Cultural Theory and Popular Culture
Cultural Theory and Popular Culture
Cultural Theory and Popular Culture
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
The cultural field 223<br />
the legitimate concerns of the academic gaze. Against this way of thinking, I would<br />
contend that what really matters is not the object of study, but how the object is<br />
studied.<br />
Many areas of everyday life could be said to illustrate de Certeau’s account of the<br />
practice of consumption but perhaps none more so than the consumption practices of<br />
fan cultures. Together with youth subcultures, fans are perhaps the most visible part of<br />
the audience for popular texts <strong>and</strong> practices. In recent years f<strong>and</strong>om has come increasingly<br />
under the critical gaze of cultural studies. Traditionally, fans have been treated in<br />
one of two ways – ridiculed or pathologized. According to Joli Jenson (1992), ‘The literature<br />
on f<strong>and</strong>om is haunted by images of deviance. The fan is consistently characterised<br />
(referencing the term’s origins) as a potential fanatic. This means that f<strong>and</strong>om<br />
is seen as excessive, bordering on deranged, behaviour’ (9). Jenson suggests two typical<br />
types of fan pathology, ‘the obsessed individual’ (usually male) <strong>and</strong> ‘the hysterical<br />
crowd’ (usually female). She contends that both figures result from a particular reading<br />
<strong>and</strong> ‘unacknowledged critique of modernity’, in which fans are viewed ‘as a psychological<br />
symptom of a presumed social dysfunction’ (ibid.). Fans are presented as<br />
one of the dangerous ‘others’ of modern life. ‘We’ are sane <strong>and</strong> respectable; ‘they’ are<br />
either obsessed or hysterical.<br />
This is yet another discourse on other people. F<strong>and</strong>om is what ‘other people’ do.<br />
This can be seen clearly in the way in which f<strong>and</strong>om is assigned to the cultural activities<br />
of popular audiences, whilst dominant groups are said to have cultural interests,<br />
tastes <strong>and</strong> preferences. Moreover, as Jenson points out, this is a discourse that seeks to<br />
secure <strong>and</strong> police distinctions between class cultures. This is supposedly confirmed by<br />
the object(s) of admiration which mark off the tastes of dominant groups from those<br />
of popular audiences, 54 but it is also supposedly sustained by the methods of appreciation<br />
– popular audiences are said to display their pleasure to emotional excess,<br />
whereas the audience for dominant culture is always able to maintain respectable<br />
aesthetic distance <strong>and</strong> control. 55<br />
Perhaps one of the most interesting accounts of a fan culture from within cultural<br />
studies is Henry Jenkins’s (1992) Textual Poachers. In an ethnographic investigation<br />
of a fan community (mostly, but not exclusively, white middle-class women), he<br />
approaches f<strong>and</strong>om as ‘both . . . an academic (who has access to certain theories of<br />
popular culture, certain bodies of critical <strong>and</strong> ethnographic literature) <strong>and</strong> as a fan<br />
(who has access to the particular knowledge <strong>and</strong> traditions of that community)’ (5).<br />
Fan reading is characterized by an intensity of intellectual <strong>and</strong> emotional involvement.<br />
‘The text is drawn close not so that the fan can be possessed by it but rather so<br />
that the fan may more fully possess it. Only by integrating media content back into<br />
their everyday lives, only by close engagement with its meanings <strong>and</strong> materials, can<br />
fans fully consume the fiction <strong>and</strong> make it an active resource’ (62). Arguing against textual<br />
determinism (the text determines how it will be read <strong>and</strong> in so doing positions the<br />
reader in a particular ideological discourse), he insists that ‘[t]he reader is drawn not<br />
into the preconstituted world of the fiction but rather into a world she has created from<br />
textual materials. Here, the reader’s pre-established values are at least as important as<br />
those preferred by the narrative system’ (63).