female space and fannish femininity

Jun 15, 2007 14:30

There's a very interesting conversation between Robin Anne Reid and Sean Griffin up at Henry Jenkins's blog here and here and mirrored on LJ at fandebate here, part of a summer project discussing gender hierarchies in fan studies. I commented in response to some discussions about essentialism, and ended up coming up with a mini-theory about fandom and ( Read more... )

queer, public, analysis, fannish, introspection

Leave a comment

graycastle June 16 2007, 01:50:57 UTC
what a lovely point to make! I especially like the implication: that the charge of essentialism tends to ignore the manner in which female-fan space questions traditional femininity/female desire/gender identification. To allege that it is a space where women (and, I mean, c'mon, statistics) are exploring their sexuality and gender identifications - specifically the kind of squee that means we're overemotional, etc. - is not the same as saying that there is one kind of Woman's Expression or Female Space that is determined by "facts" of biology. In fact, it would seem to mean the opposite: when we say "romance or erotic fanfiction is a female space," what we mean is, "it's a space in which women discuss sexuality and gender roles in infinite variations."

In fact, the manner in which the charge of essentialism tends to get taken up by people who want to downplay gender inequalities or gender differences is a bit, y'know, suspect in itself.

Anyhow, I apologise if I'm only poorly paraphrasing the points that you've already put so elegantly. I will say, though, that I'm very glad to hear about the squee seeping out - I think that, if we want to do interesting things with literary critical style and convention (which we should want to do) then one of the first steps we ought to take is admitting that we are all huge squeeful fanboys and girls who get heartclenchy at Shakespeare or Victorian novels or fanfic or Beat poets or whatever, and to talk seriously about affect in critical literature.

Reply

heyiya June 16 2007, 02:06:21 UTC
Thank you for your lovely compliments! (Talking of squee; your Sedgwick icon makes me bounce up and down in joyous glee, every single time. :) )

the manner in which the charge of essentialism tends to get taken up by people who want to downplay gender inequalities or gender differences is a bit, y'know, suspect in itself

I think that in the post I linked to, what is going in is actually more complex than that (as the conversations that are taking place in comments now are showing), but in general, yes. I feel like I've heard that charge made against identity politics-based critiques, in one form or another, a million times; and while it may sometimes be warranted, so often it's made by people who want an excuse not to think about the material and political effects of the experience of difference (whether gender or race or whatever).

I think that, if we want to do interesting things with literary critical style and convention (which we should want to do) then one of the first steps we ought to take is admitting that we are all huge squeeful fanboys and girls

Oh, yes yes yes. And more yes. Which is reminding me once again that I really must read Lauren Berlant's work on affect. One of the things I really want to think about is the relations between the affective and the political: radical squee vs reactionary reactions (crying at the revolution in fiction vs. crying at the heroic military fantasy), as it were, and the different work affect does in each case and how we can deal with it if we're taking affective criticism seriously... But I have no idea what to do with that yet. :)

(That smiley makes me thing that emoticons - and exclamation marks - also have an important place in the immature-feminine-emotional range of fangirlese...)

Reply


Leave a comment

Up