As I have demonstrated many fans attempt to approximate the relation to the artist to the pure relation, and this aim can not be separated from relating to the crowd.
Surely, it is not very surprising that fans in Western modernity seem to value the same ideals that writers like Giddens and Carrier have described as pervading Western modernity in general. The interesting part is however, to examine whether fandom can then shed new light on some of the theories of these ideals. I have just shown that fans when seeking to approximate their relations to artists to pure relations are simultaneously relating to a vast crowd, and now I will argue that approximating a relation to the pure dyadic ideal in general implies relating to numerous excluded others.
One of the aims in fandom is, as I have demonstrated, to transform the relation between the fan and the singer from an unequal relation that matches the stereotypical devotion with popular idols in direction of an equal and mutual dyad.
Experiences of existing in the conscious world of the artist in question can help the fan creating a sense of being a unique individual. In some cases music-listening can in itself invoke such a sense of being special (see the quotation on page 34), but such experiences were usually disturbed by the meta-message in the medium, clearly reminding that the music was not directed specifically to the listener but to
anyone or to no one in particular. Many informants sought the sense of an inner uniqueness socially confirmed by attempting to stand out. In other words the type of uniqueness the informants seem to value is not merely being unique in ones own particular conscious world, but to have this uniqueness confirmed by a significant other on the background of numerous insignificant others.
The attempts to stand out in the eyes of an artist can thus be seen as attempts to solve socially the contradiction of on the one hand experiencing uniqueness in ones own conscious world, and on the other hand being aware of being just one out of many. In attempting to balance this paradox, the informants relate to the cultural ideal of the pure relation. It surely seems that the way in which they wish to solve the paradox is by having their uniqueness socially confirmed by being singled out as worthy of a pure relation to a significant other on the background of the crowd. And the next issue is of course to use the above descriptions and findings to shed light on theories of the pure dyadic ideal.
When Giddens describes the ideal pure relation, he focuses on the reflective organization of it, as it both requires and allows continuous self-examination to be conveyed to the partner in an authentic manner (1999a:88-91). The informants however, have their attention directed to the act of choice, not to the processes characterizing a relation, after it has been established. Thus, while ideal pure relations presuppose the freedom of choice, it is not the choice itself that Giddens sees as influencing the reflexive project of the self. When he does elaborate on choices, he focuses on choosing23, whereas the fans quoted are concerned with being chosen. The symmetry on which pure relations are ideally based (Giddens 1999b:181-86), ought however make these two aspects of choice equally important, and the fans were actually and contrary to Giddens quite interested in the latter of the two.
23 For some reason Giddens does not write much about the act of choice between many, and its influence on the construction of self. In many other relations he elaborates thoroughly on the issue of choice. He sees modern Westerners as struggling to filter away choices and ignore possibilities in order to keep some sort of basic trust intact (ibid.80ff, 102ff). But when it comes to pure relations, Giddens has his attention on the processes characterizing the relation after it has been established, and considers the freedom of choice the factor that allows the pure relation and the reflexivity inherent in it to exist.
The Individual and The Crowd 68 While the reflexive organization of the pure relation is by no means irrelevant, I would like to dwell on the aspects of choice and possibility. Just like standing out makes little sense without a background to stand out against, pure relations too presuppose an idea of an anonymous crowd from which individuals choose each other as intimate partners. In fact, I will argue that in relations approximated to the pure ideal the possibility of alternative partnerships never disappears.
Giddens stresses that as the pure relation is a voluntary arrangement established between two people who have chosen each other, it is per definition insecure – each partner can leave if he/she so pleases (1999a:187). Put differently: The pure relation is inherently a possibility among many, which is why it is insecure. Therefore, when Giddens describes the pure relation as lacking external referents (ibid.186), I would like to correct him. The pure relation lacks goals outside itself, as it does ideally not depend on external obligations or aims of any kind (Giddens 1999a:90; Carrier 1999:21ff). But that does not mean that the pure relation lacks external referents. In fact, some of Giddens' own examples show how friends and sexual partners often demand "proof" of the intimate character of the relation in the form of secrets that only they are told (1999b:139).
In such examples the background of others who do not know these secrets are clearly there as referents, but not as goals. Similarly Simmel describes the importance of sharing secrets within private relations, and the attractiveness of being let in on secrets is exactly that so many others are denied access (Simmel 1950:330ff). The external referent is one of alternative choices - it is a background, without which the notion of the pure relation would just like the notion of standing out lack all meaning. Though pure relations do not necessarily require a united applauding audience, the act of choice among many is still what makes pure relations and the individuals involved in them special in the eyes of each other and on the background of the numerous excluded others.
Thus, the establishments of intimate dyads can, just like attempts to stand out, be seen as ways in which the paradox of experiencing uniqueness in ones own conscious world, and knowing to be just one out of many, is sought balanced in
accordance with a cultural celebration of the ideal pure relation. In striving to stand out, the informants obviously relate to cultural ideals. They are perfectly aware of how the relation to the artist should be in order to be dignified - that is equal, mutual, voluntary, and dyadic. They also relate to the stereotypical fan-image from which they seek to distance themselves and their relation to the artist. In attempting to stand out fans seek to transform the relation to the artists in direction of the pure ideal, while simultaneously being aware that such attempts easily make them fit the stereotypical image of a devoted hysteric, willing to sacrifice his/her own dignity in exchange for a handshake from a person, that does not even know his/her name.
The way in which the informants seek to manage this balance of being one, yet one among many, is certainly culturally informed, and the ideal pure relation plays a crucial role. It is against this ideal that the informants judge and adjust their relation to the artist and the crowd. Thus, there is actually three types of intersubjectivity at stake simultaneously – the relation to one, the relation to many, and the relation to a cultural ideal, in terms of which the balance between the other two is sought handled.
70