Second Thoughts on Queer Female Space
I'm deeply indebted to the people who commented on my previous post, and to the other posts and discussions that have sprung up in recent days on this subject.
I came across the concept of fandom as a queer female space a while back, and found it very intriguing and productive. I wasn't around for the initial formulations of the concept, and I haven't followed all of the posts or discussions since then. But I was fascinated by the posts by
kalpurna and
mskatej a few days back and ensuing comments.
First, each seemed to take diametrically opposed positions, even at first glance irreconiliable, on the meanings and values of describing fandom (or at least, slash-centric, LJ-based media fandom) as a queer female space. And I could see the merits and rationales for each position (or rather set of positions, since the original posts and ensuing comments each expressed a range of multiple arguments and stances). I didn't feel more drawn to or persuaded by one "side" or the other; I'd basically describe my state as one of equipoise. Which felt strange in itself -- because I definitely have some long-held and baroquely-elaborated opinions on "queer" in/as politics, culture and theory. Moreover, I'm very much interested in these kinds of representations of fandom and fan cultures, and a significant amount of my LJ participation and social network comes from exactly those kinds of discussions. So my equipoise felt like something requiring explanation.
Second, this was the first discussion of the fandom-as-QFS concept that I'd seen which didn't read to me as centered around academic queer theory as its origin and compass. This may have been a misreading on my part -- and certainly I saw many people referencing and invoking academic queer theory in those discussions, as well as people who described themselves or whom I recognized as "in" academia. But in my reading, I got a strong sense that these discussions were dialogues located and grounded in the community. My previous exposure to the QFS concept was primarily through posts by or explicitly oriented towards academic queer theory, which took on the role of ur-text: they centered more around how to interpret and apply academic queer theory (and which queer theory), though they also posed the question of whether to accept or reject academic queer theory as a useful or accurate or appropriate framework. In contrast, while academic queer theory certainly circulated throughout the discussions initiated by kaluprna and mskatej, it didn't seem to function as the master text or have any greater authority (or at least qualitatively different status) than claims and appeals organized around personal experiences and pleasures and desires (fannish and social and erotic/sexual).
At least, that was my reading -- and I haven't been around LJ long enough to advance this as anything more than my reading since I'm not at all confident in it. Nor do I know the original posters (or most of their commenters) at all. For all I know, "kalpurna" might be Judith Butler's fannish pseudonym on LJ -- it's impossible from the outside to identify what kind and degree of engagement or exposure to academic queer theory anybody in those discussions may have unless they actually talk about it in those terms directly. And I could be completely mischaracterizing earlier QFS discussions as academia-centric. But it felt like something interesting was going on -- or at least, interesting to me -- though I couldn't put my finger on it.
When I thought about my equipoise, I saw that I was approaching this debate as though I didn't have standing (in a legal sense) or a relevant standpoint. Part of this is because of how I construct my place in LJ fandom -- at this point, I'd say that I'm more than a tourist but less than a citizen. But then it's also about how I construct my position as a male in female-centric fandom -- I really don't consider myself a stakeholder in discussions of fandom as queer female space. I'm not at all claiming that these discussions exclude me -- indeed, they generally explicitly include males conceptually and as participants, and potentially include anyone as queer. I do struggle with the 'space' part of the concept -- I have difficulty grasping and working with it for online communities. I've had experiences and exposures to things that I'd recognize as queer female space at different points in my life, and many more experiences with queer "mixed-gender" spaces and queer male spaces. But none of these spaces have been online -- and I struggle with making the translation. LJ is also the first time that I've directly participated in an online community, and my involvement is still new enough and evolving that I generally defer theorizing it for now. None of this is a critique of "space" in QFS -- I think of this as my particular blind spot or limitation in taking up the concept.
So I was not at all sure that I'm prepared to make claims on the formulation and articulation of QFS as such. I find these discussions stimulating and provocative, but I've viewed them similar to how I don't consider myself to be a shipper: I'm interested when shows explore desire and relationships, but I'm not invested in any particular outcomes. I'm happy to watch how the relationships develop and fracture between Starbuck, Apollo, Sam, and Dualla on Battlestar Galactica -- and completely agnostic about who should end up with whom, as long as the story's interesting and well-told.
Yet I also have certain investments and kinks -- I want Supernatural to do a better job around race and gender, for example, just as I get irritated with plot holes and bad dialogue, and I depart from a lot of other SPN fans in which elements of the show and aspects of the characters I most enjoy and respond to. The same applies to the QFS discussions -- I'd love to see these dialogues and theorizations evolve in certain directions, and I'm less invested in -- or sometimes more critical of -- particular "scenes" and "episodes" in the on-going discourse around QFS. But I've approached the QFS discussions as a fan -- and generally a solo or water-cooler fan, at that.
With this new round of discussion, I'm wondering whether QFS may be entering a new phase, sort of in the sense of the Form-Storm-Norm-Perform model. Again, from my limited POV -- I'd read earlier QFS discussions as offering up theories and descriptions of fandom for adoption, revision, critique. And I'm sure that those discussions have had various impacts on people's subjective experience of fandom, their identifications and investments, and even their relationships and affiliations. But it's not clear to me whether those impacts have extended beyond the individual level -- has the process of elaborating and advancing the QFS concept and discourse had a broader effect on fandom at large? I have no idea, and I haven't been around long enough even to hazard a guess.
So when I saw
heyiya pose the question about the prospects and potentials of fandom-as-queer-female-space, coupled with these other discussions which I'd read (however inaccurately) as representing a broader circulation and engagement with QFS beyond fans most directly oriented towards academic queer theory, I got excited about imagining QFS moving beyond the descriptive/theoretical phase into an actual project that might be deployed and mobilized -- an aspiration, a mode of critique, a vehicle for activism. And I'm doing the false dichotomy thing here; I'd say that theory and meta and discussion also definitely operate as projects which embody and produce aspirations, critiques, activisms. Plus, I'd hardly regard theorizing as simply a preliminary phase that's all about laying the groundwork for "real" "praxis."
It's more about imagining what else we can do with the queer female space trope -- I very much want the meta and theory and discussion to continue and grow, but I'm also thinking about other kinds of fannish "projects" such as fic exchanges and challenges, thematic communities and archives, IBARW and blog carnivals, and OTW. I've seen a lot of inspiring projects over the past year in LJ fandom around racism and challenges to sexually explicit fanworks. QFS can also offers a description and analysis of how fans experience and construct and negotiate gender, sexuality, pleasure, creativity, community, sociality as something like a project -- both improvised and intentional. Can we push this project even further and/or in other directions? Does QFS suggest untapped or underrealized prospects and potentials that we might explore and activate? What else can QFS do, and where else can it take us?
That's a conversation where I wouldn't claim equipoise, I could have a potentially relevant standpoint, and I might even have some standing. And I struggled and stumbled over how to enter into that conversation in my prior post. But I'd like to engage with other people around QFS-as-project, even if I happen to be a latecomer to long-running discussions along those lines.
I came across the concept of fandom as a queer female space a while back, and found it very intriguing and productive. I wasn't around for the initial formulations of the concept, and I haven't followed all of the posts or discussions since then. But I was fascinated by the posts by
kalpurna and
mskatej a few days back and ensuing comments.
First, each seemed to take diametrically opposed positions, even at first glance irreconiliable, on the meanings and values of describing fandom (or at least, slash-centric, LJ-based media fandom) as a queer female space. And I could see the merits and rationales for each position (or rather set of positions, since the original posts and ensuing comments each expressed a range of multiple arguments and stances). I didn't feel more drawn to or persuaded by one "side" or the other; I'd basically describe my state as one of equipoise. Which felt strange in itself -- because I definitely have some long-held and baroquely-elaborated opinions on "queer" in/as politics, culture and theory. Moreover, I'm very much interested in these kinds of representations of fandom and fan cultures, and a significant amount of my LJ participation and social network comes from exactly those kinds of discussions. So my equipoise felt like something requiring explanation.
Second, this was the first discussion of the fandom-as-QFS concept that I'd seen which didn't read to me as centered around academic queer theory as its origin and compass. This may have been a misreading on my part -- and certainly I saw many people referencing and invoking academic queer theory in those discussions, as well as people who described themselves or whom I recognized as "in" academia. But in my reading, I got a strong sense that these discussions were dialogues located and grounded in the community. My previous exposure to the QFS concept was primarily through posts by or explicitly oriented towards academic queer theory, which took on the role of ur-text: they centered more around how to interpret and apply academic queer theory (and which queer theory), though they also posed the question of whether to accept or reject academic queer theory as a useful or accurate or appropriate framework. In contrast, while academic queer theory certainly circulated throughout the discussions initiated by kaluprna and mskatej, it didn't seem to function as the master text or have any greater authority (or at least qualitatively different status) than claims and appeals organized around personal experiences and pleasures and desires (fannish and social and erotic/sexual).
At least, that was my reading -- and I haven't been around LJ long enough to advance this as anything more than my reading since I'm not at all confident in it. Nor do I know the original posters (or most of their commenters) at all. For all I know, "kalpurna" might be Judith Butler's fannish pseudonym on LJ -- it's impossible from the outside to identify what kind and degree of engagement or exposure to academic queer theory anybody in those discussions may have unless they actually talk about it in those terms directly. And I could be completely mischaracterizing earlier QFS discussions as academia-centric. But it felt like something interesting was going on -- or at least, interesting to me -- though I couldn't put my finger on it.
When I thought about my equipoise, I saw that I was approaching this debate as though I didn't have standing (in a legal sense) or a relevant standpoint. Part of this is because of how I construct my place in LJ fandom -- at this point, I'd say that I'm more than a tourist but less than a citizen. But then it's also about how I construct my position as a male in female-centric fandom -- I really don't consider myself a stakeholder in discussions of fandom as queer female space. I'm not at all claiming that these discussions exclude me -- indeed, they generally explicitly include males conceptually and as participants, and potentially include anyone as queer. I do struggle with the 'space' part of the concept -- I have difficulty grasping and working with it for online communities. I've had experiences and exposures to things that I'd recognize as queer female space at different points in my life, and many more experiences with queer "mixed-gender" spaces and queer male spaces. But none of these spaces have been online -- and I struggle with making the translation. LJ is also the first time that I've directly participated in an online community, and my involvement is still new enough and evolving that I generally defer theorizing it for now. None of this is a critique of "space" in QFS -- I think of this as my particular blind spot or limitation in taking up the concept.
So I was not at all sure that I'm prepared to make claims on the formulation and articulation of QFS as such. I find these discussions stimulating and provocative, but I've viewed them similar to how I don't consider myself to be a shipper: I'm interested when shows explore desire and relationships, but I'm not invested in any particular outcomes. I'm happy to watch how the relationships develop and fracture between Starbuck, Apollo, Sam, and Dualla on Battlestar Galactica -- and completely agnostic about who should end up with whom, as long as the story's interesting and well-told.
Yet I also have certain investments and kinks -- I want Supernatural to do a better job around race and gender, for example, just as I get irritated with plot holes and bad dialogue, and I depart from a lot of other SPN fans in which elements of the show and aspects of the characters I most enjoy and respond to. The same applies to the QFS discussions -- I'd love to see these dialogues and theorizations evolve in certain directions, and I'm less invested in -- or sometimes more critical of -- particular "scenes" and "episodes" in the on-going discourse around QFS. But I've approached the QFS discussions as a fan -- and generally a solo or water-cooler fan, at that.
With this new round of discussion, I'm wondering whether QFS may be entering a new phase, sort of in the sense of the Form-Storm-Norm-Perform model. Again, from my limited POV -- I'd read earlier QFS discussions as offering up theories and descriptions of fandom for adoption, revision, critique. And I'm sure that those discussions have had various impacts on people's subjective experience of fandom, their identifications and investments, and even their relationships and affiliations. But it's not clear to me whether those impacts have extended beyond the individual level -- has the process of elaborating and advancing the QFS concept and discourse had a broader effect on fandom at large? I have no idea, and I haven't been around long enough even to hazard a guess.
So when I saw
heyiya pose the question about the prospects and potentials of fandom-as-queer-female-space, coupled with these other discussions which I'd read (however inaccurately) as representing a broader circulation and engagement with QFS beyond fans most directly oriented towards academic queer theory, I got excited about imagining QFS moving beyond the descriptive/theoretical phase into an actual project that might be deployed and mobilized -- an aspiration, a mode of critique, a vehicle for activism. And I'm doing the false dichotomy thing here; I'd say that theory and meta and discussion also definitely operate as projects which embody and produce aspirations, critiques, activisms. Plus, I'd hardly regard theorizing as simply a preliminary phase that's all about laying the groundwork for "real" "praxis."
It's more about imagining what else we can do with the queer female space trope -- I very much want the meta and theory and discussion to continue and grow, but I'm also thinking about other kinds of fannish "projects" such as fic exchanges and challenges, thematic communities and archives, IBARW and blog carnivals, and OTW. I've seen a lot of inspiring projects over the past year in LJ fandom around racism and challenges to sexually explicit fanworks. QFS can also offers a description and analysis of how fans experience and construct and negotiate gender, sexuality, pleasure, creativity, community, sociality as something like a project -- both improvised and intentional. Can we push this project even further and/or in other directions? Does QFS suggest untapped or underrealized prospects and potentials that we might explore and activate? What else can QFS do, and where else can it take us?
That's a conversation where I wouldn't claim equipoise, I could have a potentially relevant standpoint, and I might even have some standing. And I struggled and stumbled over how to enter into that conversation in my prior post. But I'd like to engage with other people around QFS-as-project, even if I happen to be a latecomer to long-running discussions along those lines.