Regardless of celebrities’ actions, public perception of them functions as an investigatory pastime in which we continuously scrutinize their every breath in search of authenticity, high moral standings and interesting press. Looking at celebrities through this lens portrays them as constantly problematic — either too outspoken or failing to uphold moral obligations. So, at the inevitable mercy of the press and social commentaries, a celebrity’s autonomy to reject the social game of publicity in favor of their own agency and, at times, jeopardize their status demonstrates a positive celebrity attitude.
However, publicity does not exist in a vacuum. While it is undeniably true that celebrity voices reach more ears, inherently forcing idealized standards on celebrities curates a flawed cyclical system of celebrity behavior and public scrutiny. The hypocritical and over-scrutinized critique of celebrities forces a tradeoff between authenticity and publicity. This tradeoff provides a celebrity with no correct answer — either they must preserve their image by putting forward ideas that will keep them relevant and will not disrupt positive press, or they may remain true to themselves and risk receiving negative press and less publicity. Then, the cycle begins again at the mercy of the media and its consumers.
Knowing a celebrity will continuously meet backlash regardless of choosing the former option, it seems morally essential that a celebrity must then choose to distance themselves from fame to maintain their agency. Simultaneously, the pursuit of relevance becomes vanity when behaving for fame equates to pushing beliefs that no longer represent oneself as a person. However, existing in fame and the desire to stay within it should not be critiqued by the masses, as celebrities should be allowed to want to keep their job.
Celebrities exist as an idealized version of everyday people and therefore must meet a higher standard of transparency, moral obligation and political engagement. According to a piece published by Cambridge University Press, because celebrities are seen as influential to all, especially the younger, impressionable generations, they end up serving as role models and exemplars of ethical, political and aesthetic norms and behaviors. As such, their stances are more scrutinized and highly weighed than an average person’s, placing them in a pedagogical role in a childlike society.
There are various ways celebrities may grapple with and sustain such fame. To avoid the backlash and to ensure they stay relevant, a celebrity may reduce themself to “the person everyone wanted me to be,” as Taylor Swift said in her “Miss Americana” documentary. Equipped with publicists using expensive strategies to keep themselves in the limelight and preserve their image, celebrities become an ever-adapting and always inadequate byproduct of society. This claustrophobic circumstance comes with immense societal anxiety and an unhealthy desire for perfection. While this approach to relevancy increases a celebrity’s shelf life, it demonstrates little to no autonomy — a slippery slope in which a celebrity departs farther and farther from the person they truly are.
Another approach suggests that a celebrity will remain relevant given their talents, even if their relationship with influencing the youth is somewhat decreased. S. Mark Young, one of the authors of “The Mirror Effect: How Celebrity Narcissism is Seducing America,” states, “Meryl Streep doesn’t need to be out there promoting anything because she’s Meryl Streep and she has achieved her greatness because of her talent.” In this circumstance, the celebrity maintains a connection to entertainment, but they can exist without the added obligation to engage in or publicize their political and social beliefs — a seemingly ideal situation.
This freedom better allows celebrities to have their opinions as a typical person does. But, as media outlets go to further depths to uncover every detail of celebrities’ lives, this ideal becomes just that — a fiction that will never come to pass so long as media outlets continue to intrude on the personal lives of celebrities.
Other celebrities may choose to be transparent, using their platform to advocate for their beliefs. Recently, at the 2025 Grammys, Chappell Roan and Doechii used their acceptance speeches to acknowledge unlivable wages for developing artists and the underrepresentation of Black women in hip-hop, respectively. Additionally, during her rise to fame, Roan repeatedly placed her mental health first when dealing with paparazzi and performances. All of these actions came with significant press coverage and commentary, both in praise and condemnation. For these artists, for now, social commentary has led to additional dialogue surrounding their perceived bravery, which is not always the case.
Because of this phenomenon, society will often force celebrities to choose between the press and fighting for what they believe in. By choosing to allow their relevance to take a back seat to engage with their beliefs, a celebrity demonstrates a strong power of selflessness and integrity. These people may shrink back from celebrity status because, morally, they need to put their efforts into something more productive. While it is unfortunate that a celebrity must choose between the two, the act of choosing the morally superior and authentic path makes them the epitome of a good influence on the masses — an influence that will, disappointingly, not be covered by the press.
Sophia Bush, a “Time’s Up” proponent, Alicia Keys, co-founder of the nonprofit “Keep a Child Alive” and celebrities in general “who are doing the great things don’t get a whole lot of press.” Media outlets have continuously demonstrated their general disinterest in the productive actions of celebrities in material and large-scale social progress. As a result, the public goes unknowing, and celebrities find themselves with unending consequences for holding both authenticity and publicized fame.
Ultimately, a celebrity often wants to remain a celebrity, and their efforts to do so cannot be undermined, even if they are not entirely authentic. Jean-Paul Sartre used a waiter to demonstrate the formation of public identity. A waiter in a café “plays” at being a waiter, adopting the attitude and gestures that are expected of him by the customers, and “the public ‘demands’ certain behaviors from the waiter, limiting him to the sole function of being a waiter and defining the characteristics of how he should behave.” Considering this, a celebrity who desires to remain one should accommodate to some degree what is expected of their role of being famous, which in some cases may bend their authenticity.
As a society, we must remember that being a celebrity is a job, and any working person should be allowed to want to keep their position and excel. With that, there is no “perfect way” to act as a celebrity and intense public scrutiny must stop when it neglects to consider a celebrity’s intentions and personal necessities.
Allison Bonaventura is a freshman double-majoring in comparative literature and anthropology.
Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.