> What of it? ... Celebrity culture is generally toxic, news at 11. Well, let's hang on a second, and think about that a little more because I think you've tou

> What of it? ... Celebrity culture is generally toxic, news at 11. Well, let's hang on a second, and think about that a little more because I think you've touched on an interesting wrinkle. I don't think that celebrities (by virtue of functioning in the original "thought leadership" role) must necessarily have this relationship with their followers. I am reminded of the critical tension in the dharmic religions between Buddhism and the hierarchical Vedism which came before it; Buddhism gained a significant amount of power as a referendum on Vedism. We can of course talk about what that means from an abstract sense versus concretely, and it's obviously not always so black and white. But celebrities as cultural leaders have agency. Can't they choose whether they are using their power to reinforce an egalitarian adept/novice apprenticeship structure rather than some sort of perpetually hierarchical one of divine providence? The latter is of course more common over the course of history but it is certainly not the only option. I suppose (to circle back to my original point) that the challenge here is that the cultural leaders do not exist in a vacuum; it is not just up to them but the society they exist within to determine their popular conception, which may not even be one to which they ascribe -- the tabloid example is evergreen. But is it then the vocation of celebrities to engage with these kinds of entities, and eventually emerge victorious -- being able to present their own views to society on their on frame, without being cowed or twisted or distorted by the rest of society at large, including its entrenched interests? I don't know. I'm still inclined to say yes, historically speaking.