Abstract
Virtual Communities in theory can be a utopia of likeminded people who on the surface have the same viewpoint as each other. Delanty and Calhoun theorise can be perceived as being ‘thin’ by only focusing on one singular interest and therefore incapable of creating strong ties amongst their members. Fandoms in the broad sense can be a singular interest, but the nuances that fandoms have as a virtual community is that they are made of branches of different interests relating to the main fandom. These sub communities can include those that use bigotry and toxicity to ruin the broader fan community for others, though it also provides the strong ties that general virtual communities do not have. Using Gamergate on twitter as the catalyst for how fandom toxicity became mainstream, this paper looks at how the theories on virtual communities are no longer just single interest topics but a collection of different communities who have different viewpoints on everything including the main community of a Fandom.
Have you ever had an obsession in something that means so much to you that you can’t stop talking about it to others? Like you connect to it on a level that your friends or family might not understand but are willing to accept that this is who you are. Many of us spend most of our time using the internet to engage with the world, whether it be streaming the latest show on Netflix or talking with friends on a variety of social media platforms. Fandoms is the culmination of many fans coming together under a shared experience. While fandoms as virtual communities can be seen as being an example of being ‘thin’ and lacking strong ties, the nuances that fandoms have as a virtual community is that they are made of branches of different interests relating to the main fandom. Social media has allowed for gatekeepers and bigots, as well as fans who are marginalised for their race and gender, a place to be as vocal as they like about everything not just their one shared interest and find likeminded people to create those smaller communities. Using Gamergate as the catalyst for how fandom toxicity became mainstream, this paper looks at how the theories on virtual communities are no longer just single interest topics but a collection of different communities who have different viewpoints on everything including the main community of a Fandom.
Fandoms are communities made up of people who want to engage in discussing or creating with people who like the same piece of entertainment. Richard Dyer wrote that entertainment offers something to escape into that we don’t already have, a utopia as an ideal than unachievable concept (2002, p.20). Jenkins claimed that this kind of utopia is not one that a person could spend all their time in (1992, p282), which came at a time where fandom was a sometimes event for people attending cons or participating in early forms of what we recognize as being still staples of modern fan cultures online. Jenkins defined fandom as a ”space, one defined by its refusal of mundane values and practices, its celebrations of emotions and passionately embraced pleasures”(Jenkins, 1992, p283). Delanty (2018, pg 205) wrote that virtual communities are thin, whereby they are ‘not based on strong ties and are often fragile communities’. Calhoun (1998, as cited in in Delanty, 2018, pg 215) agreed saying that thin virtual communities are based in the idea that outside of the common interest everyone will have their own viewpoints. Fandoms are these virtual communities who at their core is a group of people with a shared interest, but who also have their individuality’s using the Fandom to explore facets of themselves. This in a fandom community is not completely given factor. It is based on the idea that online communities only meet online. Many broad communities use conventions to extend their virtual community to reality and vice visa. This can be the case when creating new communities online, particularly those involved in the early stages of fandoms. The power of fandom, as mentioned in the intro, is how the community of fans generally band together to either do something right, but as I’m about to discuss it can turn into something nasty.
While researching this topic, one defining fandom community moment stood out as being the moment when toxicity in fandoms became less about petty fighting about one true pairing (OTP) or agreeing and disagreeing about the end of a tv show but turned political: #GamerGate. Gamergate began as game developer Zoe Quinn’s ex-boyfriend Eric Gjoni wrote blog posts claiming that she had relations with game journalist and other members of the industry to gain some form of coverage for her free to play game. The spread of this to social media platforms like 4chan and reddit began the movement of anti-feminist ideas about women ruining gaming for everyone. But it was much more than that. It played on the trope that fans are “the stereotypical adolescent nerdy straight white boy who scoffs at any digital entertainment that isn’t hardcore” (Condis, 2018, p2), which isn’t the case as proven by the fact that there was a female creator of a video game as well as women, non-binary and transgender who are a large part of this space. And while diversity has been prevalent in the gaming community, it was those same young white self-identified as being a part of the gaming community (Evans and Janish 2015, 126) who thought that their close nit fandom was being threatened by social justice warriors and feminists, even though at the time they still held the perceived idea of what their fandom looked like. However, this side of toxicity in fandoms to an additional level of extreme compared to the toxicity seen in fandoms now. Calhoun’s thesis on communities, encapsulates the concept of what is a fandom, but also how the toxicity can be an issue in and surrounding fandom. Many of those who spoke out about the issue of gamergate faced death threats, messages about them being raped and even being doxed to the point of not feeling safe in their own homes. This kind of harassment was difficult to prove as being done by members of the gamergate movement because while they claimed they were not behind the doxing, the anonymity of being online allowed them to potentially do and say anything without any lasting repercussions creating a paradox (Mortensen 2018, 194). Both sides of #GamerGate were a part of the gaming fandom, but the fragility of traditional ideology against the new normal of gaming meant that even a virtual community around a broad subject would always begin fractured.
When the movie Black Panther (2018) was released, it wasn’t just the latest in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), but a cultural tipping point for representation to a larger community of people of colour (POC), particularly those of African descent, who have been seen as a token minority in all forms of media in the past. Here was a film with a majority black cast, written and directed by a black director in Ryan Coogler and involving a majority POC production team. Black Panther, however, is more than all these factors. Black Panther was not made because of “black creators create more legitimate representations of blackness” (D’Agostino 2018, p1) and thus all black consumers of content are accepting of this representation. Martin Jr (2019, pg 751) pointed out that with this film and other forms of media created for and by POCs are “forms of activism that uses language of the cultural industries (money) to fight for (political) visibility”. The success of this movie at the box office proved that this kind of media is wanted and worth the effort of media companies to create similar content in the future. Though general MCU fans, who are not POCs, don’t have the cultural touch stone that make the issues brought up in this film to be allowed to make an opinion, a majority recognized the importance that this film brought to a community. Even when fans were discussing the film online the hashtag #WakandaForever was being used to represent not only the movie itself but those that the story touched. When Chadwick Bosman passed away in 2020 the phrase was used by fans as part of their farewell tweets to him. This example with Black Panther and a POC’s experiences highlights how the concepts of virtual communities don’t take into consideration existing communities that have bonded together not through a specific fandom based shared interest, but through the perceived idea that is the reason for being apart of a community. There is no form of utopia or embracing pleasures like Jenkins and Dyer write because while it did show a place that seems idealistic, if those in the community seemly have different opinions on the situation those outside of the community could use it against them.
It is similar with the situation of JK Rowling and the Harry Potter fandom. It was a tweet made by J K Rowling in December 2019 with the hashtag #istandwithMaya which began the disassociation between the Harry Potter fandom and herself. #istandwithMaya was a campaign on Twitter to get justice for Maya Forstater, who had tweeted out “tying themselves in knots to avoid saying the truth”(2018). Forstater with subsequent from job prompting Rowling tweet while initially reading as being inclusive concluded with “but force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?” (2019). The backlash was fast, with fans immediately tweeting at Rowling about how the books had helped them make decisions about their life. In her essay, written in early 2020, she tried to justify her position on the situation. A big take away was that transgender women should not be allowed to enter women’s bathrooms as they could be a danger to naturally born women. This belief lines up with a group colloquially known as TERFs (transgender exclusionary radical feminist) who have an issue with trans-women being women but have no issue with trans-men. JK Rowling is a contradiction of her own beliefs as Duggan (2021) points out while Rowling has been very open about accepting those that have ‘queer’ interpretations in the Harry Potter texts, and has been that way for years, her statements negate that good faith with the fandom. She essentially is gatekeep her fans, particularly those that identify as transgender, not valid while still expecting them to spend money on all the licensed products. Daniel Radcliffe came out in a statement through the Trevor project saying that if these stories read it with thirds affected by the words, then “it means what it means to you” (Radcliff 2020). Radcliffe’s comment implies that the utopia and experiences fans had with the series is not diminished by having to take a step back from the Fandom as a whole. This is where both the theories from Calhoun and Delanty of virtual communities being beholden to one shared idea and that makes them fragile doesn’t fully apply. Some communities can move past having no strong ties to forming lasting friendships and enduring any of the toxicity that presents itself. Fans can find their place of likeminded people within a fandom and create a smaller virtual community. It is also the reason for why the situation with JK Rowling is similar and at the same time different to Gamergate. The likeness comes from the situation stemming from one instance that created a perceived divide in the series. Though many of her main defendants could be seen as fitting in the same toxic bubble as those who participated in #GamerGate, the difference is that there is no clear evidence that these people are members of the Harry Potter fandom who have had over 20 years to create their communities and no where they stand. While the community as whole has seemly moved away from the works creator, and some members have had leave it entirely, it doesn’t mean that they didn’t find their own personal communities. While Rowling’s new community based on a social issue, not a fandom, will continue to be fragile based on anonymous people on the web with accounts being created a few months ago and using vile language to seem superior.
In the aftermath of gamergate, the media landscape around video games changed. There are more games with female protagonists as the leads, character creation has gotten to the point that people can now change anything about them to reflect themselves, including skin tone and voice. Steve Saylor a blind gamer who reviews and works with game companies to ensure that anyone with a disability can play games. Tanya DePass, wrote a tweet (2014) saying ”#Ineeddiversegames because I’m tired of the same variant of scruffy white dude protagonist in every game I buy”, created a not for profit called I Need Diverse Games is who use social media platforms including Twitter to promote works created or researched by marginalized folks. While this shows how a smaller virtual community on social media has prospered, Dyre and Jenkins idea of entertainment as a utopia is no longer an ideal. Fans can communicate with others on twitter means it is no longer a weekend escape, it can be an all-year-round obsession shared with millions with those that find progressiveness abhorrent given freedom to be problematic as they can. As seen with the fallout of JK Rowling’s statement, sometimes those in a fandom must leave because it is no longer the place that they feel comfortable being in, but they still can have their own community, even if it isn’t based in the fandom any longer. So, until the bigots, gatekeepers and trolls accept that the media needs to reflect everyone not just them, which will most likely not be in our lifetime, the progressive war of fandom continues.
References
Condis, M. (2018) Gaming Masculinity: trolls, fake geeks and the general battle for online culture. University of Iowa Press
D’Agostino, A. M. (2018) “Who are you?”: Representation, identification, and self definition in Black Panther. Safundi, 20(1), 1-4 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17533171.2019.1552346
Delanty, G. (2018)/ Community (3rd ed). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315158259
DePass, T. [@cypheroftyr] (2014, October 7) #INeedDiverseGames because I am tired of the same variant of scruffy white dude protaganists in every game I buy. [Tweet] Twitter. https://twitter.com/cypheroftyr/status/519438387624042497
Duggan, J. (2021) Transformative Readings: Harry Potter Fan Fiction, Trans/Queer Reader Response, and J. K. Rowling. Child Literature Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10583-021-09446-9
Dyre, R. (2002). Only Entertainment (2nd Ed.). Routledge. https://archive.org/details/onlyentertainmen0000dyer/page/n3/mode/2up
Evans, S.B. & Janish, E. (2015) #INeedDiverseGames: How the Queer Backlash to GamerGate enables Non-Binary Coalition. QED: A journal in GLBTQ worldmaking, 2(2), 125-150. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/qed.2.2.0125
Forstater, M. [@MForstater] (2018, October 1) What I am so surprised at is that smart people who I admire, who are absolutely pro-science in other areas [Tweet]. Twitter https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1046450304986812416
Jenkins, H. (1992). Textual Poachers: Television fans & participatory culture. Routledge. https://archive.org/details/textualpoacherst0000jenk/
Martin Jr, A.L. (2019) Fandom while black” Misty Copeland, Black Panter, Tyler Perry and the contours of US black fandoms. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 22(6), 737-753 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1367877919854155
Radcliffe, D. (2020, June 8) Daniel Radcliffe Responds to JK Rowling’s tweets on Gender Identity. The Trevor Project. https://www.thetrevorproject.org/blog/daniel-radcliffe-responds-to-j-k-rowlings-tweets-on-gender-identity/
Rowling, J. K. [@jk_rowling] (2019, December 19). Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1207646162813100033
Hi Rebekah
Your paper makes an interesting point, and one that I hadn’t fully considered before, that there is never ‘one fandom’ but branches and sub-branches of communities that come together around a particular type of media, but not necessarily for the same reason. Jenkins has often idealised fandom, but as you point out, something like Gamergate proves that every aspect of social media can have its dark side. Sadly there will always be people who use anonymity to facilitate cruelty, but this doesn’t diminish the positive aspects of online communities.
Great work!
Hey Rebekah,
I used to be a gamer myself, until I started studying and devoted my time to my career. However, I did connect with your paper and found you hit some very interesting points. One example you made was the highlights on virtual communities not taking into account the “consideration existing communities that have bonded together not through a specific fandom based shared interest, but through the perceived idea that is the reason for being apart of a community.“.
I think that we are still somewhat in a Family, Village, Tribe (FVT) society. Family being your close online/offline friends, Village is more virtual “Fandom” online communities, and Tribe can be more your social status (Class, Ethnicity, Gender etc.). I believe that we are often knowingly or unknowingly restricted ourselves to our FVT groups, and that we don’t consider other Villages and their online community interest, rather we confine oursleves to our own Village with its own ideas and never venture off. Nevertheless, Your paper was engaging and really touched on some interesting points like gamergate and JK Rowling and the Harry Potter fandom.
Thanks for letting me read your paper.
HI Peter,
Thank you for the response. I hadn’t really thought about the FVT as defining different aspects of life. Your suggestion that fandoms are villages and not considering what other villiages might value is an interesting point. When thinking about it in that way the different sub communities in one Fandom who argue with each other are basically villages going into wars over territory. The territory in this case would be what could be considered as the most important part of the fandom.
Rebekah
Hi Rebekah,
Your paper was really insightful! You touch on a lot of interesting ideas regarding community development and sustainment. A point that I hadn’t really considered before was your explanation of the adaptation of fandoms, specifically where you say “sometimes those in a fandom must leave because it is no longer the place that they feel comfortable being in, but they still can have their own community, even if it isn’t based in the fandom any longer”. This is such an important factor in online communities. When the ideologies and demographics of a fandom change, the community doesn’t cease – members simply adapt, and the collective evolves into something different. I’d love to know if you think it is possible that an extremely harmful action or statement by a community leader/member could completely destroy a fandom and their reputation, or whether adaptation of the community would continue in this extreme circumstance?
I’d really appreciate your thoughts on my paper https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2022/csm/148/the-pivotal-puzz…mass-e-marketing/ where I expand more on the ideas of authentic community development, which is facilitated by social media influencers.
Thank you! 😊
Brooke
Hi Brooke,
Thank you for your reply.
To answer your question I think it would depend on the action itself and how other leaders and members respond, and if the community has been around for a long time. If there are other leaders and a small portion takes the side of the person who committed the harmful action, the level of trust is gone inside the fandom, though an adaption could be possible depending on what the fandom community was for. On the less extreme side there can be over policing of a community which puts the distrust in the leaders by the members because they feel like they are being restricted in what they can enjoy and engage in about their Fandom. In the larger the fandom community with more sub categories, I think it is the behaviour of the members can ruin their own reputation but are still able to continue because they don’t think that they are the problem and it is a little to late to try and fix the problem. Star Wars is a good example of this type of community.
I have worked in moderating communities where I was told stories about the Game of Thrones reddit wars which I could see where they were coming from catering for everyone coming to the reddit, but also how that was making the community not a great place for them to hang out which is why a portion of the community adapted and created their own reddit space.
I hope that was clear to understand.
Rebekah
Hi Rebekah,
Interesting topic and enjoyable read thank you. I feel a bit naïve that I don’t know a lot of these terms, so I have learnt a lot! It is a shame that these bounded communities get dismantled due to others negative actions. At the end of the day, I think we will always have trolls and negative minded people effecting communities, perhaps it is a matter of finding a way for fandom to persevere through them?
Hi Rebekah, I really enjoyed reading your paper as I have always been apart of some sort of fandom growing up, and still am, so I understood a lot when reading this. One of the points you mentioned stood out to me the most which was the toxicity of fandoms, as I have definitely seen and experienced it before, and feel as though there should be more research into this side of fandoms and online communities. Do you think this toxicity is what drives people away from online fandoms and why some people may view them through a negative lens?
Thanks for the feedback. I 100% agree that there needs to be more done with looking at the toxicity in fandoms, especially those that have been around for a really long time vs those that grew really quickly before a culture could really be established.
To answer your question I feel it depends on the individual and how much experience they have in an online fandom. Think those who are younger haven’t yet experienced what it is like to be in online community can come across as incredibly enthusiastic and naive which means that toxicity is not a thing to them. The longer you are in a fandom the more jaded you can become, I don’t think people are completely driven away from the online community, just because your not really apart of only one fandom, if anything it will make them back away from the larger community and only interact with those that they have genuine connections with.
As for the negative lens, the more public and intense a fandom is, then the more likely you have experienced some form of either interaction with them, or may even have friends in a particular fandom that you get told stories about. What you hear and see about a particular fandom can influence if you want to engage with a community or not.
Hi Rebekah!
I was really impressed by your paper, having been a person that has grown up participating in the plethora of fandoms that span Tumbler, Instagram, YouTube, etc. I also concur that fandoms can very easily devolve into a manic, toxic, obsessive following. we have even seen this in the past few years, with fandoms forming around internet personalities such as Ssniperwolf, Dream, Pewdiepie and Keemstar renowned for their deplorable behaviour. Well reasoned, and well executed. A wonderful read.
Regards,
Josh.
Hello Rebekah!
I really enjoyed your paper which consists of many interesting points.
Had great insights into it.
Cheers,
Gavin