1. Introduction
[1.1] Academic dialogues do not just have to occur in person at universities or conferences; social media provides forums for scholars around the world and in different disciplines to consider a topic. The choice of a dialogue over a more traditional academic article was a deliberate attempt to engage in a different approach to scholarship. joan miller was diagnosed with fibromyalgia and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in Fall 2019; this dialogue grew partly out of a lament over the ways traditional academic work creates unseen barriers for people with disabilities. Since her diagnosis, miller has struggled to keep up with the pace of academic life, including publishing work outside of the classroom. Academic dialogues like the one below not only help two academics understand each other's approaches and differing perspectives but also enable participation from those who might otherwise be left out of the conversation. At the same time, the dialogue provides fertile ground to develop new insights, theories, and research projects that can further our understanding of the topic and propel the entire field into new areas.
2. Defining fandom
[2.1] CarrieLynn D. Reinhard: I think a good place to start may be this question: how do you define fandom?
[2.2] joan miller: That's a great question! So, to preface this, my personal super research question is "what is the nature of empathy, how does it work, and what can it do?" And so I've come to understand fandom through its affective qualities, particularly the ways in which it can accelerate intimacy between two relative strangers, even strangers who would never associate otherwise.
[2.3] I got into fandom studies partly because I was a really lonely kid and I felt othered by everything (being mixed race, small, smarter than even many of the adults around me, and a child of divorce). I made my first best friend through X-Files fandom and then she introduced me to Harry Potter. My two maids of honor and my bride's-dude are all friends through Harry Potter fandom (our group chat is called The Marauders). I met my husband in a playwriting class and he noticed me because it was Savannah, Georgia, and I was wearing a Detroit Red Wings hockey jersey. Once we realized we were both mega Legend of Zelda fans, the deal was pretty much sealed. The cake cutter from our wedding is a Master Sword that we pulled from its pedestal as cake topper.
[2.4] All this is to say I am interested in fandom for its ability to connect people, so I worked out a definition for my research: "A fandom is a group of people with a shared affect toward a given source material or idea." And the affect is not necessarily positive, such as in the case of antifandom—I believe Melissa Click has written on that but I haven't had the chance to read it yet. So, after meditating on that…
[2.5] CDR: Do you see community as being important to defining fandom? Like, do you think a person has to be a part of a fan community to constitute having a fandom? Or are those things separate?
[2.6] jm: I think community is a big part of it, but there are different levels. For me the shared affect is what makes you part of the fandom. A single person who is positively obsessed (I draw this from Octavia Butler's discussion of positive obsession) with Spider-Man but has never discussed it with anyone but his secret fanfic journal is just as much a part of the fandom because his affect is what ties him to it. You can imagine that when he encounters another Spider-Man fan in the right conditions, the bond could be instantaneous. So, it's almost like being a patriotic expat of your homeland. I suppose a negative obsession—J. Jonah Jameson?—would make you part of the antifandom.
[2.7] CDR: Is having a fandom always good?
[2.8] jm: Nah. Fandom like any other form of social grouping is obviously subject to the same types of problems as classmates or religious congregations or political parties. It's not the grouping itself that makes it a unique thing, at least in popular parlance; rather, it's the object of the affective relationship.
[2.9] I'm trying to come up with a visualization to explain what I'm seeing in my head. Imagine one of those public fountains that shoots water jets (affect) straight up from the pavement. Each person in the fandom is a jet. All the jets aim in the same direction (sort of a pyramid). At a certain point, the water of those jets just melds together into a single stream. Actually, this works better if you turn the whole thing upside down. So, the jets are coming from the ceiling. At the point of the pyramid, the water flows together into a straight line and that stream aims at the object of the fandom.
[2.10] So, the unique thing is the object the affect is aimed at. The Legend of Zelda, or My Little Pony, or Bob Ross. All that affect submerges Bob Ross and we believe things about Bob Ross fandom because we see them in the affect around him. Bob Ross fandom is usually pretty good peaceful affect in general, so it's a nice clear lake. Star Wars fandom has so many streams, with so much variation in affect and the intensity or valence of that affect (dark side versus light side, senator versus stormtrooper, marginalized people versus privileged people, etc.) that it is a very stormy murky ocean. You can only imagine what Lake Bill Cosby would look like. Also, for what it's worth, my model of good and evil is the Dungeons and Dragons alignment scale.
[2.11] How would you define fandom, either before seeing my definition or in comparison?
[2.12] CDR: To me, I see fandom as a series of attitudes. A fandom is a collection of beliefs and feelings about some object of affection that then predicts certain behaviors depending on the type, amount, and valence of those beliefs and feelings.
[2.13] I use the jawbreaker metaphor. At the center of fandom is the object of affection. Around that are the layers of feelings, beliefs, and behavioral intentions, and these layers then are different for different people given the variety of types, amounts, and valences possible. Because the object of affection is going to be shared (although I do think fandom can be for just one person), people can recognize one another as sharing aspects of that fandom—perhaps they share beliefs, feelings, intentions, actions. Whatever they share, that can help them bond to one another. But it may be that they really don't share those aspects of the fandom, and thus fractures can occur in what, outwardly, looks like a communal experience, which to me is what I see as the fan community definition of fandom. And like any other attitude, fandom can be highly integrated into a person's identity, which is also a source of good and ugly. It's fun to celebrate yourself and what you love, but it's dangerous to get defensive to protect your ego.
3. Fandom, emotions, and rationality
[3.1] jm: I think those definitions are very similar in that we both see affect and affection as a central component. I say affect because I think it makes space for antifandom like #nevertrumpers, for example. It's not really affection that they share, but abjection.
[3.2] CDR: Right, I like that, because it also demonstrates the importance of emotion: we are all both emotional and rational, but it's just a matter of knowing how to act given what a situation requires.
[3.3] A lot of what is being talked about with fans right now is focused on the toxic nature of fans—do you think we are getting back to a general public view that sees fans as irrational, fanatical, and blaming the affective core of fandom for all this?
[3.4] jm: I don't think rationality is the opposite of emotion. I think logic is the opposite of emotion, and rationality is the ability to consider information in order to make situationally appropriate decisions; that is, it's not irrational to stay home all day if you're sad and it's not irrational to be sad when your family member has just died. It's not logical to stay home. Logically it's better for you in the long run to go out in the sun or whatever.
[3.5] I know this is a bit pedantic, but it matters in so far that we use these things to explain behavior. Things that are illogical are not always irrational when you consider the affect involved. And I don't know that I would've put in so many words without prompting, but, yes, I worry that we're excessively focused on the things that we are afraid of largely because we are afraid of them. Henry Jenkins was once criticized as being too nice and optimistic in his writing, and I can't see that as anything but a compliment. I'd rather look for hope than guard against fear. Plus, there are more than enough people writing about all that stuff anyway and my life is less depressing when my work is celebratory.
[3.6] CDR: I like that distinction between logic and rationality (and it makes me think about how much Jurgen Habermas messed up our ideas about public discourse, but that's for later), but I do wonder if a fan who is highly identified with something being criticized and acting defensively about it would see their reactions as being logical—after all, they are just trying to protect their sense of self/ego/identity/whatever from being threatened and trying to shield themselves from any negative affect they might feel for their actions, like spending so much money or time on something, or possibly losing friendships. In particular situations, it may seem completely rational to go on the attack because doing so feels better than not doing so.
[3.7] jm: Yeah, I think that logics and affects can be contorted into all kinds of shapes to rationalize bad or unhealthy behavior, but it at least gives us a way of understanding the other. I've started thinking in this triad of mind/body/soul to break the mind/body dualism. Plus, it overlays neatly onto other triads like ego/id/superego. Another is logical/physical/emotional, for what it's worth.
[3.8] I know you have more experience than I do. Have you seen the field shift along those lines? Do you think we're boomeranging back into a Shatnerian view of fandom?
[3.9] CDR: I don't think the field is boomeranging back into the fanatical conception, but I do fear public discourse is, because of how much media coverage there has been over toxic and fractured fandoms.
[3.10] Then how does this relate to politics, and the idea of finding overlaps between politics and fandom? At least in the Western, Habermasian (and white straight male) perspective, politics is meant to be based on rational arguments, per Aristotlean logos. But, of course, we see lots of appeals to ethos and pathos in our politics, yet we usually criticize politicians as being manipulative or propagandistic for using those. But if fandom is more about embracing the affective, what does that mean for the current work being done looking at these overlaps—or the current examples of these overlaps?
[3.11] jm: I believe that empathy is emotional speech in configurations (I don't remember right now who exactly said that) wherein the ability to speak constitutes participation in the public sphere as well as agency in general. I think that we need to include emotion in politics and that we often identify a lack of empathy in politicians as a failure in leadership such as Trump's and Bush's inability to empathize with hurricane victims or Clinton's (so-called) inability to empathize with the white working class (whatever that is).
[3.12] I also think it means there are other beings who need to be considered as agentive and deserving of certain rights, particularly those we usually think of as human rights. To bring it back to fandom and politics and the ways in which the two blur, I think that how we feel about something needs to be considered as deeply as what we think about something. That our politics would be healthier for everyone if they were also more empathic and (frequently but not always) more compassionate; but what's more, I believe you are not giving a full accounting of the available information if you do not include the emotions involved.
[3.13] We know that the things that make fandoms powerful are the ways that people feel about the thing they fan over, and they use passion to accomplish tangible results like getting Brooklyn 99 (2013–) picked up by NBC or making a Deadpool movie happen or, importantly, getting Warner Brothers to commit to free-trade chocolate in all of its Harry Potter-branded candy. You can't explain that without understanding how Harry Potter makes those people feel. So, does that make me a sophist? Heh, I think white men, especially in societies that rely heavily on mind/body dualism, privilege logic because empathy would dismantle their privilege.
[3.14] CDR: But does fandom encourage empathy, or does it encourage insularity?
[3.15] jm: I have an opinion but I'm curious what you think. Do you think it's one or the other? Neither? Both? I think you could probably guess what I would say, but I can't say the same. Although I'd argue about the rhetoric of the sentence being a bit too muddled now that I think about it. Empathy being an ability—it’s like asking does fandom encourage thinking or ignorance? With ignorance being not quite the opposite of thinking. I guess it would be. Does it encourage empathy or objectivity and in that case I'd say obviously empathy.
[3.16] CDR: Hmm, before I can answer your question, I want to know more about how we each see empathy, because I was considering it an ability, a skill, just like the various types of thinking (e.g., critical, creative, etc.).
[3.17] jm: Yes, I also see it as an ability. The ability to feel, perceive, and understand the emotions of others.
[3.18] CDR: Well, I think some people are born with the ability, but others have to learn it—and even then they have to have an innate foundation on which to build true empathy and compassion. I think some people lack that foundation and may never be able to build the ability. So, I think it's not a causal relationship but an intersectional one: if you are empathic or more likely to be empathic, then I think fandom can help you expand that. But if you aren't, then you may gravitate toward insularity and really focus on the likemindedness of community. And that I think is an overlap between politics and fandom—and may also break down as a difference between those who are more progressive and those who are more conservative.
[3.19] Just a thought: we talk about fandom in terms of affect—object of affection, how much affect a person has to something—and of course affect is impact—so we are also saying how much something impacts us. With a fan, it impacts us so much that we have to do something about it: we have to talk to others, to buy things, to wear things that identify us, to seek out people similarly impacted, to share our joy over being impacted, and so on. That same view of impact is what we see in political and religious contexts: when people can be so impacted that they are moved to do something. In culture studies (media, pop, high class, whatever), we call such impact-to-move "fandom." So, why not call it that in politics as well?
4. Fan studies of politics
[4.1] CDR: Do you think seeing politics through a fandom lens is helpful?
[4.2] So, to start, I do think that seeing politics through fandom's lens can be helpful because it helps us to understand the importance of affect in politics. I think for too long the Western approach to politics has been far too focused on the rational or logical, on the logos aspect of Aristotle's ethics, while denigrating the pathos and ethos parts. But fandom focuses a lot on those pathos and ethos parts—and that isn't always a bad thing! Emotions are motivators; by caring about something we are more likely to do something. To be politically active is to care, even if the action is just voting. We don't vote out of a sense of duty, unless we care about doing our duty.
[4.3] So, seeing politics through fandom means we bring attention to the affective aspect of politics without also denigrating that aspect as corruptive to democracy; instead, we see the affective as a fundamental part of democracy. Emotions cannot undermine democracy if it has been a part of democracy from the beginning. And, given the perpetuation of gender stereotypes, having women in politics cannot be bad because having emotions in politics is not necessarily bad. It helps us to move past a patriarchal, white-centric, heteronormative conception of politics.
[4.4] But is there a danger to looking at politics through a fandom lens?
[4.5] Well, yes, as with any media uses and effects study, there is always the potential for our learnings to be misused. And there is also the potential for misunderstanding the intersections between fandom and politics given the status of the one compared to the other. Fan studies is not seen as legitimate as political science, so the application of fan studies to politics may be derided and any findings ignored or, worse, ridiculed and misunderstood. That could do great danger, especially if there are people out there who are taking the intersections seriously and using what they learn to manipulate people.
[4.6] So what should we do? Do we study politics from a fandom lens, or just study how people bring politics into their fandom?
[4.7] jm: I'm sorry, I'll do my best, but I have a dissertation deadline soon, and orientation this week, and I'm dealing with family in the hospital, and all of that is causing me to flare. So, I promise I'll do my best, but that's what I'm up against.
[4.8] CDR: Completely understand. If it is easier, you can just email me or leave a Skype voice message and I can transcribe. Really just need your thoughts on if it is good or bad to look at the intersections of politics and fandom.
[4.9] jm: Definitely. I think it's good [to study politics from a fandom lens]. There were some key points I wanted to address in what you said, but a preview version is that I think it's very valuable both in terms of Politics and politics. Like the ways government organizes society—because after all, fandom is a type of social organizing that privileges coincidental relationships to a certain source. That source can be the MCU or the Democratic Party or the concept of gun control, or #blacklivesmatter or white supremacy or any candidate. Political affiliation and fandom I think are not completely synonymous, but it's pretty common for the two to overlap. Therefore, it stands to reason that the behavior of that group is worthy of consideration under such a lens.
[4.10] It's also worth being able to draw the distinction between a Bernie Sanders voter and a BernieBro. It could be useful to think of Trump supporters as affirmational fans when interpreting their reactions to his contradictory behavior. I've always wanted to analyze Bernie fandom because it seemed very rapid and intense and affirmational and it concerned me. I don't think I could do it without passing judgement though—not yet.
[4.11] So, I think it's absolutely useful and vice versa; I mean, we already talk about the political economy of fandom. So, in general I always advocate for interdisciplinary approaches because I think it does more to get at true diversity than a lot of other tactics. I could hardly ever think of discouraging someone from studying the interaction of those or a variety of topics, domains, fields, and so on—there's just not enough of it. I'd love for some acafans to read some cognitive neuroscience and affect studies, and it would be great if the social scientists would put some effort into learning from artists and humanists about the human condition.
[4.12] Fandom and politics make sense as a pairing both because of their similar characteristics and because of how easily those groups can be directed toward a cause, so long as it aligns with the fandom's core values: for example, Harry Potter, slavery and free trade chocolate via the efforts of Dumbledore's Army, or members of the Star Wars 501st visiting hospitals and wounded warriors.
[4.13] Even just political behavior by fans—especially the recent rescues of several shows (like Brooklyn 99) from cancellation based on social media response. Even today the issue with Spider-Man, Sony and Marvel; it's trending nationwide and people are upset. I definitely am. I doubt the situation will endure for long. One of the two studios will buckle or risk the next film being a flop that could cost them both. It's a pretty pure demonstration of Habermas's notion that speech constitutes the public sphere and Jacques Ranciere's that politics happen in the moment that the invisible subject becomes visible.
[4.14] Actually the event that inspired me to write about fandom was #coulsonlives. People were painting #coulsonlives graffiti on highway overpasses, and at first it just seemed like a fannish way to mourn a beloved character, but then they actually made Coulson live and I was stunned. This was around 2012, I think, before fans were practically crowdsourcing treatments via social media. (Cough, Oceans 8).
[4.15] To me #coulsonlives represented the fandom exercising ownership over the source material. Despite the fact that the checks are made out to whomever, the terms and stories—like any cultural mythology—belong to the people. Incidentally, this is why I'm fascinated by fanon and the way that fan knowledge is canonized. So, if we think about politics as the exercise of power, again we see an example of fandom—when enabled to participate in the public sphere via political speech—actually hold a great deal of power that they can exercise for change as long as they all agree.
[4.16] Perhaps fandom is likely to be political in nature because it encourages or provokes speech (though not always dialogue) in many situations. Rebecca Sugar has mentioned "A Lovers Discourse" in her inspiration for Steven Universe and the idea that if a character finds that words are not enough, they sing and if that fails, they dance. I think for many fans, to keep silent is to hold something in that wants to be released.
[4.17] At this point I feel I'm talking in circles, perhaps? I'm not sure. Fibrofog et al.
[4.18] Honestly, if you don't mind, I'd like to keep in our notes about me being sick. I want to surface that more often in academia whenever and wherever I can. I think this will have to do. Even though I wanted to respond more specifically to your previous comments, I'm too fatigued to think of a good way to sum up without starting another lap, so what you see is what you get. I want to peel back the curtain a little about how my fibromyalgia and ADHD affect me as a scholar and what I'm able to make. Plus, it would be nice to let other spoonies know I'm here and I'm getting through it thanks to compassionate collaborators and faith in the work.
[4.19] CDR: That's also part of politics and fandom: acknowledging what stressors like health and workload do to us and our scholarship. If part of the system now is to be overworked and underpaid—to be in tenuous situations because society has deemed caring for physical and mental health are secondary to profits and growth—then being a fan scholar dealing with such stressors should be a part of the conversation—otherwise we continue to marginalize and denigrate voices, the way people have done to fans for decades or to emotions in democracy for centuries. Only by confronting the actualities of people's lived experiences, in fandom or politics or health, can we address what the polis needs to survive and thrive.
[4.20] And because everything personal is political and vice versa—because we are social animals with identities formed through social interactions—because every form of governance we practice involves social interactions—the question is not if fandom and politics intersect, but rather how to study the complex ways in which they do.
[4.21] jm: Mic drop.