Celebrity Studies

ISSN: 1939-2397 (Print) 1939-2400 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcel20

‘A trust betrayed’: celebrity and the work of

emotion

Heather Nunn & Anita Biressi

To cite this article: Heather Nunn & Anita Biressi (2010) ‘A trust betrayed’: celebrity and the work
of emotion, Celebrity Studies, 1:1, 49-64, DOI: 10.1080/19392390903519065

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19392390903519065

Published online: 17 Mar 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7633

Citing articles: 45 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcel20
Celebrity Studies
Vol. 1, No. 1, March 2010, 49–64

‘A trust betrayed’: celebrity and the work of emotion

1939-2400Studies,
1939-2397
RCEL
Celebrity Studies Vol. 1, No. 1, Jan 2010: pp. 0–0

Heather Nunn* and Anita Biressi

Celebrity
H. Nunn and
Studies
A. Biressi

Roehampton University, UK

This article draws on psycho-social theories of emotional labour and the sociological
concept of ‘emotion work’ in order to interrogate the affective communicative
performances of celebrities, their deployment of a ready language of emotion and the
broader therapeutic discourses from which this language is derived. It takes as its focus
the emotional work undertaken by celebrities in order to limit or repair reputations
damaged by scandal and to overcome a perceived betrayal of public trust. Starting
from the premise that an ‘ideology of intimacy’ has formed the conditions in which the
celebrity now labours as an emotional subject in the public arena, and that social
relationships are considered to be ‘authentic’ or ‘real’ mainly through their commitment
to the ‘inner psychological concerns of each person’, we explore the affective demands
made upon the celebrity subject in contemporary media culture to be both intimate and
‘real’. In so doing we draw attention to the range of cultural spaces in which celebrity
emotion work takes place, the conventions which enable this work and the only
partially articulated contract of on-going public intimacy upon which this work is
predicated. The article concludes with a consideration of how the public–celebrity
contract intersects with a broader cultural imperative to perform emotion in the media,
evident in the expectation that public figures should convey authentic feeling and
convey it convincingly, in order to manage an on-going relationship of trust with their
publics and thereby sustain a successful career in the public realm.
Keywords: emotional work; emotional labour; celebrity; intimacy; scandal; rehabilitation

Introduction: celebrity work

As individuals are increasingly called upon to effectively deploy the language of emotion
in their public lives, as well as in private settings, it is timely to consider the expectations
placed upon celebrities as ‘emotional labourers’ (Hochschild 1979, Overell 2005, Sternberg
1998).1 As P. David Marshall has argued, the celebrity is a strategically important figure
in a consideration of the affective domain of modern life and social interactions in the
public realm, because the celebrity system is instrumental in the organisation of the ‘affec-
tive economy’ in which culture and politics increasingly operates (Marshall 1997, p. 247).
The celebrity is crucial here, because the ‘expansion of celebrity status’ is dependent upon
its association with both capitalism and the ‘democratising sentiments’ of an apparently
accessible culture (Marshall 1997, pp. 25–26). In other words, the celebrity figure spans the
fields of the individual and the collective, the popular and the political, and thereby offers a
model of personal success which reinforces the idea of individual achievement and social
success as attainable by all. We suggest therefore that the tensions and dilemmas at the heart
of celebrity emotional labour (as media workers and as ‘personalities’) critically foreground

*Corresponding author. Email: H.Nunn@roehampton.ac.uk

ISSN 1939-2397 print/ISSN 1939-2400 online

© 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/19392390903519065
http://www.informaworld.com
50 H. Nunn and A. Biressi

the affective terrain which all individuals are forced to negotiate in the public realm in
order to be regarded as socially successful. Consequently, by drawing upon sociological
theories of emotion, the market power of emotional labour and its centrality to both paid
and unpaid working relationships, we interrogate the ‘emotion work’ of public figures and
its implications for our understanding of the changing terrain of contemporary public life
(Hochschild 1983/2003).
Reality television, the ghosted autobiography and the one-to-one interview have all
become vehicles for the production of celebrity intimacy through the relaying of the life-
story. They provide platforms via standardised formats for the staging and framing of
celebrity lives and, crucially, provide mechanisms for the expression of dominant cultural
devices of self-understanding: confession, introspection and the re-presentation of a better
or improved self (see Redmond 2008). These mechanisms, albeit differently inflected, are
of course also deployed by ordinary individuals – a key difference between them and the
public figure lying in the public reach of the celebrity life story and its importance in the
maintenance of the celebrity as a viable public commodity. For example, a celebrity media
scandal can trigger personal disclosure of tragedy or serious dysfunction, with their story
explaining the transgression in the light of a long-running private battle to be happy
against the odds. This battle is often expressed as an emotionally difficult psychic journey
complicated by fame and the media spotlight. The public telling of that journey is, among
many other things, a means of attempted self-validation and often rehabilitation of the
damaged celebrity persona. In these life scripts, the celebrity figure reveals to the public
the ‘story’ of their misery, their flaws and their roots in a previously private or early life. A
contract seems to be negotiated in which ‘authentic’ or ‘truthful’ personal disclosure is
traded for continuation of the relationship between the celebrity and his/her followers. On
a more pragmatic level, these revelations have become integral to the highly profitable
circulation of the celebrity figure in contemporary media markets. They are cheap to
reproduce, and stories of abuse, guilt, addiction, vulnerability and mental illness and greed
appear to slot into the formulaic reproduction of entertainment journalism.
Audiences see the ‘hard labour of the persona’ played out in these scenes, employed
by public figures ‘so that they can reference a realm of meaning that consumers find
evocative’ (Sternberg 1998, p. 426), authentic and above all connective. As such, they
witness what sociologist Arlie Hochschild (1979, 1983/2003, 2003) described as ‘emotion
work’: work requiring one to perform the ‘right’ feeling and ultimately even ‘feel’ the
right feeling according to the rules of the setting and often in the service of commerce.
Hochschild (2003, p. 7), partly influenced by Erving Goffman’s well-known work on the
dramaturgy of everyday life, expressed concern that Goffman’s human actors were denied
psyches: ‘his characters had feelings . . . but we couldn’t know, from Goffman, where
those feelings came from’. Consequently, Hochschild sought to develop a ‘sociology of
emotion’ in order to understand neglected dimensions of culture such as the ‘feeling rules’
which moderate, prompt and even direct the expression of emotion in specific contexts.
Importantly, she rejects any simplistic notions of manipulation or staged performance
(1979, p. 561). Instead, she emphasises the context in which the work takes place. While
Hochschild addresses everyday workplace cultures, we want to suggest that media spaces
such as the broadcast interview, reality television and confessional journalism (sites that
allow the public presentation and reshaping of the intimate self), are also places where
specific ‘feeling rules’ operate. These quasi-therapeutic spaces often prompt celebrity
performances which identify the complication or ‘dysfunction’ immanent in the celebrity
life story; that which prevents the individual from being successful, fulfilled, happy or
intimate despite all appearances of a triumphant life (see Blackman and Walkerdine
 Celebrity Studies 51

2001). As already noted, this complication is sometimes structurally linked to events in

the celebrity’s past (poverty, neglect, low self-esteem), enabling him or her to understand
their life as one of dysfunction or, as in the case of others such as Jade Goody, it may be
articulated through present suffering or trauma (a narrative which ensued following her
cancer diagnosis).
This article was conceived in the spring of 2009 when disgraced British reality TV star
Jade Goody undertook her final media role as a figure of exemplary suffering; a troubling
part which refigured her place in the media scene and ultimately helped to consolidate her
media rehabilitation. The mass media coverage of her painful decline began with the can-
cer diagnosis, delivered to Goody as she starred in Bigg Boss (2008), the Indian version of
Big Brother (undertaken in ongoing expiation of her racist behaviour towards Bollywood
actor Shilpa Shetty in Celebrity Big Brother 2007). As Su Holmes (2009, pp. 35–36)
explains, the Shetty affair led to the public divestment of Goody’s celebrity status and an
expectation of abject contrition which was to be marked not only through her demeanour
(posture, attire, tearfulness, physical and psychological frailty on exiting from the house),
her spoken apologies and subsequent reparations, but also through the relinquishment of
celebrity privilege, including that of taking paid media work. Holmes observes that it was
Goody’s role as a ‘working mum’ which was necessarily re-invoked as part of this navi-
gated retreat from authorised celebrity-hood. The announcement of Goody’s illness, and
the management of her media career in its wake, helped to revise the conditions under
which she had been labouring. Accordingly, she was now sanctioned on behalf of her chil-
dren’s future to be lavishly reimbursed for her final media work with her domestic role as
mother and her public role as celebrity finally and neatly fused. Justine Picardie (2009),
writing in the Sunday Times, declared:

If she wants to make some money before she dies, then by all means let her do so, for this is
one of her few remaining moments of defining herself, both as a mother and as a woman who
has made a career as a reality TV star. (Picardie, 2009)

Her televised wedding (with medics on hand) in February 2009 to Jack Tweed, and
the lucrative publication of exclusive wedding photographs in a special tribute issue
of OK! magazine – a memorial tribute published just before her death (March 2009) –
revealed how much her image was now bound up with the anticipation of her demise.
OK! headlined with Goody saying: ‘I’ve had the happiest day of my life, now I’m
ready to go to Heaven’. Inevitably, Goody became a subject of national media debate
outside the usual spheres of entertainment culture. It seemed to some that TV news
footage of her return home from hospital for the last time after emergency surgery, or
the glossy post-chemotherapy photographs of her wedding in which she appeared
uncharacteristically demure and frail, embodied in a quite literal way the increasingly
commonplace display of private suffering for audiences’ consumption, pleasure and iden-
tification.2
Goody’s suffering was physical as much as emotional, and therefore it was not openly
read as self-inflicted in the way that her earlier career ‘gaffes’ had been. Consequently, her
experiences of pain and trauma required an alternative interpretive model to dominant
psychological discourses, and it is perhaps for this reason that the media, and Goody her-
self, drew upon older narratives of stoicism filigreed by religious tropes of despair, hope
and redemption through suffering to articulate her predicament. The often sentimentalised
representations of her contrasted sharply with earlier aggressive media responses to her
ill-judged appearances on Big Brother 3 (2002) and Celebrity Big Brother (2007) (CBB)
52 H. Nunn and A. Biressi

and the characterisation of her as stupid, bullying and racist. Thus, Goody’s changing
relationship with the public was effected not so much through the tropes of current tabloid
culture but via an affective women’s culture spanning nineteenth-century literature, stage
melodrama, Hollywood women’s films, women’s weekly magazines and soap opera. As
with Princess Diana, Goody became a ‘site of affective communication and public
disputation over the conduct of life’ (McGuigan 2000, p. 11), not the ‘people’s princess’
but ‘the people’s commoner’ (Picardie 2009). The Goody case coupled older, deeply
gendered melodramatic and religious representations of the suffering maternal heroine
with a more contemporary class-inflected narrative of the ‘nobody’ who becomes a
‘somebody’ by following their lucky star (Biressi and Nunn, 2008). Following her death,
Bishop Jonathan Blake, who officiated at Goody’s wedding declared: ‘Jade has become
for us, so many different things, a saint from Upshire and a princess from Bermondsey, an
exemplar of biblical proportions’ (Weaver and Percival 2009). Her public suffering
became synonymous with domestic virtue; her self-subjection to the media bound into a
narrative of bravery that celebrated her family life and her media appearances to fund her
sons’ future and promote women’s health-care. In Goody’s case the footage of her lying
on a hospital bed, losing her hair in her bathroom, being comforted by her mother and so
on, was visually and textually anchored through the family scene to a domestic and
pseudo-private realm. This easily translated the concrete and individual experience of her
suffering through emotion work into a vehicle of shared intimacy made poignant by its
proximity to her end and the irony of her recuperation from ‘national disgrace to national
treasure’ (Weaver and Percival 2009).
Goody’s prolific and often troubling media appearances in those final months (as seen
in Jade’s Progress, Living TV 2008), highlighted the sheer grind of maintaining a
celebrity persona in the most adverse circumstances and what seemed to be a resolute
commitment to sustain the intimate relationship being rebuilt between her and the public
through emotion work. This reading of her career arguably opposes the frequent media
commentary that presents the reality TV star, in particular, as someone seeking to evade
the ‘real’ work required to achieve significant career success (see also Bennett and
Holmes in this issue). It challenges the stereotype of poorly directed and undisciplined
performance so frequently attached to the reality TV star (see Holmes 2004) and deflects
the accusation of lazy avarice which dogs the ‘ordinary’ person who becomes a celebrity.
Read from this perspective, her example of emotional labour, together with others dis-
cussed below, productively complicates the ongoing theoretical enquiries of Celebrity
Studies which seek to analyse reality television and celebrity culture as part of a sophisti-
cated account of labour, consumerism and the broader dynamics and economics of the
social (see Andrejevic 2004, Marshall 1997, Turner 2004, pp. 32ff).

‘Poor me, poor, me’: celebrity reputation rehab

Not all performances of emotion work are as dramatic or as intensely sustained as
Goody’s, whose final months were featured on a number of linked reality shows on the
Living Channel. Heightened moments of emotion also arise from the group and interper-
sonal dynamics of bonding and conflict played out in reality television such as I’m A
Celebrity Get Me Out of Here or CBB, which bring together diverse individuals within a
competitive/social experiment format. The inclusion of celebrities across the list: media
darlings, faded stars and starlets, survivors of scandal and those with reputations for
trouble-making, fosters an expectation of emotional fireworks. The differences engen-
dered here can trigger a brutal unpicking of career histories, veiled aspirations or personal
 Celebrity Studies 53

flaws. For example, in 2006 CBB relayed the 20-minute confrontation between disgraced
former comic and variety show host Michael Barrymore and vociferous MP George
Galloway. As Barrymore seemed to break down on screen Galloway sneered: ‘Poor, poor
me, pour me another drink’. The complexity of Barrymore’s scandalous media life – the
revelations around his sex life, his involvement in a murder investigation, his alcoholism
and the subsequent fall from public grace which had seen him slip from family favourite
to tabloid monster – was reduced through the logic and dynamics of the CBB encounter to
a theatrical dialogue between cruel mockery and whining self-pity; and lest we forget,
both celebrities were performing the emotion work expected not only of their particular
media personae but also as participants in a reality show. Although we do not have the
space to address the dynamic of these inter-celebrity encounters here, we wish to note that
the emotional labour undertaken (by both Galloway and Barrymore, to stay with this
example) is no less powerful than that worked through in the more obviously therapeutic
setting of the interviewer’s darkened studio or observational documentary.3 In terms of
celebrity narratives of dysfunction, these various formats all demonstrate that it is not
simply high achievement (the fame, fortune, power of having ‘made it’) that propels the
celebrity story forward: rather, it is suffering, dysfunction or the personal flaw, once
concealed but now revealed to the public, and this because the celebrity trope always
contains within it the potential to become undone; to unravel spectacularly in the midst of
its own success (Illouz 2007, p. 53).
This excavation of the troubled self is partly the inevitable outcome of the media’s in-
depth and sustained interrogative analysis of celebrities which, while not new, is increas-
ingly integrated into the economics of mainstream journalism and factual programming. It
may also be an attempt by the celebrity subject to limit the public damage experienced as
the focus of punitive media coverage of a transgression of social norms. Scandal as it is
conveyed in the tabloid media in particular is used to invoke the ‘ordinary’ moral
community of celebrity followers whose shared condemnation is rooted in assumed
communal mores: the ‘unconscious aggression’, which is an underlying motivation for the
admonishment of a flawed celebrity figure, is often transformed via media gossip into
narratives of collective ‘moral disdain’ (Alberoni 1962, p. 116). The scandalised celebrity,
then, even if rehabilitated through confession and abject self-exposure, remains an ambiv-
alent public figure: initially set up as the idealised emblem of successful individualism,
then cast out from idealised status, although they may return to public favour they must
remain open to constant observation for signs of setbacks, recidivism, subterfuge or
deceit. Celebrity status, then, is an endless project to achieve, sustain and manage. And
while, as noted above, the personal revelation of the celebrity persona can be cheap to
reproduce, at a more personal or psychic level it must be very costly indeed.
The therapeutic narrative is frequently the means to shift the story of celebrity
transgression beyond initial shock, outrage and disdain and into a new field of self-inspec-
tion and public reparation. Invoked by media commentators, ‘experts’ and the celebrity
him/herself, the tropes of therapy – the family history, the consideration of sexuality as a
motivating force in identity, the notion of unconscious drives to be identified and
unpicked, the idea of the returning symptom, and so on – are now a compacted device for
delving beneath the surface of the celebrity’s persona both in particular moments and
across career histories. As Marshall (2006, p. 3) has argued in relation to the intensive
coverage of Michael Jackson’s 2005 child abuse trial: ‘As much as the audience-watch via
the media is an elaborate exegesis of the celebrity, it also resonates with notions of identity
that have emerged from a century of psychoanalytical inquiry’. As Marshall stresses, celeb-
rities are not only psychologically deconstructed by consumers; they ‘act out’ appropriate
54 H. Nunn and A. Biressi

public personae and these personae necessarily adapt to notoriety. It is the business of this
article to highlight these processes of adaptation as they unfold through the performance
of celebrity intimacy which takes place in response to the rupture of the scandalised
celebrity persona.
Here, we want to suggest that the therapeutic discourse – and the ready language of
emotion and the damaged self that the celebrity figure is mediated through – can be linked
to broader dilemmas at the core of contemporary late modern identities (see Plummer
2003). It could be argued that the celebrity figure writes large the contradiction of contem-
porary identity for many citizens of the developed mediated society: the expectation that
we have the right to live pain-free lives bound up with the current pressure to understand
those same lives through painful emotion work: a compulsion which forms the central
plank of contemporary biographical narratives of self-understanding. As Illouz notes
(2003, p. 119):

Because we are now all entitled at least to a life free of misery, suffering is to us what sex was
to Victorians, something that becomes constitutive of our identity at the very moment we
pronounce it taboo by expelling it and excising it from our ideal self.

Moreover, the ready expression of emotion (properly moderated and directed) has become
a yardstick for measuring the healthy (read ‘successful’) performance of the achieving
subject in both public and private life. Hence, the celebrity figure performing emotion is at
the high (visible) end of a spectrum of emotional conduct; conduct by which many of us are
now expected to manage our public lives in order to demonstrate integrity, authenticity and
personal commitment to our public role (see McKenzie 2001). In other words, drawing upon
Richard Sennett’s (1974) well-known discussion of the end of public culture, we want to say
that an ‘ideology of intimacy’ has formed the conditions in which the celebrity, along with
other public figures and the ordinary person, now labour as emotional subjects in the public
arena. Starting from the proposition that this ideology operates via the conviction that social
relationships are considered to be ‘authentic’ or ‘real’ mainly by virtue of their commitment
to the ‘inner psychological concerns of each person’ (Sennett 1974, p. 259), we might ques-
tion the price paid for the often unspoken expectations placed on ourselves and others of
warm and especially intimate relationships across the board. Is it not the case, as Sennett has
argued, that when the relationship with the ‘other’ cannot sustain the burden of ‘our’ expec-
tations we conclude that the relationship is at fault rather than the demands made of it? If so,
when relationships change, as they inevitably must, the betrayal of these expectations leads
to a ‘feeling of trust betrayed’ (p. 260), and this disappointment needs to be managed by all
parties if the relationship is going to continue.

Therapy talk: from Face to Face to Shrink Rap

In order to narrow the focus of this discussion and consider the particular circumstances in
which the celebrity articulation of emotion takes place, this section addresses specific
media formats – that is, formats that resemble or claim a resemblance to the therapeutic
encounter. We begin by identifying some affinities between one-to-one journalistic inter-
views and therapeutic encounters before going on to highlight notable British broadcast
formats in which these encounters have taken place. We then proceed to an interrogation
of the idea of the therapeutic narrative of self as a re-casting of celebrity persona in the
wake of media scandal; often and paradoxically through the disclosure of the shameful or
embarrassing experience.
 Celebrity Studies 55

Therapy talk formats present an intimate discussion between interviewer and guest
in the confined space of a television or radio studio where the emphasis is upon an in-
depth personal encounter that goes beyond the usual conventions of the chat show.
These formats facilitate a public performative space for celebrity intimacy and the exca-
vation of the celebrity persona which involves, to a lesser or greater degree, a number of
consistent features depending upon the medium, which can only be briefly indicated
here. These include a title, opening shots and mise-en-scènes which suggest an unmedi-
ated close encounter of a therapeutic nature, e.g. the consulting-room sofa, the spot-lit
chair. A sense of an enclosed or confined or intimate space is also created through
sound, lighting and camera work. The interviewer is usually positioned as authoritative,
impartial and well-briefed on the personal history of their guest. There is an emphasis
upon emotional intensity through either ‘face work’ (Goffman 1959/1990) or ‘voice
work’ or both, especially on the part of the guest. There is a loose but credible and per-
ceptible contract between guest and interviewer based on prior expectations and some
degree of trust in the professionalism of the project, and crucially the format fosters a
performance of introspection, reflection and revelation on the part of the interview
subject.
These features can be found in the early British landmark series Face to Face (BBC
1959–62), a one-to-one interview series which broke new ground in the exploration of the
public figure as a psychological subject (see Bennett and Holmes in this issue).4 Despite
the stiffness of its participants characteristic of that era, it retains a prominent place in
popular memory and media history because it filmed emotional scenes and even triggered
what were seen as on-screen breakdowns through persistent and carefully targeted
questioning (see Holmes 2007). The series appeared on the brink of a new era when, as
Ilouz (2007, p. 27–29) explains, a ‘new cultural model of intimacy’ came to the fore which
required that to discover the ‘true self’ one must overcome a range of emotions including
fear, shame and guilt; emotions which may well be deeply hidden and whose uncovering
required a ‘new skill in language’. The true self was posited as opaque to its owner in this
new psychological imagination, and required an intermediary with the skills of emotional
literacy to dig out, to unearth that inner self and capture it in ‘a set of observable and
manipulable entities’ (Illouz 2007, p. 33). These intermediaries or experts were to be
found in both private and mediated spaces: the relationship counselling session, the
‘agony’ advice column and, increasingly, the talk show.
Face to Face (FTF) was set in a darkened studio. The face of the interviewer, journal-
ist John Freeman, was rarely seen on screen, as he was filmed from behind with the static
camera focused upon his guest in either medium range or close-up, lending a heightened
emotional intensity to the scene and aligning the viewer with the authoritative position of
therapist/interviewer. Most sessions were filmed in the television studio. Memorable epi-
sodes included those with figures such as Carl Jung, Evelyn Waugh and Tony Hancock.
On the whole, Freeman’s guests were substantial public figures, artists and intellectuals,
and it is well known that comedian Hancock was nonplussed to find himself invited to
take part. He found that Freeman’s direct interrogative style demanded unconditional
co-operation: ‘Tony Hancock. The whole of Britain knows you in your professional
comic mask . . . and tonight we want to try and find out what lies behind the mask. Now,
are you in the mood to come clean?’.5 This was followed by a reminder to his guest that
he would have to manage without his scriptwriters: ‘you know you are on your own?’,
‘And you’ll tell us the truth?’, to which Hancock answers in the affirmative. In the ensu-
ing conversation Hancock was asked, among other things, about his income, his taste in
literature, whether he would like to play Hamlet, whether he took sleeping pills and why
56 H. Nunn and A. Biressi

he had no children. Under this scrutiny the comedian came across as somewhat troubled,
rather pathetic and a little pretentious; a pseudo-intellectual who had lost his way person-
ally and professionally.
Interviews such as these made for absorbing television that intentionally linked the
personal and the public sphere, connecting character and personal achievement, family
life and public success. One well-known episode from September 1960 featured the witty
and hugely successful television star Gilbert Harding who was visibly upset when ques-
tioned about his relationship with his late mother. Andy Medhurst (2000, pp. 254–256)
described Freeman’s deliberate probing of Harding’s sexuality and unmarried status as a
kind of ‘crucifixion’, knowing – as Freeman did – that that homosexuality was virtually
unmentionable at the time. Medhurst also suggests that Freeman knew about Harding’s
encounters with psychoanalysis and capitalised on this in order to ‘unmask’ him. The epi-
sode sparked a media sensation not least because of Freeman’s clipped, stiff and unsympa-
thetic demeanour when faced with Harding’s visibly vulnerable state.
On BBC radio, the best-known but far later equivalent programme would be In the
Psychiatrist’s Chair (ITPC), which was launched in 1982. The host, Professor Anthony
Clare, conducted more than 60 interviews with celebrities from every context, including
sport, politics, literature and entertainment.6 As Clare (1992/1993, p. 88) himself ruefully
noted, the title was potentially misleading, because the interviews were not psychiatric
treatments and the subjects were not patients. But he also hoped that the title would point
to the aim of the series, which was to focus upon the ‘early experiences, the drives, the
motives, the stresses and strains characterising the lives of the interviewees’ (Clare 1992/
1993).7 The taped interviews were often conducted in an impersonal basement studio, the
intimacy of the experience being reinforced by the discretionary conditions of radio,
which meant that guests might smoke cigars (Jimmy Saville), drink champagne (Eartha
Kitt), arrive already drunk (R.D. Laing) or, in the case of Anthony Hopkins, treat the
whole experience as though it were a private therapeutic encounter (Clare, pp. 88–89).
The ‘agreement’ between the show’s host and guest that this was to be a deeply personal,
even revelatory interview (as signalled by the title and conventions of the show) was both
variable and unstable. For example, Clare (p. 1) recalled that the American tennis player
Arthur Ashe did not seem to realise until he arrived at the studio what the interview would
involve, or that Clare was even a psychiatrist. As Clare explained the remit of the show to
Ashe he observed a ‘wary, watchful expression clouding his face’. But in the case of popular
agony aunt and consumer campaigner Clare Rayner (whose breakdown in interview was
compared by others to that of Gilbert Harding), Clare (pp. 218–219) points out in his
defence that Rayner was ‘prepared to talk’ for a variety of reasons and knew what form
the encounter would be likely to take. The generic trajectory from FTF (presented by a
journalist) to ITPC (presented by a medic) was clearly acknowledged when, in the late
1980s, Clare interviewed John Freeman himself as part of a repeat season of the most fam-
ous episodes of FTF.8 Clare (p. 218) acknowledged the impact of the Harding episode in
particular, noting that ‘it burned itself into the collective television unconscious’, and he
observed of Freeman’s interrogatory approach that ‘this was revelatory, psychological,
clinical probing at its most effective and detached best’.
Both FTF and ITPC, albeit differently located in terms of both era and media platform,
were formally serious BBC broadcast formats which typified an opening-up from the
1960s onwards of ‘quality’ broadcasting to a new-style engagement with the public figure
as a subject of a quasi-therapeutic encounter. As such, they are representative of the
enculturation of the ideology of intimacy into media culture and its concomitant impera-
tive that not only celebrities but all notable public figures should be willing to engage in
 Celebrity Studies 57

the business of emotional intimacy; especially when questions have been raised about
whether they have breached a bond or relationship of trust between themselves and the
public.
The co-operation between host and guest in this enterprise is starkly evident in the
series Shrink Rap (billed as part chat-show, part psychodynamic interview), which
featured a well-known person in conversation with trained American psychologist and
psychotherapist Pamela Stephenson. Stephenson is also a celebrity (a former comedian
herself and married to high-profile actor and comedian Billy Connolly), whose avowed
clinical interest lies in the traumatic processes at the heart of ‘celebritisation’. Shrink Rap
ran for two short series to date and mainly featured international stars and ‘A-list’ celebri-
ties such as Tony Curtis, Kathleen Turner, Robbie Williams, Joan Rivers, the Duchess of
York and Sharon Osborne. Only occasionally has it also featured lower-profile figures
such as the British scriptwriter and comic actor Chris Langham, who attained media noto-
riety following his arrest and trial for accessing child pornography on the internet. In each
case 21/2 hours of talk is edited down to a 50-minute episode. In interview, Stephenson
explained that the concept of Shrink Rap:

. . . is to have a deep, psychologically-based conversation with people that we think we know.

. . . Shrink Rap is an attempt to allow people not to be under pressure of performing, not to
feel that they have to present the ideal self, the one that is always adorable and perfect and
funny and together. This allows people to bring forward the true self, to not always tell the
official story.9

She suggests that ‘fame’ is a ‘trauma’ that splits the real self from the businesslike persona
and that her aim is to reveal this other hidden self. While Stephen Fry’s recollections of his
childhood rape experience, or Sarah Ferguson’s memories of her mother calling her
monstrously ugly, undoubtedly disclose damaged histories, there is no sense in Stephenson’s
account that these, too, might be a kind of self-production and one which is inextricable
from contemporary cultural scripts of emotional labour and the labour of performance
both in the media and within the social realm.
Shrink Rap is a sometimes uneasy collaboration between the celebrity and the inter-
viewer according to the strictures of the format. Each celebrity appears ‘stripped down’ in
presentation as well as psychologically. For example, the movie and theatre star Kathleen
Turner arrives on set dressed in black with modest make-up and minimal jewellery which,
together with the sober setting of spot-lighting and leather sofa, signals the seriousness of
the event.10 In the case of Tony Curtis, the performance of seriousness is even more
explicit. He is also dressed in black and having recently dispensed with his trademark hair-
piece appears to be quite literally ‘exposed’ and far more vulnerable in appearance. His
very presentation is a sartorial declaration of earnest intent and his full commitment to the
project of televised therapy talk. Playing to the new rules of personalised and revelatory
encounter actors such as Curtis, a movie star from a different era when distance from fans
was considered seductive rather than aloof, shows that they are able to engage with the
twenty-first-century imperatives of celebrity culture. Curtis’s performance as variously
vulnerable, open, flirtatious and damaged but resilient was both charming and well-meas-
ured; essentially presenting himself as a Hollywood survivor whose life-story was one of
personal development and growing self-knowledge. The presence of Curtis and others of
his status on shows such as this is indicative of the skill with which celebrities adapt their
personae to the ‘requisites of the market place’ (Sternberg 1998, p. 418), and suggests that
this capacity for adaptation is at the heart of the new economics of self-presentation which
58 H. Nunn and A. Biressi

we all, to some extent, recognise and feel compelled to take on board if we are to succeed
in an image-driven economy. Shrink Rap, by its own definition, seeks to differentiate itself
from the many other public performances of celebrities which variously highlight their
function as idols, divas and stars or people that ‘we think we know’. Consequently, the
contract entered into is one that requires the performance of intimacy to be styled in a
particular way: this is not just another talk show, this is an encounter.
Where a guest does seem to fully collaborate in the televised therapeutic encounter,
the stakes are high. Stephenson’s interview with Langham is exemplary here in terms of
its detailed and explicit discussion of childhood trauma and adult dysfunction. As already
noted, Langham had been prosecuted for accessing child pornography, an offence which
naturally had a catastrophic effect on his career. The recording took place only days after
his release from prison and the episode was actually broadcast ahead of schedule in order
to capitalise on the ensuing publicity. It is arguable that the emotional ‘work’ of the
celebrity becomes even more explicit in this example because he was a figure who was
obliged to navigate away from a highly regarded celebrity persona – one which has been
badly damaged by scandal – into another mode of public visibility, if indeed he could
remain visible at all. Langham’s encounter with Stephenson makes for uncomfortable
viewing as she takes him back through memories of being abused as a child and his
recollections of drugs, sex and drink addictions. Editing, dialogue and performance come
together to produce a remarkably fluent life-story narrative in which Langham recalls, for
example, not only his own experience of sexual abuse as a child but the very moment in
his own trial when repressed childhood memories resurfaced. Following Stephenson’s
prompts he chronicles his substance abuse, his selfishness and his long-term neglect of his
own family in pursuit of his own obsessions. When he tries to explain his consumption of
child pornography as the result of ill-judged research for a new television series Stephenson’s
reaction shot is one of disbelief superseded by more professional probing. The session
ends on a positive note, with Langham visibly moved in recalling the unexpected support
and practical help that he experienced following his conviction.
Viewers never learn why Langham agrees to the interview, although some might
speculate about this as a gambit for his public rehabilitation. However, the motivation or
intentionality behind this media work is not our business; rather, it is the emotion work at
play. In the Langham example, viewers see the expression of damage, regret and above all
shame which is, as Sara Ahmed (2004, pp. 105–106) argues, an emotion rooted in the
perception of being seen by others to have done wrong:

Shame as an emotion requires a witness: even if a subject feels shame when it is alone, it is
the imagined view that is taken on by a subject in relation to itself. . . . In shame, I am the
object as well as the subject of the feeling.

In these terms, the ‘therapeutic biography is almost an ideal commodity’ (Illouz 2007,
p. 56) requiring foremost that the person is required only to allow the audience ‘to peek
into the dark corners of their psyche and that they be willing to tell a story. Narrating and
being transformed by one’s narration, are the very commodities being produced, proc-
essed and circulated’, to the extent that even extremely damaged celebrity figures are sub-
stantially recoupable via confessional media culture. See, for example, disgraced boxer
Mike Tyson’s 90-minute monologue in James Toback’s close-up documentary Tyson (2008)
in which he offers an engrossingly rhythmical, relentlessly intense and sometimes tearful
recollection of his life story. Toback declared Tyson to be the ideal subject standing in the
rubble of a career ruined by drugs, drink and violence towards women. In interview with a
 Celebrity Studies 59

journalist following the film’s release, Tyson noted: ‘Listen, I’ll talk about anything. I’m
not ashamed of who I am. I understand I’ve got to be sold in a certain way’ (Hattenstone,
2009).

Coda: the politics of apology

Fallen celebrities such as Goody, Barrymore, Jackson, Tyson and Langham shared a
vulnerability to a mass-mediated cycle of celebration, transgression, suspicion, disdain
and punishment which demanded a public expiation (see Turner 2004, p. 106, Whannel
2002). In all these cases, anxieties about social conduct and appropriate modes of moral
and ethical behaviour were collectively explored via the media, and the established
relationship between celebrity/star and the public was severely tested. For a variety of
reasons, only Goody could make full reparation. First, Goody was better placed to make
good because the others had been accused or found guilty of crimes involving a sexual or
violent dimension (or both). Her primary misdemeanour was racist/bullying behaviour
which operated along different lines of social transgression. This context, and other factors
which cannot be explored in any depth here, such as gender, ethnicity, motherhood, her
status as a classed figure and as a British ‘character’ and her history as an ‘ordinary’
person turned reality star, all combined with the conduct and labour of her final months
and the anticipation of her death to seal her return to public favour. In every case, then, the
emotion work of the celebrity needs to be contextualised in order to better understand the
celebrity’s specific contribution as well as their wider strategic importance to a considera-
tion of the affective domain of modern life (Marshall 1997). As indicated above, for this to
happen due account needs to be taken of the poorly articulated but demanding contract
between celebrity and public; the contract under which the celebrity performance becomes
meaningful and the relationship codified. In order to understand the perceived ‘betrayal of
trust’ committed by the celebrity, the specifics of that celebrity–public relationship need
first to be unpacked. Lauren Berlant (2008), tracking a different set of commodified
genres of mass cultural intimacy, helps to articulate the structure of address, common
mediated assumptions and a realm of feeling that we ascribe to celebrity performance here
and which, in our view, make this contract or relationship possible. Speaking of the
‘intimate public’ she suggests (p. viii):

. . . What makes a public sphere intimate is an expectation that the consumers of its particular
stuff already share a worldview and emotional knowledge that they have derived from a
broadly common historical experience . . . [an] intimate public is a space of mediation in
which the personal is refracted through the general, what’s salient for its consumers is that it
is a place of recognition and reflection.

As such she contends, ‘emotional contact, of a sort, is made’ (Berlant 2008); this contact
extends from powerful identification to dis-identification; from love to hatred; and all
manner of emotional and psychic associations in between.
We suggest that this contact impacts most visibly on the contemporary celebrity
subject in terms of emotion work and the contract of ongoing public intimacy which sus-
tains it. We conclude by pointing to how the emotional labour of the celebrity and its cen-
trality in media culture intersects with the broader cultural imperative to emotion work as
the foundation of a productive and successful life in the public political realm.
Sennett (1974) has lamented the end of a public ritual of civility and performative
detachment which he associates with an earlier period and model of public engagement
60 H. Nunn and A. Biressi

and one which has been in decline since the nineteenth century. These civic virtues were,
he argues, eroded by an ideology of intimacy ushered in with the late modern period when
society began increasingly to be measured in psychological terms and authenticity of indi-
vidual identity becomes calibrated to the markers of an open, fully disclosed private self.
Sennett, referencing Weber and Freud, locates the contemporary fascination with the
psychology of the private life in the modern turning to the private self as the measure of
public integrity. The notion of identity and of the liberated self derives, to a great extent,
from the advent of modern psychology and of psychoanalysis as a doctrine. The standard-
isation of unconscious life and the models of personality attached to it have produced
formulas for the calculation of the public expression of suffering, regret, apology and
reparation. Sennett describes this standardisation as an economy closely linked to and
understood through market relations. The revelation of intimacy has paradoxically
become a repressive and controlling set of criteria:

We speak of whether we can personally ‘relate’ to events or other persons, and whether in the
relation itself people are ‘open’ to one another. The first is a cover word for measuring the
other in terms of a mirror of self-concern, and the second is a cover for measuring social inter-
action in terms of the market exchange of confession. (Sennett 1974, p. 10)

Sennett’s concern was with the diffusion of this market exchange into all aspects of public
life, including contemporary politics. Anticipating current debates about the politician as
personality and celebrity (Corner and Pels 2003, Marshall 1997, pp. 203–240, Street 2004,
Van Zoonen 2005), he declared a new age of ‘incivility’ in modern politics in which the
electronic media have overexposed the political persona and thereby eclipsed the importance
of policy, guiding political values and principled courses of action.11
A parallel argument has been made by Ernest Sternberg (1998, p. 420) regarding the
‘new economics of self-expression’ as an integral part of contemporary capitalist rela-
tions. He suggests that workers, managers and executives in the new economy have to
adapt to all-pervading notions of product presentation and that these are linked to ideas of
emotional transparency: ‘At every economic level the ability to present oneself has
become a critical economic asset’. To succeed in the business world, then, or in public
institutional work, the corporate subject will be increasingly called upon to ‘shape the
persona in consonance with market forces’ (p. 434). He argues (p. 418) that ‘New capitalism
workers and managers raise their self-value through calculated self-presentation, using
techniques originally meant for the making of celebrities’ and the successful corporate
worker will mimic the strategies of the celebrity: ‘To truly advance his value on the
market, the ambitious performer must be willing to calculatedly adapt persona to the
desires of the audience’. Today’s worker, then, must possess a ‘heightened iconographic
capability’ and ‘a superior cultural insight into the symbols, ideas, personifications and
themes that move the audience’ (Sternberg 1998).
As a coda, we end with a recent media event which involved not celebrities but the
newly and reluctantly visible executive finance capitalists: chief executives and corporate
bankers. The ‘age of the apology’ (Harris et al. 2006) has seen a proliferation of demands
for public apologies from politicians and financial workers in relation to the banking crisis
and the financial meltdown that led to the global recession of the late 2000s. Sir Fred Goodwin
was one such prominent figure. In January 2009 The Guardian’s City editor Julia Finch identi-
fied Goodwin, former Chief Executive of the beleaguered Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), as
one of the 25 people at the centre of the financial meltdown. Goodwin became a media
emblem of high-level corporate greed and ineptitude due to his aggressive expansion of the
 Celebrity Studies 61

RBS and his leading role in the bank’s exposure to the North American sub-prime
mortgage crisis. As a former captain of industry and knighted business leader, his fall
from grace was confirmed by the near collapse of the RBS in October 2008 and its subse-
quent rescue by the UK government. Media coverage seized upon his nickname ‘Fred the
Shred’ – a moniker used by city financiers to indicate his renowned style of savage costs
savings – and portrayed him as the personification of corporate greed. He became the
corporate villain with a multi-millionaire lifestyle gained at the expense of the ordinary
shareholder and taxpayer. Reports flagged his private use of a corporate jet, lavish spend-
ing on the bank’s headquarters, an investment of £200 million on celebrity endorsements
and his final extravagant pension.
In February 2009 it was reported that the RBS had posted a loss of £24.1 billion, the
biggest loss in UK corporate history. In the same month Goodwin, along with three other
senior executive bankers, was called before a Treasury Select Committee and subjected to
hostile questioning from MPs on the failure to anticipate the financial crisis. In a widely
reported and televised confrontation, these former corporate ‘stars’ were asked to accept
blame and to account for the inflated city bonus system from which they had benefited.
Goodwin and his colleagues were facing career meltdown and serious damage to their
reputations. In what became a widely televised and reported scene, each one apologised
for the distress caused and for the ‘turn of events’. The four attracted heated criticism from
media commentators: much of it linked to their detached, de haut en bas style of pre-
prepared apology. The strategies of apology used were overtly formalised – each of the
men used similar phrases and appeared to declare the apology almost by rote. No one
chose to frame their apology in terms of personal attributes, moral failings or character
flaws or in terms of a breach of public trust. The bankers did not ask for absolution, nor
did they accept personal responsibility, and their responses were read as arrogant, cold and
out of touch with the ordinary public. Public figures such as Goodwin had found career
success in a marketised system of performance in which the executive accrues power
through a persona associated with flair, intuition, aggression and charisma; little wonder
that the public rehabilitation of his image was impossible. What is salient here from the
perspective of this article is the frustration generated by the men’s apparent lack of
demonstrable contrition – they did not appear to understand the media politics of apology
or the nature of the trust that they had betrayed. The public expectation of an expression of
genuine sorrow for the large bonuses, excessive private expenditure and an on-going
engagement in a culture of high-risk finance which played a major role in the recession
was never met, and bearing in mind the solipsistic culture of corporate finance, perhaps
never could be met.
Our interest lies in how this event highlights the extension of the expectations of the
mediated confession and emotion work into other arenas of public life as much as in the
inability of public/political figures to meet these expectations or make these connections
effectively (see Couldry and Markham 2007, Richards 2007). The bankers’ performance
of apology (for which it was reported they had received media coaching) failed. It broke
down partly because as labouring subjects they uncomfortably straddled the break
between an older institutionalised performance of corporate power and the newer affective
economy of public performance which measures the integrity of public figures on their
competence as emotional actors. It could be argued that both modes of public communica-
tion are flawed. The former acted as a restraint which, more often than not, impeded the
political subject’s attempts at connectivity but the latter model, by which politicians are
now frequently judged, turns on the ability to present oneself as an intimate or confidante
engaged in a relationship of personal (rather than institutional) trust. But it is this second
62 H. Nunn and A. Biressi

model that public figures must learn to work within. As Barry Richards (2007, pp. 97–98)
notes, ‘we are amidst a cultural transformation in which politics and policies in the tradi-
tional sense are becoming more enmeshed with the personal, with psychological consider-
ations and with emotionality’ and it will be the public figures who best understand the
emotional dimensions of the public realm and its communicative rules who will most
effectively connect with their publics.

Notes
1. The term ‘emotional labour’, originally used to describe the experiences of service industry
workers in the 1980s, is increasingly being drawn upon by scholars working within sociologi-
cal approaches to media, celebrity, reality TV and talk shows (Couldry and Littler 2008,
Hesmondhalgh and Baker 2008, Wood et al. 2008).
2. Following Goody’s funeral, chat show host Sir Michael Parkinson lamented that Goody had
become a ‘media chattel to be manipulated and exploited till the day she died’ (Singh 2009).
3. Barrymore came second to winner Chantelle Houghton (the only non-celebrity in the house)
and in interview with Davina McCall was visibly moved by the public support he had
received.
4. The series was revived in 1989, with Jeremy Isaacs as the interviewer.
5. Transcript for Face to Face. Available from: http://www.railwaycuttings.co.uk/face_to_face.htm
[Accessed 20 October 2009]. For a discussion of ‘unmasking’ and issues of agency in Face to Face
see Holmes 2007.
6. But see also BBC radio’s On the Ropes, which interviews celebrities and ordinary people who
have undergone serious life changes and challenges, and Between Ourselves, with Olivia
O’Leary, which also conducts extended conversations with mostly ordinary people who have
experienced extraordinary situations.
7. ITPC had its critics. Oliver James, a psychologist and himself a well-known media figure,
observed that what audiences really enjoyed about the series was a ‘quasi-tabloid revelation of
the private life of a public figure’ (quoted in Attwell 2007).
8. The Late Show: Face to face with John Freeman (1988) with Anthony Clare.
9. Interview with Dr Pamela Stephenson, March 2007. Available from: http://www.channel4.com/
more4/shows/s/shrinkrap4.html
10. As Clare noted in his account of his interview with Ashe, the challenge for the show is that not all
celebrities, and certainly not all stars, will collaborate with the interview project (see Collins
2008, Plummer 2003, p. 25). The Turner interview turned out to be a masterclass in stonewalling
as she resisted Stephenson’s attempts to expose a trauma at the heart of her itinerant but affluent
childhood as the daughter of an influential diplomat. As such, she seemed to be out of step with
the current cultural script of connectivity between celebrity and audience via intimate media talk,
or at least beyond its considerable reach. Essentially, then, power relations are uneven and varia-
ble in every case of ‘mediated self-disclosure’ in talk shows (Couldry 2003, pp.115–116).
11. The debate about the incivility of politics continues in the light of Barack Obama’s own
calls for a return to civility during the Presidential election campaign and beyond; see
Daniel 2009, pp. 3–5.

Notes on contributors
Professor Heather Nunn is co-director of the Centre for Research in Film and Audiovisual Cultures
at Roehampton University, London. Research interests include reality television, documentary and
factual programming, political representation and the media, formations of class, gender and nation
and images of childhood. Her publications include Thatcher, politics and fantasy: the political cul-
ture of gender and nation (2002), Reality TV (2005), The tabloid culture reader (2008) and Class in
contemporary British culture (forthcoming, with A. Biressi).

Anita Biressi is Reader in Media Cultures and co-director of the Centre for Research in Sex, Gender
and Sexuality at Roehampton University, London. She has written on crime in the media, tabloid
culture, media spectacle, reality programming and popular discourses of social mobility. Anita is
 Celebrity Studies 63

currently undertaking further research in the areas of class politics, meritocracy and popular culture.
Her new book (with Heather Nunn) entitled Class in contemporary British culture is forthcoming
from Palgrave Macmillan.

References
Ahmed, S., 2004. The cultural politics of emotion. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Andrejevic, M., 2004. Reality TV: the work of being watched. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Alberoni, F., 2006. The powerless ‘elite’: theory and sociological research on the phenomenon of
stars. In: P.D. Marshall, ed. The celebrity culture reader. London: Routledge, pp. 108–123.
Attwell, F., 2007. BBC radio psychiatrist Anthony Clare dies. The Guardian, 30 October. Available
from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/oct/30/bbc.radio [Accessed 10 December 2008].
Berlant, L., 2008. The female complaint: the unfinished business of sentimentality in American
culture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Biressi, A. and Nunn, H., eds, 2008. The especially remarkable: celebrity and social mobility in real-
ity TV. In: The tabloid culture reader. Maidenhead: Open University Press, 149–162.
Blackman, L. and Walkerdine, V., 2001. Mass hysteria: critical psychology and media studies.
Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Clare, A., 1992/1993. In the psychiatrist’s chair. London: Mandarin.
Collins, F., 2008. The ethical violence of celebrity chat: Russell Crowe and Davis Gulpilil. Social
Semiotics, 18 (2), 191–204.
Corner, J. and Pels, D., eds, 2003. Media and the restyling of politics. London: Sage.
Couldry, N., 2003. Media rituals: a critical approach. London: Routledge.
Couldry, N. and Littler, J., 2008. The work of work: reality TV and the negotiation of neoliberal
labour in The Apprentice. In: T. Austin and W. De Jong, eds. Rethinking documentary: new
perspectives and practices. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill, 258–267.
Couldry, N. and Markham, T., 2007. Celebrity culture and public connection: bridge or chasm?
International Journal of Cultural Studies, 10, 403–420.
Daniel, M., 2000. Scandal and civility: journalism and the birth of American democracy. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Goffman, E., 1959/1990. The presentation of self in everyday life, new edition. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Harris, S., Grainger, K. and Mullaney, L., 2006. The pragmatics of political apologies. Discourse
and Society, 17 (6), 715–737.
Hattenstone, S., 2009. Mike Tyson: ‘I’m ashamed of so many things I’ve done’. The Guardian.
Available from: www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/mar/21/mike-tyson-interview-boxing/
[Accessed 28 October 2009].
Hesmondhalgh, D. and Baker, S., 2005. Creative work and emotional labour in the television indus-
try. Theory, Culture and Society, 25 (7–8), 97–118.
Hochschild, A., 1979. Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of
Sociology, 85 (3), 551–574.
Hochschild, A., 1983/2003. The managed heart: the commercialisation of human feeling. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Hochschild, A., 2003. The commercialisation of intimate life: notes from home and work. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Holmes, S., 2004. ‘All you’ve got to worry about is the task, having a cup of tea, and doing a bit of
sunbathing’. Approaching celebrity in Big Brother. In: S. Holmes and D. Jermyn, eds. Under-
standing reality television. London: Routledge.
Holmes, S., 2007. The BBC and television fame in the 1950s: living with The Grove Family (1954–7)
and going Face to Face (1959–62) with television. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 10,
427–445.
Holmes, S., 2009. ‘Jade’s back and this time she’s famous’: narratives of celebrity in the Celebrity Big
Brother ‘race row’. Entertainment and Sports Law Journal. Special Issue on Governing Celebrity,
7 (1). Available from: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/eslj/issues/volume7/number1/
holmes [Accessed 24 October 2009].
Illouz, E., 2003. Oprah Winfrey and the glamour of misery: an essay on popular culture. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Illouz, E., 2007. Cold intimacies: the making of emotional capitalism. Cambridge: Polity.
64 H. Nunn and A. Biressi

Marshall, P.D., 2006. The celebrity culture reader. New York: Routledge.
Marshall, P.D., 1997. Celebrity and power: fame in contemporary culture. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
McGuigan, J., 2000. British identity and the people’s princess. Sociological Review, 48 (1), 1–18.
McKenzie, J., 2001. Perform or else: from discipline to performance. New York: Routledge.
Medhurst, A., 2000. Every wart and pustule: Gilbert Harding and television stardom. In: British
television: a reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 248–264.
Overell, S., 2005. True value in the fame economy. Financial Times. Available from: http://
us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto122720051316281772 [Accessed 20 February
2009].
Picardie, J., 2009. Why should Jade Goody go quietly? The Sunday Times, 22 February. Available
from: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article5779740.ece [Accessed 12 August
2009].
Plummer, K., 2003. Intimate citizenship: private decisions and public dialogues. Seattle: University
of Washington Press.
Redmond, S., ed., 2008. Special edition on ‘The star and the celebrity confessional’. Social
Semiotics, 18, 2.
Richards, B., 2007. Emotional governance: politics, media and terror. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Sennett, R., 1974. The fall of public man. New York: Norton.
Singh, A., 2009. Jade Goody ‘represented wretched Britain’ says Sir Michael Parkinson. The
Telegraph. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/jade-
goody/5114664/Jade-Goody-represented-wretched-Britain-says-Sir-Michael-Parkinson.html
[Accessed 1 August 2009].
Sternberg, E., 1998/2006. Phantasmagoric labor: the new economics of self-presentation. In: P.D.
Marshall, ed. The celebrity culture reader. London: Routledge, 418–437.
Street, J., 2004. Celebrity politicians: popular culture and political representation. British Journal of
Politics and International Relations, 6 (4), 220–234.
Turner, G., 2004. Understanding celebrity. London, Thousand Oaks, CA, New Dehli: Sage.
Van Zoonen, L., 2005. Entertaining the citizen: when politics and popular culture converge. New
York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Weaver, M. and Percival, J., 2009. Tributes pour in for Jade Goody. Guardian Online. Available
from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/mar/22/jade-goody-dies-tributes [Accessed 25
October 2009].
Whannel, G., 2002. Media sports stars: masculinities and moralities. London, New York:
Routledge.
Wood, H., Skeggs B. and Thumim, N., 2008. ‘It’s just sad’: affect, judgement and emotional labour
in reality television viewing. In: S. Gillis and J. Hollows, eds. Feminism, domesticity and pop-
ular culture. New York: Routledge, 135–150.