Pop star Britney Spears appeared to have truly hit rock bottom after an infamous standoff incident at her
The question on everyone’s mind in light of a string of disturbing events involving the star seems to be, what or who is responsible for Britney’s Breakdown? Recently it has become common practice to “diagnose” Britney Spears. Other celebrities, fans, anti-fans, media pundits, journalists, etc. have created competing narratives of the origins of her private-made-public spectacle. These narratives are based in both fact and fiction as she exists in reality and cultural imagination simultaneously. The discourse of media representation seems to be the most salient for fans and stars in the entertainment industry to understand Britney and the trajectory of her fame. ‘The Media’ is said to have invaded Britney’s privacy as stalkerazzi archive her every move on camera. The paparazzi as a re-envisioning of the panoptic gaze produce a system of constant surveillance on the pop tart. Many highly visible celebrities agree, citing the repressive force of photographers in spaces where they are not normally sanctioned. Subsequently, this gaze on Britney for public consumption induces an ‘acting out’ in her private life.
Spears is then constructed as a victim of an institutional power and a fetishistic desire for her “to be looked at” and circulated as an image. The media is seen to precipitate and profit on her downfall by judging her actions incessantly. This criticism and microscopic reporting of her daily existence propels the “Leave Britney alone!”[1] mentality amongst Britney advocates. It is important to note that conversations in this discourse are less about Britney’s potential illegal or illicit activities, but more about the fact that we, the audience, should not be privy to them because of their location in the private sphere—we should not “look.” Instead, audiences are allowed and expected to consume the image of Spears as a victim of fame, a fallen princess to entertainment.
Yet it is precisely this construction of Britney as victim in popular opinion that is peculiar because of the nature of her crimes. Britney’s body is a site of disruption to the discourse of fame in this particular era of her stardom. This is most exemplified by the incident of Britney shaving her head. In contrast to the idea of biopower producing docile bodies, Spears’ body proves time and time again to be not disciplined.[2] Her deviant body resists the self-regulation that should occur because of even the potential of being watched, yet Britney does not adhere to this. Therefore she has to be restrained both figuratively and literally.
The image of Britney’s literal restraint in the beginning anecdote portrays her as a threat to not only others, but more importantly a danger to herself. Here Britney’s fame can also be considered through the lens of a discourse of mental health. Her erratic behavior has created a conversation in the public around her mental competency where actual clinical diagnoses are being offered to explain her breakdown.[3] Is she bipolar? Did she shave her head during a manic phase? Does she have multiple personalities? Is she suffering from post-partum depression? These questions circulate within the Britney spectacle when before her controversial actions (getting hitched in Vegas for 55 hours for example) were simply seen as media ploys to saturate the market with her brand keeping her current in the eyes of popular culture. In the aftermath of the mini-hostage situation with her son, she is placed in the psychiatric ward of a hospital. This is crucial because Britney has completed stints in rehabilitation centers such as famed Promises for substance abuse. So the trajectory of a Britney diagnosis has gone from “fame whore” to drug addict to legitimately mentally ill, where even Dr. Phil comes to visit her in the facility—and later does ample press about the meeting to the disdain of Spears’ own family.
After the incident at the home, the judge in her custody case promptly gave full custody to Federline. Most recently Spears has now been identified as not only unfit to parent, but not capable of taking care of her own well-being—her father was granted conservatorship over her estate by court officials. Here, discourses of the family and the law work together to undermine Britney as a subject and to increase her visibility in the media. Yet her reprimands are not a result of her position doing the work of a celebrity, but rather from actions in her personal life made public. She is discussed in the media as a bad and more so, a negligent, mother.[4] In fact her inability to parent is used to further the claim of Britney’s victimhood. Indeed, it is said that because of her childhood fame and regressive maturing in the public eye, that she has a stunted conceptualization of raising her own children. All of these competing dialogues surrounding Britney’s fame serve to place Spears in a distinct subject position as victim (in some way or another) of the pitfalls of a hyper-visible existence. Regardless of locating where responsibility lies in Britney’s Breakdown, the multiple narratives by multiple viewing positions of her subjectivity in the spotlight, serve to display how discourses of fame can function in a postmodern moment.
[1] Made famous by YouTube personality Chris Crocker’s emotional commentary on the star.
[2] Indeed, the very function of public relations is to package a product in favorable ways for consumption. Interestingly, Britney fired her famous publicist Leslie Sloane before this incident.
[3] The current US Weekly cover image is of Spears and her battle with mental illness.
[4] Interesting because this is validated by an absence of paparazzi photos of Spears and her children together, instead of a presence of them within the discourse of fame.
