the value for domestic Premier League TV rights past seven billion dollars for 2016-19 (BBC 2015). These examples illustrate how the unparalleled availability of mediated content and entertainment via digital channels combined with the difficulties to monetize content in digital environments have put fans at the heart of industry responses to a changing marketplace.
2016-19赛季国内英超电视转播权价值超过70亿美元（BBC 2015）。这些例子说明了通过数字渠道获得的中介内容和娱乐的无与伦比的可用性，以及在数字环境中通过内容获利的困难，使粉丝成为行业应对不断变化的市场的核心。

As a consequence, representations of fans in mainstream media content have at times shifted away from pathologization to a positive embrace of fans' vital role for contemporary cultural industries, and are now commonly part of the narratives that constitute the textual fields of (trans)media events from the cinematic release of the latest Star Wars installment to global sporting events such as the Olympics. "We're all fans now" has become a familiar refrain in countless popular press think pieces, and was even the marketing slogan for the fifty-second Grammy Awards in 2010. And (a very particular form of) fan banter and identities have even been central to one of the most successful and lucrative television shows of the past decade, The Big Bang Theory, while The Walking Dead's aftershow featuring fan debriefing of the night's episode, Talking Dead, often out-rates many otherwise hit shows. Yet with these changing and proliferating representations of fandom, a crucial point of reference to (early) fan studies has shifted, too.
因此，在主流媒体内容中，球迷的形象有时已经从病态化转变为积极拥抱球迷在当代文化产业中的重要作用，现在通常成为构成（跨）媒体事件文本场域的叙事的一部分，从最新的《星球大战》的电影上映到奥运会等全球体育赛事。“我们现在都是粉丝”已经成为无数流行媒体思想文章中熟悉的副歌，甚至成为2010年第52届格莱美奖的营销口号。而且（一种非常特殊的形式）粉丝的戏谑和身份甚至一直是过去十年中最成功和最赚钱的电视节目之一《生活大爆炸》的核心，而《行尸走肉》的后期节目以粉丝对当晚剧集的汇报为特色，Talking Dead，收视率往往超过许多其他热门节目。然而，随着这些粉丝圈表现的变化和激增，（早期）粉丝研究的一个关键参考点也发生了变化。

In the introduction to our first edition, we divided the development of the field of fan studies into three waves with diverging aims, conceptual reference points, and methodological orientations. The first wave was, in our reading, primarily concerned with questions of power and representation. To scholars of early fan studies, the consumption of popular mass media was a site of power struggles. Fandom in such work was portrayed as the tactic of the disempowered, an act of subversion and cultural appropriation against the power of media producers and industries. Fans were "associated with the cultural tastes of subordinated formations of the people, particularly those disempowered by any combination of gender, age, class, and race" (Fiske 1992: 30). Within this tradition that was foundational to the field of fan studies and that spanned from John Fiske's work to Henry Jenkins's (1992) canonical Textual Poachers, fandom was
在第一版的引言中，我们将扇形研究领域的发展分为三个阶段，目标、概念参照点和方法取向各不相同。在我们的解读中，第一波浪潮主要涉及权力和代表性问题。对于早期粉丝研究的学者来说，大众媒体的消费是权力斗争的场所。在这些作品中，粉丝圈被描绘成被剥夺权力者的策略，一种对媒体制作人和行业权力的颠覆和文化挪用行为。粉丝“与人民的从属结构的文化品味有关，尤其是那些因性别、年龄、阶级和种族的任何组合而被剥夺权力的人”（Fiske 1992：30）。在这种传统中，从约翰·菲斯克（John Fiske）的作品到亨利·詹金斯（Henry Jenkins，1992）的经典文本偷猎者，同人圈是
understood as more than the mere act of being a fan of something: it was seen as a collective strategy to form interpretive communities that in their subcultural cohesion evaded the meanings preferred by the "power bloc" (Fiske 1989). If critics had previously assumed fans to be uncritical, fawning, and reverential, first-wave scholarship argued and illustrated that fans were "active," and regularly responded, retorted, poached. Fan studies therefore constituted a purposeful political intervention that set out to defend fan communities against their ridicule in the media and by non-fans.
它被理解为不仅仅是成为某物的粉丝的行为：它被视为一种形成解释社区的集体策略，这些社区在其亚文化凝聚力中回避了“权力集团”所偏爱的含义（Fiske 1989）。如果批评者以前认为粉丝是不加批判的、讨好和崇敬的，那么第一波学术争论并说明了粉丝是“活跃的”，并经常回应、反驳、挖走。因此，球迷研究构成了一种有目的的政治干预，旨在保护球迷社区免受媒体和非球迷的嘲笑。

In its ethnographic orientation and often advanced by scholars enjoying insider status within given fan cultures, the first wave of fan studies can be read as a form of activist research. And thus we referred to this wave as "Fandom Is Beautiful" to draw parallels to the early (and often rhetorically and inspirationally vital) stages of identity politics common for other groups hitherto Othered by mainstream society. Similarly, early fan studies did not so much deconstruct the binary structure in which the fan had been placed as they tried to differently value the fan's place in said binary: consumers not producers called the shots. As such, and in this defensive mode of community construction and reinforcement, early fan studies regularly turned to the very activities and practices-convention attendance, fan fiction writing, fanzine editing and collecting, letter-writing campaigns —-that had been coded as pathological by critics, and attempted to redeem them as creative, thoughtful, and productive.
在其民族志取向中，并且通常由在特定粉丝文化中享有内部地位的学者推进，第一波粉丝研究可以被解读为激进主义研究的一种形式。因此，我们将这股浪潮称为“Fandom Is Beautiful”，以与身份政治的早期（通常是修辞和鼓舞人心的）阶段相提并论，这些阶段对于迄今为止被主流社会排斥的其他群体来说很常见。同样，早期的风扇研究并没有解构风扇所在的二元结构，而是试图以不同的方式评估风扇在所述二元结构中的位置：消费者而不是生产者发号施令。因此，在这种社区建设和强化的防御性模式中，早期的粉丝研究经常转向那些被批评家视为病态的活动和实践——参加大会、同人小说写作、同人杂志编辑和收集、写信活动——并试图将它们视为创造性的、深思熟虑的和富有成效的。

The underlying advocacy of first-wave fan studies derived its legitimacy from fans' assumed disempowered social position and their problematic representation in both public and academic discourses. Mass media of the time had a near monopoly on the representation of fans (or any other group for that matter). Their often stereotypical portrayal of fans and fan practices has been widely documented and discussed since Joli Jensen (1992) highlighted the similarities in the portrayal of fans as part of an undifferentiated, easily manipulated mass in media representations and early mass communication scholarship (see, for example, Bennett & Booth 2016; Duffett 2013; Hills 2002; Sandvoss 2005). In 2007 we examined how such representations were still common, as in a New York Post spread on "Potterheads," which, like many other media representations before, constructed fans as the representational Other. Such negative representations can still be found-on occasion even at the hands of those engaged with the field of fan studies, such as academic and filmmaker
第一波粉丝研究的潜在倡导源于粉丝被假定的被剥夺的社会地位以及他们在公共和学术话语中的问题代表性。当时的大众媒体几乎垄断了粉丝（或任何其他群体）的代表。自从Joli Jensen（1992）强调了粉丝作为媒体表现和早期大众传播学术中无差别的、易于操纵的大众的一部分的描绘的相似性以来，他们对粉丝和粉丝做法的刻板印象已经被广泛记录和讨论（例如，参见Bennett&Booth 2016;达菲特 2013;希尔斯 2002 年;Sandvoss 2005 年）。在2007年，我们研究了这种表征如何仍然很普遍，例如在《纽约邮报》上传播的“Potterheads”，就像之前的许多其他媒体表述一样，它将粉丝构建为代表性的他者。即使在那些从事粉丝研究领域的人，如学者和电影制作人，有时也可以发现这种负面的陈述

Daisy Asquith's documentary for the British Channel 4 network Crazy about One Direction. Participant and One Direction fan Becky reported her dismay at what she perceived as the gross misrepresentation of her fan practices and attachments: "they made out like . . . I don't have no life, and that I just sit outside Harry's [Style, member of One Direction] house every weekend waiting for him to appear."
黛西·阿斯奎斯（Daisy Asquith）为英国第4频道（Channel 4）网络制作的纪录片《Crazy about One Direction》。参与者和 One Direction 粉丝 Becky 报告说，她对她认为她的粉丝行为和依恋的严重歪曲感到沮丧：“他们看起来像......我不是没有生命，每个周末我都坐在哈利（Style，One Direction的成员）的房子外面等他出现。

However, while caricatures of fans in mainstream media persist, their context has changed. As Asquith quickly learned in the aftermath of the broadcast of Crazy about One Direction, mediated discourses about fans have been transformed over the past decade through social media, which give fans themselves a voice and the opportunity to publicly respond. One Direction fans feeling misrepresented responded on Twitter and elsewhere with vehemence. A defensive Asquith sought to justify herself: "their response to the film is so much more extreme than anything I chose to include. It's really been quite shocking" (Izundu 2013: n.p.). Not only can and do fans now respond publicly to such representations, the caricatures now also sit alongside the many more humanizing and respectful depictions, reflecting the commercial imperatives of a digital marketplace noted above. Furthermore, there appears little evidence of the generic position of being a fan to inform such demeaning representations. Rather, belittling portrayals of fans reflect social and economic stratification that persists most notably along the lines of gender, ethnicity, class, and age, which in turn are reflected in specific fan cultures and the choice of fan objects. In other words, fan cultures commonly subject to ridicule and other negative forms of representation-from Potterheads to Twilight fans (Busse 2013; Click, Aubrey, & Behm-Morawitz 2010; Hills 2012), fans of The Only Way Is Essex in Britain (Sandvoss 2015), and funk fans in the favelas of Brazil (Monteiro 2015)—are those associated with the young, the female, the queer, the outsiders, the poor, the ethnically different. These fans are discriminated against, not as fans, but as members of groups that their fandom represents. Indeed, many dismissive representations of given fan cultures are interfandom discourses driven by fans seeking to enforce lines of demarcation and distinction between themselves and other fans (see Williams 2013), such as when, for example, rock fans lambast pop music fans in a move that is regularly aged and gendered, and based upon a desire to place rock above pop in a cosmic hierarchy of musical genres.
然而，尽管主流媒体对粉丝的讽刺仍然存在，但它们的背景已经发生了变化。正如阿斯奎斯在《疯狂的单向》播出后迅速了解到的那样，在过去十年中，关于粉丝的媒介话语已经通过社交媒体发生了变化，这给了粉丝自己一个声音和公开回应的机会。感到被歪曲的One Direction粉丝在Twitter和其他地方做出了激烈的回应。辩护性的阿斯奎斯试图为自己辩解：“他们对这部电影的反应比我选择包含的任何东西都要极端得多。这真的非常令人震惊“（Izundu 2013：n.p.）。现在，不仅粉丝们能够而且确实对这种表现公开回应，而且这些漫画现在还与许多更加人性化和尊重的描述并列，反映了上述数字市场的商业必要性。此外，似乎几乎没有证据表明，作为粉丝的一般立场可以告知这种贬低性的陈述。相反，对粉丝的贬低描绘了社会和经济分层，这种分层最明显地沿着性别、种族、阶级和年龄的界限存在，这反过来又反映在特定的粉丝文化和粉丝对象的选择上。换句话说，粉丝文化通常会受到嘲笑和其他负面形式的表征——从 Potterheads 到暮光之城的粉丝（Busse 2013;Click， Aubrey， & Behm-Morawitz 2010;Hills 2012）、英国埃塞克斯的唯一方式（Sandvoss 2015）的粉丝和巴西贫民窟的放克粉丝（Monteiro 2015）——是那些与年轻人、女性、酷儿、局外人、穷人、种族差异有关的人。这些粉丝受到歧视，不是作为粉丝，而是作为他们粉丝所代表的团体的成员。 事实上，许多对特定粉丝文化的轻蔑表述都是粉丝间话语，这些话语是由粉丝驱动的，他们试图在他们自己和其他粉丝之间强制划分和区分线（见 Williams 2013），例如，当摇滚乐迷以一种经常老化和性别化的举动抨击流行音乐迷时，并基于在音乐流派的宇宙等级制度中将摇滚置于流行音乐之上的愿望。

The second wave of fan studies moved beyond the "incorporation/resistance paradigm" (Abercrombie & Longhurst 1998), by finding a new conceptual leitmotif in the sociology of consumption by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1984). This second wave of work on fans (see Dell 1998; Harris 1998; Jancovich 2002; Thomas 2002; Dixon 2013) highlighted the replication of social and cultural hierarchies within fan cultures and subcultures. In these studies, the answer to why fandom and its academic analysis matters is thus a very different one. Documenting how the choices of fan objects and practices are structured through fans' habitus as a reflection and further manifestation of our social, cultural, and economic capital, such studies were still concerned with questions of power, inequality, and discrimination, but rather than seeing fandom as an a priori tool of empowerment, they suggested that fans' interpretive communities (as well as individual acts of fan consumption) are embedded in existing social and cultural conditions. These studies were still concerned, for instance, with questions of gender, but they no longer portrayed fandom as an extraordinary space of emancipation and reformulation of gender relations. Instead, the taste hierarchies among fans themselves were described as the continuation of wider social inequalities (Thornton 1995). Finding its reference point in Bourdieu's conceptualization of the habitus and thus highlighting the importance of the specificity of fan objects and the individual and collective practices of fans -in other words, who is a fan of what and how-such work thus highlighted the task that subsequent scholarship in fan and audience studies increasingly embraced: the creation of a conceptual and typological apparatus that allowed scholars to position and compare specific studies and findings.
第二波粉丝研究超越了“纳入/抵抗范式”（Abercrombie & Longhurst 1998），在法国社会学家Pierre Bourdieu（1984）的消费社会学中找到了一个新的概念主旋律。关于风扇的第二波工作（见戴尔 1998 年;哈里斯 1998;扬科维奇 2002 年;托马斯 2002;Dixon 2013）强调了粉丝文化和亚文化中社会和文化等级制度的复制。在这些研究中，为什么粉丝及其学术分析很重要的答案是一个非常不同的答案。这些研究记录了粉丝对象和实践的选择是如何通过粉丝的习惯构建的，作为我们社会、文化和经济资本的反映和进一步体现，这些研究仍然关注权力、不平等和歧视的问题，但他们没有将粉丝视为一种先验的赋权工具，而是认为粉丝的解释社区（以及粉丝消费的个人行为）被嵌入到现有的社会和文化条件下。 例如，这些研究仍然关注性别问题，但它们不再将同人圈描绘成解放和重新构建性别关系的非凡空间。取而代之的是，粉丝本身的口味等级制度被描述为更广泛的社会不平等的延续（Thornton 1995）。 在布迪厄对习惯的概念化中找到了它的参考点，从而强调了扇子对象的特殊性以及扇子的个人和集体实践的重要性——换句话说，谁是粉丝以及如何的粉丝——因此突出了后来的粉丝和观众研究学术越来越接受的任务：创造一种概念和类型学工具，使学者能够定位和比较特定的研究和发现。

However, while the second wave of fan studies proved effective in demonstrating what fandom is not-an a priori space of cultural autonomy and resistance-it had little to say about the individual motivations, enjoyment, and pleasures of fans. If Fiske's explanation of fandom as subversive pleasure was overtly functionalist, so would be attempts to explain fans' interests and motivations through the notion of the habitus alone. As much as popular media representations of fans have failed to ask why audiences become fans and why "fans act as they do" (Harrington & Bielby 1995: 3), the academic analysis of fandom was now in danger of committing the same omissions.
然而，尽管第二波粉丝研究被证明有效地证明了粉丝圈不是什么——一个文化自主和抵抗的先验空间——但它对粉丝的个人动机、享受和快乐几乎没有什么可说的。如果说菲斯克 将粉丝圈解释为颠覆性的快乐是明显的功能主义，那么仅仅通过习惯的概念来解释粉丝的兴趣和动机的尝试也是如此。尽管大众媒体对粉丝的描述没有询问为什么观众会成为粉丝，以及为什么“粉丝会像他们那样行事”（Harrington&Bielby，1995：3），但对粉丝圈的学术分析现在也有犯同样遗漏的危险。

In addition to engaging with the task of refining typologies of fandom following Nicholas Abercrombie and Brian Longhurst's (1998) foundational work in this respect (see also Crawford 2004; Hills 2002; Longhurst 2007), the subsequent body of work we described in the first edition as the third wave of fan studies sought to broaden the scope of inquiry to a wide range of different audiences reflecting fandom's growing cultural currency. (Indeed, one might regard the third wave as a dissipation of what was previously a loosely coherent subfield into multiple projects with multiple trajectories that combined still have the force of a new wave, but that individually have carried fan studies into many diverse neighboring realms.) As being a fan became an ever more common mode of cultural engagement, earlier approaches based on a model of fans as tightly organized participants in fan cultures and subcultures did not match the self-description and experience of many audience members who describe themselves as fans (see Sandvoss 2005). When Jenkins wrote Textual Poachers (1992), fan communities were often relegated to conventions and fanzines. Today, with many such communities' migration to the Internet, thousands of fan discussion groups, websites, and social media networks populate cyberspace, and plenty of lived, physical space too. Similarly, mobile media bring fan objects out with their users everywhere. In turn, these changing communication technologies and media texts contribute to and reflect the increasing entrenchment of fan consumption in the structure of our everyday lives. Fandom has emerged as an ever more integral aspect of lifeworlds, and an important interface between the dominant micro and macro forces of our time.
除了遵循Nicholas Abercrombie和Brian Longhurst（1998）在这方面的基础工作之外，还参与了完善同人圈类型学的任务（另见Crawford，2004年;希尔斯 2002 年;Longhurst 2007），我们在第一版中描述为粉丝研究的第三波研究的后续工作试图将调查范围扩大到广泛的不同受众，反映了粉丝群体日益增长的文化货币。（事实上，人们可能会将第三次浪潮视为将以前松散连贯的子领域消散为多个项目，这些项目具有多个轨迹，这些项目加在一起仍然具有新浪潮的力量，但单独地将粉丝研究带入了许多不同的相邻领域。随着粉丝成为一种越来越普遍的文化参与模式，早期基于粉丝作为粉丝文化和亚文化中紧密组织的参与者的模型的方法与许多将自己描述为粉丝的观众的自我描述和经验不符（见Sandvoss 2005）。当詹金斯写下《文本偷猎者》（Textual Poachers，1992）时，粉丝社区经常被降级为惯例和同人杂志。如今，随着许多此类社区迁移到互联网，数以千计的粉丝讨论组、网站和社交媒体网络充斥着网络空间，以及大量的生活物理空间。同样，移动媒体将粉丝对象与各地的用户一起展示出来。反过来，这些不断变化的通信技术和媒体文本促进并反映了风扇消费在我们日常生活结构中日益根深蒂固。Fandom已经成为生活世界中越来越不可或缺的一个方面，也是我们这个时代占主导地位的微观和巨集力量之间的重要接口。

Third-wave work has thus sought to change the goalposts of inquiry. On the micro level of fan consumption, third-wave studies have explored the intrapersonal pleasures and motivations among fans, refocusing on the relationship between fans' selves and their fan objects (see Thompson 1995), and resulting in, for instance, a range of psychoanalytic or psychoanalytically inspired approaches (Elliott 1999; Harrington & Bielby 1995; Hills 2002, 2007; Sandvoss 2005; Stacey 1994). On the macro level, third-wave research on fans extends the conceptual focus beyond questions of hegemony and class, to the overarching social, cultural, and economic transformations of our time, thereby offering new answers to the question of why we should study fans. Here fandom is no longer only an object of study in and for itself. Instead, third-wave work aims to capture fundamental
因此，第三波工作试图改变调查的目标。在粉丝消费的微观层面上，第三波研究探索了粉丝之间的个人愉悦和动机，重新关注粉丝自我与粉丝对象之间的关系（参见Thompson 1995），并产生了一系列精神分析或精神分析启发的方法（Elliott 1999;Harrington&Bielby，1995年;希尔斯 2002 年、2007 年;桑德沃斯 2005;Stacey 1994 年）。在巨集层面上，第三波粉丝研究将概念焦点从霸权和阶级问题扩展到我们这个时代的整体社会、文化和经济变革，从而为我们为什么要研究粉丝的问题提供了新的答案。在这里，粉丝圈本身不再只是一个研究对象。取而代之的是，第三波工作旨在捕捉基本面
insight into modern life-it is precisely because fan consumption has grown into a taken-for-granted aspect of modern communication and consumption that it warrants critical analysis and investigation. Third-wave fan studies help us understand and meet challenges beyond the realm of popular culture because they tell us something about how we relate to ourselves, to each other, and to how we read the mediated texts around us.
洞察现代生活——正是因为粉丝消费已经成长为现代传播和消费中理所当然的方面，才有必要进行批判性的分析和调查。第三波粉丝研究帮助我们理解和应对流行文化领域之外的挑战，因为它们告诉我们一些关于我们如何与自己、与他人以及我们如何阅读周围中介文本的关系。

Such work exploring the intrapersonal dimensions of fandom has proven surprisingly contentious. To Henry Jenkins (2014: 286), for instance, within fan studies "there has always been a sharp divide between those who study individual fans and those who study fandom as an imagined and imaginative community," which Jenkins believes fails to reflect realities of contemporary fandom and which carries a regressive quality that appears to jeopardize the achievements of first-wave fan studies. Jenkins (2007: 361) points to his "concerns that a return to individual psychology runs the risk of reintroducing all those pathological explanations that we fought so hard to dismantle" in the afterword to the first edition of this volume. To Jenkins (2007: 361), a focus on the fan's self is especially problematic in an era in which networks of user productivity and connectivity have moved to the center of attention of media and communication scholars:
这种探索粉丝圈内在维度的工作已被证明具有令人惊讶的争议性。例如，对于亨利·詹金斯（Henry Jenkins，2014：286）来说，在粉丝研究中，“那些研究个人粉丝的人和那些将粉丝圈作为一个想象的和富有想象力的社区进行研究的人之间一直存在着尖锐的鸿沟”，詹金斯认为这未能反映当代粉丝圈的现实，并且带有一种倒退的品质，似乎危及第一波粉丝研究的成就。詹金斯（Jenkins，2007：361）在本卷第一版的后记中指出，他“担心回归个体心理学可能会重新引入我们努力消除的所有病态解释”。对于Jenkins（2007：361）来说，在用户生产力和连通性网络已经成为媒体和传播学者关注的中心的时代，对粉丝自我的关注尤其成问题：

It seems a little paradoxical that the rest of the people involved in this conversation are more and more focused on consumption as a social, networked, collaborative process ("harnessing collective intelligence," "the wisdom of crowds," and all of that) whereas so much of the recent work in fan studies has returned to a focus on the individual fan.
这似乎有点自相矛盾的是，参与这场对话的其他人越来越关注消费，将其视为一种社交、网络化、协作的过程（“利用集体智慧”、“群体的智慧”等等），而最近粉丝研究的大部分工作又回到了对个人粉丝的关注上。

[ . . . ] While sometimes a useful corrective to the tendency of earlier generations of fan scholars to focus on the more public and visible aspects of fan culture, this focus on the individual may throw out the baby with the bathwater.
[ . . . ]虽然有时可以有效地纠正前几代粉丝学者关注粉丝文化中更公开和可见的方面的倾向，但这种对个人的关注可能会把婴儿和洗澡水一起扔掉。

Jenkins is undoubtedly correct in the assertion that with the rise of digital technology the above themes have moved to the center of our discipline.
詹金斯的断言无疑是正确的，即随着数字技术的兴起，上述主题已经成为我们学科的中心。

However, we do not recognize the fault lines he sketches out. His intervention is a useful reminder that different traditions persist within fan studies. In using the label "waves" rather than "phases," we sought to reflect that different conceptual and methodological approaches reached their high watermarks at different points in the development of the field, yet that concerns and approaches of earlier waves have become far from irrelevant. As we have demonstrated above, while instances of demeaning representations of fans have become less common, certain fan cultures remain subject to representational othering. Conversely, some fan cultures were never confronted with the same type of pathologization, most notably fans of most highbrow arts. In the study of fans subject to persistent social stigmatization, the initial aims of the first wave of fan studies have lost little of their significance. Similarly, questions of hierarchization and structuration within fan cultures remain important for the persistence of precisely such inequalities.
然而，我们不认识他勾勒出的断层线。他的干预是一个有用的提醒，在粉丝研究中仍然存在不同的传统。在使用“波浪”而不是“阶段”的标签时，我们试图反映出，不同的概念和方法在该领域发展的不同阶段达到了高潮，但早期浪潮的关注点和方法已经变得远非无关紧要。正如我们上面所展示的，虽然贬低粉丝形象的情况已经变得不那么普遍，但某些粉丝文化仍然受到代表性他者的影响。相反，一些粉丝文化从未遇到过同样类型的病态化，最明显的是大多数高雅艺术的粉丝。在对持续遭受社会污名化的粉丝的研究中，第一波粉丝研究的最初目标几乎没有失去其意义。同样，粉丝文化内部的等级制度和结构问题对于这种不平等的持续存在仍然很重要。

Within such diversity, we recognize not a "sharp divide" but rather a reflection of an increasingly theoretically and empirically rich field of study. Moreover, the dichotomy between the study of the interpersonal and the intrapersonal seems to us misleading: as numerous prominent instances attest (see Harrington & Bielby 1995; Hills 2002; Sandvoss 2005; Bailey 2005), scholars who have sought to explore and theorize the intrapersonal bond between fan and fan object still acknowledge the collective and communal dimensions of fandom, too. Studying the intensely personal attachments of fans does not preclude understanding "fandom as an imagined and imaginative community" (Jenkins 2007: 361). Whether focusing on the role of place, pilgrimage, or Heimat, the interplay between fandom and academia, or the role of fandom within the life course, such work has examined the individual psychology of fandom within its wider social context.
在这种多样性中，我们认识到的不是“尖锐的鸿沟”，而是理论和实证上日益丰富的研究领域的反映。此外，人际关系和人际关系研究之间的二分法在我们看来具有误导性：正如许多突出的例子所证明的那样（见Harrington&Bielby 1995;希尔斯 2002 年;桑德沃斯 2005;Bailey 2005），那些试图探索和理论化粉丝和粉丝对象之间人际关系的学者们仍然承认粉丝圈的集体和公共维度。研究粉丝强烈的个人依恋并不排除理解“粉丝圈是一个想象和想象的社区”（Jenkins 2007：361）。无论是关注地方、朝圣或海马特的角色，还是关注粉丝与学术界之间的相互作用，还是关注粉丝在生命过程中的角色，这些作品都在更广泛的社会背景下审视了粉丝的个人心理。

To us, then, the intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions appear to be complementary, intrinsically connected parts of the same ecosystem of analysis. Jenkins is undoubtedly correct to link the rise of convergence culture with the emergence of unparalleled forms of fan/user productivity and connectivity, of collective action and interest-centered networks, groups, and communities. However, a second trajectory of digital culture is equally obvious and, in fact, closely interlinked with the emergence of such communities: the rapid personalization of media content and media use
因此，对我们来说，人际关系和人际关系维度似乎是互补的，是同一分析生态系统中内在联系的部分。詹金斯将融合文化的兴起与无与伦比的粉丝/用户生产力和连通性、集体行动和以利益为中心的网络、团体和社区的出现联系起来，无疑是正确的。然而，数字文化的第二条轨迹同样显而易见，事实上，它与此类社区的出现密切相关：媒体内容和媒体使用的快速个性化
brought by the unparalleled accessibility of digital content, the ubiquity of personal individual and mobile (screen) media, social media, customer relation management, and the general "algorithmization" of digital media encounters. While fields such as political communication have long turned to the analysis of the consequences of these processes of personalization (see, for example, Sunstein 2007), fan studies ought not to disregard questions of the interplay between a fan's self and processes of personalization in digital media as the relationship between fan and fan text is the most personal and affectively motivated relationship between text and reader we can find.
数字内容无与伦比的可访问性、个人和移动（屏幕）媒体、社交媒体、客户关系管理的无处不在，以及数字媒体遭遇的普遍“算法化”。虽然政治传播等领域长期以来一直转向分析这些个性化过程的后果（例如，参见Sunstein 2007），但粉丝研究不应忽视粉丝自我与数字媒体中个性化过程之间的相互作用问题，因为粉丝和粉丝文本之间的关系是我们可以找到的文本和读者之间最个人化和最情感激励的关系。

To be fair to Jenkins, his call is based in concern that earlier gains not be lost, though he does not object in and of itself to new work being conducted. Francesca Coppa is more orthodox in seeking to enforce a narrow definition of fandom and opposing broader sets of questions about a wider set of fans. In response to the introduction to the first edition of this book, Coppa (2014: 74) claimed:
公平地说，詹金斯的呼吁是基于对不失去早期成果的担忧，尽管他本身并不反对正在进行的新工作。弗朗西斯卡·科帕（Francesca Coppa）在寻求对粉丝的狭隘定义方面更为正统，并反对对更广泛的粉丝群体提出更广泛的问题。在回应本书第一版的介绍时，Coppa（2014：74）声称：

Arguably this broadening of subject represents a change of subject. It seems unfair to say that early fandom scholars overlooked the broad spectrum of regular fans to focus on "the smallest subset of fan groups" (Gray et al. 2007: 8)the creators and participators for whom fandom was a way of life-when that was precisely their defined object of study.
可以说，这种主题的拓宽代表了主题的改变。说早期的粉丝学者忽视了普通粉丝的广泛范围，而关注“粉丝群体的最小子集”（Gray et al. 2007： 8），即创造者和参与者，对他们来说，粉丝圈是一种生活方式——而这恰恰是他们定义的研究对象。

Coppa's argument-though this remains unacknowledged in the text-is based on reinforcing a binary distinction between fans and "normal audiences" that much of the first wave of fan studies embraced, reaching as far back as Fiske's work (and most clearly articulated in Fiske 1992). The epistemological flaw here is apparent. The object of study is defined through its adherence to a preconceived conceptual position leading to a circular logic: fans are found to be highly networked and participatory, because to be considered fans they need to be highly networked and participatory. All definitions are, of course, normative constructions, but key criteria in this process are existing practices, uses, and experiences. Coppa points to the labels employed in Abercrombie and Longhurst's
科帕的论点——尽管这在文本中仍然没有得到承认——是基于加强粉丝和“普通观众”之间的二元区分，第一波粉丝研究的大部分都接受了这种二元区分，可以追溯到菲斯克的作品（在菲斯克 1992 年中得到了最清楚的阐述）。这里的认识论缺陷是显而易见的。研究对象是通过坚持先入为主的概念立场来定义的，这导致了一种循环逻辑：粉丝被发现具有高度的网络化和参与性，因为要被认为是粉丝，他们需要高度网络化和参与性。当然，所有定义都是规范性建构，但这一过程中的关键标准是现有的做法、用途和经验。Coppa 指出了 Abercrombie 和 Longhurst's 所采用的标签
typology (1998) as not matching fans' self-descriptions, but seems less concerned that her proposed narrowing of the field disqualifies vast numbers of others, who either self-describe as fans or are commonly regarded as fans in everyday life discourse, as possible subjects of fan studies. As such, a resistance to exploring and understanding a wide range of fan types and practices risks entrenching a very specific form of fandom practiced predominantly by white Anglo-Americans for a starkly limited set of fan objects. Certainly, Mel Stanfill (2011) and Rebecca Wanzo (2015) note how white fan studies has been, while Lori Hitchcock Morimoto and Bertha Chin (in this volume) similarly note how Anglo-American it has been. Moving forward (and backward, in how it tells its history, notes Wanzo), a vibrant fan studies (third-wavers included) cannot examine only "fans like us," but must challenge itself to explore how fandom changes in mode and type across demographics and globally, so that the "us" expands.
Typology（1998）认为这与粉丝的自我描述不符，但似乎不太担心她提出的缩小领域范围会使大量其他人失去资格，这些人要么自我描述为粉丝，要么在日常生活话语中通常被视为粉丝，作为粉丝研究的可能主题。因此，对探索和理解广泛的粉丝类型和做法的抵制可能会巩固一种非常特定的粉丝形式，这种粉丝主要由英美白人实践，用于一组非常有限的粉丝对象。当然，梅尔·斯坦菲尔（2011）和丽贝卡·万佐（2015）注意到白人粉丝研究的程度，而洛里·希区柯克·森本和伯莎·钦（本书中）同样指出了它是多么英美。向前看（以及向后，在讲述历史的方式上，Wanzo指出），一个充满活力的粉丝研究（包括第三波）不能只研究“像我们这样的粉丝”，而是必须挑战自我，探索粉丝群体在模式和类型上是如何在人口统计学和全球范围内变化的，从而扩大“我们”的范围。

Consequently, we are encouraged by the degree to which the third wave pushes ever outward, and we now see an exciting diversification of interests, questions, approaches, and subjects. Rather than a sharp dichotomy in either fan practices or the study of fan practices, fandom in its summative meaning (rather than being used synonymously to describe a given fan culture) constitutes a spectrum in which a multiplicity of practices, groups, and motivations span between the polarities of the personal and the communal-yet with either dimension informing aspects of fans' practices and attachments at least residually. Studies of fans need not all be discussing the same types of fans, practices, or engagements to have a symphonic quality when considered in total. What is important for our purposes here is a recognition that the key challenge remains to preserve the specificity of voices of diverse fan experiences, and where appropriate developing macro theoretical positions from them, while being able to place the specificity of studies of particular fan cultures or groups in a wider contextual understanding of typologies and maps of fandom across different genres, interpersonal and intrapersonal dimensions, rather than misreading particular fan groups as singularly representative of all fan practices and motivations. Such contextualization remains particularly important in a field in which the preferred methodological approach (ethnography) hitherto heavily leans toward capturing the voices of those who have a high degree of social connectivity and visibility to researchers.
因此，我们对第三波浪潮不断向外推进的程度感到鼓舞，我们现在看到兴趣、问题、方法和主题的令人兴奋的多样化。与其说是粉丝实践的尖锐二分法，不如说是粉丝实践的尖锐二分法（而不是同义词来描述特定的粉丝文化）构成了一个光谱，在这个光谱中，多种实践、群体和动机跨越在个人和社区的两极之间——但无论哪个维度都至少在剩余方面为粉丝的实践和依恋的各个方面提供信息。对乐迷的研究不一定都涉及相同类型的乐迷、实践或参与，从整体上看，就具有交响乐的质量。对于我们的目的来说，重要的是认识到，关键的挑战仍然是保持不同粉丝体验的声音的特殊性，并在适当的情况下从中发展巨集理论立场，同时能够将特定粉丝文化或群体研究的特殊性置于对不同类型粉丝群体类型和地图的更广泛的背景理解中， 人际关系和人际关系维度，而不是误读特定的粉丝群体，认为它代表了所有粉丝的做法和动机。在一个领域中，这种情境化仍然尤为重要，在这个领域中，迄今为止首选的方法论方法（民族志）严重倾向于捕捉那些对研究人员具有高度社会联系和可见度的人的声音。

It is, hence, in recognition of fan experience being both personal and communal to varying degrees that we chose the subtitle of this anthology: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World. Because fandom has become an increasingly important identity resource in a world that has undergone profound transformations over the past four decades-as a result not only of the rise of digital communication technologies but also of the related forces of globalization and post-Fordism giving rise to what Bauman (2005) usefully described as "liquid modernity"-being a fan may be as important to one's community memberships as one's sense of self. In an era in which traditional markers of identity in high modernity such as employment, class, marriage, and (national) belonging, but also age, religion, sexuality, and gender are increasingly instable, fluid, and on occasion ephemeral, the imagined but voluntary communities we join through fan attachments are as important as the self-identity that is constructed and narrated by fans individually (cf. Harrington, Bielby, & Bardo 2014; Sandvoss 2003, 2014).
因此，正是认识到粉丝体验在不同程度上既是个人的，也是公共的，所以我们选择了这本选集的副标题：媒介化世界中的身份和社区。因为在过去的四十年中，粉丝已经成为一种越来越重要的身份资源——不仅是由于数字通信技术的兴起，而且由于全球化和后福特主义的相关力量，产生了鲍曼（2005）有用地描述为“流动的现代性”——成为粉丝对于一个人的社区成员身份可能与一个人的自我意识一样重要。在这个时代，就业、阶级、婚姻和（民族）归属感等高度现代性的传统身份标志，以及年龄、宗教、性取向和性别，越来越不稳定、流动，有时甚至是短暂的，我们通过粉丝依恋加入的想象但自愿的社区与粉丝个人构建和叙述的自我认同同样重要（参见哈灵顿， Bielby， & Bardo 2014;桑德沃斯 2003 年、2014 年）。

The main trajectories of the third wave of fan studies are informed by this duality of community and identity. These include the continued methodological and epistemological reflections about the relationship between academic enquiry and fan cultures and reflection of the field itself; the study of anti-fans, fantagonisms, and conflict between fan groups; an examination of changing forms of (digital) textuality, including in particular the role of paratexts; reception and value in fandom; the interplay between space, place, belonging, and fandom; the role of fan identities, experiences, and practices in the life course; the intersection of fandom and formal and informal political processes and activism; and forms of fan-generated content, fan productivity, and the eroding boundaries between media production and consumption. Whereas we focused on the first two of these in the first edition of this volume-and while they have attracted extensive attention in edited collections elsewhere since (see Larsen & Zubernis 2012; Duits, Zwaan, & Reijnders 2014)—the remaining five themes constitute the sections through which this updated volume seeks to contribute to the key debates in contemporary fan studies and beyond.
第三波粉丝研究的主要轨迹是由这种社区和身份的二元性所揭示的。其中包括对学术探究与粉丝文化之间关系的持续方法论和认识论反思，以及对该领域本身的反思;反粉丝、狂热、粉丝群体之间的冲突研究;审查（数字）文本形式的变化，尤其包括副文本的作用;在粉丝圈中的接受度和价值;空间、地点、归属感和粉丝之间的相互作用;粉丝身份、经历和实践在生命历程中的作用;粉丝与正式和非正式政治进程和激进主义的交集;以及粉丝生成内容的形式、粉丝的生产力以及媒体生产和消费之间日益模糊的界限。鉴于我们在本卷的第一版中专注于其中的前两个，尽管它们在此后其他地方的编辑集中引起了广泛的关注（参见Larsen&Zubernis，2012年;Duits， Zwaan， & Reijnders 2014）——其余五个主题构成了这本更新卷试图为当代粉丝研究及其他领域的关键辩论做出贡献的部分。