From: Fiona Moore nydersdyner@yahoo.co.uk
I would actually be quite interested in hearing the views of people in
other
disciplines on the procreative versus non-procreative functions of fandom and the celebrity crush. Neil?
Huh? Whassat? I wasn't aware that sweating your bollocks off in a hot, noisy factory counted as any kind of academic discipline.
Mate selection in human beings seems far too complicated for me to want to bother with, but one of the more interesting takes on it that I've read comes out of meme theory. If we think of ourselves psychologically as a collection of memes, just as we are physically a collection of genes, then partner-seeking will operate to at least some degree on the basis of memetic selection. Since it's easier to quote a paragraph rather than reiterate an idea in my own words, I'll take the easy (and evolutionarily time-honoured) way out and cheat:
"'Whom should you imitate?' The individuals who are best at the skill in question, certainly, but there is a more general answer to the question. Blackmore suggests that you should choose to imitate the best imitators - they are likely to have picked up the best skills. And her next question, 'With whom do you mate?' is answered in a similar way. You mate with the best imitators of the trendiest memes. So, not only are memes selected for the ability to spread themselves, genes are selected in ordinary Darwininan selection for their ability to make individuals that are good at spreading memes." (Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow, chapter 12)
Way back when Ah wuz but a wee nipper (and B7 episodes were still getting their first showing), youth culture was significantly more fractionalised than it seems to be today. Competing meme-plexes divided Britain's teenagers, and since those teenagers were as much into procreative behaviour then as they are now (only these days they start even younger), they went looking for partners, within their own subcultural meme-plex. So you had mods and mod chicks riding around on the back of a Lambretta, punks and punkettes both sporting badge-festooned leathers, the heavy metal legions etc, all displaying the trendiest memes for their particular subcoterie. I don't think anyone would argue that conforming to prevailing fashion gives you a head start if you want to get laid.
Actors are, by profession, imitators. Although we all perform to some extent in most of our social interactions, with actors it's explicit. There are good actors and bad actors, of course, but these evaluations are frequently subjective (the histrionic ability of a certain Mr Darrow being particularly open to question in some circles). Actors, at least the good ones, are the best imitators, and by inference capable of imitating those 'trendiest memes' that one looks for in a partner.
You could say that we are genetically programmed to develop crushes on actors!
Successful actors tend to appear in the most successful films and shows (a complex interaction of star and vehicle that I can't be arsed to analyse in greater depth), and box-office success might be gauged as a rough barometer of memetic success - stars of big hits are trendy, so their memes become trendy, and hence the stars become desirable partners. On top of that, stars tend to be sexually attractive in the physical sense (though this too is at least partly memetic, since tastes vary from culture to culture and over time). This is particularly true for actresses, unfortunately. They pass their sell-by date all too quickly.
So there are several factors directing us towards developing crushes on actors: their imitative ability, their physical desirability, and their professional success. Is it ever more than a crush? In the overwhelming majority of cases, probably not. Nevertheless, there does seem to be a small percentage of fans that seem to stake an unreasonable (and quite unrealistic) claim on particular actors. This was recognised by the progress report of a convention I attended (I think it was Who's 7 '94) which included an FAQ for first-timers. It ran something like this (going by memory here):
"Will I able to meet the guests, get autographs etc?" Yes, guests are happy to meet and chat with the fans, and can often be found in bar where you can approach them. "Will [guest] talk to me alone for hours and hours? Will [guest] be interested in my story/play?" No.
That emphatic 'No' should be self-evident to virtually everyone, yet to a few it would seem not to be. However, two points that strike me as valid:
1) it's not unique to media fandom, as the well documented phenomenon of stalking celebrities (or indeed non-celebrities) attests.
2) stalking is a manifestation of social dysfunctionality that resides within the stalker, not his or her society or subculture. I have heard that Paul Darrow has been sent, quite unsolicited, explicit fan material that he personally found upsetting, but I don't think fandom or any particular aspect of fandom - including slash fic or slash art - can be held responsible for that. It's the person or persons who sent it to him that are to blame. It's analogous to the bloke who mails top shelf magazines to the girl in the office because he can't, for whatever reason, ask her out for a date. (An ex-school mate of mine did this, and to nobody's surprise she somehow failed to melt into his arms as a result.) Where such dysfunctionality originates, and to what extent the rest of us collude in promulgating and/or perpetuating it, is another question. (And not an unimportant one.)
Of course, if you don't believe in memes and think that Dawkins, Blackmore, Dennett etc are a wunch of bankers, you're not going to believe any of that.
Neil