Fan Culture @ Swarthmore

By: Alex Weintraub
VS.
Fan Artifact(s): Facebook Groups
Critical Theory and Theorists are HOT!

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2209644563

~4 all the people that think paris hilton is HOT~

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2236228004

Up until now, the class’s focus has been directed to pop culture fandoms. A few discussions on the blog have arisen concerning the possibility of high culture fandoms (see http://blogs.swarthmore.edu/students/fmst85_s08/2008/01/29/continuation-of-defining-fandom/). Even still, the class has remained primarily within the contexts of pop culture. However, McKee, Pearson, and Tulloch focus their attention on fans of high culture (theory, classical music/literature, and Chekhov, respectively). Despite the different objects of fandom the writers address, all three share the belief that just as easily as one can be a fan of Star Trek, one can be a fan of high culture. In the same way that the authors find common ground between high fandoms and popular fandoms, I chose the Facebook group as the fan artifact because the standardized format will help emphasize the similarities.

McKee explains that the activity between theory fans and any other type of fan is basically the same. Theory fans consume all the material associated with the object of their fandom, form communities around authors and the theories they espouse, and identify strongly with the fantext, often making it a part of their everyday life (such as identifying as a Foucauldian). This can be seen in both Facebook groups, as members in each forge an online community in which they discuss the object of their fandoms and to advertise events within the given fandoms. Texts are interpreted and debates are held on the discussion boards. McKee makes it clear that all fans operate within a capitalist framework, not to reduce fans to passive consumers but rather to show that theory fans ought not be held above other types of fans just because they enjoy anti-capitalist texts. The Facebook group is a perfect example of how high fans and pop fans may operate within the same framework; the critical theory group even acknowledges the inherent contradictions in the debate on “What would our favorite thinkers say about Facebook.”

Roberta Pearson states that fans of high culture are not really any different than fans of popular culture. She describes that the lack of critical attention to high culture amongst fan studies is due to the resistance amongst high culture fans to be labled as fans. The view of these two worlds as being separate, she argues, is arbitrary and that high culture fans even share the same emotional investment to fantexts (such as the lively debate about Bach.) This similar emotional investment can be seen in the Facebook groups, as members of both groups speak of the object of their fandom in similar terms (different registers of speech may be due to differences in cultural capital).

John Tulloch “re-approches” high culture fandoms by showing how the different types of fan characters are replicated in the high culture context. For example, he describes amateur actors viewing Chekhov plays as being “enthusiasts” because of their focus on the production of a work. In the same way, different types of fans may be viewed in the context of the Facebook groups. Some are more concerned with production (When is Paris Hilton’s new show coming out? When is the next Foucault conference?), while others deal more with their own production (active users on the discussion boards.)

Finally, Matt Hills describes how scholar fans and media/cultural studies scholars in general have “recoded” aesthetic judgments towards which texts to study, favoring ones deemed politically productive. Therefore, all academics can be considered fans of what they study, despite their attempts to remain outside of fan culture.

Questions for discussion:
1. What is at stake when high culture fandoms are introduced into fan studies?
2. Do you agree that one can be a high culture fan? Do you think that high culture fans are as productive as pop culture fans?
3. Are there any differences between pop and high culture fandoms, other than fan objects, that the authors of these chapters don’t address?