Abstract
Focusing on celebrities is often compared to a religious behavior, be it by the actors when describing their own practices or by scholars when using analogies with “cult”, “sacralization” or “sanctification”. Such comparisons appear to be both obvious and hardly convincing, since they merely evoke, without analyzing or explaining. Moreover, they ignore the normative effects—be they positive or negative—produced by any kind of religious analogy. This paper proposes several paths toward a reasoned use of comparison with religion: extending comparison to differences and not only to resemblances; passing from “religion” in general to the plurality of religions; deconstructing the said “religious” phenomenon into several functions depending on contexts; replacing discontinuous categories by continuous typologies and, finally, “religion” conceived as an original matrix by “religion” conceived as a contextual configuration. “Religion” thus appears as a common sense notion rather than as a conceptual instrument, and analysis may then fully develop without being restricted by religious analogies, while comparison may be used as a real tool.
Highlights
Religious analogies have been flourishing since the beginning of the academic literature on celebrity. 1 In his pioneering book on stars, French sociologist Edgar Morin often proposed “equivalences”—to use his own term—with religion, among which the supposed homology between stars and sacredness ([2], p. 77): “So begins the at once mystical, radiant and smiling ascent of theFor a fully developed version of this paper, see [1].Soc
What can we do with such analogies, which abound both in common sense and among scientists? Do they demonstrate real affinities between traditional religious behaviors and admiration for famous people, so characteristic of the modern world? Or are they just metaphors, more evocative than descriptive or analytical?
Few researchers criticized these religious analogies used by specialists of celebrity culture: their approximations, their lack of reflexivity, the way they blur the very definition of “religion” even if it is supposed to provide a key to the phenomenon, their tendency to swell the religious sphere, their spontaneous syncretism that makes them mix up quite heterogeneous religious traditions
Summary
Religious analogies have been flourishing since the beginning of the academic literature on celebrity. 1 In his pioneering book on stars, French sociologist Edgar Morin often proposed “equivalences”—to use his own term—with religion, among which the supposed homology between stars and sacredness ([2], p. 77): “So begins the at once mystical, radiant and smiling ascent of the. Religious analogies have been flourishing since the beginning of the academic literature on celebrity. What can we do with such analogies, which abound both in common sense (ordinary people and journalists) and among scientists (sociologists, anthropologists, historians)? We will try to answer these questions, first, by presenting some examples of analogies between celebrities and religious figures, and their often blurring or critical effects, even when they seem to be helpful; by distinguishing between two meanings of “comparison”, and by turning the common sense term “religion” into a systematic analysis of the various “functions” it encompasses, through the example of fame; and by proposing to consider “religion” not anymore as an original matrix, but as a mere contextual configuration What do they bring to, or what do they take out of, the knowledge and understanding of this phenomenon? Should we see it as a “substitute for religion”, according to an already overused formula, that is to say a “cult” and not just an element of “culture”? And, more generally, under what conditions are religious comparisons epistemologically justified? We will try to answer these questions, first, by presenting some examples of analogies between celebrities and religious figures, and their often blurring or critical effects, even when they seem to be helpful; by distinguishing between two meanings of “comparison”, and by turning the common sense term “religion” into a systematic analysis of the various “functions” it encompasses, through the example of fame; and by proposing to consider “religion” not anymore as an original matrix, but as a mere contextual configuration
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
