fandom social situations and the similes which (don't) describe them

[cimorene]

One thing I didn't see anyone call out except on fandom wank in the recent spate of concrit debate (kyuuketsukirui and reportedly lavvyan vs lamardeuse and friends) was the wholly inappropriate simile which was the backbone of lamardeuse's post. The essence of it was that it's very simple to see what is unacceptable behaviour in fandom because said behaviour would be unacceptable in a cubicle farm, in relation to an unfamiliar co-worker.

This argument was that the social rules of fandom are obviously congruent with the (postulated, but, as many people did point out, hardly unanimously agreed-upon) social rules of some particular situation in real life. No one actually pointed out, however, that life contains all kinds of social environments, and they all require different social rules.

"How hard is it to simply operate in fandom by the social rules you would use in the office?" might as well for all logical purposes be, "I don't understand why it's so hard for people to use the same rules in fandom as in a drunken sauna party of their five closest friends (it's such a drag to put your pants back on on the way to the toilet)!" or "Obviously we should just use the same social rules in fandom as at a funeral (laughter is universally rude and inappropriate)!"

The manners required by a real life social situation depend on the people there, how well they know each other, how public the place is, why they are there, and any pre-existing formal relationships between them. By this token, the workplace metaphor is actually less appropriate than many others might be:

• Fandom is a large, loosely-connected voluntary free-time group of people who share a hobby, where most connections are friendships and friendly acquaintanceships.


• A workplace is a formalised structure where outside their interpersonal relationships the participants are subject to the imposed formal relationships of their positions in the company; where they are paid to be there and as such don't have much choice about it; where the friendships and friendly acquaintanceships that spring up are generally to pass the time, to make the task pleasanter, or at least sprung from sheer proximity.

A hobby-based club would be a far more appropriate simile for fandom - a sewing or knitting group, a book club, a historical re-enacters group, a folk dance club. Most appropriately of all, it could be compared to a media-based group such as a science fiction club or a creative writing group. Between these latter two examples, I think you'd find that almost all virtual fandom social situations are covered - and the conflict at hand could perhaps fruitfully be defined as a conflict between those who regard it as a club a la an SF Club and those who regard it as a writing group.

Comments

[anatsuno.livejournal.com]

actually, I did see somewhere in a comment someone make a fun analogy saying that *some* groups/places in fandom are obviously more like frat parties while some others are more like your grandma's book club, and that insiting we all already know the rules to follow is wrong in that it's like asking the frat guys to behave like the bookworm grannies, etc.
Not exactly like your point, and I'm not convinced I'm rendering what I read faithfully, but the questioning of the appropriateness of the metaphor in lamardeuse's post has been questioned in some places for sure.

[amalthia]

your post made so much more sense to me than some others I read. :) Well said.

[copracat]

Ha. I was writing a comment and the post got locked. I thought the analogy was flawed because criticism seems more analogous to reviewing the actual work rather than the worker. I have often, with colleagues, reviewed work before us. It may be that the first design you get is fabuloso and entirely acceptable but generally it needs to be discussed, changed and re-submitted. That's not at all the same as a performance review.

However, that post did clarify why some critics of criticism feel that way: they really do feel the criticism is directed at the writer and don't seem to be able to separate the worker and the work.