I
have suggested above that we view fan/fan pure relationships as ranging from the‘purest’ to most impure, depending upon the levels of interaction with other fans. The
‘purest’ are those in which “external criteria have become dissolved: the relationship exists solely for whatever rewards that relationship can deliver” (Giddens 1991:6). That is, these relationships become more ‘impure’ as fans begin to gain outside rewards such as power and capital from their fandom. These can be imagined in the following way:
Figure 4 Fan/fan pure relationships
'Purest' relationships = > = $ = > Most ‘impure ’ relationships
=> => => => =>
Isolated Interested Invested Dedicated Official
<= <= <= <=
Firstly, there are isolated fans who have the purest fan/fan relationships as they do not seek any interpersonal interaction with fellow fans. However, if there is no fan/fan relationship this also contributes to the fan/object relationship, maintaining its purity as it
remains untainted by interaction with fellow fans. Fans may resist immersion into fan community to protect against the possibility that the conflicting views of other fans may
‘taint’ the fan’s emotional investment and sense of trust in a text. For example, the clashing interpretations present in an online community may highlight moments of implausibility in the text, causing fans to doubt their investment in the show. Isolated fans also maintain the ‘purity’ of the fan/object relationship, preventing its ‘contamination’
from outside influence and avoiding any threat to the ontological security gained from the relationship. Some isolated fans may have some sense of themselves within a wider audience which enjoys the specific show/band/football team etc, imagining themselves as part of a fan community (Anderson 1991). They may also have no involvement in any aspect of organised fandom or may discuss fan objects only casually with friends who share their interests. For these fans, their fan/fan relationships might become tainted or less impure only by the increase of subcultural capital via their knowledge of the fan object or via casual talk with friends about these objects.
However, one interesting theoretical feature of such fans concerns the question of at what point capital becomes capital. As Thornton has argued, subcultural capital is only
important in the eyes of “the relevant beholder” (1995:11) but, we must question, what if there is no beholder? To imagine isolated fans who don’t share their knowledge within a cohesive fan community is to assume that capital is ‘potential capital’ until it is displayed for others (e.g. children who may know a great deal about a television show such as Doctor Who but who do not discuss this with any other fans). Does capital only become capital once it is displayed for others in exchange for the associated rewards such as prestige or power? There is little research into this issue and Bourdieu himself does little to clarify the matter. He mentions potential capital when he describes social capital as
“the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition” (1986:248, my emphasis). Thus, social capital is dependent upon the potential contacts which one may utilise within their social relationships. It is thus possible to suggest the possibility of a form of cultural capital which is potential capital until the point where it is actively drawn upon. Similarly, in his description of the three
types of cultural capital as being “in the embodied state, i.e., in the form of long-lasting dispositions of the mind and body; in the objectified state, in the forms of cultural goods (pictures, books....) [...] and in the institutionalized state [such as educational
qualification]” (Bourdieu 1986:47), he argues that it is only ‘objectivated’ cultural capital (1986:243) which can be considered potential. This is because cultural objects “have no value unless they are activated strategically in the present [...] Objectivated cultural capital is permanently potential, always dependent on the selections of individuals”
(Robbins 1991:35). For example, a book is construed as objectivated capital as it contains knowledge that can only be utilised once someone reads it and draws upon that
information. However, cultural capital within the embodied state may also be potential capital, as it is “external wealth converted into an integral part of the person, into a habitus” (Bourdieu 1986:242). Capital which is internalised via acquisition of knowledge and so on, may still be considered potential cultural capital as, much like the objectivated capital, embodied capital surely has ‘no value unless [it is] activated’. Indeed, “human knowledge, skills or cultural attributes remain potential sources of capital unless they are utilized in the market for labour, information, etc.” (Brown and Scase 1994:31). Thus, fans who have a great deal of knowledge about their fan object but who do not discuss their fandom with others have low social capital but high levels of ‘potential subcultural capital’. Their fan knowledge cannot yet be considered capital as they have not entered the ‘market’ of fandom in order to demonstrate it and use it to form social relationships or accrue prestige and reputation.
Secondly, there are those fans who can be characterised as ‘interested’, that is, those members of the audience who observe fan activity but refrain from active participation (e.g. Turkers’ in online communities (Baym 1995:51; Hine 2000:155; Nonnecke and Preece 2001: online)). Another example is fans who attend events such as gigs or sports matches but desist from socialising with other fans outside of their immediate friendship circle. These fans gain no rewards from their interactions other than enjoying the
knowledge that other like-minded people exist but not requiring membership of those groups in order to self-identify as a fan or to maintain a sense of ontological security.
However, they may also find that they begin to accrue rewards outside of the
relationships itself, such as social, subcultural and symbolic capital, from their attendance at such events.
Thirdly, there are ‘invested’ fans who form sustained relationships with others either offline or via online message boards as online relationships are often heavily dependent upon personal disclosure, trust, reflexivity, and reciprocity (Clark 1998; Hardey
2004:210; Henderson and Gilding 2004). These fan/fan relationships may begin due to shared interests but often develop into intense emotional attachments which transcend commonality of interest (Gatson and Zweerink 2004; Geraghty 2004; Stein 2002). These fan/fan interactions are more ‘impure’ as they may increase a fan’s social standing within their fan community, enabling them to accumulate rewards outside of the fan/fan
relationship itself such as social capital and power, prestige, and reputation. This also extends to fans who attend conventions, gigs, or sports matches and interact with fellow fans outside of their immediate friendship circle, again accruing forms of capital.
Fourthly, there are ‘dedicated fans’ who are committed to engaging in fandom, often participating in online community at the level of administration staff or moderators or running fan websites or message boards. This level of involvement renders fan/fan relationships impure as such positions often result in the ability to exert levels of control over fellow fans (MacDonald 1998:138) via enforcing appropriate participant behaviour (Baym 2000). Similarly, fans that interact heavily with others in off-line settings such as fan parties, fundraisers, or conventions or those who attend away football games with a local supporters group may also have ‘impure’ fan/fan relationships. Attendance at such events and engagement with other fans increases one’s reputation within the fan
community, allowing bonding over shared experiences. This hierarchises fans and
“separates fans by amount of fan participation - those who attend conventions and other organized events versus those who do not” (MacDonald 1998:137). Indeed, attendance at such events often cements subcultural, social and symbolic capital (Hills forthcoming) and such rewards outside of the ‘pure fan/fan relationship’ render the relationship more impure.
Finally, there are those who interact with others in an official capacity, for example, running official conventions or fan clubs. Although ontological security and a sense of self-identity continue to be provided, other rewards are often garnered from outside the relationship itself, such as recognition within a specific field (e.g. running a fan club or convention may lead to increased prestige as a businessperson), similar to Bourdieu’s notion o f ‘symbolic capital’ (1991:230). Thus, these relationships are the most tainted due to the additional rewards that can be accrued from engaging in them. This
conceptualisation of fan/fan relationships enables consideration of fans who occupy a wide range of positions within fan cultures. Whilst access to lone and isolated fans remains problematic, this typology allows for the consideration of such people and enables us to question why some fans require community and links with others whilst some are content to enjoy their fan objects in solitude. Hypotheses related to these questions will be considered at the end of the chapter, but in order to more competently address such issues we need also turn to the issue of fan/object relationships and the varying levels of ‘purity’ within these relationships.