As millions of Americans cast their ballots on Election Day, a former pop princess made a decision of her own. Citing irreconcilable differences, Britney Spears filed for divorce from her husband of two years, Kevin Federline, and ignited a media circus, overshadowed only by the shift of the balance of power in Congress.
Despite the fact that celebrity magazines had been predicting the end of this marriage since the day the two wed, nearly every news outlet felt the need to give this story prominent coverage. The public split has been filled with controversy, including rumors that Federline—also known as K-Fed and, more recently, FedEx—has a sex tape of the couple he is willing to sell to the highest bidder if Spears doesn’t acquiesce to his demands. However, amid this inflammatory coverage, another disturbing trend has emerged: many commentators have seemingly taken Spears’ side, tacitly or even explicitly applauding her decision.
Much of the coverage has depicted Spears as an empowered woman who is casting away a deadbeat husband who has been living off her fortune. Her airtight pre-nuptial agreement has been offered as proof that the former pop princess is more than just a dumb blonde. She has been portrayed as back in shape and ready to move on-- the overall conclusion being that Spears is better off.
These arguments may not be completely without merit. Federline, whose debut rap CD released earlier this month received horrible reviews and sold an abysmal 6500 copies in its first week, showed his lack of character when he left then-pregnant girlfriend Shar Jackson for Spears in 2004. However, such analyses affirming Britney’s decision miss the larger point.
The coverage Spears has received is symptomatic of a tendency to uncritically glamorize, if not glorify, all things celebrity without any regard for the broader societal implications of doing so. It also highlights the convergence of two disconcerting trends in American culture: the obsession with celebrity and the decline of marriage and values. This combination is dangerous because of the importance of marriage and the tremendous trickle down impact that celebrities have on culture.
The growing obsession with celebrities has been well documented in the age of reality television. Not only do stars like Britney and Jessica put their lives on TV, but everyday people volunteer to spend a few months on a deserted island or live in a house with 6 complete strangers, and girls “go wild” in order to get the 15 minutes that Andy Warhol promised them. The inexplicable trend of people being famous not because they are talented and accomplished, but simply because they are famous, exemplified by heiress Paris Hilton and her former best friend Nicole Ritchie, shows just how far America has fallen off the celebrity-obsessed deep end. This superficial obsession is concerning in itself; when mixed with issues as important as marriage, it becomes downright alarming.
It is noteworthy that these same newspapers and magazines that are celebrating the newly independent Ms. Spears glamorized her wedding and obsessed over every detail of her relationship. Despite the fact that a teary Britney told Dateline’s Matt Lauer during an interview this past summer how difficult the press makes her life, it seems that, as often as not, the entertainment press has been an ally to Spears. Sure it exposed the fact that she was driving with an infant on her lap to the whole country, and it routinely releases the details of her personal life to the whole world. However, it is hard to muster too much sympathy for Spears in this regard. She and Federline broadcasted the beginning of their relationship on the atrocious reality show Chaotic; if that’s not asking for your private life to become fodder for public discourse, then nothing is. Further, even during what one might think should have been one of Spears’ most difficult moments, she was basking in the media spotlight. On the night before she filed for divorce, Spears, sporting a new look, made a surprise drop-by appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman.
She, along with countless other celebrities, obviously sees the benefit of this press coverage. When your singing career falls apart and your acting career ends before it starts (see: Crossroads), the best way to maintain your celebrity status is to keep your personal life in the news.
This is not the first time Spears’ denigration of the sacred institution catapulted her back into the spotlight. In 2004, Spears ran off to Vegas and married childhood friend Jason Alexander. That marriage lasted less than three days. Federline has not been married before, but has two children from relationship with Shar Jackson, whom he left for Spears.
The Spears-Federline example is not an isolated case; it is part of a much larger trend. Celebrities marry and divorce so often, that unless you are a regular reader of People or one of its less reputable competitors, it’s nearly impossible to keep up with the way these celebrities casually end relationships. And the media treats these break-ups just as casually. Sure they create plenty of hype around them; that is what sells magazines. However, the coverage almost takes that celebrity marriages will end as a given; the question is when. Celebrity divorces take center stage not because the media recognizes they are serious events, but rather because it has become a game to look for signs that a particular marriage is on the rocks.
It has gotten to the point where it is surprising if a Hollywood couple actually stays together. Examples of notable long-term couples are few and far between. Those few couples that do, in fact, make it are referred to by the media as if they have some kind of superpower. However, these couples are rarely covered in the entertainment pages because faithful monogamy doesn’t make for an exciting story. Yet, such couples do exist. One prominent example is Samuel L. Jackson, who has been married to his wife, theatre actress LaTanya Richardson, for 37 years. This marriage certainly hasn’t been without difficulties; the couple went through a tough time as Jackson worked through a drug addiction. Yet, through it all, they remained together. Jackson, who often portrays a villain, but in real life is one of Hollywood’s good guys, offers some insight into how he managed to maintain a celebrity marriage: he always keeps in mind his daughter Zoe. Jackson said, “I firmly believe kids deserve and need two parents.”
Unfortunately, even putting children into the mix doesn’t prevent the revolving door of celebrity marriages from moving. Spears and Federline have two sons: Sean Preston, who is one, and Jayden James, born less than two months before Spears filed for divorce. Both Spears and Federline are filing for sole custody of the two boys.
Having children has become trendy among young celebrities; yes, like Louis Vuitton bags and tiny dogs, even having a child can become fashionable among the hip. Yet, there is nothing to suggest that these celebrities are any more committed to their relationships; children are being born to parents in highly unstable marriages.
Further, many unmarried celebrities are also choosing to have children. These births are celebrated by the press, and thousands of dollars are paid to secure the first shots of these babies. We are ignoring the fact that these children are being outside what history and social science prove is the optimal situation: a stable, two-parent family.
The idea of family values in the world of celebrities is almost a joke. It seems we have just conceded that this is the way things will be, so we might as well enjoy the drama. However, the matter is too important to make such a concession.
This decline of family values among celebrities is reflected in society. In 2005, out-of-wedlock births reached an all-time high. This is despite a substantial decrease in teen pregnancy. Thus, the sources of this skyrocketing rate of single motherhood is an increase in unwed pregnancies among women ages 20-25, the same age as most of these young celebrities.
Admittedly, any claims about causation are dubious. However, because the notion of celebrity is so important in our society, the media’s glamorization of the actions of these celebrities certainly does nothing to help the situation. It is possible that the right kind of coverage could have a positive impact on how we look at marriage and family as a society. Maybe this type of coverage would not be as entertaining, but when you look at the consequences of the decline of marriage and family values, you can see that is not a laughing matter.
Despite efforts to make single motherhood more acceptable, the facts haven’t changed: the welfare of children raised in non-traditional households is simply not as good as that of those raised in two-parent households. Social science data has consistently affirmed the superiority of the traditional, intact family. A study by Patrick Fagan of the Heritage Foundation is just one among many that points to this conclusion. He looked at statistics ranging from expulsion rates to likelihood of failing a grade, to probability of ending up in jail, and found that children from married families fare far better across all categories.
And it’s not just the children who fare better. There is strong research suggesting that marriage is the safest place for women. According to a 2004 Heritage Foundation study, unmarried women are twice as likely to suffer from domestic violence as those who are married.
Whether or not you think the protection of family values is important in itself, anyone concerned about the general welfare of society or looking at ways to reduce government expenditures has reason to be concerned about protecting marriage and the traditional family structure. As Maggie Gallagher pointed out in a report for the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, the vast majority of the social welfare programs America funds are “the result of social problems driven in part by the decline of marriage.” Taking steps to strengthen the family will have important trickle-down effects on society. Not only will it be healthier, but it will require fewer government resources to subsidize.
So while the media may be inclined to cheer Britney and laugh as she leaves K-Fed, who one customer reviewer on Amazon.com said made him want to “scrape myself over a cheese grater just to get his stupid lyrics out of my head,” to fend for himself, we should keep in mind the big picture. When you look at the consequence of mixing the power of celebrity and the decline of marriage, it becomes clear that Britney and K-Fed’s split isn’t so funny after all.
Comments