In particular, I was struck by Stone and Oldenberg’s writing about the social deviants among wrestling fandom. Stone and Oldenberg’s piece demonstrates very starkly some social stereotypes that become evident in how they talk about the wrestling fan. When they categorize wrestling fan types, we see them talk about how women are presumed to be more gullible than men to con games. We see them talk with some degree of disdain about the “less educated,” “lower-class” pro wrestling fan. And, perhaps most striking of all, they talk about fans as social deviants that include, among other categories, homosexuals whose enjoyment of pro wrestling might exist for reasons outside the cultural norm. While I think Stone and Oldenberg provide a very helpful study of the structure of the industry at a time and provide a meta-analysis that assists us at understanding the object in question during the territory era and beyond, we also see laid plainly the biases of researchers at the time which demonstrate areas which they—or at least the culture they were entrenched in—were clearly uncomfortable with certain types of readings of the wrestling text that they feared might be outside the socially acceptable (just as we saw the journalists worried about the housewife transformed into revenge-seeker or, worse, into a sexual voyeur watching wrestling not for the drama of the match but rather for purposes of arousal).
Stone and Oldenberg’s piece—like Workman’s and others—seem also to make gross and unproven assumptions about the gullibility and simple-mindedness of pro wrestling fans…taking for granted that fans read earnestly the characters of pro wrestling fans and not introducing sufficient care as to the degree wrestling fans might be, themselves, performing.
Finally, I continue to be amused as we go back through the history of wrestling scholarship to see the degree to which scholar after scholar takes great pains to justify why they are studying why they are studying—and how they study wrestling as an overall genre, much less so that the rootedness of a particular storyline, a character over time, etc. Only a few pieces (like Williams’ piece on The Hulk Vs. Ox Baker) seems deeply rooted in the details of what they are studying…and even in, like Campbell’s piece and others, seem to be limited to a particular show or a particular short period in time that belies wrestling’s serialized nature...
4 comments:
We have hit on this a bit in class and on here, but it deserves repeating. Much of the scholarly work on professional wrestling is condescending to the fans, to a level that you rarely see in other entertainment medias (the closest that comes to mind is NASCAR for many of the same reasons). Even if the pieces generate important insights into the tropes, structure, and drama or wrestling, the tone is often quite different from other academic works. In addition, studies often look at wrestling for a remarkably short time before making broad generalizations, which in other areas of research would be almost immediately panned.
That said, there are many areas in which an analysis of wrestling could contribute to our understanding of other fields. The territory system seems like a wonderful case study on the collective action problem and on cartels (the NWA was not that different from OPEC), neither which have been explored.
Looking back on the time before I became a wrestling fan and enjoyed the spectacle, I remember looking down on it and making irrational assumptions about the fans. I remember thinking wrestling was the most asinine form of entertainment because I didn't understand. But I didn't have any true, legitimate reasons to dislike it. I just thought that watching a bunch of grown men beat each other up was pointless. And I guess my question is, why do people view wrestling in the way they do? For the most part, I am an open, proud wrestling fan. But there are still times when I get really embarrassed about it. In certain situations, I try to hide the fact I'm a wrestling fan. There's a certain shame in it that society has put on us. And I still struggle to understand why that is. What is it about wrestling that is so shameful? It's a flamboyant, exaggerated, and ludicrous art form, yes. But then, that's the point.
Good points, Katie and Tim. I really like your point, Tim, about the short time span most people we are reading seem to study wrestling, or the lack of grounded-ness in the texts of wrestling, to any major degree (with Stone and Oldenberg). Most are either doing a study of that few weeks they went, or admitted going, or else doing something very general and broad about wrestling as a category of entertainment. That's what I enjoy about Jim Freedman's work--the depth with which he went into the subject he studies. Looking forward to reading your thoughts and talking about it some in class over the next couple of weeks.
I'd be interested to know if there is a similar stereotyping of wrestling fans in other countries. My limited experience in Japan seemed to suggest that it may have less social stigma, at least for male fans. I would expect that in Mexico a difference as well (which is addressed to a certain degree in Steel Chair to the Head).
Post a Comment