The Worth of Fame and Fortune: Celebrities, Happiness, and Consumption

It's easy to think about celebrities in the media as living "the good life." Yet, there wouldn't be stories for major tabloid magazines if famous stars lived perfect, drama-free lives. Indeed, that makes them feel sometimes more or less human to the rest of us. At the same time, a lot of these stories about celebrities tend have roots in unhappiness — addictions, infidelity, disputes over wealth, and mental health concerns are just some of the common tales. Despite vast amounts of wealth and prestige, could it be that celebrities lack true meaning or purpose in their lives?

This example seems like an interesting case of the difference between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Celebrities are deeply embedded in a world of consumption, wealth, and pleasure-driven fascination. We hear about their multiple vacation homes, party habits, collections of valuable possessions, elaborate trips, and successes in a given industry. We also hear that many of them are not very nice people, lacking the generosity, kindness, and self-awareness we would want and expect in our friends. Some of these celebrities are popular because they are so outrageous and unpredictable. On the other hand, people are often drawn to celebrities described as "humble," "ordinary," or “down-to-earth" because we want to find evidence that they are still dealing with human problems and worries, underneath the layers of fame and fortune. Of course, celebrities come in all types, from actors, to musicians, to philanthropists, to TV hosts and personalities, to politicians, to athletes, to designers, to inventors, to business executives. Additionally, the media is notorious for sensationalizing news to make it more "interesting" and able to sell. So are celebrities really all the same or do some live "better" lives than others?

While I don't know the answer, there are some trends that point to a state of unhappiness among celebrities, resulting from the pursuit of mainly hedonic goals. Many celebrities' fame is the result of others' approval and admiration. They live lives dictated by others, where their primary purpose is to look or act a certain way, or represent a brand as to maintain feeling good. This results in a pressure to be pretty much anyone but themselves, and a life continually in the spotlight is exhausting. To deal with their unhappiness, many stars try to buy their way out. They seek for meaning in empty places, because they can afford it, rather than realizing what they need comes at a much cheaper price. For example, what if celebrities spent more time on their relationships with friends and family, set goals for personal growth, worked for causes that transcended their own fame, and tried to make the world better for the less financially privileged? Some celebrities do, whether it is the nature of their job or a part of who they are as people. It seems like the exception rather than the rule when we hear stars speak out about injustice, get arrested at a protest, or challenge the status quo. I imagine there are few incentives to be better people when many high performing industries are competitive (or cutthroat), status-driven, and time-consuming. These industries are built to motivate people to be the best at something, whether or not they become the best people in the process. This seems especially true for stars who became famous at a young age. Experiencing fame early on can mean less time for personal growth and exploration during critical developmental periods. Too often, these individuals reach a breaking point of questioning who they are. Perhaps they are caught up in a world lacking trust, authenticity, and meaning that is not sustainable or supportive for well-being.

I sometimes wonder what would happen if actors only received a teacher's annual salary, or athletes were not paid by the game, but by their demonstrations of leadership and role-modeling. Or maybe what if celebrities were not paid at all? What if being an entertainer was seen as volunteer time for the public good, rather than something lucrative? We've seen even in the first weeks of class that money only buys happiness up to a point, a point where people can take care of themselves and their basic needs. And "basic needs" really are universal, even though celebrities tell us all the luxury things they have learned to not be able to live without. It is sad to me that many celebrities are paid by industries that don’t seem to care about them as people and only want their image. Celebrities are some of the biggest role-models for younger generations, and this seems like a great opportunity to influence what success, happiness, and living well looks like — separate from the money and fame. We could better appreciate them as complex people and sharing our same goals, and have more examples of the benefits of eudaimonic well-being.

Finally, on MLK Day it is important to remember the celebrity activists who have been long-standing examples of incorporating meaning and purpose into their everyday lives, sometimes because they are fighting for their right to life. The keynote presentation this morning was a good reminder to me of how recently journalists and artists leverage justice and truth to drive their work forward - hopefully these will continue to push others to think critically about their work in other industries as well.

Resources:

• McGregor, I. & B. Little (1998). Personal projects, happiness, and meaning: On doing well and being yourself. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2): 494-512.    
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/27/pat-obrien-celebrities-happy_n_5717815.html
• https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-is-2020/201010/celebrities-are-you-really-happy
• http://www.businessinsider.com/does-being-rich-make-you-happy-2013-12