In Which I Don't Even Make Fun of the Dating Service Part

I came across this story by Doug Worgul last weekend and something about it stuck in my craw. It's a story about saving the children from being obsessed with celebrities:

In Psychology Today, writer Carlin Flora suggests that America's fascination with celebrity is a symptom of a larger cultural obsession with the three A's -- affluence, attractiveness and achievement. Celebrities seem to embody all of these.

Affluence, attractiveness and achievement are understandably desirable, and certainly not inherently harmful, but fixation on these can sometimes divert individuals, especially young people, from other values, such as community, charity and commitment.

The part that caught my eye was this:

Flora quotes psychologist James Houran, who says that in a secular society the "need for ritualized worship can be displaced onto celebrities."

"Nonreligious people tend to be more interested in celebrity culture," Houran says. "For them, celebrity fills some of the same roles the church fills for believers, like the desire to fit into a community of people with shared values."

I don't think "nonreligious" people are more interested in "celebrity culture"--my own unscientific observation is that people who are "religious", in the way that equates with feeling superior to others who don't mouth the same pieties you do, tend to be more interested in "celebrity culture", because it's so fun to be shocked at and tut-tut the stars' antics. (Nonreligious people might very well be more interested in the things celebrities do for a living, like making movies or music, but that's not the same thing as "celebrity culture"--whatever that's supposed to be.)

As it turns out my observation doesn't appear to be any more unscientific than Houran's, if Flora's Psychology Today article is any indication:

In a secular society our need for ritualized idol worship can be displaced onto stars, speculates psychologist James Houran, formerly of the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine and now director of psychological studies for True Beginnings dating service.

Oh--he "speculates". Worgul neglected to mention that. He also left out the word "idol", oddly enough. And now that you mention it, he put it all in quotes, attributed to Houran, but Flora paraphrases the good doctor, she doesn't quote him.

The Flora article continues:

Nonreligious people tend to be more interested in celebrity culture, he’s found, and Houran speculates that for them, celebrity fills some of the same roles the church fills for believers, like the desire to admire the powerful and the drive to fit into a community of people with shared values.

Again with the speculation. Again with the paraphrase. But that doesn't stop Worgul from putting quotes around what "Houran says". Odd, that, especially since he takes further liberties with the "quote", leaving out how people go to church to "admire the powerful". Hmm.

Worgul is clearly trying to paint a particular picture of religion, against a different picture of "celebrity culture" and the "nonreligious". Mustn't let any talk of "idols" or "the powerful" in there to dilute the message. He also gives the distinct impression that this is the whole point of the Psychology Today story, when in fact religion figures in one paragraph of the article.

Oddly, too, Flora's article was published almost two years ago. And it doesn't mention the "three A's" that Worgul says Flora "suggests" are America's "larger cultural obsession"--the words "affluence" and "achievement" don't even appear in her article, though she does mention the other A, "attractiveness". Once.

Worgul's prescription for celebrity obsession is to teach kids to be skeptical and to think critically. Good advice for reading his article, too.

Zing!