. David Marshall (1997), Celebrity and Power: Fame in Contemporary Culture. London and Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.
Sean Redmond and Su Holmes (2007), “Introduction” in Stardom and Celebrity, S. Redmond and S. Holmes (eds). India: Sage Publications, 257-260.
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkeimer (1991), “The Culture Industry: enlightenment as mass deception”, in The Cultural Reader, ed. Simon During. London and New York.
Filmography:
David Meyers, Lucky, 2000.
David Meyers, Don’t let me get me, 2002
Dave Sirvulnic, MTV : I want a famous face: Vived (Carmen Electra), 2007
