The term “nepo baby” became ubiquitous three years ago after New York Magazine featured a growing number of celebrity offspring enjoying success in the entertainment industry.
The trend started after a viral tweet identified Euphoria star Maude Apatow as the daughter of actress Leslie Mann and film director Judd Apatow, sparking a wider cultural debate about nepotism and American assumptions of meritocracy.
“Suddenly, it felt like everywhere you looked, there was another child of a famous person booking a role,” wrote New York’s culture editor Gazelle Emami.
According to University of Alberta sociologist Michelle Maroto and her McMaster University collaborator Jordan Foster, the story appeared at a time of increasing inequality — and consolidation of wealth and influence among a shrinking number of elites — in the United States and globally.
Maroto and Foster thought the nepotism debate would make a great case study for how the media frames issues of social privilege and meritocracy.
“Media plays a big role in shaping our perceptions of things,” says Maroto. “In many cases, they give us the words and ideas to make sense of things in the world.”
In a study called “Nepo Babies and the Myth of Meritocracy,” published in The Sociological Quarterly, the researchers analyzed 331 news articles from various sources online and in print that refer to nepotism in Hollywood or adjacent entertainment industries, such as music and Broadway theatre.
“Most reinforce the American ideology of meritocracy, suggesting that hard work and talent explain the success of celebrity children, while hiding structural inequalities and the insidiousness of privilege from view,” they conclude.
The authors found that a large number of articles — about 44 per cent — defended the success of nepo babies, sensationalizing their opulent lifestyles while praising their inherent talent and hard work. Some explained, for example, how a famous name might get a celebrity child’s foot in the door, but their ultimate success depended on talent and hard work.
“This framing acknowledges the existence of nepotism but still defends it in certain ways, which actually leads to legitimating inequality,” says Maroto.
About eight per cent of media stories they examined produced “order,” or attempted to make sense of nepotism, contextualizing its advantage as natural, “just the way things are.”
They explain nepotism as “a phenomenon with deep historical roots, implying that while it is pervasive, nepotism is not unfair,” write the study’s authors.
About 25 per cent of the articles were indifferent to the trend, referring to nepo babies “flippantly or in passing,” contributing to a normalization of the social advantage. Only about 19 per cent considered Hollywood nepotism objectionable, acknowledging the inequality and unfair advantage of social connections.
“These writers recognize that, especially in a world like Hollywood where opportunities are rare, certain individuals just wouldn’t have gotten ahead otherwise,” says Maroto. “They may have extra training from their parents — and they may have talent — but there are a lot of people with talent who don’t necessarily get that extra advantage.”
Maroto and Foster argue that Hollywood nepo babies are only a small sample of celebrities, or even those with influential parents, but the trend does demonstrate how cultural discourse can pay lip service to meritocracy while undermining it at the same time.
Transparency from celebrity children about their own experiences with nepotism — as well as advocating for those who aren’t so blessed — could help lift the veil on structural inequalities and create greater opportunity, she adds.
“Someone who is more advantaged could help by creating opportunities for groups who wouldn’t have them otherwise.”