Recent public protests have highlighted a recurring sentiment: citizens expressing profound disappointment when the celebrities they admire stay silent on pressing social justice causes. This resentment has reinvigorated a much-needed debate about the challenges of elevating individuals, institutions, and icons to cult-like status.

On the surface, the demand for solidarity from influential figures feels entirely justified. It stems from a natural belief that social responsibility should scale with public stature. "It is because of common people’s support that celebrities earn their fame and fortune; hence, they have a moral duty to stand up for the people when disaster strikes." We saw this during During the Met Gala, against the backdrop of escalating conflict in Gaza, Iran and global economic downturns amidst turbulent trade winds, social media users contrasted the opulent displays with real-world suffering. In response to it, millions launched a coordinated campaign to block celebrities, influencers, and brands on social media who remained silent on humanitarian crises. Now, to understand the roots of this disappointment, we must examine the psychology of modern fandom through a more nuanced lens.

The crux of the issue lies in how admiration transforms into identity. When appreciation for a specific talent is replaced by defining one’s own personhood around a celebrity or group, critical evaluation evaporates. When fandom drifts from a conscious choice into a matter of faith, we leave ourselves emotionally vulnerable to the silence or shortcomings of people we do not genuinely know.

How does admiration reach the brink to convert into cultic devotion? Sociology and psychology offer two good explanations: One, Relative Deprivation & Compensatory Theory: Intense fandom often compensates for what ordinary life lacks. Where daily life may feel routine or powerless, fandoms provide a sense of prestige, belonging, and mastery. At their extreme, cultic devotions promise moral superiority and total certainty in an otherwise ambiguous world. Second one, Durkheim’s Collective Effervescence: Whether in a sold-out stadium, at a concert, or during a massive digital campaign, collective effervescence makes a group feel larger than life. It imbues the central figure, the athlete, the actor, the influencer with perceived sacredness.

When we passionately debate Messi versus Ronaldo or pour our heart out for K-pop stars, we are often escaping daily frustrations to touch something that feels immortal. To add to it we often find communities that endorse it, market that capitalizes on it and media that celebrates it. This creates a cycle of expectation and assumptions of response from the celebrities beyond their professional engagements which they never promised in the first place.

To elaborate further, while escaping itself is not necessarily inherently dangerous, trouble arises when this sacred elevation spills over into our civic life. The public square must remain reserved for addressing urgent, real-world challenges. We saw this friction even during the tragic RG Kar hospital protests in Kolkata. While citizens and junior doctors bravely took to streets demanding justice, a significant amount of public outrage was diverted toward policing the delayed or deafening silence of top cinema stars and cricketers. When we look to celebrities to lead our moral battles, we distract ourselves from ensuring that the fundamental machinery of governance and policy accountability must be focused on our genuine issues.

Above all, a healthy democracy relies on the "will of the people" as its moral compass not on the endorsements of a famous elite. As the younger generation takes the lead in the public discourse, we must re-center a basic truth about the ‘Band of Humanity’: we need not elevate anyone to something above human, lest we mistake our own power and degrade anyone amongst ourselves to something less than human. Normalizing treating everyone with certain basic equality and dignity can lead to self-reflection.

However, critiquing blind worship should never be confused with cynicism toward excellence. Extraordinary skill whether a breathtaking sports performance, a brilliant theatrical scene, or exceptional artistry rightfully commands joy, respect, and celebration. As a society, we should never fail to honor extraordinary talent, because what we appreciate is what we inspire others to emulate.

We all deserve a world where we find inspiration and comfort in shared culture. The boundary lies simply in recognizing that the people and institutions we admire should not be treated as cultic solutions to our social problems. Stepping out of the bubble of fantasy does not mean painting the world in cynical shades of grey; it simply means reminding ourselves that we cannot live our civic lives through someone else’s avatar just because they command public affection.

The next time we walk out of a stadium or finish watching a heroic feat on screen, we must practice bounding our admiration to that performance itself. A display of brilliance in an arena should not gospel us into if the same individual will act as a savior when adversity strikes our streets.

As we celebrate our 80th Independence Day, we can no longer afford the illusion that heroes on pedestals will fight our battles for us. As we collectively aspire to emerge as a developed nation by 2047, we must remember that our future will not be built on the sporadic heroism of a celebrated few. It will be forged by the grit, hard work, and adaptability of everyday citizens questioning, learning, and executing together.

About the Author: In her own words “Not a typical writer, just trying to make sense of the world and put life, culture and our collective madness into perspective. Also, managed to clear UPSC-CSE 2025-26, but we don’t make that my whole personality here.”