To have knowledge
means to have power. And yet there is hardly anyone actually
knowing what to make of this term, in terms of academic science.
There is an array of definitions to be found in different disciplines,
from sociology to memory studies and informatics. But no consensus
has been established so far: "In short, knowledge is essentially
treated as a black box" (Stehr 1994a, 92).
seems to be a good too delicate, too complex to grasp with bare
hands. And yet it is considered one of the most pre-cious goods
in these times of a breaking new age - call it the information,
the knowledge or communication age. If we define knowledge as
a good necessarily dealt with in communicative ex-change - we
usually trade some mediated knowledge against other mediated
knowledge - this trade should actually be studied as a model
case for future economics. But so far the history of know-ledge
broking hasn't been written yet. Part of it has been put down
as a history of institutional encouraging and preventing of
sharing. That's mostly a history of government rules and offi-cial
media channels, which then allow (some) people to know and share
and prevent others from accumulating and sharing their precious
knowledge. And part of it has been rewritten as the counter-history
of subcultural knowledge distributed and spread via more flexible
media channels leaving no (or at least: no visible) traces.
back, one thing seems certain: The transfer and exchange of
knowledge does work - and always did work, to a certain ex-tent
- without the necessity of involving money being transfer-red.
The main credo of the industrial age - "time is money"
- doesn't need to be applied to knowledge broking, since it
can be, as I just stated, "knowledge against knowledge".
Call it the Linux principle; it goes for our spare time as well
as the work-place. Maybe there is no such thing as a distinguished
"know-ledge profession": According to Stehr (1998),
there is no job to be found that wouldn't involve any kind of
is power", that goes for industrial societies as well as
others. In case such systems are based on principles of hierarchy
or patriarchy, there are certain stocks of knowledge considered
worthy of knowing, in terms of the accumulation and extension
of power. Those stocks of knowledge ("Wissensbestän-de")
are highly selective and deliberately kept secret or sca-rce.
On the other hand there are - and always will be margina-lized
other arrangements of knowledge not considered worthy or legitimate,
which may even harm their carriers instead of con-tributing
to a higher status (see Ginzburg 1989).
is knowledge, and how can knowledge as a good be de-scribed?
In this paper I'll use a metaphorical analogy: Know-ledge works
as processed information. The word "processed" re-fers
to a specific treatment inducing structural chance, but also
to specific functions of that treatment, which results in an
increased stability, or durability. Seen from that viewpoint,
processed sausage is meat that lasts longer. And dried fruit
is food treated specifically to loose humidity - and therefore
the attractiveness for insects and bacteria willing to "restructure"
and invalidate those goods.
examples a specific treatment leads to a higher degree of value.
And the time to proceed the goods is well invested since it
results in those goods lasting considerably longer. Sometimes
addenda, which have to be officially declared, may support the
saving procedure - and "processing" is then to be
identified with the term of chemical treatment. But time always
plays a crucial role.
If we switch
from the realm of material goods to the realm of immaterial,
or symbolical, goods, we see that fleeting ("flüch-tige")
information is processed into knowledge by distinct procedures
of saveguarding. Call it backup processes: You put the goods
in cans and make them usable over time. Such procedu-res necessarily
involve media and thus structural changes. To give an example:
A person tells another person a story. Live speech and telephone
calls are transcripted or saved by means of analogical media
like a taperecorder. A teleplay is put onto specifically normed
videotape and can be replayed over a con-siderable amount of
A lot of
different media can serve as a memory - or mainframe - for saving
procedures: I, as long as I am alive. Any person with a working
memory who's willing to tell, and every group of people trading
collective memories (see Faulstich 1998). Words, written on
paper or worked into more durable material like wood or stone
- with or without the decoding manual. Magnetic video and audio
cassettes in different formats, or writing / reading norms.
Film material, used as an end product (in the case of film and
foto negatives) or as an intermediary safeguarding de-vice,
when it comes to printing processes. Digital media such as disks,
CD-ROMs or DVD.
from case to case is the degree of complexity regarding coding
and decoding processes, but also the degree of efficiency. Unforeseen
changes of form and content are to be expected with all kinds
of attempts at increasing durability.
of selective "writing down" car we ask for it's value
as a currency (in copyright matters, for once), or we ask for
its social value: What does it mean to know - or not to know
- something? In which place and at what time? Exceptional know-ledge
of specific television shows or genres may not be conside-red
very useful in school or professional contexts - it doesn't
help your pedigree. In a group of fans of the specific show
or genre, however, the same knowledge may work as a distinctive
attribute. The capital is the same in both cases: Saved infor-mation,
which may be classified according to specific criteria, for
example as "everyday" or "specialized" knowledge.
As a social capital it promises those having access - be it
temporary users or collectors / administrators - prestigious
longterm advantages in terms of power, wealth or education.
Or whatever is considered, in a specific society, of extraordinary
days of radical social change knowledge is about to be-come
the most precious ressource of all - quite similar to the value
of physical materials such as gold or other metals in times
of colonization and industrialization. That is why struc-tural
changes and changing conceptions of knowledge value ought to
be observed with increasing interest. Because every transfer
of "knowledge", may it be conscious or unconscious,
by intention or chance, strategically induced or not, is to
be read als a political as well as an economically and culturally
model used here "information" and "knowledge"
are bound into an even more complex system. If informations
can be under-stood as selected stacks of specific data - or,
to quote Niklas Luhmann, as "distinctions making a difference"
(or: making sen-se) - we can stick the label "competence"
at the very high end of the pyramide. Competences, or skills,
are stacks of knowledge which are put to use in a specific context.
They are practized and, thus, become functional in a everyday
or (for example) professional surrounding.
1: Knowledge contextualized
difference between stacks of knowledge and competences lies
in their functionality: While knowledge can be isolated from
an original context and is of value even when stacked away in
a cellar, an archive or a library, competences always are meant
to be interdisciplinary: They get to develop their value in
the overlapping area between two fields. Knowledge of speci-fic
musical conventions is made useful - or develops its practi-cality
- only with regards to other musical conventions, or with regards
to the knowledge of how to play an instrument, how to write
down music, how to sing, etcetera. Or: A professionally educated
electrician needs experience in the handling of buil-ding materials,
before he can "read" the complicated system of tubes
leading through an old building.
here describes the capacity of linking stacks of knowledge to
other stacks of knowledge: It means versatility. It is also
a powerful means for social action: "Practise", then,
means the active handling of different stacks of knowledge in
order to "know more" and get more competence. After
all, it is "knowhow", in this era of increasing communica-tional
needs, where new privileges of those "knowing better"
supposedly are derived from. In an ideal world authority might
be granted to those not just knowing more, or getting access
to knowledge faster than others. But to those actually capable
to put their accumulated knowlege to work in a specific context,
or at the intersection of different areas of knowledge.
witnesses "bottom up"?
paper I look at distinct stacks of knowledge in terms of "cultural
capital" (see Fiske 1987) and describe it with regards
to its diffusion in a public, but also narrowcasted circle of
people sharing an interest for the same subject of study. The
object of my study is fandom, which means I don't focus on traditional
knowledge transmitted through schools and other pro-fessional
educative institutions, but through all members of the once-chosen
community alike. I suggest that
- the distinctions
between scientific and non-scientific know-ledge, between
professional expert knowledge and everyday knowledge are arbitrary
- social constructs with a recogni-sable political background
(see Stehr 1994a, 92: "On the whole, our knowledge about knowledge,
was, until recently, derivative of and deferential to dominant
philosophies of science"). I suggest that this viewpoint is
- the traditional
institutions of public or private education have lost the
unique monopoly to institutionalized teaching. They share
that privilege with other institutions such as the public
media, and media experts (or: opinion leaders) right there
in the social network, among peers with similar inter-ests.
- the rules
and conventions of knowledge transfer probably are, with regards
to fandom, not (yet) that strongly established as when knowledge
transfer works within more traditional channels of education.
In other words: When it comes to spare time activities that
are relatively independently chosen it might be expected that
communication works in significantly distinc-tive ways than
in more classical situations of teaching and learning. Distinctive
in terms of specific linguistical and cultural codes, that
I am going
to talk about knowledge acquired by fans of a speci-fic cultural
phenomenon, which is accumulated and shared with other fans
of the same cultural phenomenon, or genre. Such know-ledge can
be put to use and work as a specific competence in different
interdisciplinary contexts, which may go back to the everyday
handling of hard- and software aspects (of how to set a taperecorder,
or what to make out of certain television programs such as newscasts
or advertisement). Or to intertextual referen-ces placed at
the intersection of different media and textual genres. Or to
the establishment of a dialogue with other initia-ted fans of
the same cult object (see, for example, Brown 1994).
The object of such a conversation may
be: The development and outcome of certain episodes, or of the
series in itself. Deve-lopments of the series with regards to
the genre's history. Any kind of conflict evolving behind closed
curtains and heard or read of in the yellow press. The private
life of members or the series' cast and crew. More serious stuff
as well as trivial matters - whatever is suitable enough to enhance
the pleasure shared and fuel the communication even further.
Communicative competence also means that fans may succeed in rendering the dialogue meaningful even beyond the realm of television or genre. What a character says or does may become the starting point for reflections on what has been said or done in one's own family and social life. Dialogues evolve around double-entendres developping a surprisingly rich array of signi-fication. The X-Files (Fox, 1993 -), for example, has induced some members of the usenet discussion group alt.tv.x-files to drive the subject from one specific episode further to an explo-ration of "the carnevalesque" and to Bakhtin's work in general.
In that sense communication in fandom circles, practised in more traditional media such as newsletters or fanzines, and spread over into electronical media such as the internet, works in more than one sense: It's about the distribution of information, or knowledge, as well as about the establishment and maintenance of social bonds in a community of dispersed members.
Fandom as pathology and profession
With regards to the functionality of (mass-)mediated entertain-ment, German scholars tend to cite the concept of the so-called "parasociality", when referring to the often long-lasting rela-tionship between series' audience members and series' charac-ters. Such relationships are analyzed in terms of daydreaming and can - according to the theory - become pathological in the sense of addictive. Truth is that fans do develop emotional bonds with "their" characters - it's an important part of one's involvement with narrative fiction. That bond may be flexible enough to include series' stars as they are - as media-construc-ted, fictitious persons appearing on talkshows, in interviews and advertisement. All of this, again, enhances the pleasures of identification.
When looked at closer, fan discourse regularly includes the re-flection on identification strategies as well - the "parasocial" is something fans work with in an often playful, teasing way. It is hard to imagine that it might be exactly that communicative activity in fandom circles leading to isolation and dependency - even if this communication takes place over space and time and may in itself be called "parasocial".
If followed over a certain time-span such discussions clearly aim at two goals: The pleasure lies 1. in the building of common stacks of knowledge and in the continuous enhancement of one's own media competence. And 2. in the constant building and main-tenance of specific relationships in the group, which may, over time, shift among individual members, or smaller groups of people and intensify or get weaker and fade.
In this sense the pathology-discourse works as sort of an ideo-logical weapon, used by self-claimed members of an educational elite to discredit the "deviant" worshippers of a subject deemed unworthy of such intense study (see Jenson 1992). Both claims have yet to be proven to be true - that cult phenomena automati-cally result in heresy and stigmatization, and that fandom leads to social isolation. If we replace the term of deviant with "ex-pert witness" and isolation with "concentration", we may recognize communicative patterns that can as well be identified with those found in any kind of expert group, be it in dispersed academic circles communicating through bulletin boards on the Internet or in the flocks of specialists attending an academic conference.
When it comes to cult phenomena we have to consider contexts, and we have to address aspects of pleasure. What, then, is more pleasurable under which conditions and with regards to which specific group structures: Restrictive handling of knowledge (in the sense of reserved territories and criteria of admission) or the participative handling of knowledge as share-ware?
secondary and tertiary text as intertext
other symbolical good (and that famous cake) knowledge can be
shared and yet be kept in full. It is inexhaustive in the sense
that it multiplies when communicated. What gets to be diminished,
depending on the circumstances, is it's material value: When
copyrights get infringed on a regular base, income losses may
result. Here I am talking about the symbolical, or cultural
value of knowledge, and about communication politics that may
either result in an unrestricted exchange of knowledge or in
a handling of knowledge as restricted, scarce good much too
precious to be given away "like that".
between different sorts of text is based on John Fiske's (1987,
108 ff) typology regarding primary, secondary and tertiary texts.
As "primary texts" I define series' texts in all imaginable
stages (including scripts, dubbed episode versions for the foreign
market and printed or handwritten memos). "Secondary texts"
are all kinds of accompanying materials approved of and canonized
by the producers, such as trailers and other promotional articles,
merchandising articles such as books and magazines, but also
comments and reviews in all kinds of media, may they be favourable
or not. "Tertiary texts", finally, are texts composed
outside of the copyrighted realm of canoniza-tion: The term
defines whatever is produced by viewers and works to enlarge
the narrative universe of the series further, be it through
comment, through imaginative acts production companies wouldn't
necessarily approve of or through the more or less improvised
establishment of connections between narrative universes themselves.
texts may consist of collective interpretations regar-ding the
ongoing series' plot, but also of fan fiction - the deliberate
rewriting of series' events and ongoing plotlines (see Bacon-Smith
1991 and Jenkins 1992). What remains to be categorized in this
model is academic (v. journalistic) analy-sis. Such texts might
either be counted as comments from the (canonized) expert viewpoint
or as an active viewer contribution to the ongoing collective
contextualization through the sugge-stion of new and unforeseen
types of texts are to be understood as interdependent - one
kind of text has it's influence on the other two. Seconda-ry
texts work as fodder for fan discussions just as primary texts
do. And fan discourse can easily be borrowed and adapted to
be incorporated into the primary text, and thus "canonized".
What seems unavoidable here are conflicts regarding the autonomy
and original authorship of texts. While the entertainment indu-stry
hopes to attain a higher degree of acceptance, and thus identification,
fans turned into co-authors may sooner or later claim their
own copyright in the production process. And what's hard to
maintain in this ongoing merging process is the sense of distinction
between "text" and "intertext". Maybe we
end up with a much simpler description of primary texts as materials
written and rewritten constantly throughout several media and
several realms of what we call "public sphere".
example is The X-Files: Here the producers regularly
incorporate names of active members of the fan community into
their show - names they get from the usenet groups devoted to
their product. And some of the more expert fans, over the years,
have been invited to join forces. Among them is Paula Vitaris,
once a contributor to alt.tv.x-files, who, in the meantime,
has become a regular contributor to a science-fiction review
interesting case is Magnum, P.I. (CBS, 1980-1988): It
is yet to be decided if the more characteristic features of
the show, such as the flashback, and the voice-overs, evolved
into a structural backbone before or after the
printing of a ground-breaking article on the way this specific
show dealt with collective memories of the Vietnam era (see
Newcomb 1985). After Newcomb's definition of the cumulative
narrative was coined producers would openly refer to that
term and even claim in backsight that they used his analysis
as sort of a manual for later seasons of the series.
of knowledge as politics of pleasure
John Fiske's term of the "politics of pleasure" suggests that
the establishment of the pleasure always involves negotiation
processes of dominance and marginality (1987, 19): "Pleasure
results from a particular relationship between meanings and
power." Is it, then, to be understood as a result of one's own
superiority in a certain field of meaning? Not necessarily,
since Fiske clearly refers to Stuart Hall and his three-fold
reading of meanings as either dominant, oppositional or nego-tiated
(Hall 1973 et al.). A pleasurable relationship between meaning
and power not only derives from dominant readings, but from
oppositional - and all kind of alternative and negotiated -
readings as well:"Pleasure for the subordinate is produced by
the assertion of one's social identity in resistance to, in
independence of, or in negotiation with, the structure of domination"
Viewed from this perspective the construction of meaning always
takes on the character of appropriation, and is thus politically
motivated. And pleasure results, if not from the confirmation
of an existing dominant status, from a, somewhat unexpected,
empo-werment in seeing one's own position as the one equipped
with the power of definition.
Fandom communities can thus be read as circles of initiated
"literati" that are more or less familiar with a specific popular
cultural interest. Those circles are similar to the elitist
"saloons" dating back into the 18th and 19th
century which have been described by Jürgen Habermas to
generate a somewhat limited "public sphere" and become their
times' opinion leaders (Habermas 1990). If described as circles,
they should be seen in as concentric circles, with the more
advanced and competent opinion leaders at center stage and the
"satellites" (unvisible participants / lurkers) at the margins
of the fan activity going on.
To take part in fan activities is then pleasurable in two
ways: On the one hand fandom circles provide safety because
there is a room where you don't have to defend or legitimate
your peculiar interest. Nobody lectures you because of "waste
of time" or "asocial behaviour" and wants you to read a book
instead. On the other hand fandom is political subversion in
it's purest form: Dominant discourses may be questionned and
discarded. Oral tra-ditions rule just as in gossip networks.
And free speech is guaranteed even where copyrights are infringed.
What I am focusing on here, in terms of communication politics,
is the interaction between members of fandom circles. And again
I do refer to John Fiske, who, in an article on "The Cultural
Economy of Fandom", addressed the problem how new cultural eli-tes
may easily just replace old cultural elites by establishing
new hierarchies of (definitional) power (1992, 42): "In fandom
as in the official culture, the accumulation of knowledge is
fundamental to the accumulation of cultural capital."
While he's pointing to the cultural industry, which is well
aware of the undermining strategies used by fans and tries,
through the continuous production of secondary texts (and the
providing of platforms such as fandom conventions) to actually
secure a position in that market segment, I would like to point
out to another arena as "site of struggle": I do ask for border-lines
and strategies of demarkation in the realm of stacks of knowledge
(or cultural capital) which are used for distinction in the
midst of communicative fandom networks.
What is to be kept in mind is the fact that social behaviour
of fans is always influenced by a vast array of other affiliations
brought in from the outside of the community. And with these
affiliations may come strategies how to establish and maintain
power. In Fiske's words (1987, 36), and referring to a term
coined by Pierre Bourdieu: "Those who are subordinated (by gender,
age or class) are more likely to have developed a habi-tus typical
of proletarian culture (that is, one without econo-mic or cultural
capital): the less a fan suffers from these structures of domination
and subordination, the more likely he or she is to have developed
a habitus that accords in some re-spects with that developed
by the official culture, and which will therefore incline to
use official criteria on its unoffi-cial texts."
Fan communities then, understood as concentric circles, most
certainly contain more "dominant" fans or groups of fans trying
to use their cultural capital as strategical advantage to gain
or maintain status, while other fans / other groups of fans
deliberately invest their cultural capital to put it to use
to the mutual benefit of the community. They conceive their
know-ledge as a currency on the open market, and by spreading
it they expect to get a comparable amount of knowledge back
as a bene-fit. Both strategies are highly political: The use
of knowledge as prestigious privilege - or as share-ware.
There are already several studies dealing with the basic social
structures of (different) fan communities, in the United States
as well as Germany. In the following table I've put down three
examples, two German studies dealing with fans of the slasher
film genre and the X-Files (see Winter 1995, and Wiemker
1999) and one American study dealing with fans of television
soap opera (Stempel Mumford 1995).
Table 2: Genre competences
Differences are to be found in the quantity of steps (four or five), in the analogy applied (travelling in foreign countries, professional skills), in the perspective (from the outside or inside) and in the labelling of fandom activities in terms of social practice. While Winter and Wiemker, by referring to tra-veller metaphors, talk about territories to be staked out and claimed, Stempel Mumford clearly refers to amounts of time invested. Time to get familiar enough with a certain subject to develop an expertise; time also in terms of a certain regularity in practicing one's own skills in dealing with this object.
Approaches vary also in terms of self-involvement. On the one hand side we get explicit self-definitions of happily "deviant" fans as well as a more or less explicit distance between the researcher and his sample of fans (Winter), while Stempel Mum-ford steps out of the closet and claims to be a fan of at least of at least the competent status (regarding the genre in gene-ral), if not the expert one (with regards to some of the soaps examined). Markus Wiemker remains ambivalent, since his "X-tremist" doesn't show if the researcher also indulges in the newsgroup activities analyzed or merely participates as an academically motivated lurker (and hence, tourist).
The most interesting difference lies in the overall labelling of the activities leading to the classifications above. While in Winter's and Wiemker's case we speak of "Aneignung" (appropria-tion), for Stempel Mumford it's "participation".
Keeping Fiske's observations in mind, we're prone to find a more subversive, and empowering kind of political negotiation with dominant (producer) positions in a strategy leading to appro-pration than in a strategy leading to a sheer "taking part" in the ongoing construction of a mutual textual network consisting of primary, secondary and tertiary texts. Appropriation, in Winter's and Wiemker's terms, does address the symbolical occu-pation of a personally claimed territory. Those playful activi-tites indulge in competition, and pleasure is to be found right there in the fight over who owns the rights to the object in question. Participation, on the other hand, isn't that much interested in ownership - only as far as there are other contri-butors included. Authorship, in that concept, may be "borrowed" to make a specific statement, but the main interest - or plea-sure - lies in contributing to the building of a communicative network by means of ongoing storytelling.
And thus, these more or less participant observers in the field suggest again two possible strategies that lead to fan-specific pleasure: Knowledge used as device for distinction and the esta-blishment of authority - or knowledge used as tool for identifi-cation and the establishment of community.
Little Voices, alt.tv.x-files and
My quotes are taken from different fan circles that are more or less accessible to foreigners. The "love interest", in both cases, is a network television show with an edge on crime, or mystery: Magnum, P.I. (CBS, 1980-1988) und The X-Files (Fox, 1993 -). Little Voices is a series of newsletters, or fanzines, in traditional photocopied form, distributed by mail to a limi-ted number of subscribers. It's content is mostly letters - hence the self-description as "letterzine". It contains also secondary texts such as ads and reviews, photographs, cartoons and hard-to-find trivia. In my classification, the letters count as tertiary text - and so do poems and does pictorial fan art-work, which can be found throughout the pages.
Both usenet discussions groups mentionned here, alt.tv.x-files as well as de.rec.akte-x, still do exist in 1999. The first one was founded around 1994, and due to the enormous success of the series the fan activities on the net have expanded dramatically since. The second one is devoted to the broadcasting of the same series in the German-speaking television market (Germany, Austria, northern part of Switzerland). Just as with Little Voices, those usenet groups provide platforms for the discussion of the series' content and context or the exchange of secondary materials. Differently from hand-printed handouts they are much quicker to respond to actual events surrounding the series and had thus to develop specific guidelines and devices (such as "spoiler spaces") to prevent certain informations to sicker through prematurely.
The longer a usenet fan group exists, the more likely it will diversify over time and generate subgroups devoted to special fan activities such as the exchange of binary pictures (see alt.binaries.x-files) or fan fiction (see alt.tv.x-files.creat-ive and, founded only recently, alt.tv.x-files.creative.mature). Here I do concentrate on the "original" groups and threads devoted to the exchange of information and original viewer's opinions surrounding the show.
When it comes to analyze fan discourse in analogical and electronic media there are ethical questions to be considered. How "public" or "private" is it? And how meaningful is this public character, or privacy to the ones writing letters, or posting them? Are we dealing with some kind of an alternative public sphere here, which needs secrecy for it's own protection, or is it mere "narrowcasting", such as in the case of a specia-lized magazine devoted to growing roses instead of gardening in general? Whatever the case, it is rather up to the members of the community to decide than to the researcher in question. Which means that consent and authorization should be seeked for the publication of any larger portions of text, and that the guidelines for ethical net research apply for citations of all other kind (see The Information Society 12, 1996, 2; especially King and Polancic Boekefeld).
Since I didn't seek consent I remove personal data or encrypt them in a way to prevent guessing of gender, or age, or the wherefrom. Headers and titles of threads, as well as addresses and alias names, have been removed. The same applies for diffe-rent types of forum representing different kinds of public sphe-re on the net. If it is not necessary to know if materials came from a usenet forum or a chat room, that information should be left out. But, in every case, originals of the text should be kept in a way to prove one's point, should the integrity of the study become questionned.
If fan discourse gets analyzed as tertiary text (here applied to letters, since I leave out fan fiction and graphic artwork), we do find striking differences in linguistic styles between the english-spoken Little Voices / alt.tv.x-files and the German-spoken de.rec.akte-x. On the one hand there is a lot of personal addressing going on, such as "I'd love to know other specula-tions." Or: "What do you think?" Or paralinguistically enhanced utterings such as: "Hmmm ...: Any ideas?" The pleasure of having found a platform for the exchange of opinions gets regularly expressed: "Finally, MPI is even more fun now that 'Little Voi-ces' is around. I look forward to reading everyone's comments about the new season!" Or, in a more poetic manner: "Little Voices, you're here at last! / A letter zine for the Magnum cast. / A finer group you could not honor. / Your wisdom I need not ponder. / reaching out to another fan, / sharing opinions about our man. / Thank you. Thanks. And thanks again. / Where on Earth have you people been?"
A newcomer in one of the english spoken usenet threads regarding The X-Files introduces him- or herself by adding: "This is the kind of thread I simply cannot resist." First-time-postings of-ten address one's reasons for going online, pointing out to the guilty pleasure of leaving "more important" tasks - such as work in an office - behind for a while.
In contrast, German postings are far less concerned with matters of politeness. When the German private network "Pro 7" started to air The X-Files (in German: Akte X) with respect to the na-tional guidelines regarding violence and scheduling, there were rumours about the network actually altering content by means of censorship. In those statements there is hardly a sense of sharing to be found, but rather a distinct rivalry for more, or better information: "Ich rate jedem sich einmal im AkteX-Forum von Pro7 umzuschauen. Da gibt es genug, die sich LAUT dazu geäussert haben." "Also hier kann ich wieder einhaken. (...) PRO 7 strahlt Akte X mit etwa einem Bild pro Sekunde mehr aus, als in den USA, so mein Bekannter. Daher läuft Akte X etwas schnell, ist also von der Zeit her gesehen kürzer. Das darf aber nicht der einzige Massstab bei der Behauptung, PRO 7 würde Akte X kürzen, sein. Im übrigen ist das eine viel bessere Methode, um mehr Platz für Werbung zu haben (wenn man es denn wollte), als einfach nur was rauszuschneiden, das muss doch jeder einsehen." "Ich habe mich mal schnell mit meinem Bekannten in Verbindung gesetzt. Sicher ist es das Beste, wenn jemand von PRO 7 selbst auf Dein Posting antwortet."
In English: "I advise everyone to consult the official forum of Pro 7. There are enough people there that had their say." "Here I can say something: As my friend (at Pro 7) told me, the series is broadcast here in a different mode from the US. Episodes run faster and are thus slightly shorter. But surely that can't be the only reason to claim that Akte X gets altered. And, besides, that would be such a lot more efficient way for making room for additional advertisement then cutting out something; everybody has to aknowledge that." "I just went back to my friend for confirmation. I think it's best if someone from the network answers your posting"
Different opinions don't come packaged in polite formulas such as in the english-spoken fan discourses on the net, but get to be confronted directly against each other: "Es spricht für sich, dass die Verfasser solcher Pamphlete keine Ahnung haben, welche Stadien und Institutionen eine Serie bis zur Ausstrahlung durch-laufen." Or: "Das ist eine Unterstellung die unhaltbar ist, und in den Bereich der Mythen und Legenden verwiesen werden kann." ("Obviously the posters of such pamphlets don't know a thing about television production and distribution." And: "That is a intolerable insinuation, and true as much as myths and legends are."
If this sounds, to American ears, like an on-going flame war, there is more to it: the sheer pleasure of topping somebody's knowledge with one's own. Expertise is to be claimed, or proven, by lengthy comments on "how things really are", by direct con-frontation of rivals deemed unworthy to be here, and by the ca-sual "name-dropping" of experts as allies whose competence sim-ply cannot be challenged - just because they are closer to the primary text than anybody else in the group.
Examples like those mentionned are not exhaustive enough to be called representative in any way. But they may serve as clues leading to a more structured discussion. If seen in the context of the utterings, and in consideration of gender and social status: There are by far more women using Little Voices as a platform for communicative exchange. And there are more female posters in the usenet groups devoted to the X-Files that regularly include explicit or implicit invitations to "share". All of which fits quite well into the sociolinguistical findings of men arguing in different ways than women when it comes to information transfer in conversations (see Tannen 1990). There-fore men tend to emphasize on the content and its immediate value, while women tend to emphasize on the relational aspects of the conversation.
When American fan discourse appears to be so much more oriented towards institutionalized politeness than German fan discourse, other possible reasons habe to be considered as well. For once, US fandom circles have been around for much longer a time - they have already been established long before the times of the Internet, as can be seen with Little Voices and a lot of other fanzines (see Jenkins 1992 and 1995a / 1995b). And so it is probably more of a "woman's thing" to use fandom circles as a means to establish networks of shared knowledge, while men ra-ther seek for the knowledge itself, happily challenging other people's competence on the way. But that has to do with gender-specific uses of media technology as well.
Both gender groups, "men" as well as "women", build their commu-nicational behaviour, or habitus, on examples learned from out-side of the fandom circle, be it online or offline. And the same is true for "Americans" and "Germans", whose modes of "netiquet-te" have been established at different times in different ways. Cyberspace, back in 1995-1996, was still a mostly new and unmap-ped territory for German explorers on the net, which were mostly male and informatics-oriented. And German, just as other non-English languages, had yet to be established as a net language.
Even if my findings do actually confirm the thesis of fandom knowledge used either as privilege or shareware, there are certain contexts in need to be explored further. As for the three hypotheses stated above, knowledge transfer in fandom circles actually may serve as a model for knowledge transfer in general. And knowledge generates power, with regards both to communicative competence and the actual handling of object-related problems. But we have to keep in mind the intermedial aspects of knowledge acquirement and distribution - where do one's communicative skills derive from, and how does specific object-oriented knowledge gets to be organized in different media?
At any rate there are more, and more complex, arguments to be taken into consideration in addition to the ones discussed here. Beyond those dichotomies in gender and nationality, or lingui-stics, there are more differences that can be explored in terms of systems' organization, or institutionalization, as well as media literacy. Fans of both television shows, Magnum, P.I. and The X-Files, have at least theoretical access to more than one inofficial fan forum, be it offline (fanzines exist for all kinds of shows, no matter if there is a usenet group or not) or online (see alt.tv.magnum-pi, and a variety of more private, subscripted e-mail lists devoted to the X-Files). Institutional differences are to be found in the varying degree of self-regu-lation in different fora (traditional witten fanzines are always moderated, and so are some of the usenet groups), but also in their specific appeal to television audiences more or less at ease with distinctively new media technologies such as the Internet.
On behalf of the strategies applied it is safe to state that knowledge thrown onto the open market helps a lot more to esta-blish a continuous relationship between participants in the group than knowledge thrown into general competition does - not only because it may be considered "nicer" but because there are more options left open how to proceed any kind of discourse further. On the other hand, where there are control issues at stake, they are much more safely handled when dealt with in a more hierarchically structured environment.
Over all I suggest not to analyze huge quantities of fan dis-course material without keeping in mind their intermedial and intercultural contexts. Also to be thought of are the different expressive forms for what I've called "pleasure" - including the more competitive forms that strive for establishing distinctions between "one step up" and "one step down". What if this is con-ceived as communicative strategy just as well - and as a means to establish a relationship between members of the community?
It would imply that there are still some basic terms in need of definition - terms such as "appropriation" and "participation", according to their primary function in everyday communication politics.
Voices (fanzine, devoted to Magnum, P.I.; 13 issues
1985 - 1987. Courtesy of David Romas, keeper of the Magnum Memorabi-lia,
and de.alt.tv.akte-x. Selected postings, 1996 - 1998
Ben: A Critical Theory of Public Life. Knowledge Discourse and
Politics in an Age of Decline. London 1991
Christopher: Reflections on Magnum, P.I.. In: Horace
M. Newcomb (ed.): Television, The Critical View. New York /
Oxford 19874, 112-125
Arthur: Genre. In: Horace Newcomb / Cary O'Dell (ed.): Museum
of Broadcast Communications' Encyclopedia of Television. Chicago
1997, vol. 2, 678-682
Camille: Enterprising Women. Television Fandom and the Creation
of Popular Myth. Philadelphia 1991
Daniel / vom Lehm, Dirk: Trekkies im Cyberspace. Über Kommu-nikation
in einem Mailboxnetz. In: Hubert Knoblauch (ed.): Kom-munikative
Lebenswelten. Zur Ethnographie einer geschwätzigen Gesellschaft.
Konstanz 1996, 215-243
Deirdre: Talk, Text, and History. Conversation Analysis and
Communication Theory. In: David Crowley / David Mitchell (ed.):
Communication Theory Today. Cambridge / Oxford 1994, 140-169
Mary Ellen: Soap Opera and Women's Talk. The Pleasure of Resistance.
London et al. 1994 (Communication and Human Values)
John G.: Adventure, Mystery, and Romance. Formula Stories as
Art and Popular Culture. Chicago / London 1976
Susan J.: DDEB, GATB, MPPB, and Ratboy. The X-Files,
Media Fandom, Online and Off. In: David Lavery u.a. (ed.): "Deny
All Knowledge". Syracuse 1996, 36-51
Steven / Shires, Linda M.: Telling Stories. A Theoretical Analysis
of Narrative Fiction. New York: Routledge 1988
Werner: Medienkultur. Vom Begriff zur Geschichte. Werte- und
Funktionenwandel am Beispiel der Menschmedien. In: Ulrich Saxer
(ed.): Medien-Kulturkommunikation. Opladen 1998 (Publizi-stik-Sonderheft
John: Elvis: Body of Knowledge. Offizielle und populäre
Formen des Wissens um Elvis Presley. In: montage / av
2 (1993) 1, 19-51
John: The Cultural Economy of Fandom. In: Lisa A. Lewis (ed.):
Adoring Audience. Fan Culture and Popular Media. London / New
York 1992, 30-49
John: Television Culture. Popular Pleasures and Politics. London
/ New York 1987
Ursula: Eliten auf Globalisierungskurs. In: ZOOM Kommunikation
und Medien 10 (1997), 22-26
Ursula: Gedächtnis - Erinnerung - Geschichte. Überlegungen
zur Zeitstruktur von Fernsehserien. In: medien + erziehung
42 (1998) 6, 367-371
Ursula: Schichten, Lagen, Webmuster. Überlegungen zur Stratifikation
von Kultur. In: Ulrich Saxer (Hrsg.): Medien-Kulturkommunikation.
Opladen 1998 (Publizistik-Sonderheft 2/1998), 175-186
Carlo: The High and the Low. The Theme of Forbidden Knowledge
in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. In: Ders.: Clues,
Myths, and the Historical Method. Engl. Baltimore / London 1989,
Uli / Burst, Michael: Parasoziale Beziehungen von Fernseh-zuschauern
mit Personen auf dem Bildschirm. In: Medienpsycholo-gie
8 (1996), 182-199
Ulla / Wyss, Eva Lia: E-Mail-Briefe. Eine neue Textsorte zwischen
Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit. In: Ernest W.B. Hess-Lüttich
et al. (ed.): Textstrukturen im Medienwandel. Frankfurt / Berlin
/ Bern 1996 (forum Angewandte Linguistik 29), 61-86
Jürgen: Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchun-gen
zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Mit einem
Vorwort zur Neuauflage. Frankfurt 1990
(1973/1980): Encoding / Decoding. In: Ders. / Dorothy Hobson
/ Andrew Lowe / Paul Willis (Hrsg.): Culture, Media, Language.
Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972-1979. Birmingham /
London 1980, S. 128-138. Reprints 1987, 1990.
(1974): The Television Discourse. Encoding and Decoding. Reprint
in: Ann Gray / Jim McGuigan (Hrsg.): Studying Culture. An Introductory
Reader. London u.a. 1993, 28-34
Von der Interpretationsgemeinschaft zur häuslichen Welt.
Zur Fernsehaneignung in Gruppen aus der Perspektive der Cultural
Studies. In: Medien Journal 21 (1997) 4, 39-47
Susan: Liguistic and Critical Analysis of Computer-Media-ted
Communication. Some Ethical and Scholarly Considerations. In:
The Information Society 12 (1996) 2, 153-168
Ronald / Honer, A. / Maeder, C. (ed.): Expertenwissen. Die institutionalisierte
Kompetenz zur Konstruktion von Wirklich-keit. Opladen 1994
Ronald: Reflexive Kompetenz. Zur Genese und Bedeutung von Expertenwissen
jenseits des Professionalismus. In: Wolfgang K. Schulz (ed.):
Expertenwissen. Soziologische, psychologische und pädagogische
Perspektiven. Opladen 1998, 33-47
Joachim R.: Kommunikationstechnologien, Kommunikations-netze
und die Diffusion von Bedeutung. In: Communications 17
(1992) 3, 311-330
Joachim R.: Vom dispersen Publikum zu "elektronischen Gemeinschaften".
Plädoyer für einen erweiterten kommunikations-wissenschaftlichen
Blickwinkel. In: Rundfunk und Fernsehen 43 (1995) 4,
Henry: "Do You Enjoy Making the Rest of Us Feel Stupid?" alt.tv.twinpeaks,
the Trickster Author, and Viewer Mastery. In: David Lavery (ed.):
Full of Secrets. Critical Approaches to Twin Peaks. Detroit
1995, 51-69 (1995a)
Henry / Tulloch, John: Science Fiction Audiences. London: Routledge
Henry: Textual Poachers. Television Fans and Participa-tory
Culture. New York / London 1992
Joli: Fandom as Pathology. In: Lisa A. Lewis (ed.): Adoring
Audience. Fan Culture and Popular Media. London / New York 1992,
A.: Researching Internet Communities. Proposed Ethical Guidelines
for the Reporting of Results. In: The Information Society
12 (1996) 2, 119-127
Walter u.a. (ed.): Medienrezeption seit 1945. Forschungsbilanz
und Forschungsperspektiven. Baden-Baden 1998
Friedrich: Elektronisch mediatisierte Kommunikation. Über-legungen
zur Konzeption einiger zukünftiger Forschungsfelder der
Kommunikationswissenschaft. In: Rundfunk und Fernsehen
43 (1995) 4, 445-462
Friedrich: Kommunikation als Teilhabe. Der "Cultural Studies
Approach". In: Rundfunk und Fernsehen 40 (1992) 3, 412-431
Friedrich: Kultur, Kommunikation und die Medien. In: Ul-rich
Saxer (ed.): Medien-Kulturkommunikation. Opladen (Publizi-stik-Sonderheft
David / Hague, Angela / Cartwright, Marla (ed.): "Deny All Knowledge".
Reading the X-Files. Syracuse 1996
David (ed.): Full of Secrets. Critical Approaches to Twin
Peaks. Detroit 1995
Lisa A. (ed.): Adoring Audience. Fan Culture and Popular Media.
London / New York 1992
Thomas: Grundformen der gesellschaftlichen Vermittlung des Wissens.
Kommunikative Gattungen. In: F. Neidhardt et al. (ed.): Kultur
und Gesellschaft. Opladen 1986, 191-211
Niklas: Die Realität der Massenmedien. Opladen: West-deutscher
Verlag 1995 and 1996 2
Niklas: Soziale Systeme. Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie.
Frankfurt: Suhrkamp 1984, 1996 6
Fritz: Knowledge and Knowledge Production. Princeton: Princeton
University Press 1981
William: Electronic Networks. Social Relations and the Changing
Structure of Knowledge. In: D. Crowley / D. Mitchell (ed.):
Communication Theory Today. Cambridge / Oxford 1994, 254-273
Lothar: Fernsehen im Erleben der Zuschauer. Vom lustvollen Umgang
mit einem populären Medium. Berlin / München 1994
Richard: Structures, Cultures, and Knowledge. A Historical and
Comparative Exploration. In: Hans Haferkamp (ed.): Social Structure
and Culture. New York 1989, 37-66
Horace M.: Magnum. The Champagne of TV? In: Channels
of Communication, may / june 1985, 23-26
Horace M. / Hirsch, Paul M.: Television as a Cultural Forum.
Implications for Research. In: Quarterly Review of Film Studies
8 (1983). Reprint in: Horace M. Newcomb (ed.): Televi-sion,
The Critical View. New York: Oxford University Press 19874,
Brian C.: Browsing. A Framework for Seeking Functional Information.
In: Knowledge 15 (1994) 2, 211-232
Boekefeld, Sharon: Doing the Right Thing. Ethical Cyberspace
Research. In: The Information Society 12 (1996) 2, 141-152
Manfred: Rundfunk publizistisch begreifen. Reflexions-theoretische
Überlegungen zum Primat programmierter Programme. In: Publizistik
40 (1995) 3, 279-304
Brigitte / Ganz-Blättler, Ursula / Großkopf, Monika
/ Wahl, Ute: Morde im Paradies. Amerikanische Detektiv- und
Abenteuer-serien der 80er Jahre. München 1994 und 19952
(kommunikation audiovisuell 19)
Wolfgang K. (ed.): Expertenwissen. Soziologische, psycho-logische
und pädagogische Perspektiven. Opladen 1998
Barry: Vertical Classification. A Study in Structuralism and
the Sociology of Knowledge. London 1981
James et al. (ed.): Media Knowledge. Readings in Popular Culture
Pedagogy and Critical Citizenship. Albany 1992
David J.: Critical Studies. From the Theory of Ideology to Power
/ Knowledge. In: Critical Studies in Mass Communication
5 (1988) 1, 16-41
Joachim Friedrich: Nachrichtenwerttheorie. Formale Struk-tur
und empirischer Gehalt. Freiburg / München 1988
Nico: Arbeit, Eigentum und Wissen. Zur Theorie von Wis-sensgesellschaften.
Frankfurt 1994 (1994b)
Nico: Knowledge Societies. London u.a. 1994 (1994a)
Nico: Wissensberufe. In: Wolfgang K. Schulz (ed.): Exper-tenwissen.
Soziologische, psychologische und pädagogische Per-spektiven.
Opladen 1998, 17-31 (1998)
Mumford, Laura: Love and Ideology in the Afternoon. Bloo-mington
/ Indianapolis 1995
Rudolf: Die Soziologie und die Informationsgesellschaft. In:
Jürgen Friedrich et al. (ed.): Die Diagnosefähigkeit
der Soziologie. Opladen 1998 (Kölner Zeitschrift für
Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Sonderheft 38), 433-443
Deborah: You Just Don't Understand. Women and Men in Conversation.
New York 1990
Waldemar: Jugendliche Medienkompetenz. Cliquen und Szenen als
Orte selbstbestimmten Medienhandelns (Lindenstrasse).
In: medien + erziehung 41 (1997) 1, S. 15-23
Peter / Knobloch, Silvia: Parasoziale Beziehungen zu Serienfiguren.
Ergänzung oder Ersatz? In: Medienpsychologie 8 (1996),
Mimi: Women, Memory and Serial Melodrama. In: Screen
35 (1994) 4, 336-353
Markus: Trust No Reality. Eine soziologische Analyse der X-Files.
Soziologie einer Fernsehserie am Beispiel von Akte X,
postmoderne Theorien und Cultural Studies. Master's thesis (typoscript),
Rhona / Williams, J.P.: What Do You Think? The X-Files,
Liminality, and Gender Pleasure. In: David Lavery et al. (ed.):
"Deny All Knowledge". Syracuse 1996, 99-120
Rainer: Der produktive Zuschauer. Medienaneignung als kultureller
und ästhetischer Prozess. München 1995
Rainer: Der produktive Zuschauer. Zur Medienkompetenz von Horrorfans.
In: medien praktisch 20 (1996) 2, 33-36
Rainer: Die Produktivität als Aneignung. Zur Soziologie
medialer Fankulturen. In: Werner Holly / Ulrich Püschel
(ed.): Medienrezeption als Aneignung. Methoden und Perspektiven
qualitativer Medienforschung. Opladen 1993, 67-79