« deleuze and on writing | Main | Progressive avant-garde? »
The Fame Motive - New York Times
My friend, Lee, sent me a link to an article in the NYT by Benedict Carey. I wonder if it adds anything to thinking about blogs and why people blog.
Link: The Fame Motive - New York Times.
People with an overriding desire to be widely known to strangers are different from those who primarily covet wealth and influence. Their fame-seeking behavior appears rooted in a desire for social acceptance, a longing for the existential reassurance promised by wide renown. ...
“It’s like belief in the afterlife in medieval communities, where people couldn’t wait to die and go on to better life,” Dr. Brim said. “That’s how strong it is.”
Some critics of blogging associate blogging with narcissism, a desire for recognition, and/or for some kind of careerist self promotion. Given that blogs are ways to communicate with strangers, to establish a connection, a knowing, with those one does not know, is blogging necessarily implicated in a desire for fame? Does blogging provide existential reassurance?
Many of us are quite open about wanting to increase the hits on our blogs, about playing to the audience, wanting more viewers. And some bloggers who do this are clearly not in it for the money--they don't have ads on their sites. So, is it a desire for fame of some sort? To be a celebrity in the blogosphere (I seem to remember some site listing blog celebrities a year or two ago, one with an A, B, and C list .)
If blogging provides reassurance, what is it reassurance against? Against being lost, unknown, in a huge media environment? Does it reassure us that words matter? That someone hears us? Is it a way to produce peformatively a field of registration for ourselves?
I think that blogging must offer some sense of reassurance, of registration, for people to do it. But I don't think fame is the right motif for capturing it. There is a difference, I think, between trying to be on American Idol, and blogging for 30-100 readers. But, is there an imaginary difference that actually makes a difference--we imagine getting linked to the Higher Beings? Discussed at the MLA?
Some have criticized Long Sunday according to a general theme of careerism. This is strange to me given that not everyone here is an academic, one, and that the link between blogs and academic careers has been relatively negative, up to this point. Might the criticism, then, be clicking on some kind of desire for fame or a desire to be known?
The Times piece includes the following:
For most of its existence, the field of psychology has ignored fame as a primary motivator of human behavior: it was considered too shallow, too culturally variable, too often mingled with other motives to be taken seriously.
An assumption, or implication, of discussions of fame is that there is something wrong, something ethically suspect, in desiring it. Fame is too effervescent to matter. Machiavelli, though, and Hobbes with him, thought that a desire for glory could lead men to great deeds.
If there is a desire to be known to a group of thinkers one admires, a desire to participate in conversations with them, must this be ethically suspect? Can it not be ethically admirable?
By Jodi | August 24, 2006 in Blogs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/361357/5779271
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Fame Motive - New York Times:
» On Fame and Blogging from I cite
As the blog days of summer come to a close, I find myself preoccupied with the beginning of classes and the responsibilities of faculty governance (I'm chairing a committee that releases me from two courses but which takes a lot [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 24, 2006 11:04:07 AM
Comments
Yes, I think the drive for fame can be quite admirable. Saying "I want to be famous" means "I want to be widely known" and though this is a bit arachaic, it could also at one point mean 'notorious'. The guy from Thailand suspected of a Jon Benet connection perhaps (we don't know yet) wanted to be famous. But not just famous about anything, rather about one specific thing. It's hard to overestimate the number of psychological variations.
One person might want to be famous, period, the same way a miser wants a lot of money, period -- doesn't even want it so much to spend, just wants to accumulate it, and doesn't care how it is achieved, or around what activity. The fame-seeking person looks around for some vehicle that will operationalize the will-to-fame. Another, perhaps the Jon Benet guy, is indifferent to all fame except the kind that is linked to such-and-such cause, person, or activity. Or perhaps, just like language, we are born with a generalized capacity for fame seeking, and then settle into one kind and lose the capacity for others. Those who do philosophic blogs know their audience is miniscule on a good day, and so they may think they will be excused from the desire for fame and congratulated for pursuing an activity for itself, but that's probably a mistake: philosophic bloggers are doing the best they can with the poor materials at hand -- this is as much fame as they can hope for, the little dribbles of sarcastic and uncomprehending 'attention' from indifferent 'hits.' There's a strong tendency, reinforced by cultural shunning, for philosophers to self-censure when it comes to seeking fame. The outer limit of their star power and thus the iron horizon of their fame-seeking is supposed to be someone like Rorty. Philosophy is "tough" and popularity is "easy" so if a philosopher is popular or famous she must be sacrificing the philosophy for the fame. And so philosophers and wanna be's are instructed ahead of time to run as fast as they can from any but the most rareified audience.
What's your experience on this Jodi? You wrote a book that bridged the divide between popular and philosophical: "Aliens in America." And I'm sure you've seen all the 'philosophy' shelves in bookstores that try to add a big spoonful of sugar to philosophy in order to make it palatable: philosophy and the simpsons, philosophy and south park, etc., the comic book introductions to Derrida or Heidegger. (I'm not comparing your book to those efforts in terms of quality, but solely in the more abstract sense of "an attempt to allow philosophy to speak to a wider audience.") Should philosophers and can philosophers be ambitious -- not ambitious for academic fame, but for philosophic fame.
Posted by: John Ransom | Aug 24, 2006 12:37:40 PM
It may in fact not be uncommon for psychanalysts to discreetly encourage the analysand to actually hold on to that spark which is often disparagingly or self-deprecatingly referred to as "delusions of grandeur."
So yes, maybe there is room to distinguish an honest or even in some sense 'heroic' ambition from whatever fetishistic neurosis (i.e., fame for fame's sake) it was (or maybe combined with a cool lump of cash from someone-oh, just someone–wishing to further exonerate the wackjob parents?) motivating Mr. Karr to "confess" recently, as is, I understand, a fairly commonplace event in high-profile murder cases.
Posted by: Matt | Aug 24, 2006 2:06:58 PM
Here at the UCI summerschool in Irvine, Chicago multi-media artist and activist Floyd Webb said that fame makes crack cocaine look like baby powder, that strong and addictive it is. Floyd said this in context of hip hop and the behaviour van hip hop stars.
Posted by: Geert Lovink | Aug 24, 2006 2:50:24 PM
John,
Although I'm more comfortable speculating with you and Matt about John Mark Karr and the Jon-Benet case (which really is common; one of Lacan's first discussions of paranoia--I think it's called something like the Amy or Amie case--involved someone who killed or attempted to kill a famous person, in part to be connected to this famous person; Arthur Bremer, who shot George Wallace, also fits this category; he wanted to shoot Nixon but missed his chance when he went home to change clothes so he'd be better dressed when the photographers showed up.
At any rate, my friend, Lee, sent me the article because I ruminate on such matters. I worry about my motivations. Fortunately, this worry tells me that something like fame or recognition doesn't actually motivate what I write or do; rather, some kind of desire that what I write or do be acknowledged accompanies it. And I can't decide if this is an obscene stain, something disgusting. This weird icky status tells me that it has something to do with enjoyment, but I'm not sure what.
More specifically, I didn't write Aliens in America thinking it would be popular or bridge a divide between theory and pop culture. I wrote it because I wanted to do something more empirical after focusing on Habermas in the first book and I read a book on alien abduction by a Harvard professor. I very quickly had a question for the book: how can we make sense of the change in outerspace as an American cultural imaginary ? a change from being the conquerors and explorers of outerspace to being the recipient or object of explorers/invaders from outerspace? So, for me, the whole process was generated by the idea, not by a goal of reaching a broader audience or of making something complex more simple (it was pretty simple to begin with!!)
On Philosophy and the Matrix, say, or the comic book Lacan--I think these are terrific as lures, seductions, introductions. Rarely does one remember who wrote or edited them (although Darian Leader did the Lacan book and he is himself a very interesting thinker). So, I don't think there is something wrong with popularizing at all. I do think there is something wrong with a culture that demonizes intellectual thought and that makes it seem as if any book with footnotes or with words of more than 3 syllables is over the heads of most readers. It's amazing when we recall that Marcuse was read by everyday readers. And, isn't that at least the case with some of Foucault's writing (I read Madness and Civilization for fun before I even knew that Foucault was a big deal).
All this said, I like your parallel with the miser--fame for fame's sake. This seems undignified, not worthy of admiration, because it doesn't add anything--it doesn't let fame accompany something that might be beneficial or that might contribute to something concretely.
Maybe an example: an artist who hides all her work might be thought of as one extreme, a kind of pure soul who has a combination of contempt/disregard for the views of others or fear of letting others see her work; at the opposite pole might be someone who makes 500 foot tall Mickey Mouse's with pronounced genitalia, hoping thereby to 'get noticed.' There doesn't seem much integrity in this. With Aristotle, we might do better to look for something in between.
Posted by: Jodi | Aug 24, 2006 2:51:16 PM
Geert--that's fascinating. And, I guess he meant something like 'fame itself'--not just the material benefits of it? Or, perhaps these are inextricable? Differently put, famous people can get into clubs, get free drinks and cool free stuff, that mortals have to pay for.
Posted by: Jodi | Aug 24, 2006 2:53:14 PM
With all due respect, such insinuating images of Aristotle–whether intended or otherwise–may take a few moments to seep in.
Posted by: Matt | Aug 24, 2006 3:17:14 PM
Matt--hmm. I reread the last couple of sentences of my remark. Yep...I'm not gonna touch that with a ten foot pole.
Posted by: Jodi | Aug 24, 2006 3:31:09 PM
It's not so much the number of hits, but the really strange search terms that I enjoy. Got "tyra banks says diet pills" the other day. How did I come up in that search? I know I made a comment about Tyra Banks a few weeks ago, but there must be thousands of other pages with higher rankings in Google's than mine. I also get a lot hits on anti-biotics for pets and coyotes. (Today: "Will coyote eat my dog?" from somewhere in northern Alberta.) And, again, I'm not sure it is fame as such that is interesting, but the proliferation of your thoughts. "How did that person ever come to link to me?" "Why am I on that person's blogroll?" "Why do so many people come to my site from Kotsko's?"
(And, in case it wasn't clear: I'm not the person pretending to be me who has left altogether too many comments. A sign of fame, for sure - although I'm actually far more boring than my doppleganger.)
Posted by: Craig | Aug 24, 2006 5:29:48 PM
"Why do so many people come to my site from Kotsko's?"
That one's easy; it's just Kotsko.
Posted by: Troll of Not~Craig/Not~Toad | Aug 24, 2006 6:14:34 PM
Dear Craig,
Hoo, hoo ever appropriated your name? Not eye. Consider it an "homage," negated. And anyone who "trolls" K-Co's Jerklog for Jee-sus should be complimented. In fact in the Brave New J.Edgaropolis, the activity known as trolling might be one of the few libertarian-leftist sorts of "joissance" remaining. Besides, a decent troll (o the days of alt.slack and Iceknife) far more effective at authentic revolutionary Praxis than the latest Pissdrinker-in- Chief at ye olde MLA.
Sincerely,
~craig
Posted by: ~craig | Aug 24, 2006 6:44:33 PM
And I can't decide if this is an obscene stain, something disgusting.
I have to say that I prefer interactions with someone who worries about whether it's "disgusting" - though this is a bit strong a reaction, isn't it? - than someone who seeks 'fame' (or recognition, or however it might be put) without reflecting on the possibility of such motivations whatsoever - or, worse, imagining that they have to negate someone they imagine 'has it' so as to acquire some semblance of recognition for themselves.
'Imagine' - because I doubt that anyone, even the most 'famous', actually 'has it', in any secure, proprietal sense. (Isn't this part of the reason, reaching back through threads, why Derrida is moved to disavow 'Derrideans', or Marx to insist he is not a 'Marxist'?) Maybe another way to put that is: Be careful what you wish for.
Anyway, more simply: I can't see why worrying over one's motivations should be a problem.
Posted by: s0metim3s | Aug 25, 2006 1:22:24 AM
I wonder whether "fame" might be translated into the more favorable term "reach." I'd like my work to be read widely, and perhaps have a wide effect (relatively speaking, of course). In order for this to happen, the construction of my work would have to change a bit - or perhaps even radically. With the current project, this just isn't going to happen. But perhaps with the next?
I find it nearly impossible to disentangle the desire for "reach" from the desire for "fame." Save some gut sense that were I to keep the ends of the work in view, I might avoid the perils of aiming for fame.
As a sort of personal shorthand - hopefully not just a euphemism - I use the word virtu to describe to myself what it is that I am up to and after.
And then underneath it all is the tension that arises between what will get me where I'd like to go professionally (as a professor) and what I'd like to do for the sake of doing it. But "fame" isn't quite a synonym for professional success, at least not for me.
Posted by: CR | Aug 25, 2006 1:49:53 AM
CR--I like the substitution of 'reach', but then I'm led back to my initial question and John's remarks: why accept the premise that there is something unadmirable, disgusting even, in a desire for fame? But, you might be right: does a pop singer want her songs to reach a lot of people because she wants to make them happy? does she want to reach them because reach is a euphemism for profits? does she want to reach them because of a desire for fame?
I think that today's subjects are more fragile than ever and that a desire for something like fame or reknown, a desire to be known, is a way of ensuring people that they exist. (Bruce Fink describes the obsessive neurotic as asking the question 'do I exist' or 'am I alive or dead'; the hysteric asks, 'am I who you say I am?' Both might seek reassurance through something like fame.)
Posted by: jdean | Aug 25, 2006 9:53:13 AM
I think you're right, Jodi, to put pressure on the concept of fame and our reluctance to embrace it.
Academia is a bit more complicated, in a good way, than other fields of intellectual endeavor. My wife runs in the non-fiction / left journalistic crowd - a la the Nation etc. And there are immense pressures brought to bear upon someone in that situation - if their writing is attractive and smart - to trade ideals for access, truth for success and a perhaps a dribblet of fame. Toward the end of our time in NYC, and just before we had a baby, she was approached by "women's magazines," popular ones, looking for her to empty out her snazzy writing style... as well as book editors out for a new chick lit face.
I am very, very proud of her for turning all of these things down in order to work on something of substance. She definitely wants to be "famous," I'm sure of that, but not at the cost of the reasons why she began writing in the first place.
In that field, there often are situations in which the equation is distinctly value vs. fame, ideals vs. success. For academics, though, at least in the humanities, the situation seems to be very different, more complex. For me to try to write a book publishable by Verso would 1) likely make me more "famous" and 2) truer to my ideals than to write one publishable by, say, Oxford Unversity Press. But the latter would bring me far more professional esteem, if fewer readers.
The problem with the humanities, as well as perhaps the best thing about it, is the fact that it still embraces depth over width, scholarly penetration rather than wide-appeal, significance, effect. This is the greatest problem, perhaps, for me with being an academic. I feel that I am expected to write something useless, legible to only a few experts. But I am glad, on the other hand, that my career isn't determined by book sales or CNN appearances. What a bind.
I know you're trying to talk about this more broadly, and I keep bringing it back to my little preoccupations about my own work. But I do think it's an interesting question...
Posted by: CR | Aug 25, 2006 1:22:02 PM
CR--I think your personal reflections here are quite helpful. Your wife's situation made me think about a scientist: we would be worse off, I would think, if scientists gave in to a pressure to popularize their findings, or get them out so quickly that the precision necessary for their findings to be helpful were lost (the details about the necessary composition of the metals for a bridge, the vaccine, etc). It's harder to recognize the value of something like nuance and precision in the humanities and social sciences. But, this doesn't mean that it isn't important.
On academic writing more specifically: I think that I tend to navigate this by trying to have specific readers in mind. Sometimes I think of the readers as a narrow group, other times as a broader one. And, sometimes I have in mind different readers. So, for Aliens in America, I had in mind folks who read in cultural studies--a very broad category--and folks who read in political theory. Yet, the latter group was also narrower than that, folks who read in democratic and poststructuralist theory. I also had a loose idea about 'bookstore intellectuals' of the kind who might pick up books on odd topics in conspiracy theory and popular culture, folks who wouldn't be interested because of a specific intellectual project (like, I tend to read books on freaks and critiques of neoliberalism). Publicity's Secret, in contrast, was written with readers of Habermas in mind, particularly those in democratic theory and in media studies who draw on his notion of the public sphere; I also had in mind folks interested in ideology. The narrowness of focus made a massive difference; the latter book, which I think is better, has sold about a quarter of the number of copies of the first. Still, in each case, the project, the arguments (in the largest sense) determined the book.
I guess what I'm saying is that you can write for Verso and for Oxford, letting the project determine the mode of its dissemination.
Posted by: Jodi | Aug 26, 2006 11:15:52 AM
Post a comment
Please note: comments are published at the discretion of the post's author and will not appear immediately. Do not submit comments more than once.
