That word might not mean what we think it means.

[logovo]

Reading some stuff today I saw several people talking about aca-fans (acafans? AcaFans?) and I'm starting to wonder if they mean the same thing I'm thinking when I hear acafans, as in actual people in academia, writing, publishing, teaching or fanlore's entry. Are people now using that word interchangeably with fans who are just into meta? Anyone else getting that impression?

Also, I still haven't watched SPN and I'm trying not to read spoilers but I'M FAILING SO BAD. Because I'm weak and impatient.

Comments

[kass]

I have been getting that sense, yes! It's a bit odd.

Recently I was introduced to the notion of relating to fandom in a Watsonian way vs. a Doylian way. The Doylian mode is a meta-mode: looking at the fandom from the outside. The Watsonian mode is internal to the universe: looking at the fandom from the inside. (So -- talking about John and Rodney's motivations for something is Watsonian, while talking about TPTB and their decision to cast white men in the leading roles is Doylian. At least, if I'm understanding that right.) I'm finding it to be a really useful way of thinking about the two kinds of conversations people want to be having...

[logovo]

I've only read about those two modes this week and I really need to google that, because I have no idea what Watsonian or Doylian is, like at all. Right now I'm assuming I'd know what those are if I had gone to a US college.

[logovo]

Oh, and yes, it is very odd and I'm thinking that if it becomes shorthand for "intellectuals" it's going to be bad news :/

[rodo]

Hmm, I've seen three different definitions for the word, actually, though I've only ever seen the first articulated. The others were just implied by the way the word was used.

1) academics who are fans and publish about fandom/fannish topics
2) academics who are in fandom (regardless of whether their academic interest is in any way related to fandom)
3) fans who are into meta/intellectuals

[logovo]

Thanks!

It's the third one that really stopped me in my tracks this week, because it's news to me that participating in a meta post would make one an aca-fan. Also, I'm afraid that it's starting to get the ring of an insult, the way that people say BNFs, althoug probably worse.

[isagel]

I would say that #2 is the definition I mostly use in my head. I only realized fairly recently that to a lot of people apparently being an aca-fan implies publishing about things related to fandom. I always took it to mean being a person with an academic background who brings the tools they've acquired in that world into their interactions with fandom/fannish texts. It's the ways of thinking, to me, rather than the specific acts of doing "real" research on fannish things. (I would consider myself an aca-fan according to definition #2, but not according to #1.)

[trobadora]

I've seen it used in senses #1 and #2 fairly frequently, but #3 seems to be on the rise lately, and I don't like it at all. :(

[mmanurere]

There might also be a 2.5 -- fans who have a background in the humanities but who aren't currently working in academia, or fans working their way into academia (undergrad and grad students in relevant fields). A bit distinct from "fans into meta", but not quite "show your PhD to gain entry" (or the sometimes not-so-veiled "you have nothing relevant to say until you have tenure").

[laurajv]

#3 is weirding me out, and I think it's getting more and more common. I'm not sure where it started.

Someone used it to describe me a while ago and I could not even deal. Hi, not an academic!

[anatsuno]

I got that same impression yes!! weird linguistic shifts.

[logovo]

::nods:: Has it been something you just started noticing? In say the last few months? Because I only clicked on it this week!

[cleo]

The second definition you mention stands out to me as it is one I have been coming across a lot recently (with a reaction of "bzuh?"). I'm not sure how recent it really is, but the shift is interesting.

In my experience, the term "Aca!fan (and it's variations)" has always meant academics who (some of whom, but not all, publish academic work about fandom) are in fandom and both approach fandom with academic tools and modes of discourse, as well as/in addition to nonacademic tools/modes of discourse. I don't think the term inherently refers to only fen who do meta; aca!fen just use a different set of tools, which are neither better nor worse than any other set of tools anyone in fandom might use.

[logovo]

Last week I had some moments of confusion as I saw comments referencing aca-fans and didn't instantly realize they were not talking about academics, but any fan having a conversation around meta, which yes, major "bzuh?". It's easy to see where it's leading if the term gets thrown around so easily. But it seems it's been happening for sometime, as rodo above as mentioned, but it's new to me in SPN.

[robin_arede]

HEre from metafandom, that hive mind of evil aca-fen intent on ruining everybody's fun.

Or something like that.

I've actually posted about this, polling people on my LJ: the common usage is very generalized, often coming down to "you use big words and I don't like it, therefore you are an aca-fan."

Aca-fan (in my usage, and other aca-fen's usage) means people trained in academia (post baccalaureate usually), doing academic scholarship on fandom of which we are a part of (and in many cases have been a part of BEFORE we got our degrees).

I was a member of a Star Trek group in 1977 during my bachelor's program. I remained active in Trek, apa-zines, and cons until the early 1990s, with short periods of gafiating.

When I got sucked back into fandom in 2003, I didn't even intend to write fanfic.

Let alone scholarship on fanfic.

There are fan scholars (see: cereta). People with academic training who do the sort of fan scholarship that has always been done (the earliest histories of fandom were done by fans--some of whom were also professional writers of sf but still), writing for fans. THey do it for love.

There are people who just like meta (some of them are aca-fan, some have academic training, some just like meta--you can write good meta without a Ph.D.), and write some of it, along with everything else.

There are all sorts of fans who have academic degrees, from bachelor's to doctor of law, whatever that's called--who are just fans, who just love fandom, and don't do fan scholarship. They might not even write meta! (I think the group that most piss off the anti-aca-fen are the women fans trained in humanities scholarship, especially some of the queer, gender, critical race theories; *and pliz note that not everybody posting about sexism or racism in fandom is an aca-fan--there's a huge activist tradition in both feminist and civil rights movements that do not require ph.ds to lead thank you very much*. I don't see much complaining about the evil trained tech people ruining fandom, or the legal scholars ruining fandom. Just those nasty girls talkin' about gender and race, stomp snort, grumble).

And yet somehow at times of wank, all those get conflated into one big messy group who are blamed for ruining fandom's fun. (And dang, I think I was the one who started the fanlore entry when I was back doing beta -- I haven't checked it out in a while because I've been too busy trying to do wikis for my classes).

I often say: I am learning cool stuff in fandom that i drag into academia. So I guess that means I am ruining everybody's fun in fandom and academia (and yes, from the tone here, I'm sure people are seeing that I've interpreted the word much of the time, in multiple conflicts since 2003, as an insult).

I left fandom I thought for good in the early 1990s because of the fan antipathy toward academics. I'm damn depressed to keep running into it nowadays, especially because fandom does all sorts of things that are similar to academia: wikis, check; glossaries, check; meta, check; awards for fanfic (pro writing culture but still). And still can have squee.

[logovo]

Is this a recent poll that you did?

"you use big words and I don't like it, therefore you are an aca-fan."

Someone above mentioned also the distinction (that also I've only begun to see) between Watsonian vs. Doylian meta, so I want to believe that while some people are very much against any kind of analysis, they're mostly in the minority (too optimistic of me?) and it's only this looking at fandom from the outside that really pisses on fans cheerios. I'm seeing a tiny bit of this already on the Spanish side of SPN and HP fandoms, where character motivations are cool subjects, while more encompassing race and gender conversations are still newish and considered squee killers. Although - hmmm - IIRC the word aca-fan or an equivalent has yet to be used in a Spanish post.

I left fandom I thought for good in the early 1990s because of the fan antipathy toward academics. I'm damn depressed to keep running into it nowadays,

I'm only now realizing that this antipathy is greater than I had thought. LJ friends have made subtle comments about not wanting to engage in meta discussions, but until now I always had interpreted that at face value and not as antipathy. So, readjusting my perception.

[eyra.livejournal.com]

Hello! Here via metafandom.

I never actually had "acafan" defined to me, so I just sort of absorbed a definition through osmosis: someone actively-fannish (observation from the outside doesn't qualify) who uses the tools of scholarship to try and explore fandom and what we're doing here. In other words, I've defined it by what people do here, in fandom - whether they do fannish scholarship - not how they're employed in RL. Which may be wrong.

It's just that, while I've never felt that "acafan" means merely that "you're just into meta," I would never say, and am kind of uncomfortable with the idea, that you need to be in/employed by academia to be capable of that kind of serious scholarship - and I do feel that way generally, not just in regards to scholarship about fandom. Independent scholars can have valuable things to say, and often bring fresh perspectives.

[logovo]

Hello there!

Now I just remembered that I got my interpretation of aca-fan from an acedemic writing in the field, so yeah, I assumed the term was not in question. Until now!

I would never say, and am kind of uncomfortable with the idea, that you need to be in/employed by academia to be capable of that kind of serious scholarship - and I do feel that way generally, not just in regards to scholarship about fandom. Independent scholars can have valuable things to say, and often bring fresh perspectives.

This is way over my head, because I have no clear idea of independent scholarship and what that really means. The idea of academics in fandom is relatively new to me, considering how long I've enjoyed media fandom (for years the only name I knew was Jenkis'), but anything relating to who is up to serious scholarship, I'd never considered before.

[princessofgeeks]

i would hate to see the term drift too much.

i've only been in fandom since 2003, and i can't remember when i first stumbled across the term acafan, but to me it is NOT synonymous with meta.

anyone can meta. the bar is low.

to be an acafan, i always thought that meant you were applying academic tools to fandom somehow, or that your professional and fannish interests overlapped in that regard to some extent.

i know academics whose areas of specialties don't overlap with fandom. they would not call themselves acafans.

i also know academics who see fandom and "fun" writing as an escape from the strictures of academic or commercial publishing. they wouldn't conside themselves acafans.

if you read the OTW's journal, for example, or any scholarly journal, it's obvious that what acafans get up to professionally is way more involved than just meta. tho i am the first to highly value meta.

and some of the acafans i know are not fulltime employed by universities. they are independent scholars, or are partttime, but they do apply the tools and background of lit crit or media studies or gender studies or whatever to fandom or fanfic.

i hope the two terms, "enjoyer of meta" and "acafan" don't get conflated. to me they are very different.

[logovo]

The current bar is pretty damn low if this one paragraph post counts as meta ;) Yeah, the discussion and info sometimes happens in the comments, but wow was I surprised to see this linked. Also, I've noticed that the metafandom links are getting scarcer and scarcer, unless something like that survey crap pops up.

if you read the OTW's journal, for example, or any scholarly journal, it's obvious that what acafans get up to professionally is way more involved than just meta. tho i am the first to highly value meta

I like meta because that is were I can interact with other fans and learn as I go about my fannish business. Academic journals are pretty cool to me, but those are not what my own fandom experience is about, so yeah, I highly value meta myself. It's helped me think about and think more clearly about my relationship with media fandom and how I've absorbed it, specially since I'm not from an English speaking country, so there is a whole other layer there for me.

[tishaturk]

Yeah, I've seen a few conversations recently in which a few individuals seemed to be using "acafan" to mean a much broader category than "trained or professional academics," which I found rather disconcerting. I suppose part of the issue might be the ambiguity of the term "academic" -- I think it is certainly possible for anyone who's done certain kinds of reading to think and write about fandom in ways that might be seen as "academic." But for me, being an acafan means being a professional academic who is also a fan -- there do seem to be some academics writing on fandom who aren't fans, or who at least are writing about a subset of fandom with which they're not personally familiar, and to me those people aren't acafans.

All of which is to say that, yeah, I'm getting the impression that some individuals are, as you say, using "acafan" interchangeably with "fans who are into meta" -- and/or "fans who talk about fandom in terms of social justice," which is a related but not identical phenomenon, I think. But how widespread that usage is, I couldn't say and am not sure I'd want to speculate.

I have so many thoughts swirling around my head about this -- I should probably write up a post to try to sort it all out...

[logovo]

I'd would personally not use the term aca-fan for anyone who doesn't have an academic background and brings tools acquired as such into fandom, but I'm thinking the term is too easy to throw around and has or will become easy shorthand for anything meta related and will be spreading. Which, er - no. I hope I'm wrong!

I'd love to read your post, because seriously, I'm disturbed by the meta backlash that this use of aca-fan signals.

Via metafandom - too lazy to login, sorry

[(Anonymous)]

To me, "acafan" is associated with "fans who follow Marxist Critical Theory and label fans who follow Enlightenment Scientific Theory as 'anti-intellectual' and 'privileged'".

The following are quotes from Carl Freedman “Science Fiction and Critical Theory” _Science Fiction Studies_, Volume 14 (1987):

"Such speculation, and the concomitant “transformative activity associated with critical thinking” of which Horkheimer writes, is the telos of critical theory: the elaborate and powerful demystifying apparatus of Marxist (and Freudian) thought exist, ultimately to clear space upon which positive alternatives to the existent can be constructed."

"But the conservatism of canon-formation, whose first and most decisively conservative phase is to separate the literary from the non-literary, is, if to some degree necessary, also something which critical theory must be wary and skeptical of. The procedure is intrinsically repressive, and, given the inevitable hegemony of pre-critical thought in class society, the repressions involved are by no means unselective."

And there are just pages and pages of "let's discredit U.S. values and extol the European Marxist theories as superior" by this and other academically trained critics.

Re: Via metafandom - too lazy to login, sorry

[logovo]

Wow. This has to be the among the weirdest comments I have ever recieved in my LJ/DW accounts. Thanks?

Here via metafandom

[kaz]

Something that occurred to me - I've noted that whenever acafan is taken to mean something like doro's definition 2, it doesn't seem to be quite as broad as "any fan who is also an academic". I'm a maths graduate student and have never had the impression that anyone is thinking of maths/science/etc. academic fans when they say "acafan". Acafan seems to be restricted to academics in the humanities, or possible even more specific than that.

Re: Here via metafandom

[logovo]

Yeah, I don't see anyone anyone outside the humanities grabbing the label anytime soon (how about someone in finance? The idea kind of hurts my brain). If they do I think I might have to wonder if once again we learned the meaning of a fannish term in completely different circles.

[jonquil]

Hmm. What word should I use to mean "I'm not an academic, but I really geek out when other people are academic where I can watch"? Am I an acafan-fan?

[logovo]

I'd like to know that myself, since I've been to know be a bit of aca voyeur myself ;)

[franzeska]

People who are sufficiently dumb are unable to understand how anyone might actually be smart or intellectual or well read or excessively educated. I think it's less that people think 'acafan' means 'meta lover' and more that they can't understand how having gone to grad school might actually have taught anyone anything about writing or research. Argh.

[logovo]

From what I've been seeing lately, this idea of poo-pooing the skills acquired in grad school is becoming quite easy. I don't know if it's purely a US thing or people in other English speaking countries are running into this kind of strange thinking.