ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REPRESENTING FANDOM
Ì would like to thank th€ A s and Humanities Research Board ior
i-s,uooort o[ (his Dro]ecl. lam also irdebred to the School oi
Media and Cultural lorodu. tion. De Monllorl Unive-rtl linallt l
an qràtefu .o a number oÍ co'ìeague' who h-rve pror ided suPPorl
.usãesrron. or Íeedback a[ various 'tage' oi rhe w1Lin8 ol lì-i'
* ãrÏ fn*" rncl.rde lim Osullivan Brian LonghLrnt Jo\r B
I hompson, Roeer S verstone and Matt hill' .n Parli(u a'ì wou d
lile lô lhánk Henrv Tenlin. Íor his delarled Lonnenh dnd,Ìiti(dl
engagement with ihe final drafts of this book
INTRODUCTION:
In his hit singÌe 'Stan' American rap slar Marshall Mathers, betfer
known as Eminem, describes the obsession of the fictitious fan Stan
with his ÉavouriLe slar, none olher than Eminem himself. In the
song Stan describes his passion for Eminem, fhe way he identifies
with his songs, how his girlfriend is increasingly jealous of hìs
intelesl in Eminem, proclaiming lhat he'will be lhe biggesl fan
you'll ever lose'. Yet, as Slan's leLlers to Eminem remain
unanswered, he realizes the one-sided nature of his admiralion.
In his growing Írustmtion he kllls himseÌf and his pregnant wife.
Tellingly, despite such a drastic plot, 'Stan' still ranks among the
more sublÌe repÍesentâtions of fandom in that Eminem himseÌf
performs the role of the obsessed Ían. Yet, in its descriplion of the
fan as an obsessed and dangerous fanatic, it echoes a famìliar
theme.
Tony Scott's The Fan \:1996) tells the story of baseball fan Gil
Renard, played by Robert de Niro, who murdem a player of his
favourile ball club in order to 'help' the confidence of lhe team's
neì,1 slaÍ centre Íielder Bobby Rayburn. Drsappoinled by Rayburn .
'acl ol gralilude Ío- hi' murderou. a.tion. Renard kidnaps
Rayburn's son and evenlually, like Sran, kiÌÌs himself.l In a simiÌar
iashion news media have cullivaled a notion of Íans as
psychoÌogically defunct slalkers and killers- From Mark Davjd
Chapman's killing of lohn Lennon, lohn Hinckley's faiÌed
assassination of Ronald Reagan (atlribuled to Hinckley's attraction
to Jodie Foster), Günlher Parche's knife allack on tennis sLar
Monica Seles (described as being motivated by his admiration for
Seìes's rìval, Sleili Crã0 to thc dcath of thirtv,five IlaÌìan soccer
lrn. loloÌ^rn8,ror"d d.ru-bar... .,1 .' lurópear cup Fn") rr
Brussels in 1985 and lhe events ât Columbine Hìgh, where the
kilÌerí extensive colìeclion ol Marilyn Manson records quickÌy
seemed the only'reasonabÌe'explanation of lhelÍ cÍimes, news
organizâLions and reporlers have porhayed such events as parlly
or wholly motivated by fandom.
One may specuiale about the reasons for this negalive depiction
ol iandom. They no doubt conlain an elemenl of celebrâlion oÉ the
media's own power and influence, an always popular theme among
journalists and other media producers. At the same time it fuÌliÌs an
ideological lunclìon in lhat it displaces fears over media ellects on
to the ìmagined 'Other' of psychologicaÌÌy and sociaì1y ìnepl fans.
lenson (1992) has argued tÌìat ben€âth lhis represenlalion of
fandom as a social and psycholotical pathoÌogy allowing for such
dispÌacemenl runs an underlying, if nevertheÌess superlicial, critique
of modern life and mass culture- With regard to popuìar
repres€ntalions in lhe mass media, one may equaiÌy argue the
opposite: thal a critique ol the fundamental and complex lorces ol
modern life has been precluded by using fandom as a convenienl
scapegoat lor profoundÌy disturbing occurrences from Heysel to
Columbine. Fandom, as a form of agency, heÌe lends ilself perfectÌy
to explanâtions of such dìsasters in the mass media, which in their
relentiess allempt to'personalize'news and events have always
privileged lhe human aclor over shucluraì forces ìn the analysis of
conlemporary life.z
The balance between structure and agency is also crucial to Lhe
academìc analysis of fandom. lenson (1992) notes equal tendencies
to pathologize lans in earÌy mass communication schoìarship and in
'official'high cullure- In contrast to popuìar represenlaiions oí
fandom, the portrayaÌ of fandom in earìy âcademic approaches to
the jnteraclion belween audiences and popular media, from Horlon
and WohÌ (195ó) lo Schickel (198ó), ìs rooted in an aÌmost
exclusive emphãsis on slÍuctllre. In both approaches fandom is
ìnterpreted as a consequence of mass cullure needing to
compensate lor a Ìack of intimacy. community and idenlity. If in
mass-mediated representation lhe fan is predominantly the
perpelralor, lhen here he or she is firsi and ioremost lhe passive
victim.
This depictìon oi fandom as a consequenc€ of psychoÌogìcaì or
.uìlu-aì dy"iun.tron Lon.( LJlc. lhc l-,,lBroLr.d:g.rn.l nhi.h Ían.
ii,.r .,tr,.\r, d ,,(renlior' írom rn'di., .rnd , rÌr.r rl .rudic, s.holars in
thc l980s.Fron Fiskc(1989a, I989b, Íc)92) l(r l{'nkìns(199t, 1992)
nrer.inglr ethnogràphic and auto-ethnogr.rphi. -evea ed
J more compex r"a|on.hp be{Ì^ecn ían' a. 'L,die.
agenr- and the
slructural confines of popuÌar culture in Ì,r'hich they operate, a
relâtionship which cannot be reduced lo one being simpÌy a
consequence of lhe other. Earìy ian schoÌars activeÌy soughl this
contras! lo existing represenlâlions of landom in the media and
academia (cl. Jenkins, in Hills and lenkins 2001). Their endeavour
was not only lhe analytic representalìon and theoÌjzâlion of
fandom, bul also a form ol poìilicâl repres€nlation: a stalement
against the doubìe slandards of cultural judgement and the
oourgeoi- Íear ol popular.ultu-. a (ÌaLemenI in Íavour or ian
sensibililics nhich gare d \o.e lo otherwise mà-ErnilrTed \o.dl
groups.
More than a decade ìater, lhe need for such a partisan
represenlation of fandom has dìsappeared on both sides of lhe
equation: with the prolìleraiion of multi-channeÌ lelevisìon and the
arrival of new informâtion technologies such as the internet,
fandom seems to have become a common and oÍdinary aspect of
everyday life in the ìndustrialized world that is actively foslered
rnd utilized in irdu.lry lìdrleting <fldtcgies lore. 700J\. A.
lulloc\ and ìenlrn' ""c, 4'rcport .ìt one\(ige5J oe'centoFaìì
AmeÌicans consid€red themselves Sinr fret ians. At lhe same time,
fan sludies takìng a poìitical stance in repÍeseniing fandom have
themselves become part of the dominant paradigm of audience
theory (Abercrombie and LonghursL 1998).
Yel Íandom slill mirrors conditions of populaÍ culture,
consumption ând lheir academic analysis. Il has become impossible
to diçLJ<. populâr consunprÌon rnitnout reÍerence lo iandor and
Ían lheo'' ru.. a. il h,ì- become nerl lo i'npo'-rble to tind realms
of public life which are unafiected by fandom from the
intermingling of show business, sports and politics to the everyday
life talk aboul one's favourite music, television show or film. The
above-menlioned examples of the representalion of fandom in
news and enterlajnment media illustraie how the state of being a
fan is part of our schemes oi perception: in recenl yeaÍs not onÌy
acts oÉ violence commilled by fans against their object of fandom -
such as spoÍt fans atiacking an unsuccessfuì team or the more
dÍastic câse of Mark David Chapman - but any sort of violence
committed by individuals who also happen to be fans has been
explained in terms of iheìr fandom. Our Ían consumption Lhus
becomcs a generaÌÌy understood language through which one's
identity is communicated and assessed, lhe repeated references lo
the exl€nsìve Marilyn Manson coÌÌection oi the two CoÌumbine
kilÌers thus also reflected the att€mPts oÉ journaÌisLs and broad-
ca.ter. to say someLhrng obour who ihey were Ín rr'proliierarion
i-, srowins imoorianr eìn ihe con.ir r.rcLion oÍ idenlrly and iLs 'or iaÌ
u"icrltr'Í r lassiíicalion, iandom has 5omeÌhing to 'dv aboul ihe
veÍy substance, premisses and consequences of coniemporary life'
i"- th" oue'ì'on remain. how Iò conceptualize Lhe role oÍ
r,ndom in mbdern culiure Cr\en lhe ethnographir tradrlion ol lan
sludies often conducted among small groups of fans wilhin a
oarticular cullural and rextual conlext, the problem oÍ lheorizing
iandom rs pa-ricularly pressing EÌhnography as Morle, rlool has
arpued mLìst alrnavs be placeã w'thin wider trames oi anaÌysls see
alio V,rcu, and fi.her 198o. Thu. the challenges lo Lhe scholar of
Íandom are .imilar lo rho.e ía, ed bt rhe carlographe-. The su' r e's
oÍ either deoends on ouestion\ ol scale versus de dil. lhis i5 well
captured rn ihe lo ovri'ng rale reporled by Borge' and adapted br
Baudnllard tlo83). ln a por^eríuI ancient emPrre LdrtoBrdPherr sel
out ro compile a map LÏar Íulll -ep-e'ented lhe empire' rnealLh
and elorr. Àfter yeai, ot'rorl lhe) Íinaìl) completed a map 'o
detailed LhaL it.orereo all oÍ lhe emprre's territorv vet so large
Lhàt once unlolded, Lhe empiíe v!a( cove-ed in its enlirety To
Baudrillard the taÌe rÌlu-trarei the demise oí Ieferentidlit' in lhdt
eventuallv ihe mao eneenders lhe ter-ì orv \hic\ is leiL io rot
,-"' "^á". the map. i.t. even ir we do not share Baudrillard'
conierr. wirh .inularion and hyPe.eality rhe Íable illuslrate the
diÍÍicJìlìe. oÍ proce-.es oí ab.triction dnd the .ompronises lhat
need ,o be mud" in draning a map of Íandon. 1o neaningiul y-
theo'rze Íandon as a pracliã across v,rious p,enres - and only ií
Lhere r5 a .onlextual and oehavioural kernel in ianJom thal is
evident across different fan cullures does lhe general term 'fandom'
have analvtic value we need to reduce individuaÌ fan cuÌLures in
s.ule ani *ove from 'rich descriPlions' (Geertz 1975) to the
common themes, motivations and implicalions oÍ the inleraction
between fans and their objects of fandom. At the same fime, it is
imDorranr ro remain lrue to.uch delail l will thr,s zoon in and out
oÍ'spe(iíic ian (ultJre'. mo\ing ronards a iheory ol iandom rhat
dra\^s on culturdl dnd so.idl theory dnd exislinB conceptualization'
oi landom. r^hile .onhd<ting lhese theorericaÌ âPproàche' to
fandom wiLh the ethnographicìetail of fan studies, often citing lhe
âccounts of fans documented in these studies
A further element of particular relevance Lo the work of the
cartopraoher is hrs or her perqpe\lrve lhe work oÍ lhe soc'aì
,.,enìirt' comporc' o rh"t oi rhe early modern e'plorer d'awrng
m..rps irom lhcir parlr.ulrr anglc oÍ risron lhere s no equrvaÌenl
lo satellite and aerial phoiography when we dÍaw maps of socjety
and culture; we can never step outside Lhe system and look upon it
from above. Il is therefore all the more imporlant to acknowledge
ones own perspecti\e. Aç lulloch,2ooo,poinls oul. .he queslion
of whether scholars are fans themselves, or whether lhey study
landom as something that others do, has profound theoretical and
methodologìcal implicaLions (cf. Brooker 2000). Equally, scholars
failing to display an adequate level of knowledge aboul Lhe fan
cuÌtures and texts they explore raise suspicion amongsL their peers
and fans alike.s My own posilion is the following: I have been an
avid follower of spectator spo s, and particularly football, since
my childhood and, more recently sjnce a work-related siay in the
Uniled Stales, baseball. My support for a particular club would
qualify me as whai we will later, following Abercrombie and
Longhursl (1998), descrjbe as a'cuÌiist', although my lransnational
mobility has affected my abiÌity to attend in siiü evenLs such as
games and concerts. Either way, my previous qualiLative research
on sports fandom (Sandvoss 2001,2003) has inevilably shaped
some of the conceptuaÌ frameworks with which I approach this
book. Since my adoìescence I have also been a keen fan of
alternative and electronic popuÌar music, particularly bands such as
KrafÍwerk, and, have altended many concerts and festivals, while
keeping up to date through various niche media. By contrasl, my
intercsL in parLicular television shows, popular books or the work
oí given directoÍs has taken place only on a committed, yet
unorganized level. In a nutshell, then, I, Ìike most of us, hâve
experienced different degrees oí fandom within different genres of
popular culture. However, as part oí the endeavour here lo explore
conceptualizations of fandom acÍoss different genres and sub-
cultural conlexts, I, as much as lhe reader, will inevitably be an
insider to some of Lhe fan culLures discussed here, but an outsider
to others. This is lhe particular perspective from which lhis book is
wriilen, and which hãs shaped its argument and structure.
Preceding any analysis, one further issue needs lo be addressed.
Beiore we can draw a map, il is essentiãl to define its borindaries and
thus the subject we mean to represent. Before we can analyse th€
premisses and consequences of being a fan, it is necessary to define
what we mean by 'fan' and 'fandom'. It should be noted ihat what
has Íormed as a [ield of academic study oí'Éandom' does nol
nccessaÍily include alì fans and their aclivities, but rather focuses on
specific social and culturaì interactions, institutions and communities
that have lonncd through ihe cÌosc interaction of commiited groüps
ol ians h a srrbcrrlluml context. In a broader understanding of
 'l'andom, as on a most bâsic Ìcvol lhr st.ìtr {,Í l)cing a lin, rhjs Íocus
on communitics and_tightÌy nctworkcd tans lìils to conceptualize
inpor{.rnl d,pc(1. of rhF -ehLion.r-rp brrÌ^..,, th,. rnode.n .cJr
po_pular L ultu re whr. h ro,m. rv par iL u',r con, err l-erc.
ÌdelLil\
_Jnd
Some oÍ the drllerer.. on o,,d.ron coníli.,ing con,lu.iors Idraw jn
comparison to earlier studies of fandom thus follow lrom a different
.rnd.broader \copc or anal\.i\. R;ther than cha,lergrng .u,h .tudrer
on lheir oÌ\n fe-n. | \a\e thu. ône may a-gue. rh.rged thc.ubje.l
oí (ludy l /hiìe Lhi. i. pà11) trLre Lhi.ra(th;l ,hirr inlhe oounddfles
oÍ Ll-e maps i .eek to drau j< I think a rprF\\àn one. Ho\^ever
nuLh clhnographrc \^ L,rk on lan, rnd ar-dienr.s ha, emohasrzed the
.pec'iic( or lh; ,a.er .tudred ir inevrtablv .arfles imoticit cÌ: m.
abou. lhe elalron.hrp betweer aLrdienre. ard popular culrr.e which
<ir unea.il' wrth lhe abren.. o, a lare. numbeì or r.errers. lì,Lener,;
and -eadcr. whcr in nanv d.iinirions noL lca,t in lheir .elÍ
de\riphoì. are undcntood a. ran. rr orher hord\, i rlao thdt
colour. rn onl) .nall sccrion. ot lhe reÍitorl rìày oe a.curale r\ rd.
às the\p.ecrior\ are (once-ned, \et oí le.ser vaÌue in n"vrsaL:np
.l-'orgh lhe lenrton at la'ge lhis que.tron or .he bourd.re."ol th!
obiect oi sludr ol cour.e re.nain. d ouernon or'udgenenL and
deirnirion and I wil *el l^ c;riÍv the trire ra Íor'mr",uo8ement
below
Far Írom lhese theorelical considerations of what we can
describe as fandom, who or whai a fan is seems, as Hills (2002)
ob.erve. to be comnon InowiedSe Eren il rpe,irrr assumplio".
regarding whar and \4no a Ían i. mãy .eerr,.,t. to a'.rune
lhat Ì^e.àn d.sociatc [rndom *ith a 'ary.,r
partirular iorm ot enotiona
inLen.rt) or .rílecl L.o.>berg tooT . Nordb y. Ìrower er
.he sel,.
.lac.:l:c.,tror oÍ Ían. doe. no. reces.a.il! -cr;te .o rhe intensitv ot
lhprr emoriors Sometimec audrence grãrp" tl,rr lronr rhe ou.'.rde
,iDpea- ,ìç ,a.uàl \rewers ident ly rhem.el,e. a, .an. rSardvor.
2003). On other occasions emótionally involved viewers and
readen rhun the label Ían as potentirlll derogative at lea.t a" Ía-
i. rl-pl oì n .nedr,j , onrumption ir corier ned. Vorc,v..
emorior al ntersrlJ i. i Lalego-V whirh.,ìnnot oe neas.rred
qJantitrlìvel\. For the pLrrpoie ol emoirr,a inre.rrgaLror ard
,,ademj.dnrl'rir we therpiore n".d t" trrn to ob,errÃle a.perr.
as def;ning marks of landom. Ì thus wanL to suggest a delinitìon of
landom í.,u.rng on laì pra,tìce.. this admiiÈdtv derohes Lhe
oroblem lo lhe querlion ol 4hi(l- lan pracrr.es are mo.r rntli,arrve
ol ran. e.n^liond' ,nve5tnert Jnd alÍect. lohn tisle. who,e worl
ha. 'hap, d nLr.h ot t\etr.,meworkot tl-eiirsr*areoÍransLudier
oIer. lh, tôllô4rnp d"-.;01 o.
"' '.,,, pràc,,(es
! l(.1 Ío,n rr,c,ppcrro,,c o mJ.*p.odu,ed àìo -r*
ïld.?-. , erìtcÍld|,menr
dictrib!lcd ,erldrn pertormer\, ndírtives or senre,
dnd lalp. lhem rnto rhe , uÌr:-e or a ,etr red tra.hon ôí;""t"
,k" "ete.
reuor,tred irro ân inÍenfty
-, .-*
],f:r,,," 0r"".,-uì"
.rBn rl,ng poputJ, cutrure,har,, born,,m,f; ro ye, .isniÍi,,ìlti
d:lierenl ÍÍom. the crIur" or more normal pop,ì,,,_d:"".e..
ÍIaldor :,...J..oíirted i rh the .Jru,rt l:.r;. or.ubo,dirâreo
rormatron, ot the peop e. pâr'rcuÌd,Jy rho,e dr.e'Íìe6^"."4 6u ,n,
rombiràt,on ot gender. rge .t,* and ra,e. Fi.\e t09.) J0,
problem nrth thrs de /,rrlo dei,njtron or landon iç rhjr Fìskc
,l,he
blur5 lhe bolrndd.ìe\ bel!reen Lhc descnplion and the interDretátiôn
ol lan pÍàctices dnd hence prerents Lrs wrrh a normative deiinitron.
Yet a.noÌ malive delinition rres the phenomenon ro be rtudred
fo an
àlready Ío'mulatpd Àypothe.r.: ii we dpline tandom as a
cultu.al
practrce imr.ted to lho(p drsemDovre.ed. dnd it we d\.ibe to
ir as
lì5ke does el.e\^here rtoSoa. a slrDVpr.ive rdeological iLrnctron.
we
limil our andlysis to tho.e lan. who ar" di.empoviered and who do
utiÌize,íandom a\_a torm ot -esi.t.nce. thus à"rii.i^*,f,","rfirl
n\polhesìs. ln lact. Íans pÌd(tice< àç well a. the so.io.
demoSraphrc background ol frns. d.e broader rhan Fiske rueee.ls.
Lylen(rve quan{italive /Wann et al tooo. SchJrr et ,J. t"SSi"Ula
]".? Wril,9l aÍ. zoorr ar welt a, qualitarire t,,.k."" t;;;;
5andvo\5 200j) Íe<earch on.pons fandom itlrstrate. it. popularill
bpyond Bloups di.adranlagcd on dccounls or .1a...
eth.ìicit). Fj.le . Loo2, acknolrledges thrs in rhe rase ;e;de,f,i
o'r
iajls lo addre(. srmila- rendencies acros: other Í'elds"iio",L.
oi oooular
culture. 50me genres oÉ popular musjc loÍ eyamDle'ailra.t
predomindnll) whrte. màle ran Christenson ând peteison t9s8)
nol dll ol \a hom íall into loyr'er cld.. brarlets. Similarlr. oarLi. :lar
.ho*s such as the BBC radio soap 7te Á,.r",, À;;"',,i;;i";;
.Jbslanha' middle-cìa.. Íolloning Ihona. .r002r.
lns{edd Ì e need a deinirion ot fan prãcti(es thal precede.
nor'Ìali\e evaluation fhe cleare.t indicator of ,r*i.,,i,.
erìohonàl inve+men{ in a given popular rerr rie. in" itl -reÀ-tul.
repeJied con5umption. regardless oÍ who rt. reader i. and regaidless
ol the,possibre implicahons oÍ this afle(tion Manl oi thoie r^ho
ldbel lhpm<elves as ian.. rhen asLed *hat detine. rheir tandom,
pojnÌ lo their prt.prnç ol con\umprion. Consider lhe rollouinp
delinition. oÍ being a lan oy three ians oÍ dilÍerent popular texrs:"
Ì.,peld d lot ot trme gorrB lo toorbd.t and t,Jkrra aboul toolbalì
rhrnr'nr.ìlì.,r Lult,Jl,S.muel Cl-e.-": rr r,,n r:t"rrrcwpdAprr
1999)
I NÌRôDUcr oN
Eve. since I saw the vìdeo I was a fan. Ìn the besinnìns not a reâÌ
tàra'i(. nr. rmc lJlêr hner ther gor mo e popuhi I .r rn.o
buying magazircs, buttons, posters, jusl aboul anything tlÌat was to
buy. (SaÌly, llacf+reat Eoys Íân, interviewed feb.LÌary 2002)
in the begi'ì'ìing I used to watch Slrr l.l,lnrs over and over âgâin,
until one day I i1,,ìs waÌking through town i{ith my friends and I
saw the Sirr Wdru novel in a shop and could not resìst buying ì1, I
boufhr lrur Lô.| ,, d rcád I on- top ror tro oa., urr I I ri- .l-ed
it and then I went out to buy three morel Ì have been buyìng
more and more books every week, there are onÌy â Few now that Ì
haven't got. (Mike. SÍar lears fan, interviewed ApriÌ 2002)
Ìn one lorm or ãnother the emotional commitmenl of lhese fans is
rellected in the reguÌarity wìlh which they visil and revisit their
object of fandom Gee also Brooker 2002). Similarly, Harrinston
and Bielb) loo5, hdvc noted thdl rhe \d.. mãro-,.\ oi soap .rpcra
fans they sludied r,{atched their favourite show live lim€s a week.
Hence, drawing on this Ìowest common denominator, 1 ,/strr
fawlom as lhe regular, emolionally inuolaed corsumptìon of a gíun
populat naffatì're ar leú in the form ol books, television shows, Íilms
or music, as well as popular texts in a broader sense such as sports
teams and popular icons and stars ranging lrom âlhÌetes ãnd
musicians to aclors.
In this multiplicily of possible objects ol landom spanning the
spectrum of popular culture lies a further ìmporlânt âspect. Few
studies of fans have sought lo explore the paralleÌs between fans of
different lexls or genres, wilh some studies even making explicit
claims aboui the assumed uniqueness oÍ the partìcuÌar fan culture
they investigate Guch as Rodman I99ó). Moreover, most of the
work on fandom has focused on readers and ians ol lorms of
popuÌar ficlion, with studies of fans of indivìdüãl performers or
popular icons pÌaying a subsidiary role in discouÍses on fandom. In
epistemological teÍms, the dislinction between popular texls and
icons Hills (1999) draws is problemalic, because at lhe poìnt ol
consumpfion lictional narratìves and 'reaÌ life' icons are equally
encounteÍed as texts which are read and approprialed by their (lan)
audience. WhelheÍ we lind or-rr object of fandom in Brilney Sp€ars,
Buft'y lhe Varnpire Slayrr or the Boston Red Sox, thesc are all read
and negotiated as (mediated) texts by their lans. The way in which
fans reÌate to such texts and lhe performances thal loÌlow from lhis
reÌationship vary betwcen diÍÍcrcnl l:an cuìtLrrcs, and jndeed from
ian t() frn. Yet, thc'y are all forms oic<,nrrrrplion in rvhìch wc build
9
and mainrrir dn drre.lìvp rpàlionship nith mcdiared rpxr. "nd.hu'
.hare irndamcnlal p.\(no ogr\d. .o, ral ;rd crltu al premi..e. ard
FÍom lhìs deÉinilion ol landom as a form ol sustained. aÍfective
consumption folÌows the relationship between fandom and
'subculture', â concepl which has been popuÌar in the study ol
specific sociaì gÍoups from mid-twen!ie!h-century sociology
(Becker 19ó3; Cohen 1972; P. Willis 1977) to media and culturai
studies (Hebdidge 7977; Celder and Thornton 1997; Redhead
1997; Redhead el al. 1997). Mosi - maybe all of those who
pârlicipãte in subcullures which evoìve around a given media texl
or genre conform to the palterns ol regular and emotionaìty
commiLted consumption by which Ì define landom here. In this
sense Ì am repeatedÌy drawing on studies of subculture, regardless
o' whe.her nenber. .Í ,ub, ultura. g oup. desrribe lherrelve. rs
[an. a lern oÍter avorded b, ardier,e. tf i]B lo porlrày
lhemselves in opposition to mainsLreâm media (ThoÌnton 1995).
Yet, not allfans belong lo what has been described as a subcuÌture-
Moreover, Lhe academic anaÌysis of subcultures ineviLably carries a
dìllerent lheoretical Éocus on questions ol coììective ralher than
úìdividual identity, of group inleraclion, styÌe and commtrnily.
While aÌl ihese aÍe important elements in the study of fandom they
are nof geÍmane here and wiÌl be discussed in furlher depth onìy to
{he exlent that they relâte lo Lhe formation and impÌications of
landorr. The same applies to lhe growing number of sludies of lans
which do not examine fandom as such, bul reÌated phenomena,
such as lhe proliferation ol online communities in reÌalion to
fandom (Baym 1998,2000; Canz BÌãttler 1999, CumbeÌland 2000;
Cohan 2001; Hanmer 2003).
With these bor.rndaries oÉ the map of fandom Ì âim to draw in
mind, I now wanl to turn lo the analysis of paralleìs and dillerences
in lan practices across different genres, as welÌ as theìr social,
cuÌlural and economic premisses ând consequences. This entails a
journey through the different ìnter ând inlrapersonaÌ aspecls of
being a ían. We begin this journey by exploing lhe social and
. rltrrrl ,ontert ol .r .on.u-nptror Cl-.rpler 2 cxplore. tne pone.
.'l.ILrun. bcrrneen Ían and nedra producers. a.
^ell
,. por^*
reÌations within fandom Movìng the discussion lrom the notion of
poÍ\rer to identity, chapter 3 investigates the content ãnd context
,)l landoÌÌ by anaÌysing fan pcrformances. lhe ìnterdependence of
sLrch perlormanccs on forms of spcclacÌc, and the role of landom in
lhc irrmation ol .o,nnì,,nities, rs well as tcrrit<riaÌÌy bound and
,,nL)oun(l id.,ìlilics ( lì,ìPlrrs 2 lìnd .l lhus l(rc!s r ost cìoscìy on
l0 rNÌRoDUcÌroN

those aspects ol fâns cxperiences lhat have hitherto lormed the

key concerns of the academic exploÍation of fandom: the role of 2
fandom as a sociaÌ and cultural institulion forming inteÌpreUve
sorralì1 contexru;lizing rhe power oÍ ma.. media. lr
lhe.e chaprer. lhereby relecl l\e dna y.r.a eïphâ.ir on the
inLeraction between Éans, the following chapters focus on an
THE DOMINANT
equally significant aspect of the fan experience: the ìnteraclion
between fans and their object oÍ fandom. Chapler 4 turns lo lhe
DISCOURSE OF
intrapersonal dimensions of the relalionship between ian and
object of fandom by assessing lhe validity of dilferent psycho-
RESISTANCE: FANDOM
analytic approaches Lo pleasure, desires and self-identily ìn
fandom. Moving beyond classical psychoanalysis, chapter 5 draws
AND POWER
on social, cuÌturaì and medium theory to develop a model of
fandom as a form of self reflection, in which lhe object of fandom
functions as an extensìon of lhe self. Conversely, chapter ó
explores Lhe changìng role ol mediated texts in lhe relalionship
belween Éan and object of fandom and, on ihe basis of a criiical
refleclion on the notion of poÌysemy, assesses how fan lexts can
function as a mirror to the self. What al first sight may then seem
to be an investigation of diíferent fans and fan cultures with the
first chapters focusing on fan communitjes and the later chaplers
on individual fans is in fact an exploration of Lhe various social, I want to begin my analysis of fandom wilh the debates which
cuÌturaÌ, psychological, lechnologicaì and textuâl dimensions of conceive of fandom as a form of cuÌtural institution and
fandom, with different studies and thematic emphases highlighting interpretive community: the questions oÍ power and resistance
varying aspects of the fan experi€nce. The way in which these whìch, as is illustrated ìn Fiske's aforementioned definition of
different aspects of fan consumption, practices and performances fandom, have shaped the scope and LheoÌetical orientation of a
combine wìll vary from fan group to fan group and irom fan to fan. subslantial share oÍ fan studies since the late 1980s. a focus thai
For some fans, as we will see, the communal context of their reflects the wìdeÍ tÍadition in Media and CultuÍal studies of
landon. or even lherr ov\ ì .e\lual producu, it\. lorm the r rue . or e \ dÌuf;ng lhe preì1i.ses and con.equence\ of medià con.umption in
oF therr iandom. whiÌe ior olhers. rherr Íandom ir driven more by
an idiosyncralic bond with the,Í object of fandom. Ií as Ì suggest
here, fandom functions as a mirror, we must nol iorget thal what
we see will ultimately depend upon on our angìe of vision. Popular culture and empowerment

lohn Fiske's work on popular cullure and fandom (1989â, 1989b,

1992) provides a useful sLa*ing poinl. While Fiske is not the first
',hoìar to conl.ont que5lions ol por^er ard popular culture
.rnprn.allv and lheorel ca y. and \rs conclu.ion, are not generally
ondorsed in lhe various approaches to fandom that have emerged
since, hc has formuìated an overaÌÌ paradigm of power ând
nf iardcrm thal ha. .onrrrued lo .hdpe
'\i\1.ìn(c in thc .I rly.r.,tJsob'rôn.ppl
'r'u,h,íth, icl.l F,.t, ,'t Êopu ,i,rltur.hrng.'
 T
t52

quantitalive degrees of polysemy, ând hâve suggesied lhe notion

of neutrosemy to describe Ían texls which accommodale the widest
possible range of contradiclory ìnterpretations, such as SÍ,?/ Wdrs,
BaLman or sport tcams. On a quaÌilative level, neutrosemy follows
from fans' abiÌily to draw textuâl boundaries in the process oi
reading. This abiliiy, in turn, is ÍelÌective of lhe communicativc
dislance of medialed texts in what (Thompson Ì995) has described
as 'mediated quasi interaclion'.
However, while popular texls have different meanings for
different readers, the qualitative level of poÌysemy, such lhat the
texl itseÌf evades easy normalizâtion lor a mLrlliplicity of
schematized aspects, is eroded in lhe non ÍecipÍocal, interlexlual
consumplion contexl of fandom. As meanìng in fandom is
constructed in ever greater distance from the text and ever cÌoser
lo Lhe reader, fans' reading priviÌeges self-reflectìon and reaffirma
tion ol hoÍizons ol experìences and expectations over a relÌexive
engagement with the texl (and thus lhe worÌd) as meaninglul
Other. While the fan iext/objecl oi fandom is contextualizcd
through olher forms of socìal interaction and secondâry sources
which potentially chalìenge ils neutrosemìc siâle, the qúeslìon
arises as to what extenl these ìn turn share the social. culturaÌ and
cconomic frames through whìch the fan text and ils reading arc
I
lormed.
rt
7
CONCLUSION: ONE-
DIMENSIONAL FAN?
Ín his critique of indusliaÌ capitalism Herbert Marcuse (19óal1991)
elcveÌops an account ol a 'one-dimensional sociely' in which all
possible alternalives to the existing sirfrs 4ro of sociaÌ and
cconomic orgãnization are being eradicated. He poÍtrays â society
h,hich based on 'technical progress ... creates forms ot Ììle (and ol
power) which appear to reconcile the forces opposing the system
rnd to defeat or refute aÌl protesl' (Marcuse 19ó411991, p. xÌii).
I he one'dìmensional socjety Lhus becomes lotaÌìiârian, not in the
way of a single ruìing party or clãss, but as a 'non+erroristic
economic technical' system (Marcuse 1964/1991:5) lrom which
thcre is no escape. As Adorno (.79661 366) notes in his sludy of
negatìve dialeclics that'only when what is can be changed, what is,
is nol everylhing'- Contemporary socjely, however, 'seems lo be
capabÌe oÍ conlaining socjal change - qualilatìve change which
would eslablish essenliaÌly diilerent inslitutions, a new direction of
lhc produclive process, new modes of human existcnce. This
ronlainment of social change is perhaps the most singülar
,rchievement oi advanced ìndustrial society'. (MaÌcuse 19ó4l
r991: p. xlii).
A key objectìon to Marcuse's dystopian analysis has been the
.lâim that he insufficienlìy accounts for the potentjal ior resìstance
,rnd change which, Íollowing the original publication ol One-
l)inensional Man in 19ó4. manifested itseÌÉ ìn lhe students' revoÌk
('Í the 19óos and which has subsequenlly taken lhe form of sociaÌ
r)ìovements which, aÌongside leminìsm and ecoìogìcaì activism,
rlso includl llrc iormation ol palticuÌar gr<,ups in thc .onsonìption
 ts4
of popular culturc, ranging lrom music subcultures to the íans oÍ
television shows, coÌÌics or fiìms. Ììì this sense social and cuilural
theory are not onÌy important relerence points in the study oÍ
fandom, but cqually, the study ol lans becomes an important
empìrìcal test in the formulatjon oi cultural theory. To conclude my
analysis ol fandom, Ì wiÌÌ sketch out the lines of â crilical dialoguc
ocrweer the ruo by iu'raporing ihe conceplua pe'5pe.rives on
Íandor I hare cxpiored \ere nr.h Va-cu.e. cnliqr. oÍ tr. on.
dimensionality of modern ì;fe.
The study of popuìar cuìture and its íans has been assumed to
lalsify lhe Frankfurt Schooì's cultural pessimism and ils proposed
need for negalive diaÌectics. In the empiricaÌ anaÌysis of the micro
seltings of medìa consumption, a very differenf piclure fÍom sLrch
dystopian visions emerged: onc oI audience aclivily ând
negotiation, of the utiÌization of media texls for the specìfìc
purpose of shaping one's idenlify and place ìn ihe world- Much oÍ
this ãnãìysis has been case specific. However, in lheir sum such
studies leave no dolrbt that fans inlensely negotiate, appÌoprialc
and rework mediated texts, and herein lies lhe basis of my own
conceptuaÌizaLion of fandom as a form of self-refleclion as well as
that oI mosl other lheorizations of fan activily. Yet lhe case
specificity of most lan studies has also led to a ljmilalion of their
conceplual lramework. Fan sludies have often soughL a loo naÍ.ow
i and immediate lramework ol analysìs. ExplicitÌy and implicitÌy,
what can bolh chronoÌogically and thematically be described as thc
Íirst wave of fan sludies, expÌored in chapter 2, took ik conceptuaÌ
basìs lrom Stuarl HalÌ's (1980) discussion of encoding and
decoding, which was concerned pÍimâriÌy with lhe nexus between
textual produclion and consumplion. Yet, it did so only to ÍeilÌtc
ihe cÌilical perspective on ideological influence of HalÌ's argumenl
;n favour of a ceìebration of fans'ability to evade lìnear ideologicaÌ
influences, withoul queslioninB the ideologicaì purpose and
slÍalegy of popuÌar texts. Ìn neglecting ihe Marxist focus on
slructuml contcxt so pivolaÌ to Hall's initial analysis, the scope ol
fan studies was Ìimiled to the narrow question of who exercist's
control over the text, a questìon perl€ctly suited lo qualitative anrl
ethnographic empiricaÌ research, but limjted in ils analyticãl
relevancc. Consequentìy, the lirst wave of fan sLudies ãssumed ì
simpÌc dichotomy of power. with produccrs on the one hand and
fans on lhe other. From this peÍspective lhe social and culturaÌ
consequences of lan texts are limitc.l kr tht'dcgree that produccrs
cxercise ideoìogical inl'luenco ovtr lh ,,,nsurrrs or, rllcrnrtìvcly,
to whrt cx{crìt süch'in(l(xl,i,rìti(,,ì ir rcilrlc,ì Ì-Ìris rìirnrctrr'.rl
coNcrusrôN 155
understanding of lhe polariii€s oÍ Power in contemPoÍary societies
is well lllustãted in lhe wide adaptalion of de Cerleau's (Ì984)
.le-'rDrion or rhe oower relari.n' à\ ,r .rÌJd.ror rn r^hi.h the
.,,,,üi". or .uch'powerlul pr.,ducer., ,re coun ered bv the
small-iale 'taclics' oI the d;sempowered (consumers). For all its
benelih in ne ping lo under'land rnd egrlrmrze tu.h audrence
rr(Li.s d. rr a.peJ o rontenpora y Poier )lrusSles Produte \
.rnd ,onrumers bo no*o re;dr y represerl rhe ,omPle\ struclure'
,,t ooner rnd repre.rion i_ .onlempora-y .o.iehP.. lt v1ôuld bc
raïic lo beliere thãl repre.sion and idcolog'.;l .onrrol are
exercized lhrough popuìar iulture, or even mass media, alone Boih
are subjecl lo a wiãei ideoÌogical aPParãtus, in which they occupv
more diversìfied roles than simPly cultivâiing or rejecling
ìdcology. Consequenily, the possibility of rejecting or radìcallv
r, r^orlìng rhe idão ogr.al framework ol .r PàrlicuÌrr media texl
' -rnnot bf ir.elÍ keep the inLegÍàlion into
àn rdeoìogi(dì 'vslem dl
oav Nor doe. Ìt ne.cssaril\ create a dislance between lhe
.oí'u,r,", und lhe -\(tem d. a torm oÍ ae.rheti. di.ian.e rh ough
crilìcaÌ reflexivity, ór translale into lhe Power of initiatint socjal
,l'ange. Fqua ly thc absen.e ol anv rdeologiral meaning rnd the
.'oorãonarive áom'nr"," lhe Ían over rhe Ler', rnhr,h reÍlecr' a
t.llt ,..rt .ti. di'Lan.e."fbecome rhem-elve. ra.lor- in mainLàrn
"Ì
rrrs Lhe .ub.i.tence oÍ lhe -ocial ;tar,s 4,o.
None tne Je... eren recenlly pul'lished worl *hrch apperr'
. rrlrcal or thc emph"sis on rhe,emrotic and Lexlurl por"eroliantir
he rirst r.ìve ol tan .rudie-, -. rll rollon s .h'. b-oad lheo-eli, aì path
r1d ldil. to , onceptudlire the question oÍ power in fandom bey ond
he.imole ooÌalti ol mcdià ôn lhe one hard and Ían' on .he olhe
corlori , ',rooo'rno-1. Íor ex.rmple. goe' .r Iong na1 to*ard,
.lemon..-âlirs the .:Ìlu-al power ol ma.. medra rr lhe ,ontlru.
r"n oi syrbìli, boundaries marl'rng an eÀrràordinary rcaln- oi
quãsi religious importance, thal extends beyond tlre simpÌe
'i.ologi,,l
aray.: ol medià le\ts Sin'arÌy Mclirley' 'ludv
too' oí Bc,crjt H ts. o02tf Ídn\ pôiìh ro the per.r.lenre oi
'reÊem.rnrc per.perrire.'n popul,r Lexl' 'rhich 'tiÌl proloundlv
or lrndom. Bolh .Ìudie'
'l,ioe ran. aooiooriaLior ot rhe
, ."r,,'"'l re.e,alr,arron rÍ "biec.
tì'e balancc oi pon"r berrneen
',"i'.
nìcdia, lãn texts ând fans; however, neither moves bevond â
.l!.1ìúLomv ol Dower berrneen mas. rnedi..r rrd a,drer.et
M"r. u'.eÍ., 'in lhr- re-p.'.t à e lhp i\Lrnd ànd lliÌo Ì^r\e\ ôl ldn
studies. A nunber ol fan studìes iolìowing the initial rise ol the
.rcademic an.rÌysis,í Írndom, discussed in chaPtcr 2, foLrnd a ncw
thcoreticaÌ ixrrs ,rr Ii,rrrdjcu's sociology tí consumPtion. The
 -'Í
l5ó coNcrus oN
pâÌlicular theoÍeticâl benefit ol thesc studies Ììes in their adaptation
of Bourdieu's detaììed accounl ol the compìex and muÌti iayered
di..riburion and .rarnlenJn(p or Dô\^e rn .onlFl.ìpo-a.v so.iety
and crhure b.yond the limitationi ol bipolar,or.eprualrzation. ,,r
fower bplrleen media and a:dien,c. In stud er.url- r. Tl-orrton.
(1995) investigation of rave culture, Thomas s (2002) research on
Inspector Morse anà The Archers fans, or lancovich's (2001) work on
cull fans, the semiotic aclivity of fans is anaiysed not only in
re dlion lo medir rexl'.her.c re. bul al.o ;n rc rtion ro lhê.,oLi.,l
conlext of receplion. These studies highlight how on the leveì oi
organized fandom, as in the cases of cultisis and enthusiasts, social
hierarchies are consliluted and fan activi!y becomes itself a form oí
distìnction, discrimination and preseÌvation of existing power
stÌuctures within society. They reveal the ìnadequacy ol attempts
.o à..ociarp lan ,ulLurer wrth particuiar <ocra ly drsadrantase,l
grouo. and cld..e. a. in lislc. ì98oà, .rdaptatior oi BourdÌerr
From sports (Erickson 199ó, Sandvoss 2003) to Shir Tr!.k (Bacon.
Smith 1992; Tulloch and Jenkins 1995), different genres of popular
cuÌlure have atiracted fans across lhe class spectrum. These studìes
al<o qrality BoLr.drer. r^o-l ir one impo.tart re.pect. nl-ile .hc1
.,rll a.counl lo- .he comprer powe- -elaLior. ll-dt àre rtrucrurc,l
ând strucluring ihrough lhe habìtus, they aÌso indicate a shift from
consurìption p-acli(c. a. a .igniÍier oi,la.. po.itìon to d rignitinr
oi'el idenLitr. ln orl-e. uordr *hr.e pan'.ular objeLt. ôÍ f;durr
mây ãtfÍãcl socially diverse groups of fans, thjs does not pÍeveììt
fans from finding their self-image iefÌected in the object of fandom.
However, the Íeverse procest no longer holds true: we cannol
dedu.e.i Íar:, i pocrlion irô.r hir or l-er choi.e or ran oblert.
ïhi. cn:i. ol .ignrirra.ron ha. a p-olouno imp,i(t or qre.L,onc,,t
powe. in Íàndon. As one. hrbitr.,nd.eÌiidentitv a.e divor,c,l
iron represcntalion. oÍ .lar. in 'rrd^m thcv ,an'ro longer lr
conceptuaìized as ú priori resistance against the 'power bloc.
Rathe lhar ÍJnctioning d. à prdrri(e ol .ubrersion, randon,
lhro.rgh th" ddàptatior ot eyr.lrns \o.idr hrerartnicr rn.r
subcultural context, furlher cements the sllitus qua by undermininl
Lhe ro c oÍ , la.. a. a ve, lor o' .o.,;l , nan8e. ln thr. rcn.c .ludr.. ,,l
landom_ dranrrg on Bou diFu Íurl\er rorrooo.are Lhe Ji'.rppc.rr
àn(e oi c.,i\\ rol â, r,ategory oÍ ro,iJl l-ier,r. h) \^hi, li,lrll
ppni\l. bJt J. a -pa e oÍ.o,ial .p..1 )r.. .,. or,llrred b1 V,rr,rr-
Ìl ihe worko and his boss cnjoy th. si,ìt lrl(\,ision progrimmc
.'rdv,llL, m. r".., fl.,.. , rl', \l t, .'..'II,.,.L\.I] ,,1.
I ., 11,. ,ìr.;Ì1, ., lr'. 1,..,1 Irr. .'l ,,., , ..,x.
coNctusroN 157
newspaper, lhen thìs âssimilation indicates not the disappearance of
cìassis but the extent to which the needs and satìsfactions that
serve th€ pr€servation oÍ the Establishment are shared by the
underlying populatìon. (Marcuse 19ó4l 1991: 10)
FoÍ aÌl ìts benefils, this second wave of ían studies, which develops
â more complex understanding of Power and ilÌuslrates lhe
ìimitalions of nolions of empowermenl ìn fandom, signaÌs the need
to progress beyond its own initial framework, which in its coÍe is
based òn the assumption oi a correlation between class posi!ion
and consumption pÌaclìces.
We therelore need lo focus, not on lhe obiective socio'
demographic position ol ians, but rather, on the roìe of fandom in
.rn.rrucling ldìi idenLiLy n o-der lo under-Land rts socraì and
. ultural inplications. { Íir-. .rep tonardr thr. goal r. rhe strd' oÍ
Íar pe-lormance. thal a-e -erlecrire oi rhe ,npor.an.e oi Í.rnt
,.. vely -haprng a .en-e ol -elÉ rhro.rgh ihe oble.l oÍ landom.
However. it is ìmpoÌtant to re contextualize such PerloÌmances
;nd move beyond the ahistorical nâture of performance studies as
used by Lâncaster (2001) and other work drawing on Goffman's
lo5o looo' exploration. oÍ lhe pre.entd{:on ol .e'. r. the
lnbolr. resourre< rhrougì- whi,h st h pcrÍo'man.e. rale pì..rce
-rl. rnl-erenr àspecls o' Ìhp exirting sòcia and rechnological
system. As Thompson's (1995) notion of mediated guasi
interaction illuslrales, such pe ormances are lor the maiority ol
ians the enthusiasls who engage predominanlly in textriaì actìvity
wìthin a tight sociâÌ nelwork âside - conslituted wilhin â Particular,
technologicaÌÌy defined non diaÌogical communicâtion situaLion. In
Marcuse's radical vision, it is through ìdenlity and its technologicaÌ
Íraming lhât the total integrâlion of modern consumers into th€
existìng social and economic system is maintained:
The people recognise themselves in theh commodities' they find
their so;l ìn their autonobil€, hi íi set, split'Ìevel hone, kitchen
eou,ômênl rhe verv me-hani'm wnicl'lie' l\" indi\id-âÌ lo h'"
.clcietv
"". "h""e"Í èrd 'ocrdl colr,ol r' arrhor"d'r Lhe n.cd.
Ì\,hich it has produced. (Marcuse 1964/7991: 17)
l4 hcther we asree üitl- the cor.lusioì\ Mrrrurc dran. or no.
lrr. assessrrenr ilu.trarer Lhe \rgrili(an(c oi den.rly rn any
discussion of the distribution ol power in contempoÍary sociely.
This, howev€r, is not lo dismiss his critical assessment out of hand.
Abercrombic rnd Longhurst's work (1998) ìn paúìcLrÌar dcmon
 158 cÒN.LLrs oN
sl.ãrc. tì e rrterpldy berne.r r:n. aBen,, pe-lo.mar.e,.rn,l .,,,,
rr d crllrral -.ìàcio .rruL turp\ .pe. rai. r drJlori.dl oro.,. .r,,,t
rl-u. pu<irionr fJndon frn l1 wrrt-rr ".h. .on.e1r oi .,r.tr, r,,,,t
,on.Lrmc i.n l.rn. pc-f616.1p.s' Jno prooL,lr\ity wheth,.r ri,.\
,lre .emiôliL. erurcr!ìr\F or rer.r_.rl do ,ìor or lv oriprj,,t,. r,
àudicn.e .redli\ it! alonp br-t r-e al.u an rnhcrpni ,ni.r"ir,..,, r,,
borror^ Debord. pf'.r e oÍrpe,.a. e r. ac.um.r'ated L rprt.rl r.r'
nrgc. Iandorr thu. !e, o.,", p"rt L,t t.ìe rc.ÌhetiL 1,rli,,r. ,,t
ere,;day lrie rhar ha..oJJdp,ed rhe d...,,ncuoì oerrleer à t .,,,,1t,r,.
rrd .oìs,quent \ lhe oo.'ioi'i.\ ut erle\i\ity hr.ugn ,,*tt" r,
dislancc
Two further consìderations folÌow: the lirst ìs the ouestirn ol tlr
.xrent t.r r^ hr.l- perto-Ì'ìanL p opcomê. à nd., :\.rsliL DerlorrnJr, ,. .,t
.el'. lhe se,ond,ün.err,.inulàL;on .rnd n iT..,.: A,cor,trr,, r,,
Debord (Iees) the specracle of Ìarc capirati.- .", f;.J;;,;,iv ,,,,
pr..rl,, lor Ëpr urne p odurLive
".tivirv. tl-r pron nerÌ.c ,,t t,,
nor.ron or the .op\ .oir, idF. 4:{; .^1.,.;r. regrrdir16 .t,,
"ulhcnn.r) of .rpe-icr.e ,rd .or a' ,r d ,'.trr.l iÍe i. ,,,,,,
nediJÌed 'oLi.tie. i'ì po.tììooern lhought r. rn" .y, ,1,,t,.
burldrng ol^.\r o' rdertiiv rn l,noo.n ;c no lonpcr lr\ed i,, ,, ,,,.
ald Íace to-tace intprdr.ron. Vàn' .ire. of rd, d; ,,ng,.; i,,,,,,
Lhe re'eri.ua' rêpre.eìtrtior ol .port ." lhe-ne pr.r. r. rrr
BJud-rììà d ., I o8J I oorb/,on.'u.,on. .onLcrnrnp thi. Ì,rô,n,,,,,,.,
oi.;mualion rnd h\p.rre, litv .n portmooe-rit1ì huncr,.r s.r,t,
notion. oi\,perrea ir' ard.imu.at.on r e,e.,ariry r.ll.ho r .., t,,,
.ompÌpx r\ ol poDU ài . r.ru.e .lnd :ndom. rn .lur rhel ro,, r,..r..
or oniy one.ide or 1lç ;11"rP',U' beLlrcpn.t uctu.F,rr<1 aç, rr, r I
iandom rcf. Nrshtrnsãle 190ô)
The question that remains is whether induskìal modernitv si,t,
in.urnounrabì" boundar:cs .o frn pe-lornan, e. .r. r ,,r,.,.r.rt1
.).len LorSrueìt. fhe nrtine oÍ.rli .vrboir, -e\our.e. t,..r., r,r
obrc,i. oÍ Í;noon lo a.per1."6 rnd.L'tira..o-r.r'n. .rr r^1,.,.t,1
cor.une . .hapc .u.h ident .rer rould p .1ude rhe pô l. Ì\ ,,t
Íandcna. rÌ-e.pacc or .o.idl utopi., thdi {d.r .tooo.^n,.,p,,,t.,,,,
in h. notior ol pronr.ed lrrd.. lt .orre.pono, \.*, v.,i r,, rr,,
nolion.oÍ Íandor a. " Ío,n ol 4e.,nr..r. rrr don- 1,r,,rr,t,* rt,,
symboìic ground on which individuals r€cognize thenisctvcs ,rr ttr
signs and symboÌs ol ían objects as thcy may prcviously havc ,I r r,,
predomìnantly within th€ teÌÌitoriiìl I"cLÌs',ri thcir evcryrlay 1r1,.
The rccognition oi thc Ían iÌ, Llì,, ($irct ot tand,,,,r is'ltì,r,,
ìnevitably si:ll rcllecrivr, rirh{,, ltü,j ,r rrrt,,rnirlltrrÌ crìlìi1](,1ì(.rjt
with:rnylhing,ìow or otÌì.r trì l,1t,t ,,1 tlì,,,tt,ì.,,t,,,, ì,t i,,,r,,,,t
bhnks rnrl .rcstlÌ'lic (list.,,r(r', w, ,.,,Ì,,,,i,t1,,1t, ttj,ìt tJì{,tJ,,,ti{,,t,,1
.oNcLUs oN 159
rlrotional quaÌity ol lan texls in offering iamiliarity and sccurity
,Lrjses out oÉ a reading ol the object of fandoÌÌì ìn whìch the fan's
lrorizon of expeclations is met and blanks are self-reflectìvely filled
l,y rhe fan. Hence, engagemenl wilh the object of landom
, oììslìtutes ân interaction with lans' own vision of sclf. rather than
.rny new form of experience. This, of course, as I have pointed out
lrr reference to MoÍÌey (2000), is by no means dilfcrent from lhe
llcneraì moraÌ and social ambivalence ol HeimaÍ in industrial
rrodernity. Furthermore, il leaves us with the aesthetic dilemma to
which Adorno points in whâl he appropÌialely calls Heìmfkunsl
tt996. 125), lhe art of Heimat') an arl or craft form rvhich has
,r)tlìing to say bul the ialse illusion ol a meaningfuì world.
Botlì the concepluâÌìzation of fandom as a seìf projeclivc
rrading arising out of an unchallenged horizon of expectaiions
,rnd experiences and Marcuse's noLion of a one-dimensionaì sociely
ale at odds with interpretalions of fandom as seìf,refÌexive (Hills
t999, 20O2; Tulloch 2000), rather than sell reÍleclive. The
,lilÍerence here ìs whether we undersland the object of fandom
,rs Olher, and thus as meaningful extemaÌ entity agãinst which fans
,arr be reflexive, or as fans' exlensìon ol seÌf ;n which no
,neaningful distinction belween the ian and lhe object ol fandom is
rnâintained, and hence, ìn Marcuse's sense, the assimìlation ol the
rclf into the system ìs coÌÌÌpiete. UltimâteÌy, lhe question of the
social and cuÌlLrral consequences of landom thus becomes a
(Ìuestion of ils psychological premìsses.
There ìs a second Íeason to turn to lheories ol fandom which
have sought to ulilize psychoanalyticaÌ thoúght. Ncither Fiske's
notion of lhe pleasures of fandom as arising oul ol resistance or
sobveÍsion, nor the assumption thal fan perlormances becomc
. rbedded :n J loldlrldrdì .y..s1-' 6f.pe,raL p or orp Jrnenrion
. )rt, .an frll' J(cour I ror .h" p eu.,le. and en,oynenr ol la.r.
without which their reguÌar and dedìcated consumption of theiÌ
: rcn obie,. ol iirdon.àn'ìür b.e:'pbir ed. lnparlriu;r thenork
.'. Íàn fànla.),nd,pp."r'\e.dr.r'r.ng.rn I euà ar p.y.hoanalr,.
hrghlighl the importance ol allect, sexual pleasure and Ììbido ìn the
reÌalionship between fan and object ol Éandom. lreudian psycho
anaÌysis lhus illustrates how the approprialion of Ían texts opens
spaces of lantasy through which €ssenliãl libidinal drives ol the
lan's seìf are ârliculated. However, it has Ìiltle to say about how
lhcse drives âre meaningÉuÌÌy relaled to the objeci wor1d, and how
objects of fandom aÌe formed out of a multiplicity of tcxts vlitlìin
rn inicrtcxtual field.
What arc nccdcd ìnslead âr,: psychologicaÌ nrodcÌs r,vhtch
ló0 co N cL Lr sroN
account ÉoÌ the dynamic relationship beiween lan and object of
fandom. The nolions of projeclion and introjeciion drawn from
Klein (194ól2ooo) usefully outline the processes in which the
pàrticuÌar emotiondl relarion.hip betr"een Ían and lan object is
baseo. Belond nolion. oí rÍÍecl lhe -rnge ol emorions slimuìaled
and addressed ,n Lhese proces:es .dn Ìdnge l;om securrly lo
Érusrration. corre'pondin8 wrLh lhe complex emotional quaÌrlies oÍ
iandom whr.h. a. may be be.t exempÌii;ed by sporls fandom. are
not limiled to pleasure and enjoymenl. In fans' proiection, 'good'
and'bad'aspects are exLernalized and ascribed to ihe objecl oí
fandom. Herein lies lhe basis of the exceptionaÌ disappointment,
frustration or aggression aÍising oul of situations in which the
object of fandom lakes on â symbolic form that can no longer
contain such projections. Inlrojeclìon in lurn highlights pÍocesses
through Íans interna ze and .hu- urilize the external obiecÌ
'ah:ch
ol íandon rn Lherr own naking ol .elí dnd idenliLy. the.ymbolic
resources through which fan identity is br,rilt are Lhus, as Stacey
(199a) illuslrates, firmly anchored wilhin the parlicular historical
conlext of ían consumption. Yel, it is in this linkage belween socio'
economic condilions and individual psychological processes that
the particular difficulty of applying notions of intÍojectìon and
projection to fandom lies. KÌein's work, more than any otheÍ
psychoanalytic theory applied lo fandom, is rooted in the clinical
analysis of individual pathology; introjection and projection as an
àrticJation oÍ an a.'umed pa anoid-.chizoid dispo'rtion oÉ thc
ind'vidual Ían rhu' nor only cani lhe danger ol pathoìogizing
fandom, but are aÌso at odds with the social ând culturalcontext oÍ
fandom as a widespread phenomenon ol contemporary consump"
fion The same .onsìderãtion underscores Marcuse's assessmenl
that the nolion of inLrojeclion as a mechanism of existing social
organization has become problemalic, as ìt assumes an antagonism
beiween self and object world that indeed constitutes
pathologi(aì excepLion rarher than the rule. AccordinSly he dÌ8u(s
lhal rn the one-dimen.ional societl this anLagonr.m.;nd hcnce lhc
premiss of introjection, no longer exists:
Ìntrojection suggests a varjety of relatìvely spontaneous process€s
by which a Self (Ego) kansposes the'outer'into the'inner'. Thus
introjection impÌìes the exjstence of an inner dimension distìn-
guished hom and even aniagonìstic to the exteÍnàì exjgencies. ..
The idea of 'ìnner Íreedom' heÍe has its reâÌìiy it desisnãtes tho
privâte spacc ìn which man may Ìtcont and rcmain 'himsclf'.
Today Ìhis private space hrs brcrr ìnv&lcrì rrrtl whittlod down L'y
coNcrusroN lól
technolosical realjtv. Mass productìon and mass diskÌbutìon ctâim
the entir; individual. .. Thè result ls, not adjustment but mtrrrsis:
an immediàte identiÍication ol the ìndjviduâl with l,s so€iety, and
through it, with ihe society as â whole. (Marcuse 1964/1.991:12)
Nor{, we musL not, as HiÌls (1999: 198) warns, employ mimesis, the
hollow repetition ol the extemal, as a convenient 'scapegoat' as il
has been throughoul the hisiory of Western philosophy. Yet, this
is not ro .ây .hal Ma-cuse: specific <ocio-hi.loflc ândlysis is
'ncorrecl. Ihe question oF the .ocraì and cukuraj premi<ser dnd
consequences of fândom is thus in lhe first inslance the quesLion of
how we account for the non-conÉlicluaÌ relationshìp beLween self
(fan) ând object world (fan text). I will therefore briefly compare
lhe two socio-psychological models fhat are, I think, besl suiled lo
answer lhis question: lhe objecl o[ fandom as hansilionaì object,
and as extension of Lhe selÍ.
The first, introduced into fan sLudies by Harrington and Bielby
' loo5 and Íurther deveìoped b\ Hills tooo 2oo2). appeàrs in
'narled oppo.rlron lo rorrons ol one dimensiondlity o- mrmesis.
Insiead, íandom is inierpreted as a playfuÌ engagement with the
objeci world, as a form of popular Ìearning. The particular affection
Íor lhe objeci oi Íandom a. bridge between lhe lan's seli and the
ob'ect worìd in ihis rnLerpretation is d meaninBÍul devrce in
integrating inLernaÌ and external realiLy, and is hence reflexive
..rther rhan reflerlive. The scope oi Winnicott's origrnal analysrs oÍ
the trdn(itiondì obje( I rnd rtr âdaplation in Éan studies rs
Íundamentally oppored lo Varcuse'" approach, the que>tron rs
noi how external reality appropriates or limits the self, but how tlre
self meaningfully addresses external reâlity. It is, in its core, an
âÍgument aboul agency. In their emphasis on fandom as realm of
pÌay and security and of basic lrusl, lhese approaches Lo fandom
iÌ
echo Giddens's (1991) understanding of lhe modern self in its
prolpclivp cocoon consrructed through socraÌ inreràclior \^hether
iL is Íace-ro-íare or m"draled quasi inleraction. Ând like Cidden' s
work, which dismisses claims regarding the proÌiferation of
narcìssism, self-identiiy in these approaches becomes a ÍoÌm of
baÌancing and compensating for the structural íorces and pressures
ol modern liie. fhe problem here. Írom lhe perspeclive oí one-
dimer.ionaìily. s Lhe same as wirh inrÌoiection: il \uppose. Lhat
the selt is somehow ìndependent of its social, cuÌturaì and
.conomi. .on.lifiôns
in a conirãsting approach io fandom, Abercrombie and Long
huÍst (1998) higìrlight lhe role of narcissism ìn thc construction of
 ì
t62
fandom. While they identify narcissism prjmarily in fan perÍor
mances ând thus in fans'social interaction, Ì have emphasized tht
self rellective relalìonship between fan and object oi fandom. Ljkl
lhe notion ol the transitionaÌ object, the idea that the object ol
fandom Íunctions as a mirror to the fan heÌps to explain the intense
emotional involvemenl of fans, which is based on. as Mcluhal
describes it, one's fascinalion wìth one's own extension- Il equally
explains the often fierce resislance ol fâns to lransformations oí
their object of fandom up to the poìnt lhat semiolic productivily ir
turned into fextual pÍoductivity in order to maintain spaces of scll:
refÌection. However, conceptualizing the fan object as a medium ()l
seìf Íetlection carries proÍound impìicãtions with regard io ils
sociâl and culiural consequences. In self-reflection the link betwccrl
seÌf and ob;ect world is immcdiate) there is no inherent oppositi()rì
between self and ob;ect world, as in the notions of fandom rs
introjection/projection or as tÍânsitionai object. The fans (uncon
scious) seìf-recognition in popular texts thus requires in the lirsl
insiance lhe negotialion and appropriation of such texls in oÌder l0
cÍeate a self pÍojective reading; bul on a second level, it guarantcrs
lhai lhe symbolic basis of fandom is lound within the existinl
conditions of production and consumplion. Thereiore, lans rr
liable !o funclion ãs 'seÍvomechanisms' (Mcluhan 19ó4) to mâcn'
strucluraÌ tÌânsformations such as gÌobaÌization or commerciâlizn
tion which come to shape lheir object of fandom. Howcvt'r,
Marcuse's optimistic account of nâÍcissism reminds us that tlrr,
exlension of self that follows lrom the self reflective relationshit,
between subject and object is a dialogical pÌocess. As much as llÌ,
external objcct as medium of relÌection gains the ab;Ì;ty to shap,,
the reflected seìf, lhe ego refoÌmulates the object. SelÊreflcctiorr
thus opens up spâces of ulopian thought in whal Marcuse (195r'/
1987) describes as ìlbidinal cathexis. As I have illustrated,'sl,rslr
wriling' is onìy lh€ most prominent example of how fandrirrr
thereby opens up a space lor the Ìibidinal ÍeformuÌation of so(.i,rl
relations. Yet, Marcuse's earlier work on narcissism (1956/ tt)tlf)
correlates with his later cxplomtion of one dimensional s(xi.ly
17964/1991) in an interesling way. The form of nârcissisÌÌì llì,rl
MaÌcuse envisions lìnds its reflection in nature. humrn or
otherwise, and it is from lhìs amalgamalion of seìf and n,rlrrr,
through seÌf-refìection thâl the possibility oÍ ÌibidinaÌ crtìrcxr
derives. The symbolic basis of seìf rclÌcction in l'andom, howcv,.r
is vcry difÍcrcnt. To the degrec thrl ol,j( ts ol irndom arc rool,rl
in €xisting systcms oÍ co.*'''"' .,ìlìir,'lis,ìì, f,,ns rrrrcissistie s.ll
relÌcctìon ncithcr ()vc,((,ì,cs (ìt't',ìiili,',,r l,' |,rlrr|c rhr crrrl,,,
..N.,,s,óN ló3
surplus repression, but Ìeads to the lurther inlegration of the self
ìnto a one-dimensionaì society. Thus il is not only in narcissism as
a process, bul in ils symbolic basis, thât its sociaÌ and culturai
While bolh lhese fheorelical approaches !o landom come with
lheir own difliculties, in paÍticuìar regarding lhe aPPlication of
psychoanalytic concepts describing either parlicular developmental
stages or psychoÌogical dyslunction to the analysis of m€dia
.on.urìplion lhe key que..ron l'ere r. an empirical ore PLI 'impl)
r is {hà quesLion oÍ whetl-cr tne rela.ron-hrp bprneen tan "nJ
obje,t oÍ Íandom r- more Jc!Lralelv de'c'ibeo by thc pronoun
'mine'oÌ'me'. Ìt ìs the question ol whether this relationshiP is
primarily one or po..cssion mìì" oì ol erten-ron ,n_e Vy
:eading oÍ .h. varier\ ui qurnfllalr\e. qudli{dIire duto elhno
Ëraphr\ sLudre. or ÍJn. dis(ui.ed here rn light oÍ lhis dirtir.lron r-
,hai thel r.vea. an imned acl ot rdennÉrcarion lhat goe. beyond a
nere po..e..ive rel.ìtion.hip belweer Írn dnd obiec( or Ídndom.
Íhe aportt ian. Íavoult. redm Ìhe lavouale -horn oÍ the
dedicated science liction enthusiast, or even the more casual music
fan's Íavourite song progÌess beyond what these fans see as a
po..e-.ion and be.ome "n irtetsrd. pàrL ol lheì- ÌdpnÌrl) dnd vision
ãr .elÍ a. n".h r. lhei, perccption by o,her. a- rhc debare. on
.per tacÌe and na-cr*r.m as well ar Íandon and di.tin, rron Lhrou5h
,r. e h,ve demonsLràted. fhe ouestion oÍ lhe ndle-iaì dnd
symboììc basis ol conl"-po.u.y, ,r,édiu-bnt"d cullure also emerges,
then, as a queslion ol the degree to which popular texls have
progressed from polysemy to neutrosemy. The inlense semiofic
p odLr.rivrt] ol f:r. a. r^.ll a. lhe naLrre ol pôpuÌâr le\ts Ì^itì-in
in in.reas,ng y irlenerlurl Íield ol populd- mlrh- *hrch enabler
land forces) fans lo lake an active role in defining lhe textual
boundaries oí the fan text, confirm the increasingly reflective
nalure ol ian texls. The absence of disruptive textual 'blanks' (Ìser
t971, 1978) and 'othernesí in lhe fan text that constitules the
qualitalive aspect of such neutrosemy furlher underscores conceÌns
over one-dìmensionality. Ìt should be noled thâl the critical
iìssessment of lhe disappearance oÉ aesthelic distãnce is not an
.rÌl,'mpt to veniy bourgeoi- or eliLr-t sensrbrlirip- atrin.t PoPLrlar
' ull:-e, a. .he role or Íandor rn rhr. rontexr r. by no nears
' "' cplron,l. MJÌ( u(c loon loo'o-.norerhowclas.i.aÌ w^-l'oÍ
., . whi, n narc bc.o11e pa'r or tn. lrb.ràl edu,a.ror canon are
cmptied oí thciÍ aÍtislìc potentiaÌ as they'âÍe deprìved of their
ìnlaÍlonisti( ftrrtts, ol the cstran!ïcment which was thc very
(lìnrcnsi('ì oi lìì{ i, l,rrlh'. Tl,t rcstlrr:tic prcblcm ol lan lcxts, then,
ló4 (,,N,,Lr,rir ,1lN' Lr , r)N tó5

ìs onc ol h,nn .n(l distribÌ,1i,,,ì ,,! ,, 1rìi,Ìì (t incrcnsinllly breakages behtccn tun and objcct oÍ fandorn in ihc rclationship,
rationalized, ncdiated quasi-inlrra( li(),, willìi,ì llrr Íranrcwork,rí which leave fans disilÌusioned ãnd sometimes disenfranchized. lhat
popülaÍ inierlextuaÌily over coÌìt('nt. Ycl, wc also ncccl lo fandom's progressive negalìve polentìal Ìì€s. Fandom, in pushing
remember thât objects of landom are not th('only texts anrl the distinction betwcen use and exchange-value at the heart of
symboìic forms we €ncounter as part oÍ our lan praclìcc. Howcvcr industriaÌ consumeÍism to ils extreme, thus oscillâtes belween
much our object of fandom may fulÍil our horizon of expcctatjon, il affirmation and Íejection of exìsling social and economic
can be equaìly chaÌlenged through the conlext of fandom in orrì conditionsr belween alhrmation of lhe slatus qua and protesl
inteÌaclion wilh felÌow lans and oihers in the culturaÌ fieÌd. ãtâinsl whât is, as a lorm oí in Marcuse's (19ó411991) words,
For this reason âlone, ìl remains important to continue t() 'Greal Refusal'.
explore differences belween differenl fans on lhe level ol media While fandom reflecls the conilicting forces oÍ modern
Lrsage, sociaì connectivity and texlual productivity, even though consumption ils importance as a symboÌic resource in Lhe
there is no linear correÌation between Abercrombie and Long lormation oÍ idenlity and in the positioning of one's self ;n the
hursl's (1998) fan contintrum reaching from fans to enthusjasls and modern world, on the one hand, and the integrâtion ol the self inlo
increasìng or decreasing degrees of one dimensionality. I hopc the dominant economic, sociaì and cultural conditions ol induslriâì
then to have presented a unificd, yel not singulâr, theoreticâl modernìly, on the other - it is, in every sense, a mirror of
peÌspective on fandom. Differenl lheoÍies of iandom should be consumplion. Ìf we look closeÌy, theÌe is a lol Lo discover.
seen, as I have suggesled in the jnlÍoduction, as dìllerent kìnds ol
maps. What I have sought to do in this book is io order some ol
the exisling maps ol landom and set them in reÌation !o a map of
areas ol fandom, which hitherlo had remained ìargeìy uncharted. In
illirB tl-ere dr'e'se map. togcther. I hare irer tab v -edJ(ed l'ì"Íì
ìn scaÌe. Mosl importanLly, however, we need lo beâr in mind whal
lype of map/theory of fandom serves whaL purpose. In lhis context
it is crucial lo distjnguish between the nrodel of the ideal (self-
reflective) reading ol fan lexts by fans and the empirical rualiiy ol
Éandom in which objeck oÉ Íandom as transitionaì objects, spaces
ol empowerment, performance, projection or naÌcissistic self
Íellectìon âre conslantly at risk of breaking down as a result oi lhe
sociaÌ, technoÌogicaÌ and economic macro conlext of popuÌar
culture, which forms anl threatens the very basis oi fandom. As
MaÌcuse (19ó4l1991: p. xlv) noles, one dimensionalìty vâcillales
'between two conlradiclory hypolheses' (t) that advanced
industrial socìety is capable oi conlaining qualitativ€ change for
the foreseeabìe luLure; (2) that lorces and lendencies exist which
may break this containment and explode the society'. Fandom as
social practice, rather than as analytical ideal, radicaljzes lhese
poiarities. Precisely because lans enler an emolionally signilicant
relalionship wilh mass produced lexts and commodities in wlìich
these come lo funcLion as extensions of the seli and fans are
themselves shaped through their object of fandom in other
words, precisely because the integration into exìsting socio-
economic systems is so complele in fandom the realization of the
one dimensionnlity ol such systems is accelerated. Il is in lhe 'hltle