Fandom?
February 28th, 2008 by SteveBefore the screening Tuesday night, Lauren and I briefly the various meanings that the word ‘fandom‘ can possibly have. The Wikipedia definition touches on the fact that fandom can refer to narrow or broad subcultures. The term has been used in a wide array of ways throughout class and blog discussions, and I definitely felt uncertain while writing my paper about whether or not I was using the term correctly. To me, fandom refers mostly to the phenomenon of people clustering towards a text. For example, in my paper I referred to Star Trek as the “object of a fandom.” Considering that I have already handed in my paper, I hope that I was on the right page as far as my usage. But, the main goal of my post is to hopefully illicit discussion and establish a flexible class definition of fandom.
Posted in Fandom | 3 Comments »
The most common usage of ‘fandom’ I’ve heard is after a text. For example, the Star Trek Fandom or the Harry Potter Fandom.
I guess I mostly want to back-pack on Steve’s question. How does the definition of fandom fit in with Jenkins’ definition of nomadic reading (pg 36)?
I’m curious what the most common usage of fandom is within an actually fandom (which I unfortunately do not have much knowledge of). Would you say you’re a part of multiple fandoms or if you and a group of people are fans of the same texts, are you in a fandom which has multiple texts as fan objects?
I guess, more succinctly, what I’m trying to add on in terms of this question is, in general, whether it is the text that determines the fandom or the people within the subculture?
I think this is a very interesting point to raise since I don’t feel as if we have come to a specific definiton of the term “fandom” in the class yet. Although I definitely agree with what Sarah and Steve have already written about fandom being associated with a text, I think we are focusing on the presence of a text because media fandoms are the only ones we have looked into in great detail at this point.
I don’t think anyone would disagree that there is a wide world of sports fandom, music fandom, etc., so I think another interesting question would be whether there are any inherent similarities and differences between these various types of fandoms. Also, I would argue that the term has more to do with the intensity of its fans’ emotional and intellectual involvement in the text, sport, etc. rather than just the presence of a popular text (Jenkins, 56).
Another point I want to bring up about this topic though, is if we are defining fandom as having to do with intense emotional and intellectual involvement, why do we so commonly use the term “fan” to describe even those people who show interest in a text, sports team, music group, etc. without a real intense closeness or emotional interaction with the object of their “fandom?”
I think the biggest obstacle with defining fandom is that the range of fandom is so huge… even within specific fandoms. Take the Trekkies documentary– everyone at the convention concidered THEMSELVES as fans, but some were in full Klingon garb and others were in everyday cloths… some where their Starship uniform to work everyday, others don’t. Even within a fandom it is hard to define– outside of self-definition. Everyone has their own standards of what a fan is.. some paint their faces at games, others cheer in the stands in a random sweatshirt. (I may have gone overboard with the examples..sorry) My pont: So maybe its self-definition and identity?