The Tyranny of Stans
“Let people enjoy things” has become “make people afraid to dislike things.”
I recently took to notes to complain about the state of mainstream fandom coverage--a persistent peeve of mine--and the responses didn't disappoint. One in particular made me aware of a paradox that I hadn't thought much about.
CJ Heath is entirely correct that there is an avalanche of “let people enjoy things” that is of a tyrannical bent.
I've spent a long time thinking of the new cultural space as one where a heckler's veto reigns, as evidence by the stan pile-ons across all social media, but many of the rallying cries contain insistence that “it's not that deep” and frame criticism and analysis as an elitist killjoy pastime.
Sometimes it can be, but these are indiscriminate accusations, putting everyone on notice. Jeff Weiss described the bargain writers face in his review of weekend 1 of Coachella, 2022.
“[Poptimism] devolved into an inflexible ideology that dictates that all popular things must be good because they’re popular. And even if one timidly disagrees, the stan armies of the most worshiped humans on earth will ruthlessly attack anyone who dares to dissent from orthodoxy. It has cowed critics into submission or out of the discourse entirely. Who wants to get doxxed over a $250 thinkpiece?”
While Weiss is talking about the cultural commentators tasked with translating creative to an uninitiated audience, the tyranny extends farther than that. I covered some of this before, including comments by Marina Diamandis (formerly Marina and the Diamonds) who has been vocal about the way the stan culture affects artists.
Diamandis addressed her fans’ claims that she isn’t praised enough in a podcast interview,
“After 10 years you're like, but I'm not [underrated] how big do you want me to be? I sell like a hundred thousand tickets on tour, like that's massive. And I think that's because [fans] compare me with other artists that they also value, but I'm not meant to be that.”
It’s supposed to be a compliment, saying, you deserve more! But it simultaneously lessens what should matter: a fan’s personal connection and enjoyment of the music. What does it tell an artist, that you like them but are dissatisfied with their industry footprint? Suddenly their output is only one of the factors involved in stanning them; you need those external indicators and validation from your surroundings or something is missing.
It isn’t enough to enjoy something because of your own experience with it: your positive feelings have to be reflected at you, infinitely. And if they aren’t, then your fan object is underrated and this needs to be rectified. The naysayers need to be put back in line.
The thing is, I actually wouldn’t mind “letting bad taste enjoy itself” if it was what was actually happening, but the evangelism that is so sought after requires, well, evangelizing.
Fandom used to be good about letting people enjoy things and letting people dislike things. I miss the fandom of yore where the term “squick” allowed you to express a personal dislike without making a value judgment on others’ appreciation.
The irony is that fandom of the past wasn’t about hailing content as perfect, it is exactly not getting what you want that fuels fandom. The shows I consider perfect have not attracted me to their fandoms because I don’t need more. You wouldn’t have to write alternate endings if you were satisfied with the ending you got. And the answer wasn’t to bully producers into submission; it was to concoct your own course correction, for yourself, and for others who agreed with you.
There are three fandom mottos that have fallen out of favour, but I wish would make a sincere return:
Don’t Like, Don’t Read
Ship and Let Ship
Your Kink Is Not My Kink
None of these mottos are wielded against criticism or ‘squicks’ but are used to dissuade personal attacks and moral judgments.
These were non-controversial statements for the longest time, but when someone combined all three in a “laws of fandom” post in 2016, it revealed how different the fandom climate had become. The spread of the antagonism to me is an indicator that this shift in consumer behaviour is not entirely down to fandom—instead of the general climate improving, adopting a more accepting “live and let live” approach, the tyranny has taken over on all fronts.
This, once again, highlights the hypocrisy of the “let people enjoy things” rallying cry. If you want to be allowed to enjoy things, you should allow for people not to enjoy things as well.
But that doesn’t work in today’s stan culture. Fandom used to empower fans to create their own content to carry on when they were let down. Stans are too reliant on industry feedback and too aware of the zero-sum nature of the present cultural ecosystem to take their toys and go home. They now rely on cowing dissenters into submission, no matter the cost.
In theory, you can dislike something, but you shouldn’t make it known because it immediately becomes more than just your personal opinion. It taints the climate, and that is unacceptable.
There is a recognition that there is a zero-sum culture with limited attention and coverage. If there isn’t endless praise and acceptance, what you love will be taken away from you.
Within the current system, to be a good fan is to advocate for your fave, within fandom and outside of it. The loudest voices are not interested in letting people enjoy their faves; they are acolytes for their own content and beat the drum for homogeneity, as long as it works out in their favour.
Is it any wonder that criticism is seen as an attack when downvoting is used as a weapon among today’s stans? Opposing factions will team up in order to “take down” perceived threats, it’s just par for the course. Treat people with kindness™, unless they are vying for the same magazine covers and playlist placements.
To be a supportive fan is to eviscerate the competition as part of the loyalty pledge towards your fave. To be a supportive fan is to be impossible to ignore.
It's also rarely "let people enjoy things."
More like, "let people enjoy my things, but everything else is open for criticism, especially by me."
I would say it is not a zero sum culture but rather a negative sum culture, a game of cultural musical chairs where every round there are fewer cultural resources to go around. If you do not actively attack rivals of your favorite thing in force, your favorite thing may soon cease to exist. I think material economic decline due to resource depletion is a major contributor to both this and other negative-sum, eat-or-be-eaten aspects of our present condition. I would not be surprised to see a movement of outright barbarism and anti-art sentiment among the losers of the cultural and economic game of last-man-standing now playing out across the world, escalating to terrorism and vandalism.