Let's Give this a Try...

I have always credited stardom and celebrity and the amount of media surrounding them as the effects of a community on a large scale.  As with any community, there will be politics, gossip, affairs, and more.  Word will spread at common places of interest: bars, salons, etc.  In a way, stars transcend these small social structures as their audience (as well as critics, etc.) effectively becomes their community, with common places of interest becoming mass media.  However, I do agree with Alberoni’s findings.  There does need to be social mobility and economic development in order to produce stardom.  I found his point on the Depression most interesting in the acceptance of celebrities within each class.  I think he truly understand the star power that celebrities have, but I do think he fell short when he neglected to acknowledge the political impact that these stars have, which is exemplary more now than ever with the upcoming election.  Celebrities must have some sort of political influence as even in small social structures, more popular people can sway political standings.  Especially today, when Oprah, who epitomizes stardom yet is still completely run by a corporation, supports Obama, we listen.  Or do we?  Maybe we only listen when it’s a star that is socially accepted.  Oprah, for instance, who is a respectable and charitable woman who has risen from the very depths of the social ladder, is more influential than, say, Paris Hilton, who was raised wealthy, and is less than charitable.  What do you think constitutes a star’s validity in this case?  Is it where they came from?  What they do?  Race?  Gender?  Lineage?  While I did find the history of stardom and the various consumption aspects of the reading interesting, I found it a major miscalculation to leave politics out.  In my opinion, just as attaching a celebrity to a clothing line can attract or detract customers, these stars can also persuade or dissuade political opinions and votes.