Hey, don't think that only academic issues can make you go over the character limit. I've been known to take up three comments on how the mindset of the EPL will prevent England from ever having a national team which measures up to its expectations, or how the psychology of grief is necessarily modified for footballers by their forced public life and the politics of the transfer market. (What? I like football.)
I think that one issue coming out of this essay is that I may be using the term "academic" to describe a person in a different sense than the rest of fandom; if this is so I will go back and make sure I explain my terms more clearly.
The way I am using the term, Jenkins is the only "academic" around. This is not because is the only person working in academia, it is because he is the only person who is saying, "My name is Harry Jenkins, I am a professor at MIT, I do research on modern media, and you can reach me in this manner." No one else -- for very good reasons! -- is doing this. This does not mean that there aren't plenty of people in fandom who are working in academia in similar capacity to Jenkins, and it certainly doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of people in fandom who are doing the exact same kind of work that Jenkins is doing. But none of the people in fandom are saying, "this is my name, here are my credentials, and this is how you can reach me", and therefore to an outsider they are not recognized "academics".
I don't expect people in fandom to do this. Given the legal and social issues surrounding fanfic, especially the porn aspect of it, that would be stupid. Jenkins can because he is not (as was my original point and a point multiple other people have made) in fandom, he is the outsider looking in -- his ties are with the community, they are not within fandom. But this does have the drawback of having Jenkins be the only person whom outsiders can recognize as an "academic".
However, I'm getting the feeling from these comments that this is not necessarily the same definition of "academic" that the rest of fandom has. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you and others seem to be using the term "academic" as "any fan who is in academia", or possibly "any fan who analyzes fandom in an academic manner". Or are these people what you are terming "aca-fan"? Is working in academia required? For example, I have a PhD, but it's in biochemistry and I work for a pharmaceutical company. I would in no way consider myself to be "in academia" or an "academic", but while the majority of my fandom discourse is OH HAI HOT FOOTBALLERS or occasionally LOL FINGON/MAEDHROS FTW I have been known to analyze the psychology of fandom in much the same way as I analyze the psychology of the footballer. Am I an "aca-fan" when I engage in such pursuits?
I would like my essay to be as clear as possible so I would appreciate clarification on how other people are using terms.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: reposted to correct html: insider/outsider part 1
Date: 2007-05-27 04:02 pm (UTC)I think that one issue coming out of this essay is that I may be using the term "academic" to describe a person in a different sense than the rest of fandom; if this is so I will go back and make sure I explain my terms more clearly.
The way I am using the term, Jenkins is the only "academic" around. This is not because is the only person working in academia, it is because he is the only person who is saying, "My name is Harry Jenkins, I am a professor at MIT, I do research on modern media, and you can reach me in this manner." No one else -- for very good reasons! -- is doing this. This does not mean that there aren't plenty of people in fandom who are working in academia in similar capacity to Jenkins, and it certainly doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of people in fandom who are doing the exact same kind of work that Jenkins is doing. But none of the people in fandom are saying, "this is my name, here are my credentials, and this is how you can reach me", and therefore to an outsider they are not recognized "academics".
I don't expect people in fandom to do this. Given the legal and social issues surrounding fanfic, especially the porn aspect of it, that would be stupid. Jenkins can because he is not (as was my original point and a point multiple other people have made) in fandom, he is the outsider looking in -- his ties are with the community, they are not within fandom. But this does have the drawback of having Jenkins be the only person whom outsiders can recognize as an "academic".
However, I'm getting the feeling from these comments that this is not necessarily the same definition of "academic" that the rest of fandom has. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you and others seem to be using the term "academic" as "any fan who is in academia", or possibly "any fan who analyzes fandom in an academic manner". Or are these people what you are terming "aca-fan"? Is working in academia required? For example, I have a PhD, but it's in biochemistry and I work for a pharmaceutical company. I would in no way consider myself to be "in academia" or an "academic", but while the majority of my fandom discourse is OH HAI HOT FOOTBALLERS or occasionally LOL FINGON/MAEDHROS FTW I have been known to analyze the psychology of fandom in much the same way as I analyze the psychology of the footballer. Am I an "aca-fan" when I engage in such pursuits?
I would like my essay to be as clear as possible so I would appreciate clarification on how other people are using terms.