Jenkins’ discussion of cosmopedia segues into Chapter 7, ‘‘Pop Cosmopolitanism: Ma ppi ng Cu ltu ral Flo ws in an Ag e of Me dia Con ver gen ce ’ ’ (Jen kin s, 200 4). Je nk in s bo rr ow s th e co nc ep ts of ‘ ‘ co ll ec ti ve intelligence’’ and ‘‘cosmopedia’’ from Pierre Levy and applies this to media fandoms by engaging the complex changes in fan communities following the introduction of computers and the Internet. He explains this work as his attempt to move fan studies away from the theoretical framing of Michael de Certeau (1984) because he is ‘‘frustrated that despite a growing number of younger scholars writing about fans, many still operate primarily in relation to the paradigms from the late 19 80 s an d ea rl y 19 90 s’ ’ (p. Chapt er 6 offer s ‘‘ Inter activ e Au dienc es? The Collec tive Intelligence of Media Fans’’ (Jenkins, 2002b). He contrasts this evidence with his prior observations of female fans who tend to use program materials as ‘‘a basis for gos sip ’ ’ and ‘ ‘ju sti fic ati on for dra win g on per son al exp eri enc es to sup port the ir inter pret ation s’ ’ (p. As the debate plays out, Jenkins characterizesġ26). The tension between academics as learned and fans as uneducated continues in fan studies today. Je nk in s po si ts th at ac ad em ia em br ac es th e us e of fa n st ud ie s as a me an s to ch ro ni cl e au di en ce re sp on se to particular narratives, and then utilizes this response to inform media producers about the nature of the audience however, scholars are far more suspicious when an author asserts that ‘‘maybe there are things that academics could learn from fan interpretive practices’’ (p. Hi ll s an d J en ki ns co nt in ue th e de ba te b y en ga gi ng th e of te n tu mu lt uo us re la ti on sh ip be tw ee n fa nd om an d th e ac ad em y. He argues that if scholars accept this notion of literal belief (religious), they imply that fans are unable to separate fiction from reality thus, this metaphor dismisses fan studies as less credible than other types of ethnographic research. Jenkins elaborates on the history of religion in fan studies by defining the origin of the word ‘‘fan’’ as from ‘‘fanaticus,’’ which refers to false and excessive worship (p. What Jenkins finds pr ob le ma ti c ab ou t th e re li gi on me ta ph or is th at fa nd om is no t an ex cl us iv e relationship: fans are nomadic and can share multiple texts, unlike the commitment of religion (one cannot be Muslim and Jewish simultaneously, but one can be a fan of two different television programs simultaneously). In addition to these changes in subject position and methodology, Jenkins and Hills debate the association of fandom with religious experience. The most recent approach to fan studies Jenkins characterizes as ‘‘aca-fen’’ or ‘‘people who are both academics and fans, for whom those identities are not problematic to mix and combine, and who are able to write in a more open way about their experience of fandom with the ‘obligation of defensiveness,’ without the need to defend the community’’ (p. He the n ass oci ate s him sel f wit h the sec ond app roa ch, the ethnographic insider approach, as a scholar trying to alter the perception of fandom based on insider knowledge of specific fan communities. Jenkins locates the beginning of fan studies in the ethnographic outsider approach, since the first generation of scholars to study fandom wrote from a disconnected point of view in impersonal or apo log eti c lan gua ge. Fa n re se ar ch ha s ex pa nd ed ou r un de rs ta nd in g of th e interrelationships between humans and mediaġ2). Sc ho la rs to ok to an al yz in g fa n co mm un it ie s su rr ou nd in g po pu la r television series (Bird, 1999 Meyer, 2005 Scodari, 2003 Scodari & Felder, 2000 W akef ield, 2001) and fan cultu res surro undi ng succ essfu l film franc hises ( Jindr a, 19 94 Sh ef ri n, 20 04 ). Ov er th e pa st decade, communication scholarship has applied Jenkins’ work in a variety of fan co nt ex ts. Now, 15 years later, significant changes in th e st ud y of fa ns an d fa n co mm un it ie s co nt in ue to em er ge. By challenging the mentality that fans are merely ‘‘cultural dupes,’’ Jenkins opened the door for a generation of scholars to study fans and fan practices as legitimate scholarship. Jenkins’ text positioned fans as ac ti ve co ns um er s of me di a pr od uc ts, co ns tr uc ti ng th ei r ow n cu lt ur es an d subcultures from popular culture. (1992) ushered in a new era of audience research in media studies.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |