If you run a Google News search for “Michael Jackson” and “idol,” you’ll get tens of thousands of hits. If you watched any news coverage of the death of MJ, “icon” was the go-to word for describing the King of Pop. Here’s Agence France-Presse, for instance:
Michael Jackson is dead after suffering a cardiac arrest, sending shockwaves sweeping across the world and tributes pouring in yesterday for the tortured music icon revered as the “King of Pop.”
Clearly the media use this term to mean someone who is the object of a lot of attention and devotion. But I can’t help but think, if that’s what they mean to say about Jackson, that “idol” would be a better term.
Both terms are religious or have religious overtones. Here’s how one Russian Orthodox web site describes icons:
In the Orthodox Church, icons are sacred images painted on wood, carved in stone, molded in metal, sewn on cloth, or made in any suitable material, which conform to a canonical non-naturalistic style, and which are venerated by the faithful with bows, kisses, incense and lights, with the understanding that the icon itself is not worshipped, but the honor given it is transferred to Christ, the Mother of God, or to whatever saint is depicted thereon.
Now, even if you just use a non-religious definition, I’m not sure it’s the right word. Here’s what Random House says:
-noun
1.a picture, image, or other representation.
2.Eastern Church. a representation of some sacred personage, as Christ or a saint or angel, painted usually on a wood surface and venerated itself as sacred.
3.a sign or representation that stands for its object by virtue of a resemblance or analogy to it.
4.Computers. a picture or symbol that appears on a monitor and is used to represent a command, as a file drawer to represent filing.
5.Semiotics. a sign or representation that stands for its object by virtue of a resemblance or analogy to it.
Which of those definitions covers the media’s use of the term?
National Review’s Jonah Goldberg didn’t enjoy the media rush to sanctify Jackson with the use of the term:
An icon, technically speaking, is a religious symbol deserving of reverence and adoration. The networks may not have intended to use the word that way, but they certainly showed an unseemly amount of reverence and adoration for the man.
What do you think of the use of the term icon for anything other than a representation of an object or person?
 | Posted at 7:04 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (15) |
June 29, 2009, at 7:35 am
An interesting addition to the discussion can be found at http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/theanchoress/2009/06/27/reclaiming-a-holy-thing-from-the-dogs/
June 29, 2009, at 8:45 am
I know this isn’t as authoritative a source as Random House, but here’s the Wikipedia entry on “cultural icon”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_icon
I’d say that MJ fits this entry’s definition of a cultural icon: widely recognized, widely associated with a particular style of pop music and performance.
June 29, 2009, at 9:40 am
“Icon” in this popular use seems to indicate that the person has become iconic, ie, an outstanding representation of his or her type of entertainer, politician, whatever.
June 29, 2009, at 9:40 am
Yeah, he’s “iconic” of that kind of pop star.
June 29, 2009, at 9:50 am
As a traditional Christian (sometime Orthodox, now Lutheran but still traditionalist), I am troubled every time I see the word “icon” used to refer to a popular-culture figure (indeed, even though I am a software engineer I don’t particularly like the usage of “icon” as an element of user interface). And yet, it has to be admitted that language is a living thing, defined not by the preferences of grammarians and pedants, but by the way language is actually used. As much as I should like “icon” to be restricted to its liturgical meaning, I am afraid the horse left the barn on this one a long time ago.
After all, I’ve learned to say “the data is” rather than “the data are” — at least within the context of my profession — no matter how much it sticks in my craw. I think I can handle “icon” too.
June 29, 2009, at 10:55 am
Ouch.
June 29, 2009, at 11:12 am
I would be comfortable reading references to him being an “iconic figure” in pop music and video.
But ICON in and of itself? I would not go there.
June 29, 2009, at 2:37 pm
I don’t like “iconic” any more than “icon”.
Over and over, the popular culture takes over words with specific meanings for professions & religions, gives them new meanings and then argues that people who object to the highjacking are pedants or sticklers. Or worse - people misinterpret long-standing concepts and make arguments based on new definitions of the words.
There’s a reason why academics used Latin until the 20th century. Latin words aren’t slippery and concepts can be precise from person to person and age to age.
Lots of our sloppy thinking these days is due to sloppy language.
You asked. That’s my opinion.
June 29, 2009, at 3:24 pm
The odd thing of “icon” used of MJ is that the term is best used for some representation; a person cannot be an icon (tho’ perhaps a picture might, say the iconic image of Farah Fawcett, dead the same day). The term here seems to be derivative of the broader “Pop Icon”, a singular personage who captures some moment of popular culture.
Googling the term generates a list of rather interesting figures, ranging from Barack Obama to Steven Colbert to Korean star Seo Taiji. Uses that all were published in the last thirty days. In this broader linguistic framework, Michael Jackson is only one of many. And when the term is applied to Neil Diamond and Adam Ant, its currency is probably of limited scope.
June 29, 2009, at 5:14 pm
It isn’t the use of the word “Icon” to describe Jackson that concerns me. It’s the absence of the words “Grotesque” and “wretched” that is really disturbing. What are they saving them for?
June 30, 2009, at 12:47 am
In this special case of Michael Jackson, I find it ironic that we are discussing the word “icon” as a representation of a person, which is about exactly what Mr. Jackson has been for 20-odd years. I read an article the other day that pointed out that, possibly due to a lack of childhood affection, or a myriad of other factors, every gesture and affection that Mr. Jackson made in public, i.e. kisses, hugs, any expression of genuine human emotion, appeared awkward and forced. Sorta iconic of real human emotion, but not he real thing.
As for the religious significance of the term, I definitely think that the way that our use language as changed over the years has contributed heavily to the cult of celebrity (and a decline in religious piety). Thanks (or no thanks) to revolutionary writing techniques by modernist authors, there is no longer any vestige of respect for the sanctity of words, and what are words, if not icons for more significant ideas.
So, in other words….just beat it!
June 30, 2009, at 1:38 pm
Michael is absolutely an icon around the world. Regardless of his trials and tribulations from the past decade, which I believe only the U.S. has really driven into the ground, he was still one of the best entertainers there’ll be. Pastor Brown movie out soon.
June 30, 2009, at 9:06 pm
[…] GET RELIGION– Icons, idols and the Gloved One; Moonwalking into eternity …. […]
July 21, 2009, at 10:20 pm
The opening sentence of this post puts me in mind of this article:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0227/p09s01-coop.html
July 22, 2009, at 12:06 am
Kyralessa,
Ha! Except that this is a media criticism site — and we mostly look at print media. So using GoogleNews to determine what newspapers are saying isn’t exactly bad reporting!