patronage, transactional relationships and fandom

[rm]

When I worked as a dominatrix, clients were only memorable for any of three possible reasons: particularly specific or unusual fetishes (i.e., the guy who insisted I wear a back-button blouse and gave me scripts to read about "red sunsets and red asses"); the financially and socially troublesome (i.e., men who tried to bargain for more time or less expense and/or were rude to me to achieve it); and people I genuinely liked.

While the other stories are, inevitably, a lot more amusing, today I want to talk about the people I liked, because when you're friendly and cordial and even social with someone who pays you a great deal of money for a service, that is an interesting thing, isn't it? It's certainly a tricky thing.

Relationships of this ilk used to be quite common and their frequency of existence well-acknowledged. And, while today they don't particularly pervade our world any less, we're so much more hesitant to call them as they are and so largely ill-informed about how to navigate them deftly.

Interactions of this nature litter my life in various ways. My former profession quite aside, it's worth noting that I also live on the other side of the equation. I spend a great deal of money with my tailor and, as you know from the photos, when she's about in town, we're also social. Is that socializing and fondness genuine? Of course. But is it also somewhat dictated by the mutual benefits of mutual enthusiasm because of the financial transaction that is central between us? Oh yes.

These transactional friendships and acquaintanceships exist in other parts of my life as well: the chocolate store owner who gives Patty and I free chocolates because she talks with him about the chocolate shop she worked at and I about my childhood in New York. He enjoys us and our love of what he does. He also enjoys our money, and we, the free samples.

Relationships of this type exist in all of our lives to varying degrees, and in the modern world where we know so little of patronage we often mistake them, to problematic end, for interactions without boundaries or for moments wherein we are the exception some sort of rule.

One of the places where I see it the most keenly -- and with the most personal discomfort -- is, of course, fandom. For those of you who don't necessarily play in the sandboxes in which I play, I will note that there was a con in the Torchwood fandom this past weekend that was a for-profit meet-the-celebrities con, which, for the purposes of this discussion, is something I need to make a point of differentiating from fan-run cons, that, in addition to celebrity guests, also have fan and/or academic programming.

Cons of the ilk that took place this weekend often cost a good deal of money to attend (usually much moreso than fan-run cons) and have levels of membership (uncommon at fan-run cons), wherein the more you pay, the more access you get to the celebrities in question.

I do not, for the record, find this gauche (which is what I think some people think I think). But I do find it personally something I can't quite bring myself to engage in (however occasionally tempting) because of where I exist on the fan-pro continuum and the degree to which I'm a little too hyper-aware of the politics of these things, but that is no one's problem or concern but my own.

I do, however, find myself in a frequent state of surprise over how much people just don't get things about the transactional friendships and acquaintances they have with the celebrity guests at these types of events.

Historically, patronage of the arts was used (and as we'll see, continues to be used) to convey and experience many things, which you can break down, more or less, into the three P's: pleasure, prestige and piety. And whether we're talking about Renaissance religious art or going to a media con like Torchwood, the three P's are consistent.

Pleasure speaks for itself simply ("it is fun to be here") and also not so simply ("I am enjoying participating in this fantasy").

Prestige works on a few levels ("I can afford to go to this event," "I can afford this status at this event," "This guest told me xyz," "That guest and I had drinks," "So-and-so complimented my dress").

Piety, of course, becomes about being a true believer ("I'm a real fan," "I go to everything so-and-so appears at," "I always defend this guest's actions").

Yet, even as historical patronage is enacted in these situations, the modern world is not equipped to acknowledge it for what it is, which is a transactional relationship. When you pay for that ticket to that event with the smart party with the celebrity guests or what have you, you are not paying for that celebrity to be your friend or to give you special access -- whether to themselves, their private sphere, or information about their work.

But you are, most certainly, paying for their company, their cordiality in a certain setting. And as happy as you are to experience this, that you will gladly fork over your money for their time (and their time is worth money, as much as the status, piety and pleasure you consciously or subconsciously are buying via participation is worth the fee you choose to pay), they are happy that you want to. It validates their art; it helps pay their bills; it elevates their own status. It is a symbiotic transactional relationship, that is not in any way based on lies, unless we start telling ourselves them.

Now, sometimes real and genuine friendships do come out of these transactional social moments: just as my tailor and I have drinks, just as an old client and I called to check in on each other after 9/11, just as the man who owns the chocolate store likes to discuss walnut buttercreams with Patty.

But my point in this isn't that the interactions of patronage can become "real," like some eventual Pinocchio of affection. Rather, my point is that they are real and sincere and pleasant and a perfectly reasonable investment for many people for a variety of different reasons.

But in lacking a good word for them in the modern world, we must not, I feel, use other words for them in intentionally misleading ways (as I feel many in fandom, and other situations in which these types of relationships exist, do), because it diminishes the loveliness of the tradition the patrons (and in the point of this post, fans) are paying into, as surely as it diminishes the high-wire art of the access and -- dare I say it (with a wink and a nod considering my own former profession) -- services, the creator provides.

Because people are social animals, it is in our nature to enact social ritual, and ritual, in particular, is a high-value thing. In transactional friendships and acquaintances the ritual is central, and to ignore it in favor of a story of organic interaction, not only gives lie to the nature of an event still personal for all its financial component, but also makes the very things paid for and so gently delivered -- pleasure, piety and position -- less intricate, less lovely, and less valuable for our insistence on turning our heads away from this ever so peculiar balancing act of mutual benefit and symbiotic need.

Comments

[stardragonca.livejournal.com]

This also ties into the complicated relationship between the U.S. and Canada, where we are quite certain of your friendship, despite knowing that the U.S. is only only country we ever have or will fight with on our own soil.
I said complicated.

[woogledesigns.livejournal.com]

Very interesting post. Coming from a small welsh village I'd add that the same exchanges can occur in low status economic spaces. The local shopkeep remembers your name and preferences and will say hello to you in the street, for example. It also gets used as a means of social regulation- gossip travels fast and those that are not socially integrated will have their status restricted by circulating gossip. Perhaps social and economic transactions/statuses are only or more discrete in a hierarchical social dynamic. Withing the same status stratum the two are much more continuous?

[lilacsigil.livejournal.com]

I live in a small town in Australia and that's exactly what it's like here. I think, though, that the difference with this kind of continous transaction is that the local pub owner, for example, will also be the customer of the pharmacist, and the pharmacist will buy honey from the farmer, who sends their kids to the local school, and the school teacher goes to the pub. I'd help an old lady with her shopping, and know a dozen members of her family who will serve me at other shops, or play sports together. The social strata are both set and flexible at the same time.

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

I live in New York City, and it's interesting how that sort of thing is different here. I (and other people I know) have stopped patronizing shops when the owner becomes familiar with us enough to know our order when we walk in. Particularly shops like bakeries, or other sorts of indulgences, where you cling to the illusion that you only go there rarely. I think it's because, living in a big city, there's a certain value to anonymity. And a shopkeeper acknowledging that they see you all the time breaks that illusion.

[lefaym.livejournal.com]

I love what you're saying here, and you've given me lots to think about regarding the intersection of the "transactional" and the "personal" (reluctant as I am to break things down into crude binaries, it can be useful sometimes).

I think people are so used to thinking of the term "patron" as a purely transactional thing, that the "personal" element of patronage is forgotten. Usually when we hear the term "patron" today, it's used in say, the context of parking in shopping malls and the like ("cinema patrons only", etc) -- while the word is certainly still used in other contexts, its most common usage is in relation to transactions that are usually expected to have a minimal degree of the "personal". We expect checkout operators to smile and ask "How are you today?" and unless we are very upset we say "Fine, thanks," and that's it. Situations like the one you describe with the chocolate store owner are a rarity in these environments.

Consequently (as you note above), many people are far less likely to associate the term "patron" with relationships that have more explicitly "personal" elements, such as con interactions between fans and celebrities -- where the interactions feel less scripted (although I suspect it's more the case that there are more scripts to choose from).

Of course, in the case of fan culture, all of this is complicated by the fact that outside the context of cons, fandom methods of obtaining the three Ps are polarised much more towards the different "transcational" and "personal" ends of the spectrum. On one hand, we can buy the tie-in novels, audiobooks, magazines, etc, the purchasing of which involves minimal personal contact. And then you have fandom communities, and the attainment of the three Ps by producing fanworks, the only compensation for which is the building of personal relationships between fans (of course, I realise that there are transactional elements here too -- but the personal dominates, and the transactions when they do occur are NOT with the people involved in the creation of the show). So I guess that when people get around to attending cons, their ideas of what they should expect are influenced by this polarisation -- there's a sense that they are buying a product (something most people associate with minimal personal interaction) and that they are also participating in something highly personal (which they do not associate with the transactional side of fandom activity).

Do you think it was less polarised pre-internet, when the production of 'zines meant that fandom relationships were more explicitly transactional (even if such transactions were only to cover costs)?

[rm.livejournal.com]

I don't, because I sort of remember that. A lot of my feelings about this are formed by mu fannish interest in V when I was twelve. I've written about that before. My best friend and I, Elyse, were really into the show, always read Starlog and the related rags that covered it, joined the fanclub (which was mostly adult fans producing zines and humouring us) and what I remember about it most vividly was the way people went on and on about how they were special because of all the money they had paid to interact with Marc Singer at this or that con. My father was in advertising, and so I had a hyperawareness of what wasn't "real" or what the money meant to those interactions -- even before the parental lectures. I see the same things here (specifically in this Torchsong situation, which seems more ludicrous and full of fan self-deception by the hour) and they discomfort me, because I believe, very strongly, in never being ashamed of being a fan.

[lefaym.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm having a hard time making sense of the Torchsong situation at all really-- while I have a pretty good idea of WHAT happened, I'm much less clear on the significance of those events, as there are so many different fans feeling upset about different things, and different fans happy about different things, there are so many different views about what's private and public, etc -- frankly, I'm just confused.

I guess the thing is, that although my fandom experience is admittedly limited (only about a year and a half, though I did some lurking in HP fandom before that), for me it's never been defined by con attendence or celebrity interaction. Partly this is for practical reasons -- I live in Sydney, so my ability to attend these things is limited -- but also because there is a LOT to do in fandom that simply doesn't hinge on cons, and I'm quite sure that I, and many others, wouldn't have become involved if not for the internet. Yet, even with that experience, what you say about the three Ps resonates with me in terms of understanding my fandom experience -- because those things are always present when one produces fanworks, meta, engages in discussion, etc, even though we don't necessarily have to make a huge financial commitment to do so (obviously, there is a degree of privilege involved-- one must have a computer, internet access, and a certain amount of leisure time, but one does not need to spend money on goods and services specifically related to the fandom in order to particpate).

I guess my question was not so much, "Did people seek prestige as a result of their transactional relationships?" pre-internet, but, "Was there a way to participate in the broader fandom that was NOT explicitly dependent on financial transaction of some kind?" (Although, obviously, personal transactions are always a factor in these things, but that's using the word in a slightly different sense, I think.)

[rm.livejournal.com]

"Was there a way to participate in the broader fandom that was NOT explicitly dependent on financial transaction of some kind?"

Only, I think, on a smaller basis. The Internet creates a large and quick audience for fanworks, that is markedly different from what happened in the world of fanzines. Of course, by being on hard paper and having a certain degree of editorial oversight, there may have been more inherent cachet to being a fanwriter in those times.

It's also worth noting, of course, that many people who were fanwriters in those times are now prowriters -- including many of the people who write for the DW universe of shows and tie-in products.

[arwyn.livejournal.com]

I have no idea who you are, but I like your writing (linked to it via someone else's LJ who I also don't really know). Thanks for this.

Pretty Much OT

[stardragonca.livejournal.com]

"Congratulations to Miss California Carrie Prejean on her opposite employment." http://bit.ly/7UwXb

[whitesangria.livejournal.com]

Interesting. Thank you.

I was pointed here by a friend. She thought I could benefit because I am having my own serious issues with fandom right now. I have witnessed spectacular acts of stupidity by people trying to get close to their own personal McDreamy. And I'm just not getting it anymore.

Thanks for giving me something more to think about.

[lady-ganesh.livejournal.com]

I love this post so very much.

We have a patronage relationship with the people who run one of the local Chinese places. They're wonderful, I love interacting with them, and it's nice to have a name to put to the genuine feelings-- which, while I value them very much, are not the same as a casual friendship struck up at a party.

[bicrim.livejournal.com]

As a psychotherapist, I am very familiar with the idea of a "paid relationship", which, after all, is pretty much what therapy is. It is not a fake relationship, it's real, but it is also very different from organic personal relationships. Being circumscribed by ritual allows real feelings to work towards a goal, if that makes sense. I wonder if my kind of work falls into your theories about workers with flesh.

[taraljc.livejournal.com]

I think the lines get blurred as well by fans seeing other fans they know ro know in passing who are in actual friendships with convention guests, because they take seeing an author or singer or what have you they admire hanging out with "just another fan" as a sign that they too are welcome to potentially infringe on personal space and private conversations.

And it gets thorny and slightly messy, when you try and explain that there are times when that person is "on" (i.e. interacting with fans because it's part of their job at the event) versus "off the clock". Which means at some events, socilaising has to happen off-site, or in hotel rooms, because some folks don't see those invisible lines we draw, or genuinely don't have enough information (because relationships aren't broadcast, nor necessarily should they be) to distinguish between personal and professional relationships in that setting.

[rm.livejournal.com]

nor necessarily should they be

Yes.

Which reminds me. No one even really knows how to be a star these days. While it's obviously not a celebs job to make sure fans don't behave in batshit ways towards them. A little bit of retro sensibility about keeping the walls up and only letting them come down in private to prevent these confusions, would actually be more than a bit welcome.

[toshfraggle.livejournal.com]

Hey there,
Could I link people to this whenever comments come up about teacher/student friendships in other communities I belong to? They are really the same sort of thing, and I think they are greatly misunderstood.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Yes, feel free, and I entirely agree.

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

In transactional friendships and acquaintances the ritual is central, and to ignore it in favor of a story of organic interaction, not only gives lie to the nature of an event still personal for all its financial component, but also makes the very things paid for and so gently delivered -- pleasure, piety and position -- less intricate, less lovely, and less valuable for our insistence on turning our heads away from this ever so peculiar balancing act of mutual benefit and symbiotic need.

I have long been leery of pay-for-access conventions, partly because of the awkwardness of so many of the fans as related in story after story of these events, but mostly, really, because I don't particularly want the company of someone who doesn't particularly want the company of me. And I've never seen articulated quite so well the benefits as well as the booby traps of that interaction.

For me, I guess, I feel no prestige associated with having met a celebrity I paid to meet, and I think that's ultimately the result of how those interactions are often spun in fandom—as organic, as you so aptly put it. If I am supposed to believe the meeting was organic, then I know that's a lie, which leaves me feeling it has no value at all.

But it also explains why I'm not bothered by many of the fans that do go to these conventions. I realize with your frame of reference that these are the people who implicitly get the limits of the interaction, therefore making me comfortable with their participation. Veeeery interesting.

PS Linked here by raveninthewind.

I read this a couple weeks ago and I've been mulling over the ideas you laid out, and the comments

[raveninthewind.livejournal.com]

I've been having many thoughts circling around these ideas WRT my relationships with my massage therapist of 9 years, my therapist of 2.5 years, and the experiences I have had with the celebrity guests at non-fan-run cons and benefits. I think I had the best feeling afterward when it was at the two benefits; both the celebrities and I were in essence donating to the same cause, and it felt satisfying in a way that paying for a few minutes of an actor's time to get an autograph did not.

I've often been troubled at the lack of boundaries on both sides, fan and celeb. Privacy and decorum are both casualties at times. I've also marveled at the delusions of intimacy that some fans walk away with.

[labellerose.livejournal.com]

I tend to encapuslate this, awkwardly as "Well, it's a friendLY relationship but not a friendSHIP." You've discussed it with far more eloquence and grace. Thank you.