‘We was cross-dressing ‘afore you were born!’ Or, how sf fans invented virtual community
| Academic Commentary | |
|---|---|
| Title: | ‘We was cross-dressing ‘afore you were born!’ Or, how sf fans invented virtual community |
| Commentator: | Helen Merrick |
| Date(s): | June 2004 |
| Medium: | |
| Fandom: | Science Fiction |
| External Links: | ‘We was cross-dressing ‘afore you were born!’ Or, how sf fans invented virtual community
Wayback link: ‘We was cross-dressing ‘afore you were born!’ Or, how sf fans invented virtual community |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
‘We was cross-dressing ‘afore you were born!’ Or, how sf fans invented virtual community is a 2004 academic article by Helen Merrick.
It was published in "Refractory: a Journal of Entertainment Media."
Introduction: "Helen Merrick notes that the term ‘virtual’ has become associated almost exclusively with contemporary technologies. However, Merrick suggests that ‘offline’ fan communities in the 1950s were “practicing similar forms of many-to-many communication” as their later online counterparts. Earlier forms of fandom were still able to connect members with a common interest, despite their geographical separation."
Helen Merrick also wrote the 2009 book "The Secret Feminist Cabal: A Cultural History of SF Feminisms."
Some Topics Discussed
- Science Fiction fandom
- "similarities between fandom and online communities"
- technology use and appropriation
- community
- APAs
- "fandom exhibits many of the styles, narratives and unique uses of language often considered to be specifically associated with the development of online community," and that that "[M]ost of the Net’s “emoticons” ... had appeared in fanzines by the 1950s" (Greg Benford 1996)
- much about jargon, fannish terms as a way of easing communication and fostering community
- gender assumptions, conceal, reveal
- Lee Hoffman aka LeeH and Sandy Sanderson, two fans who were assumed to be, or purported themselves to be male, but were not
- much about the history and fan reaction to the "fascinating fan hoax" that was the 1950s British zine, Femizine. The zine had three female editors—Joan W. Carr, Frances Evans and Ethel Lindsay; in the ninth issue, Carr was revealed to be male.
- Vin¢ Clarke and 4e
Excerpts
In good fannish manner, I want to begin this paper with a story.
Once upon a time there was a virtual community, formed of people who were geographically dispersed, brought together by a common interest, who forged their own language, shorthand and in-jokes in a way that distinguished this subcultural community from their members’ ‘everyday’ geographical and social contexts. One of the most prolific and popular members of the community was a woman called Joan. Joan was one of three female co-editors behind a women-only publication, which inadvertently stimulated the growth of a proto-feminist subcommunity. After two years, however, it was discovered that Joan was actually a man – Sandy Sanderson. The community survived, but the fanzine didn’t.
There are many stories of such virtual cross-dressings and the ramifications of their discovery. What makes my story interesting is when it happened: the community I describe was a group of British Science Fiction (SF) fans in the 1950s. Whilst it may be somewhat disingenuous, this story does, I hope, signify some important and neglected continuities in the ‘spaces’ fandom has existed in, occupied, (and even colonised), in its canny appropriation of media and communication technologies.
Since the 1920s and 1930s, SF fan communities have utilised available technology to facilitate ‘virtual’ forms of communication. In the process, they have developed an identifiable cultural and social identity, produced through unique narratives, lore, specialised language and iconography, expressed through a diverse range of texts, media, exchanges and rituals. As Jenkins also acknowledges, many of the forms and practices considered unique to, or produced by, online communication have long existed (and were arguably, initiated) in the sub-culture of (literary) sf fandom (Jenkins 2002: 158). Many of the elements considered to be both a unique by-product of CMC, and evidence of the development of online forums into ‘communities’ have precursors in sf fandom, such as the development of emoticons, acronyms and shorthand language use; the use of ‘nicknames’ often requiring insider knowledge to decode; and the development of special terms to describe user activity – i.e. newbie, lurker, flaming.
Over its long history, fandom has also developed and employed numerous acronyms, invented terms and nicknames. Some of the acronyms made popular in APAs were, as is the case in online communication, mostly functional, enabling simpler and easier communication. For example: IMO: in my opinion; IMHO: in my humble opinion; RYCT: re your comment to. Other acronyms and terms function more to indicate cultural competency and in-depth knowledge of the fan community.
A striking point of comparison between the ‘virtual communities’ of sf fandom and online forums is the potential for ‘cross-dressing’ – constructing an identity of the opposite gender. Examples from the history of sf fandom challenge two common assumptions in virtual community literature. Firstly, that such identity-play on the net is unprecedented in its scope and ubiquity, implying that it is somehow intrinsic to the particular socio-technological conditions of the Internet. Secondly, that the anonymity and potential for deception in online forums limit or negate the development of ‘authentic’ community on the net.
There are many infamous examples of false identities and narrative cross-dressing in the history of fandom, which form part of fandom’s much-loved tradition of fan ‘hoaxes’. The popularity and success of hoaxes, whilst based on deception, and relying to a certain extent on the ‘anonymity’ allowed by primarily text-based communication, were intimately bound up with the construction and reinforcement of fan communities. Carrying off a successful hoax reinforced the fan’s status, demonstrating their intimate knowledge of the community, their intelligence and sense of humour. Reception of hoaxes functioned in a similar way: certain hoaxes passed into fan lore, becoming an integral part of community knowledge as ‘in-jokes’ comprehensible only to those ‘in the know’.
There are of course differences between fandom and computer-mediated communities; yet both are interactive forms of communication, primarily text-based, amongst geographically (and socio-culturally) dispersed people, based initially on a single-interest issue rather than geographic, cultural, social or peer-based ties. SF fandom is a community. What interests me is that, in contrast to pronouncements about similar formations on the net, this is a very uncomplicated and obvious statement, which begs the question, why?
Like virtual communities, fandom is primarily a ‘discursive’ community – its primary function is to provide a forum for discussion and debate, through a wide range of activities, that require various amounts of production, activity and commitment – but the same could be said for web authors, listmasters and moderators. A final similarity deserving of mention reflects on the critical concern over the separation of ‘online’ and ‘offline’ life; i.e. the fear that the ‘fantasy life’ of net communities are somehow separate from, and destructive of the ‘everyday’ ‘real world’ life.