"The Cosmic Significance of Britney Spears"

In Tom Perrotta’s outdated article “The Cosmic Significance of Britney Spears”, the man contends that Britney matters enough to the world to represent a whole era of American history, “a potent symbol of the late ‘90s” (572-573) as he’d like to call her.

He pits her up against actual larger-than-life icons like Elvis, Madonna and Kurt Cobain in an effort to liken her to a great music personality using such arguments as “[Elvis and Britney] both grew up in … the Deep South” (569). That’s great, really. Luckily, he’s not a complete sucker for big boobs and the “innocent” act (I ask you, reader, how many women would approach the subject of Britney Spears’s “Cosmic Significance” in quite the same way?).

Though he discusses her qualities with a sense of pseudo-seriousness, the author does not respect her as an equal or higher. It is evident in his choice of Britney quotes throughout the article: “But this time [a stupid knee injury] was her mountain to climb alone” (572), mourns Britney’s mother. In the next paragraph, Britney is quoted as mentioning her “amazing team of writers, musicians, and producers” and her gratefulness to them for “churning out great songs for me”. She does nothing with the music but to spit out the manufactured product like some mindless robot. This idea is further engaged by Britney’s confession about her choreography practice sessions: “I will practice and practice a move in front of a mirror, over and over again – ten, twenty, a hundred times – until I’m happy with it.”

However, he’s still got it all wrong. Perhaps, given the chance to re-examine the situation in a later article, he might today take back his unintentional insult to Oprah and Madonna that one would even dream of believing that Britney is “a one-name trademark on par” with these two women.

Whether or not I respect, or even like Britney Spears is irrelevant. One needn’t be liked or respected in order to be an icon. They must, however, be about something. They must have something that makes them stand out amongst the rest of the other pop icon prospectives. Even the author of the article admits that, “Britney had a musical identity imposed on her. Britney is the universal that was never particular” (570).

So, let’s have a break-down of Britney Spears. What is it that makes her special? Is it the big boobs? Hardly! Britney is far from the only person with a set of silicone balls on her chest. Hm, ok how about the original songs? No. The “innocent” persona? She lost that a long time ago, and anyhow, Mandy Moore does a better job at being wholesome than her.

The strongest point that Perrotta makes for Britney as a symbol is that “The whole point of the new-economy boom was that you could be rich and powerful right now, while you were still young and good-looking” (573). I resent this, because the idea implies a new set of principles completely contrary to the American Dream. Success in America isn’t supposed to be about innate talents and good looks. It is supposed be based on hard work.

Furthermore, whether or not you live on past your self-defining era – yes, I agree that “The big question for Britney right now isn’t whether she can make a Madonna-like transition into adult stardom” (573) - one must withstand the test of time. While Britney has definitely “reinvented herself” a number of times, she in no way “managed to stay a success for so long while other artists have fizzled out” (570). Britney has faded and gone to pop star hell amongst the B-class paparazzi and maybe the back pages of tabloids – if there is any space. Without the teasing good-girl image, and given her various failed marriages (Yea, “chastity until marriage” (569) means a whole lot less when you just get married every time you want to have sex.), she’s just any other teen pop slut. Also, one’s character and other people’s idea of that character can be immensely influenced by the connections one chooses to build and the relationships that result. So, it really does no good to Britney that her last two publicized “beaus” were a pair of effeminate wannabe Eminems.

Besides, the bookends illustration of Cobain v. Britney (572) is unfair. There is only a section of 90’s America that took note of Britney Spears: little impressionable pre-teen girls and a rivaling fan base of perverts.

So, I’d hope, for humanity’s sake, that she isn’t “one of those … figures whose job it is to tell us who we are and where we’re going” (569). I refuse to allow such a bimbo to stand for my childhood days.