Adoring Audience: Study of Fandom - Essay Example

Adoring Audience: Study of Fandom 2006 Introduction Fandom sets itself apart from general viewers and listners in a number of ways by taking in its fold the economic, cultural, political, gender and hypothetical elements. Socio-historically significant studies have revealed fans sometimes as 'pathological’ (Joli Jensen), sometimes as eventual after-effects of capitalism (John Fiske). The rigid and obstinate viewpoint of Marxism gave interpretations about this mass frenzy in simpler terms whereas the post-modern a theory upheld by The Frankfurt School criticizes the Marxist theory’s adherence to economism and unsophisticated material outlook, establishing a more diverse theory on media-culture and fandom. The feminists, of course, assert on the male-dominated cultural items responsible for the growth of this charmed and mesmerized world of fans. Fandom as Pathology Joli Jenson, in her work on fandom as pathology, depicts how it has been seen “as a form of psychological compensation, an attempt to make up for all that modern life lacks” (1992: 16). Fans are a would-be treacherous grouping of hated people who have nothing else to do but daydream about their preferred show or star. Certainly, this is an extremely bigoted outlook of trendy fandom. At the slightest, fandom is a type of societal chat that not only proffers backing to persons through interface with each other but also lends a hand to uphold people’s own individual relationships with family, friends, and other persons. Fandom does not help to get things that are not there in our lives since that would appear to mean that we are not endowed with vital social expertise making us all edifying loners. As a substitute, fandom presents a feeling of personal authority where investment deals with the UK Star Trek Magazine gives the essential implements to assist dealing with happenings in everyday life (Refractory, 2004). As Lawrence Grossberg (1992; 65) notes, fandom permits people “to gain a certain amount of control over their affective life, which further enables them to invest in new forms of meaning, pleasure and identity in order to cope with new forms of pain, pessimism, frustration, alienation, terror and boredom” (1992; 65). Fans and Textual Poaching In an interview on April 24, 1994 by Taylor Harrison and Sarah Projansky at a feminist studies conference in Tuscon, AZ (web.mit.edu), Henri Jenkins was asked whether he found Star Trek as a bottom line for other sorts of media fandoms in the context of Textual Poachers (written by Jenkins and published in1992). Jenkins found the question “a complicated” one. Because, as he said: “On the one hand, the media fandom that I talk about in Textual Poachers grew out of Star Trek fandom, to a large degree. Historically, it was one of the first places where women got actively involved with the science fiction fan community and began to take on the task of publishing zines 1, which had been predominantly male activities since the 1920s. Star Trek fandom, and its heavy female participation, set the model for subsequent developments in media fandoms” Jenkins, of course, was unhesitant that a lot of fans came into fandom via Star Trek, but not all of them were fans anymore. Each new show, according to him produced “new waves of fans”. "Media Fandom", observed Jenkins, “ came out of Star Trek in a very real sense. On the other hand, he asserted, “ Star Trek is not the only model for media fandoms”. Did Jenkins detect in that “poaching” symbol a certain kind of “valorizing” fan doings? In reply to Harrison’s question, Jenkins said, that he found the poaching simile very handy since it had timbre “within the academy, particularly within a leftist academy” that longed to “identify” things as “guerilla semiotics”, secretive, rebellious, resilient, etc, and because once it was effusively grasped, it had timbre in the fan kinship which also wished to see itself in that light and who could connect the metaphor, "poaching," to Robin Hood. Nearly all these women belonging to media fandom read Robin Hood or were concerned about his becoming adult. He was, so to speak a “poacher” of the king’s realm, robbing the rich in order to give it to the poor and so had great power for those women. It was an icon they were generally at ease with. Some fans were critical of the term “poaching” and remarked, "that poaching metaphor implies we hurt the text, that we take from the owners something that belongs to them." They said, "The text already belongs to us; we're not taking anything other than our own fantasies, so therefore, we're not stealing anything at all. We're simply constructing our own space and our own culture and our own life that happens to exist alongside a commercial text and doesn't do it damage." Jenkins sensed they were on edge with the term as they found it to be having an “aggressive” and divergent. “The other criticism” said Jenkins: “...is, it's a military metaphor and that's a problematic issue I've been spending a lot of time trying to rethink. It's a problem if we see struggle and specifically aggressive struggle as a masculine domain, but these women, in fact, in their Robin Hood fantasies, had already constructed that guerilla metaphor as potentially open for women. …They see themselves as powerful women and they are comfortable talking about power. By and large, only academic feminists posed that challenge to me, and I want to think through the implications of their suggestion that women can't be tacticians, women can't be guerrillas. Certainly if we look in the real world, hell, they've always been. You know, the history of poaching has always included women going back to the early peasant uprisings that E.P. Thompson talks about, which is what I always thought about when thinking about the poaching metaphor”. Fans as critics But the love of fans is not unrestricted, as is shown in many of the articles in Lisa A. Lewis’ compilation of essays in The Adoring Audience. The relation exists on a swap of reliance and use: as fans add to an artist’s business success, the artist adds to their personalities. Just as fans approve their object to represent them, they assert to speak for it to others. Owing to their self-obtained skill, the “rock world” empowers them with the to arbitrate where the slender line between genuineness and profitability rises. ‘I don’t think he lost the knack there’, says some fan speaking about the album (‘Born in the USA’) that turned Bruce Springsteen into a superstar, ‘but people think, many think, he sold out’. The views of genuineness are prevalent with the fans. They match to an aversion for commercial hits more than thosw who regulate cultural standards. Fans, according to certain studies, could be divided in rather two separate camps -- ‘modernists’ and ‘traditionalists’. The last were somewhat older, and presuming that most people have previously build up a quite steady taste after 20years of age, the link between one’s adolescence and a particular type of music may be held accountable for the making of these camps. To the modernists, Springsteen was ‘old boys’ rock’, while the traditionalists, arguing that the best music was made one or even quite a few decades before. Both camps united in their panic that the difference they had by now got hold of might be intimidated by a rise in new fans, making their object too fashionable. Since a particular music means so much to a fan that, he reveals, ‘I kind of don’t want anybody else to listen to them’ (Lindberg.1995). The popular image: the Marxian approach The Marxists, categorically condemns the radio, television, film and the other products of media culture to recast one’s actual identity; one’s sense of “Me”; one’s idea of gender-an class, race-ethnic differences and of "us" and "them." According to this group of critics, media icons help form one’s world-view and sincere values. Media stories supply the icons, legends through which one forms a shared culture and through the misuse of which one slots into this culture. Media shows display who has power and who is powerless, who is permitted to implement power and brutality, and who is not. They exaggerate and justify powerand show the powerless that to abide by their standard or else be condemned (Kellner, Cultural Studies). This, in a nutshell, is what the Marxists find about the media world around which the fandom revolves. A very simple, or rather naïve viewpoint in today’s multifaceted world context indeed. Marxists like Kellner dissert the problem in broader generalization of win-lose situations involving media and consumer society. The media, to him, are a deep and frequently misunderstood cause of cultural education: they add to teach people about how to conduct oneself and what to believe, sense, fear, and wish. As a result, the profit of a critical knowledge of media culture is a vital reserve for individuals in knowing how to deal with a alluring cultural atmosphere. In this article, Kellner tries to show how culture came to set up different forms of identity and group relationship. Media culture supplies the resources for forming world-views, attitudes and even identities. Those who naively go after the commands of media culture are inclined to "mainstream", matching to the prevailing style, values, and manners. Yet it is also interesting to know how sub-cultural groupings and persons oppose overriding sorts of culture and identity, forming their own fashion and identities. Those who comply with dominant dress and style systems, conduct, and political philosophies thus construct their identities inside the majority group, as members of particular social categories (for example white, middle-class conformist Americans). Persons who relate to subcultures, like punk culture, or black nationalists, look and act in a different way from those in the middle-of-the-road and thus make resistant identities, labeling themselves in opposition to set models. Cultural studies of this nature maintain that culture must be learnt in social contexts through which culture is made and used, and that study of culture is closely blended with the study of society, politics, and economics. Cultural studies consider U.S. culture and society as a disputed land with a variety of groups and principles fighting for control. Television, film, music, and other popular cultural platforms are thus frequently liberal or conformist, or irregularly state more leftist or protesting opinions (Kellner, Cultural Studies). For John Fiske, an expert on popular culture has an altogether different approach from the views expressed by traditional Marxists in this context. Fiske, who “at one time” as he says “was closer to a fairly regular Marxist sort of desire to change capitalism” has now changed from his earlier revolutionary stances to a evolutionary attitudes and considers capitalism to be “too flexible, it's too good at doing what it does well, which is maintaining its own power”(Interview with John Fiske, 1991). Fiske thinks that fame is only a trouble if we consider that we live in a mixed society and if we discard theories of universalism that people, in fact, are all identical. Fiske presumes first that late capitalist societies are made of a vast multiplicity of social groups and subcultures, all bound collectively in a system of social relations in which the main important aspect is the disparity of sharing of power, and second that worldwide concepts of human character do not take us very much, and have often been employed to take our thoughts down the course that are supposedly barren and politically wrong. All studies related to human culture have been mistreated by this approach (Fiske, 1987). Fiske does not any more believe that media reception is “entirely conscious.” He rather claims that the idea of “popular agency” is that people can make out their “social interests”, not inevitably speak about them, not essentially be totally aware of them, “and can also work to promote those interests”. Hence he is not certain whether “consciousness is the most productive concept because it suggests a level of self-reflection and articulation that often popular experience doesn't deal with”. Popular understanding, he notes, is frequently not “self-reflective” in that sense. Therefore he is not certain that the difference “between conscious and unconscious” is a very significant one, “when it comes to dealing with this”. Fiske openly says that he does not bother much about intellectuals’ point of view on culture. But then again, one thing that he found in Bourdieu (author of Distinction) is that the “high bourgeoisie” dissociate themselves from their own culture in a manner that goes very much against the proletarians, who are forever involved with it. Consequently, he considers, identity is more significant in popular culture, perhaps, than in scholastic culture. Does he then think there are fan groups, incredibly dedicated in their field? “Oh yes!”, he admitted adding further that, “They will often identify themselves, "I am a such and such fan". Yet that identity, Fiske thinks, in not “individualistic”. it's the interface between self that and the social relations that one yearns to slot in. Fandom , for Friske is at all times this “complex mix” between that “sort of community of fans and the identity of those who comprise that community”( Interview with John Fiske, 1992). Strengths of Marxist media theory media Contrasting many methods, Marxism accepts the significance of open theory to the mass media. Marxist 'critical theory’ disrobes the saga of 'value-free' social science. Marxism helps to place media texts inside the larger social context. Its spotlight on the nature of philosophy facilitates to “deconstruct” accepted values. Even as Althusserian Marxism helps to weaken the fable of the independent individual, other neo-Marxist attitudes see the mass media as a 'site of struggle' for philosophical connotations, bringing in the option of reverse readings. Marxist theory stresses the magnitude of social class concerning both media ownership and viewers and listeners reading of media texts: an vital issue in media analysis. 'Critical political economists' examine the ownership and management of the media and the effect of media ownership on media content cannot be disregarded. Marxist media study takes in the analysis of topics in the mass media (e.g. political reporting or social groups) with the intention of divulging the hidden ideologies. (Chandler, Strengths of Marxist Analysis). Drawbacks of Marxist analysis Critics disagree with such string assertions of Marxist media theory, saying that Marxism is only another ideology. Some Marxists are blamed of being 'too doctrinaire' (Berger 1982). Traditional Marxism is bluntly “deterministic”, and also “reductionist” in its 'materialism', permitting little possibility for human endeavor and personal engagement. Marxism is frequently looked as a 'grand theory', avoiding experimental study. Yet, research in the field of Marxist 'political economy' especially does use experiential techniques. And the analysis of media images does take in close investigations of specific texts (Chandler, Limitations of Marxist analysis). The Frankfurt School The Frankfurt School of 'critical theory' was seen by traditional Marxists as 'revisionist' partially since it condemned “economism” and unsophisticated “materialism”, and partially because of its pluralism, a post-modern approach. In media theory it is important for presenting the first Marxist endeavor to hypothesize about the media (Gurevitch et al. 1982: 8). Yet, it offered no real way onward for the examination of the mass media (Curran et al.1982: 23). The most distinguished theorists associated with the Frankfurt School were Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse and Max Horkheimer - all dedicated Marxists. For the most part, conventional ideas of ‘mass society’ affected the Frankfurt School, though it gave this outlook a leftist lean (Bennett 1982: 42). The so-called 'father of the New Left', Herbert Marcuse, in One-Dimensional Man (1972), portrayed the media very negatively as an overwhelming force giving birth to “one-dimensional thought and behavior” (Chandler, The Frankfurt School) Conclusion Comparing different schools of thought researching on fandom it appears that every serious studies have their contributions to help ascertain what are root causes o such a misbalanced human behavior. The Marxist approach albeit stubborn and obstinate to include the new domains of knowledge other than the traditional deterministic technique also has some relevance even in today’s world situation. They are the people who, at least are still vocal to oppose sheer profiteering in the name of globalization of culture. The post-Marxists, like John Riske, does not find anything bad about mass-culture and hero worshipping by the fans, which is to him a kind of interface between reality and dream. The feminists on the other hand raise their voice against the use of derogatory terms by authors researching on fandom that they find containing male, aggressive and violent words to depict women’s admiration for certain TV programs. All these pints when added up points to the need of a more flexible, sympathetic and more rooms for accommodating contrasting ideas in this study. Works Cited Jenson, Joli. 1992. “Fandom as Pathology: The Consequences of Characterization.” In Lisa A.Lewis, ed. The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media. New York, NY: Routledge. 9-29 Refractory. 2004 A Journal of Entertainment Media, Volume 5, retrieved from http://www.refractory.unimelb.edu.au/journalissues/vol5/geraghty.html Grossberg, Lawrence. 1992. “Is there a Fan in the House?: The Affective Sensibility of Fandom.” In Lisa A. Lewis, ed. The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media. New York, NY: Routledge, 50-65. Harrison, Taylor and Projansky, Sarah, A Conversation with Henry Jenkins", and retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/cms/People/henry3/harrison.html Jenkins, Henry. 1992. Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. New York: Routledge. Lindberg, Ulf. 1995. Listening as a fan retrieved from http://www.alli.fi/youth/research/ibyr/young/1995/95_4_Artikkel_Lindberg.htm Kellner, Douglas, Cultural Studies, Multiculturalism, and Media Culture, retrieved from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/papers/SAGEcs.htm Fiske, John. 1987. 'TV: re-situating the popular in the people', The Australian Journal of Media & Culture, vol. 1 no 2 retrieved from http://wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/ReadingRoom/1.2/Fiske.html Fiske, John. 1992, From "Ideology" to "Knowledge" and "Power", Interview by Eggo Müller, Madison, 09/17/1991 Bourdieu, Pierre (1979/1984), Distinction. A social critique of the judgment of taste London/New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Chandler, Daniel, Strengths of Marxist analysis, Marxist Media Theory, retrieved from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/marxism/marxism13.html Chandler, Daniel, Limitations of Marxist analysis, http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/marxism/marxism12.html Berger, Arthur Asa. 1982. Media Analysis Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, Chapter 2, “Marxist Analysis” Gurevitch, Michael, Tony Bennett, James Curran & Janet Woollacott (Ed.).1982. The study of the media: theoretical approaches Bennett, Tony. 1982. 'Theories of the media, theories of society'. In Gurevitch et al. Marcuse, Herbert , One-Dimensional Man. London: Abacus, 1972 Daniel Chandler, The Frankfurt School, retrieved from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/marxism/marxism08.html Read More