Celebrity, Politics, and New Media: an Essay on the Implications of Pandemic Fame and Persona

  • P. David MarshallEmail author
Original Research


Celebrity articulates a very particular form of public identity that more or less is linked to the extensions of the self beyond one’s primary activity and into the complex dimensions of publicity, fame, and into a wider, and by its very definition, popular culture. Celebrity’s relationship to another form of public identity—the politician/political leader—is conceptually and practically connected by their shared relationship to the popular and its articulation through the various mediated forms of popular culture. This connection to popular culture is one of the ways in which power is legitimized as the politician or celebrity is authenticated by their capacity to embody the citizenry in one sphere and the audience in another. This paper argues that there has been a significant transformation in our constitution of fame in the contemporary moment that has fundamentally shifted this fame/politics nexus. The key element of this shift is the way in which digital media has reconfigured our political-popular cultural landscape. It is argued that via the communicative structures of social media and its avenues of sharing and connecting, there has developed a pandemic will-to-public identity by the billions of users of online culture—what is identified as pandemic persona—that resembles the patterns with which celebrity and politicians have operated over the previous century. Pandemic persona has produced a new instability in the organization of contemporary politics as this new public intermediary insinuates itself in unpredictable ways into the way that the process of representation in both popular and political culture manifests itself in what could be seen as legacy media and legacy formations of political institutions and practices.


Fame Persona Celebrity Persona studies Social media Online culture Word-of-mouth culture Instability Politics Fame apparatus Pandemic Opinion leaders Key opinion leaders KOLs Influencers Micro-publics 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.


  1. Abidin, C. (2015). Communicative intimacies: influencers and perceived interconnectedness. Ada: A Journal of Gender, new Media & Technology, 8, 1–16 Retrieved from Accessed 10 July 2018.
  2. Alberoni, F. (2006 - Originally published in 1962). The powerless ‘Elite’: theory and sociological research on the phenomenon of the stars. In P. David Marshall (Ed.), The celebrity culture reader (pp. 108–123). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Barlow, J.P. (1996). Declaration of the independence of cyberspace, Retrieved 24 April 2018 from
  4. Barney, D., Coleman, G., Ross, C., Sterne, J., & Tembeck, T. (Eds.). (2016). The participatory condition in the digital age. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action: digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Inf Commun Soc, 15(5), 739–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2013). The logic of connective action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brejzek, T. (2010). From social network to urban intervention: on the scenographies of flash mobs and urban swarms. International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media, 6(1), 109–122. Scholar
  8. Brockington, D. (2009). Celebrity and the environment: fame, wealth and power in conservation. London; New York: Zed; distributed in the USA by Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Brockington, D. (2014). Celebrity advocacy and international development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Burgess, J., & Green, J. (2009). YouTube: online video and participatory culture. In Cambridge. Malden, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
  11. Castells, M. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope: social movements in the internet age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cheney-Lippold, J. (2017). We are data: algorithms and the making of our digital selves. New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Colebrook, C. (1999). Ethics and representation: from Kant to post-structuralism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Coleman, G. (2014). Hacker, hoaxer, whistleblower, spy: the many faces of Anonymous. New York: Verso books.Google Scholar
  15. Confessore, N., Dance, G. J.X., Harris, R. & Hansen, M. (2018). The follower factory: inside social media’s black market. New York Times 27 January 2018. Retrieved 25 April 2018 from .
  16. Corner, J. (2000). Mediated persona and political persona. Eur J Cult Stud, 3(3), 386–402. Scholar
  17. Couldry, N. (2010). Why voice matters: Culture and politics after neoliberalism. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Driessens, O. (2013). Celebrity capital: redefining celebrity using field theory. Theory Soc, 42(5), 543–560. Scholar
  19. Duffy, B. E., & Wissinger, E. (2017). Mythologies of creative work in the social media age: fun, free, and “just being me”. Int J Commun, 11, 20.Google Scholar
  20. Dyer, R. (1979). Stars. London: Educational Advisory Service, British Film Institute.Google Scholar
  21. Fietkiewicz, K. J., Dorsch, I., Scheibe, K., Zimmer, F., & Stock, W. G. (2018). Dreaming of stardom and money: micro-celebrities and influencers on live streaming services. In G. Meiselwitz (Ed.), Social Computing and Social Media 10th Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 240–253). Las Vegas NV: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Gal, N., Shifman, L., & Kampf, Z. (2016). “It gets better”: internet memes and the construction of collective identity. New Media Soc, 18(8), 1698–1714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  24. Grayling, A. C. (2016). The age of genius: the seventeenth century and the birth of the modern mind (1st U.S. edition. ed.). New York, NY: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  25. Guastella, G. (2017). Word of mouth: Fama and its personifications in art and literature from Ancient Rome to the Middle Ages (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hale, S. A., John, P., Margetts, H., & Yasseri, T. (2018). How digital design shapes political participation: a natural experiment with social information. PLoS One, 13(4), e0196068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hardie, P. R. (2012). Rumour and renown: representations of Fama in Western literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Harvey, D. (2007). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hearn, A. (2017). Verified: self-presentation, identity management, and selfhood in the age of big data. Pop Commun, 15(2), 62–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heimans, J., & Timms, H. (2018). New power: how movements build, businesses thrive, and ideas catch fire in our hyper-connected world (1st ed.). New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  31. Horkheimer, M., Theodor W. Adorno,T. W. & Noeri, G. (2002) Dialectic of enlightenment. Stanford University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  32. Karlsen, R. (2015). Followers are opinion leaders: The role of people in the flow of political communication on and beyond social networking sites. European Journal of Communication, 30(3), 301–318.
  33. Katz, E., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Columbia University. Bureau of Applied Social Research. (1955). Personal influence; the part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Glencoe, Ill.: Free press.Google Scholar
  34. KickFactory. (2016). The average Twitter user now has 707 Followers. 23 June. We blog. Retrieved 23 December 2018. from
  35. Kohn, M. (2013). Privatization and protest: Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Toronto, and the occupation of public space in a democracy. Perspectives on Politics, 11(1), 99–110. Scholar
  36. Lee, F. L. F. (2017). Social media, political information cycle, and the evolution of news: the 2017 chief executive election in Hong Kong. Communication and the Public, 3(1), 62–76. Scholar
  37. Lilti, A. (2017). Trans. by Lynn Jeffress. The invention of celebrity: 17501850. Malden, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
  38. Margetts, H., John, P., Hale, S., & Yasseri, T. (2015). Political turbulence: how social media shape collective action. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Margetts, H., John, P., Hale, S., & Yasseri, T. (2016). Brexit, voting, and political turbulence. Retrieved from Accessed 15 Nov 2018
  40. Marshall, P. D. (2010). The promotion and presentation of the self: celebrity as marker of presentational media. Celebrity Studies, 1(1), 35–48. Scholar
  41. Marshall, P. D. (2014). Celebrity and power: fame in contemporary culture (2nd edition (1st edition: 1997) ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marshall, P. D. (2016). Celebrity persona pandemic. Minneapolis Minn: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marshall, P. D., & Henderson, N. (2016). Political persona 2016 - an introduction. Persona Studies, 2(2), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marshall, P. D., Moore, C., & Barbour, K. (2019). Persona studies: an introduction. Malden Ma: Blackwell-Wiley.Google Scholar
  45. Marwick, A. (2016). You may know me from YouTube: (micro-)celebrity in social media. In P. D. Marshall & S. Redmond (Eds.), A Companion to Celebrity (pp. 333–350). Boston: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  46. Mention Reports (2018). Followers - Instagram report. Retrieved 21 November 2018 from
  47. Milner, R. M. (2016). The world made meme: public conversations and participatory media. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Neely, C. (2018). Japan’s top social media networks for 2018. Humble Bunny. Retrieved from
  49. Pels, D., & Corner, J. (2003). Media and the restyling of politics: consumerism, celebrity and cynicism. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Perrin, A. (2015). Social media usage: 2005-2015. Pew Research Centre: Internet and Technology. 8 October. Retrieved 25 April 2018 from
  51. Pew Research Centre: Internet and Technology. (2018). Social Media Fact Sheet. 5 Feb. Retrieved 25 April 2018 (
  52. Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The concept of representation: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  53. Powell, G. B., Jr. (2004). Political representation in comparative politics. Annu Rev Polit Sci, 7, 273–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Raphael, J., & Lam, C. (Eds.). (2017). Becoming brands: celebrity, activism and politics. Toronto: Waterhill Publishing.Google Scholar
  55. Senft, T. M. (2008). Camgirls: celebrity & community in the age of social networks. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  56. Senft, T. M. (2013). Microcelebrity and the branded self. In A. Bruns, J. Burgess, & J. Hartley (Eds.), A companion to new media dynamics (pp. 346–354). Chichester ; Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shifman, L. (2013). Memes in digital culture. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  58. Smith, K. (2017). “Marketing: 47 incredible Facebook statistics.” Brandwatch. Retrieved 25 April 2018 (
  59. Smith, C. (2018). Snapchat statistics and facts (February 2018) by the numbers. 17 April. Retrieved 25 April 2018 (
  60. Statista. (2018a). “Numbers of social network users worldwide from 2010 to 2021 (in billions).” Retrieved 25 April, 2018 (
  61. Statista. (2018b). “Most popular social networks worldwide as of April 2018, ranked by number of active users (in millions).” Retrieved 25 April, 2018 (
  62. Street, J. (2004). Celebrity politicians: popular culture and political representation. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 6, 435–452. Scholar
  63. Totman, S. (2017). The emergence of the super-celebrity activist: George Clooney and Angelina Jolie. In J. Raphael & C. Lam (Eds.), Becoming brands: celebrity, activism and politics (pp. 21–31). Toronto: Waterhill Publishing.Google Scholar
  64. Tsaliki, L. et. al. eds. (2011). Transnational celebrity activism in global politics: Changing the world? Bristol, England. Chicago: Intellect Books.Google Scholar
  65. Turner, G. (2010). Ordinary people and the media: the demotic turn. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
  66. Urbinati, N., Mark, E., & Warren, M. E. (2008). The concept of representation in contemporary democratic theory. Annu Rev Polit Sci, 11, 387–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Van Zoonen, L. (2005). Entertaining the citizen: when politics and popular culture converge: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  68. Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society; an outline of interpretive sociology. New York: Bedminster Press.Google Scholar
  69. Wheeler, M. (2013). Celebrity politics: image and identity in contemporary political communications. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  70. Wilson, J. (2014). Stardom, sentimental education and the shaping of global citizens. Cine J, 53(2), 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wong, W. H., & Brown, P. A. (2013). E-bandits in global activism: WikiLeaks, Anonymous, and the Politics of No One. Perspectives on Politics, 11(4), 1015–1033. Scholar
  72. Zhang, L., Zhao, J., & Xu, K. (2016). Who creates trends in online social media: the crowd or opinion leaders? J Comput-Mediat Commun, 21, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Communication and Creative ArtsDeakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia

Personalised recommendations