More curated tumblr jottings, which some people seemed to like. Rewritten and expanded.
There is, in fandom, an impulse to denounce which is very congruent with a
similar impulse that exists in some iterations of right-on
politics. It comes from a similar place: helplessness. We’re always
told that power corrupts, and it certainly does. But powerlessness
corrupts too. People in fandom get accustomed to worshipping that which
is handed down to them. They can then discover the opposite but equal
pleasure of execrating that which is handed down to them. What both
have in common is the idea of passively accepting what you’re given.
And yes, hating on something is a form of passivity quite distinct from the activity of criticism. Passive acceptance of texts is, contrary to myth (a myth largely put around by fans, amazingly
enough) far more common within fandom/s than in the general television
Jane Q Citizen puts Doctor Who (or whatever) on her telly, doesn’t
like it, and so switches over to hunt for something she does like… or
she likes it (having no long-cherished internal needs that she has
trained herself to expect to be met by it), so she watches it, and then
she forgets about it. John Z. Fan puts Doctor Who on his telly, doesn’t
like it, but cannot switch it off because he is a fan (and yes, this
can apply to me too in some ways). So, passive and powerless to influence the show that
he loves but finds disappointing, he rages. He isn’t writing it or
producing it himself, and he doesn’t even have (because he’s chosen to
abnegate it) the basic and paltry consumer freedom that capitalism
grants us and lauds so much: the freedom to hunt for another product
that will satisfy us where one product has failed.
Meanwhile, in many sections of right-on politics, splittery and
sectarianism and denunciation rule the day because the right-on either
have no real mechanism by which they can actually change any of the
stuff they don’t like (clicktivism being such a dead end, and most
branches of direct action and protest being dead ends too when taken by
themselves) or they despair of the one thing that really can change
things - mass, working class action - because we’re in a long-term
trench of neoliberal downturn.
The powerlessness corrupts.
Meanwhile (again), there is another strange tessellation. The gap
between fandom and actual critical savvy is uncannily similar to the gap
between right-onitude per se and actual critical political education.
The fan mindset can (notice I say can) leave one hungry for the tools
of proper critical analysis but does not itself supply them. Similarly,
right-onitude (however well intentioned and sincere) can leave one hungry for the desire to think
politically but does not itself supply the actual critical understanding one needs in order to do so sensibly or usefully.
Between the desire and the reality falls the shadow.
(And I’m not being patronising because I have in the past fallen into
most of these traps myself, and still occasionally do today.)
Meanwhile (yet again), the fan's attitude to a commodity they don't like, but to which they are attached by fan loyalty (those long-cherished internal needs we were talking about earlier), is eerily like the attitude of passive reformism to politics itself. 'The political' is that which exists within a band as narrow as the identity of a show. You could even look at 'the News' as the show that is being followed. As the fan saying goes "if you don't like the show at the moment, wait a bit and it'll change". At most, the angry fan might engage in 'activism' like starting tumblrs with names like 'pleasefiremoffat' etc. Because firing the current guy and getting a new guy instead will solve all the problems. But when it comes to the right-on critique of Moffat (which has some points to make, don't get me wrong) too often what is missed is that Moffat is just a new development in a long-standing systemic issue.
The fan loyalty, even when it is a twisted and angry loyalty to iterations of a franchise that you don't like, is itself probably a sign of commodity fetishism triumphing over actual critical engagement. You are religiously following the logo (to paraphrase my friend Josh Marsfelder) because you are treating the commodity like an entity to which you owe allegiance, rather then critically following texts because - for whatever reason - you want to.
(I like to think that I do it differently, but then I like to think lots of things.)
Ultimately, of course, discontent with the narrative commodity you enjoy (or to which you have ingrained loyalty, or which you have fetishized) is far less an issue than discontent with society. You can put up with a show being rubbish or reactionary (as long as you don't fail to speak up when it publically makes a political misstep, with that judgement being based on good faith critical engagement and some knowledge of how texts work). But we're severely mistaken if we think we can put up with society being so royally fucked up for much longer. The danger is that otherwise potentially useful right-on people might think that the critique of a particular set of texts (often based on a shoddy and crusading form of particularist politics) is a substitute for the critique of capitalist society as a unified juggernaut of exploitation and oppression - just as some people think that if Moffat would only STFU then modern TV would be pretty much peaches.
The mistake is waiting to be made in the powerless mire that so many people feel - not without some justification - that they are stuck in.