Organising Celebrity – Social Mobility and Symbolic Violence In England's Green and Pleasant Land

According to Cohen (2013), celebrity represents the most distilled form of social mobility. The paper draws on 60 interviews with celebrities from different sectors (entertainment, medicine and business) in which they talk about their life, work and musical tastes. It identifies differences between these sectors in terms of the logic of celebrity and this is reflected in differences in accounts between these different sectors. For example the way in which doctors are constituted as self-sacrificing, collegiate and ‘noble’ is in contrast to the portrayal of individualistic heroic endeavours of celebrity entrepreneurs that justify accumulation of wealth and sidestep questions of exploitation. The constitution of celebrity doctors avoids engagement with thorny issues such as high rates of marital breakdown and drug and alcohol abuse amongst medical professionals, as well as medical errors and financial motivation. In contrast to the white, middle class nature of elite doctors, business and entertainment professionals are drawn from a more diverse range of backgrounds. With regard to the latter, celebrity accounts of mental illness have been viewed as reducing stigma and to be welcomed. However, the constitution of such celebrities is a world away from the lived experiences of ordinary citizens grappling with mental illness. Despite the differences between the different celebrity sectors, there is a common thread insofar as celebrity is implicated in providing reassurance and hope in relation to the existing order and especially the distribution of power and resources in society. In contrast to Cohen, this paper drawing on Bourdieu’s Distinction and Giddens’ writings on ‘distanciated instances’ suggests that far from reflecting social mobility,  the organization of celebrity contributes to the maintenance and reproduction of societal inequalities on a grand scale.