Fan Culture - Sociology of Culture

Fandom – the state of being a fan – is usually linked to popular culture rather than high culture. People who appreciate high culture, often being as ... Sociology»SociologyofCulture»FanCulture Fanshavebecomeimportanttoworkinmediasociologyandculturalstudiesforavarietyofreasons:theycanbetakentorepresentadedicated,activeaudience;theyareconsumerswhoareoftenalso(unofficial,butsometimesofficial)mediaproducers(Jenkins1992;McKee2002);andtheycanbeanalyzedasasignificantpartofcontemporaryconsumerculture.Fandom–thestateofbeingafan–isusuallylinkedtopopularcultureratherthanhighculture.Peoplewhoappreciatehighculture,oftenbeingaspassionatelypartisanaspopculture’s‘‘fans,’’aredescribedas‘‘connoisseurs’’or‘‘aficionados’’ratherthanasfans(Jensen1992).Whilstconnoisseurshipistypicallydeemedculturallylegitimate,fandomhasbeenanalyzedasrathermoreproblematic:thestereotypeof‘‘thefan’’hasbeenoneofgeeky,excessive,andunhealthyobsessionwith(supposedly)culturallytrivialobjectssuchasTVshows.HenryJenkinshashighlightedandopposedthisnegativefanstereotype,arguingthatsuchportrayalsoffandomshouldbecritiqued,andthatfansshouldinsteadbeviewedmorepositivelyasbuildingtheirowncultureoutofmediaproducts,andasselectively‘‘poaching’’meaningsandinterpretationsfromfavoredmediatexts.Jenkins,whoseseminalworkTextualPoachers(1992)helpedtomakefandomaviableobjectofacademicstudy,suggeststhatthecreativityoffansisdownplayedinculturalcommonsenseinfavorofviewingfansas‘‘culturaldupes’’whoareperfectconsumers,alwaysacceptingwhatthecultureindustryproducesforthem.Againstthisnarrative,depictedasbelongingtotheFrankfurtSchoolofMarxisttheoristssuchasTheodorAdornoasmuchastoformsofculturalcommonsense,Jenkinsarguesthatfansdiscriminatekeenlybetweenandwithintheirobjectsoffandom,developinganaestheticsenseofwhatcountsasa‘‘good’’episodeoftelevisionseriessuchasStarTrekorDoctorWho(seeTulloch&Jenkins1995). Fansdevelopextensiveknowledgeandexpertiseabouttheirshowsorsportsteams,alsocharacteristicallyfeelingasenseofownershipover‘‘their’’objectoffandom.Theyalso‘‘tendtoseekintimacywiththeobjectoftheirattention–apersonality,aprogram,agenre,ateam’’(Kelly2004:9).This‘‘intimacy’’couldinvolvemeetingacelebrity,gettingasportswoman’sautograph,seeinganactorgiveatalkonstageataconvention,chattingwithhimorherinthebarafterwards,orevenvisitingreallocationsusedinthefilmingofaTVseries(seeHills2002).Fansthusseektobreakdownbarriersbetweenthemselvesassubjectsandtheirobjectsoffandom,theirfanidentitybecomingameaningfulaspectofculturalandselfidentity.Indeed,TullochandJenkins(1995:23)distinguishbetween‘‘fans,’’whoclaimaculturalidentityonthebasisoftheirfandom,and‘‘followers,’’whodespitefollowingpopculturaltexts,popgroups,TVseries,andsoonmorethancasually,donotmakesuchanidentityclaim. Ascanbeseenfromthis,fandomisgenerallydiscussedinrelationtomediaconsumptionandmediatexts,sometimesbeingreferredtospecificallyas‘‘mediafandom’’(Jenkins1992:1),althoughthisprefixisoftenassumed.ScholarshavetendedtoisolateoutandfocusonspecificfandomssuchasfansofsciencefictionfilmandTV(BaconSmith1992;Jenkins1992);fansofsoapoperas(Harrington&Bielby1995;Baym2000);fansoftheStarWarsfilms(Brooker2002);fansofparticularTVseriesandradioshows(Thomas2002);andsportsfans(Crawford2004). Fansandfancultureare,however,notquitethesamething.Byusingtheterm‘‘fans’’wecanrefertoindividualswhohaveaparticularlikingoraffectionforarangeofpopularculturaltexts,celebrities,sports(teams),orartifacts.Theseindividuals–typicallydisplayinganaffectiverelationshipwiththeirfanobject;thatis,theyarepassionatelyinterestedinandcommittedtofollowingtheirbelovedpopgroup,sportsteam,orsoapopera–mayneverthelessnottakepartinsociallyorganizedfanactivities.Theymaynotattendfanconventions,bepartoffanclubs,posttoonlinefanmessageboards,orevenattendlivesportingevents–insteadperhapssupportingabaseballorfootballteambyreadingaboutgamesorwatchingthemontelevision. Bycontrast,collectiveactivitiessuchasconventiongoingorfanclubmembershipareverymuchindicativeofwhatismeantby‘‘fanculture.’’NicholasAbercrombieandBrianLonghurst(1998:138)markthisdistinctionbycontrasting‘‘fans’’withwhattheyterm‘‘cultists’’:theformerdisplaytheirfandomprivatelyorpersonallyratherthancommunally,whilstthelatterareparticipantsincommunalfanculturesandactivities.However,manywriterssimplyusetheterm‘‘fans’’whenreferringtomembersofafanculture(BaconSmith1992;Jenkins1992;Hills2002). Here,fansaresocializedwithinaffectivecommunitiesoffandom,andengageinsubculturallydistinctivefanpracticessuchaswritingtheirownfanfiction(‘‘fanfic’’)basedoncharactersandsituationsfromofficialfilmsandTVshows,producingtheirownfanmagazines(‘‘fanzines’’),writingtheirownlyricstopopularsongsorstandards(‘‘filking’’),andengagingincostumingatfanconventionsbymakingreplicasofcostumeswornonscreenbyfilmorTVactors(Jenkins1992;JosephWitham1996;Hills2002).‘‘Fans’’inthefirst,sociallyatomized,sensehavebeenfarlessstudiedthan‘‘fanculture,’’probablyinpartbecausethelatterismoresociologicallyandculturallyvisibletoresearchers,andbecausesuchsociallyorganizedcommunitiesandpracticeshaveprovidedarichterrainformediaethnographerssuchasCamilleBaconSmith(1992)andscholarssuchasHenryJenkins(1992).Despitethispartialfocusinfanstudiestodate,scholarsandstudentsofmediafandomshouldtakecarenottoreplayfandebatesover‘‘authenticity,’’wheresociallyatomizedfansareconsideredtobesomehownot‘‘true’’or‘‘authentic’’fansincomparisonwiththoseorganizingorattendingconventions,orregularlyattendinglivesportsmatches(seeCrawford2004).Furthermore,weshouldtakecarenottoalwaysexplorespecificfanculturesassingularobjectsofstudy:manysoapfansmayalsobefansofparticularcelebritiesorpopularmusic,andmanysciencefictionTVfansmayalsobefansofhorrormovies,andsoon.Repertoiresofmediafandomarethusalsoimportant,asfansmovebetweendifferentfanobjectsandnavigatethroughintertextualnetworksofTVshowsandfilms(Jenkins1992;Hills2002,2004). Althoughitwouldbefairtosaythatthereisnosingularbodyofworkthatcanbecountedasthe‘‘sociologyofmediafandom,’’theworkofFrenchsociologistPierreBourdieuhasneverthelessbeenkeytostudiesoffancultures.JohnFiske(1992)hasdrawnonBourdieu’stheorizationofculturaldistinctiontoilluminatehowfans,meaningparticipantsinfancultures,distinguishthemselvesfromnonfanaudiences.Fiskeemphasizeshowsuchfansworktoaccumulate‘‘fanculturalcapital’’or‘‘popularculturalcapital,’’namely,knowledgeabout,andliteracyinrelationto,theirobjectoffandom.Inthisinstance,FiskeappliesanddevelopsBourdieu’s(1984)takeon‘‘culturalcapital,’’bywhichisbroadlymeantthelevelofeducationand‘‘training’’inlegitimatecultureanditsappreciationthataculturalagentholds.SarahThorntonandMarkJancovichhavealsoappliedBourdieuiantheoriestofandom,withThornton(1995:11)coiningtheterm‘‘subculturalcapital’’todescribethatformofcapitalwhichisnotcommonacrossanentireculture,butis,instead,specifictoasubcultureorfanculture.Hills(2002:57)hasfurtherrelatedBourdieuianconceptstomediafandom,discussing‘‘fansocialcapital’’(thenetworkofcontactsthatafanhaswithinhisorherfanculture)aswellasfanculturalcapital.Thissociologicalfocushasledtofanculturesbeingthoughtofashierarchicalratherthanromanticizedasanticapitalist,‘‘resistant’’communitiesmagicallyfreeofpowerdifferentialsandstrugglesoverstatus.Manymediafandomsandsportsfandomscanalsobeanalyzedasmaledominatedculturalgroupsaswellasmiddleclassdominatedelectiveaffinities,meaningthatBourdieu’semphasisonstructuralinequalityinthedistributionofformsofcapital,beyondeconomiccapital(money)alone,remainsimportanthere. NickCouldry(2003)hassuggestedthatBourdieu’sworkissomewhatweakenedbyitslackoffocusontheoperationofthemediainrelationto‘‘symboliccapital’’(prestige),arguingthatsociologistsshouldconsiderthe‘‘media’smetacapital’’(p.672),throughwhich‘‘whatcountsassymboliccapitalinparticularfields’’isaltered(p.668).Thus,fanswhobecomeregularsourcesforthemedia–orwhorunpopularmessageboardsorwebsites/Internetnewssites–maynotmerelybereflectingtheiralreadyacquiredfanculturalcapital.Rather,byvirtueoftheirownrolewithinmassornichemediation,thesefans,peoplesuchascinephileHarryKnowles(founderofaintitcoolnews.com)orDoctorWhofanShaunLyon(founderofgallifreyone.com),maybeaccruingandexercising‘‘mediametacapital.’’Suchfanscanevenbecome‘‘subculturalcelebrities’’intheirownright(Hills2003),beingrecognizedandrespectedbymanyothersintheirsubcultureorfanculture,whilebeinglargelyunknownoutsidethissubculture. AlongsidetheimportanceofPierreBourdieu’s(1984)workonformsofcapital,otherkeytheorieswithinrecentworkonfandomhavebeenthoseofperformance(Abercrombie&Longhurst1998;Lancaster2001)andperformativity(Hills2002;Thomas2002;Crawford2004).Inparticular,anddrawingonJudithButler’swork,MattHills(2002)hassuggestedthatfansshouldnotbethoughtofeitheras‘‘consummateconsumers’’(Kelly2004:7)oras‘‘culturaldupes’’inthralltothecultureindustry.Rather,Hills(2002:159)suggeststhatfansdisplay‘‘performativeconsumption,’’performingtheiridentitiesasfansinwaysthataresimultaneouslyhighlyselfreflexiveorselfawareandnonreflexiveorselfabsent,giventhattheycannotalwaysaccountforwhytheybecamefansinthefirstplace(Harrington&Bielby1995).Crawford(2004:122)appliesHills’sconcepttosportsfans,findingittobeofusehere.Thenotionof‘‘performativeconsumption’’indicatesthatweshouldnottreatfandomviaasociologicaleither/or,wherefansareeitheragentswhosefanculturalpracticescanbecelebrated,ortheyaresubjectswhosefanculturalpracticescanbeaccountedfor,andcritiqued,aseffectsofstructural/capitalistforces.Italsosuggeststhatdepthpsychologyorpsychoanalytictheoriesmaybeusefulinexploringaspectsoffanidentitiesthatoperatebelowthelevelofdiscursiveconsciousness(andanumberofwritershavepursuedpostFreudianandsociologicallycontextualizeddiscussionsofthis:seeHarrington&Bielby1995;Hills2002). Inshort,mediafandomacutelyposesproblemsof‘‘structure’’versus‘‘agency’’thathavedoggedcontemporarysociologicaldebate,andalthoughBourdieu’sworkhasbeeninfluentialinworkonfancultures,surprisinglylittleattentionhasyetbeenpaidtoutilizingothercompetingtheoriesofstructurationsuchasthoseof,forexample,AnthonyGiddensandMargaretArcher,althoughJ.B.ThompsonandSeanMcCloudhavesociologicallyanalyzedfandomasa‘‘latemodernprojectoftheself’’(McCloud2003:199),usingtheGiddensofModernityandSelfIdentity(1991)ratherthanTheConstitutionofSociety(1984). Asthesociologyofmediafandommovestowardmaturity,wemightthereforeexpectfurtherworkonstructurationtheory,aswellasfurtherapplicationsofpostMarxistworkoncommodificationandpostDurkheimianworkonritualandthe‘‘collectiveeffervescence’’ofcontemporaryneotribes(Hills2002).Worktodatehaseithertendedtopushtowardthestatusofageneraltheoryofmediafandom(Hills2002),orithastakenspecific(andlimited)fanculturesasobjectsofstudy(seeMcKee2002).Thesemaneuvershaveleftarangeofcomparativequestionsopen:areallfanculturessimilarlystructuredthroughissuesof‘‘fanculturalcapital’’and‘‘fansocialcapital’’?AndarefanculturesinJapan,say,structurallyandaffectivelysimilartothoseintheUS?Indeed,whatoftransnationalfancultures?Aresearchagendarelatingfandomtomattersofglobalizationhasyettobefullypursued,althoughonemajorresearchprojectunderwayattheUniversityofAberystwyth,andheadedupbyMartinBarker,promisestodealwiththetransnationalconsumptionandmeaningsofTheLordoftheRingstrilogyoffilms.Fansandfancultureshaveofferedonetestcasefortheoriesofaudience‘‘activity’’(Fiske1992)and‘‘performance’’(Abercrombie&Longhurst1998),aswellasallowingfortheethnographicexplorationoffancommunities(BaconSmith1992),butthestudyoffandomcontinuestofacemanychallengesandnewopportunities. References: Abercrombie,N.&Longhurst,B.(1998)Audiences:ASociologicalTheoryofPerformanceandImagination.Sage,London. Bacon-Smith,C.(1992)EnterprisingWomen:TelevisionFandomandtheCreationofPopularMyth.UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,Philadelphia. Baym,N.K.(2000)TuneIn,LogOn:Soaps,Fandom,andOnlineCommunity.Sage,London. Bourdieu,P.(1984)Distinction:ASocialCritiqueoftheJudgmentofTaste.HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,MA. Brooker,W.(2002)UsingtheForce:Creativity,Community,andStarWarsFans.Continuum,NewYorkandLondon. Couldry,N.(2003)MediaMeta-Capital:ExtendingtheRangeofBourdieu’sFieldTheory.TheoryandSociety32(56):653-77. Crawford,G.(2004)ConsumingSport:Fans,Sport,andCulture.Routledge,LondonandNewYork. Fiske,J.(1992)TheCulturalEconomyofFandom.In:Lewis,L.A.(Ed.),TheAdoringAudience:FanCultureandPopularMedia.Routledge,LondonandNewYork,pp.30-49. Harrington,C.L.&Bielby,D.(1995)SoapFans:PursuingPleasureandMakingMeaninginEverydayLife.TempleUniversityPress,Philadelphia. Hills,M.(2002)FanCultures.Routledge,LondonandNewYork. Hills,M.(2003)RecognitionintheEyesoftheRelevantBeholder:Representing‘‘SubculturalCelebrity’’andCultTVFanCultures.Mediactive2:59-73. Hills,M.(2004)DefiningCultTV:Texts,Inter-TextsandFanAudiences.In:Allen,R.C.&Hill,A.(Eds.),TheTVStudiesReader.Routledge,NewYorkandLondon,pp.509-23. Jenkins,H.(1992)TextualPoachers:TelevisionFansandParticipatoryCulture.Routledge,NewYorkandLondon. Jensen,J.(1992)FandomasPathology:TheConsequencesofCharacterization.In:Lewis,L.A.(Ed.),TheAdoringAudience:FanCultureandPopularMedia.Routledge,LondonandNewYork,pp.9-29. Joseph-Witham,H.R.(1996)StarTrekFansandCostumeArt.UniversityPressofMississippi,Jackson. Kelly,W.W.(Ed.)(2004)FanningtheFlames:FansandConsumerCultureinContemporaryJapan.SUNYPress,NewYork. Lancaster,K.(2001)InteractingwithBabylon5:FanPerformancesinaMediaUniverse.UniversityofTexasPress,Austin. McCloud,S.(2003)PopularCultureFandoms,theBoundariesofReligiousStudies,andtheProjectoftheSelf.CultureandReligion4(2):187-206. McKee,A.(2002)Fandom.In:Miller,T.(Ed.),TelevisionStudies.BFIPublishing,London,pp.66-70. Thomas,L.(2002)Fans,Feminisms,and‘‘Quality’’Media.Routledge,LondonandNewYork. Thornton,S.(1995)ClubCultures:Music,Media,andSubculturalCapital.Polity,Cambridge. Tulloch,J.&Jenkins,H.(1995)ScienceFictionAudiences:WatchingDoctorWhoandStarTrek.Routledge,LondonandNewYork. BacktoTop Backto SociologyofCulture. SociologyResearch SociologyofCultureAcculturationCelebrityCultureCulturalCapitalCulturalCritiqueCulturalImperialismCulturalRelativismCulturalReproductionCulturalResistanceCulturalStudiesCulturalTourismCultureandEconomyCultureandtheStateCultureinOrganizationsCultureIndustryCultureJammingCybercultureEliteCultureFanCultureGenderandCultureIdiocultureMassCultureMaterialCultureMulticulturalismNatureandCulturePopularCulturePostmodernCultureProductionofCultureSocioculturalRelativismSociologyoftheBodySubcultureWhatisCultureinSociology