Untidy
Untidy
Fan Response to the Soiling of Martha Stewart’s Spotless Image
In 2002, I set out to study Martha Stewart fans in hopes of understanding Stewart’s popularity in the United States at a time when women seemed to have more choices outside the home than ever before. My public calls for focus group participants drew fans I could not easily recognize as such. For me, this raised the question, What is a fan? The insider trading scandal Martha Stewart was involved in during the time period in which I conducted my interviews, October 2002 to October 2005, added a layer of complexity to my study of Stewart’s fans. The scandal drew immense media attention that impacted both her celebrity and her media texts, many of which were amended to extract her presence or canceled outright.
Interestingly, the interviews I conducted with audience members of Martha Stewart Living revealed that fans were drawn to at least two distinct aspects of this text: Martha Stewart the celebrity, and the ideas created by Martha Stewart. As I argue below, an important component of the criticism of Stewart, and the positions her fans took as a result of this criticism, is the tension between femininity and feminism in U. S. culture; Stewart’s text and persona raise questions about what an American woman can or should be. Thus, the ways in which Stewart’s audiences respond to her and her media texts reveal the ways in which Stewart’s blending of traditional and contemporary ways of being a woman provoked both praise and condemnation.
There is much to be learned from studying fans who do not fit traditional descriptions. Indeed, in doing so we move closer to creating a fuller picture of the ways audiences respond to media texts. In this essay, I explore the ways in which my experiences with Martha Stewart Living audiences raise a number of fruitful questions for further explanation about our understanding of fan behavior, the ways in which fan positions might change over time, especially in response to changes in their favored text, and how fan readings of texts reflect and impact social values.
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia
By the time I began my focus group research in 2002, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia was a $295-million-a-year business (Carr 2003:C5). As the highly visible focal point of her media texts, known to fans simply as “Martha,” Stewart built a wildly successful business based on her own good taste. Fans could consume Stewart’s advice for living through a number of formats, all of which carried nearly identical messages: books, magazines, television, radio, newspaper, and the Internet.1 Stewart’s lifestyle advice drew a huge audience; when my project began, Martha Stewart had sold more than 10 million copies of her more than thirty-four books, and the combined readership of Stewart’s magazines was 10 million readers (Tyrnauer 2001: 398). Stewart’s daily television programs drew 1.67 million viewers (Fine & Friedman 2003: 1). Her Kmart line included five thousand products and earned $1.6 million in sales in 2001 (Tyrnauer 2001: 398). In 2002, Martha Stewart was without question a savvy businesswoman who had successfully constructed a public personality as a trusted advisor who strove for perfection and promoted impeccable taste.
As a result of Stewart’s visibility as an expert in matters of high taste, a perfectionist in the home, and a successful businesswoman, her image was repeatedly critiqued in U. S. popular culture. Underneath many of these critiques lay the ways in which Martha Stewart’s subject matter in her media texts (images of domestic perfection), when combined with her public persona (a divorcee with seemingly strained personal relationships), confused gender norms. Furthermore, Stewart’s media texts, in many ways, catered to women who work in their homes, yet Stewart, as one of the most powerful businesswomen in the United States, had very little time to lead the domestic life she detailed. Popular critiques of Stewart hinted at or aimed to demonstrate that her public persona was only a façade—and behind that façade was an entirely different person. However, in early 2002, none of the reports about Stewart’s alleged imperfections was weighty enough to topple her image as a know-it-all good girl.
What I find intriguing about Stewart as a public figure is that since her rise to popularity in the mid-1990s, she has been a public figure that audiences simultaneously love and love to hate; as a result, some audience members feel reluctant to consider themselves “fans” because of Stewart’s public persona and its ridicule in the media, and the degree to which Stewart’s messages focus on the commonly undervalued realm of the domestic. However, many nevertheless value the emphasis Stewart places on every intimate detail of “homekeeping” and the empire she built in the process; they feel that Stewart elevated the role of the homemaker in U. S. culture. Interestingly, these “reluctant fans” were drawn to Stewart’s texts, yet readily distanced themselves from Stewart the celebrity.
Analysis of Stewart’s texts and audiences became more complicated by two events in 2002: first, the publication in April of the unauthorized biography Martha Inc. by Christopher Byron, which portrayed Stewart as “a foulmouthed, manipulative shrew who dumped her husband for, among other transgressions, not stacking the firewood just so” (Naughton 2002: 36, original emphasis); and second, the allegations in June that Stewart improperly traded her shares of ImClone stock in December of 2001. These events, in Stabile’s words, marked the beginning of “a reversal of fortune that the US news media aggressively and delightedly chronicled” (2004: 315).
NBC turned Byron’s biography into a movie-of-the-week, which aired in May 2003 and depicted Stewart as “a backstabbing, egomaniacal control freak” (O’Connell 2003). Stewart was indicted on nine federal counts in June 2003. Her trial began in January 2004 and ended with a conviction in March 2004. After her conviction, Stewart’s name on her flagship magazine Living was reduced in size, and her presence in the magazine virtually disappeared; distributor Viacom dropped Stewart’s syndicated TV show altogether (Tyrnauer 2005: 178). In early 2005, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia announced a record loss of $60 million in 2004 (Naughton 2005: 36).
Byron’s biography and the ImClone scandal fractured Stewart’s seemingly spotless image and drew incredible media attention. As Shaw suggests, Stewart’s public persona played a significant role in the media’s treatment of Stewart’s troubles: “because she peddles perfection, when she screws up she is all the more attractive as a target of ridicule” (2003: 57). Complicating matters, Stewart’s indictment, trial, and conviction coexisted with media coverage of a number of corporate scandals at Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, Adelphia Cable, and Global Crossing. These arguably more egregious cases drew much less media attention, and as Stabile found, far fewer mean-spirited accounts: “The language used to describe Stewart’s demise manifests a spiteful gleefulness—a tone strikingly absent from coverage of [the individuals at the center of other corporate scandals]” (2004: 324).
Importantly, the prominence of Stewart’s legal troubles in the media and the public debate over the fairness of her treatment—both in the courtroom and in the media—provoked Martha Stewart’s audience, encouraging the once reluctant to take a stand on Stewart’s presumed guilt or innocence. As my focus group interviews progressed, discussion of Stewart’s own media texts took a back seat and my project shifted to examine the media coverage of the events that tarnished Stewart’s image and to explore the positions people took to explain Stewart’s indictment and conviction. What follows is an account of two important groups in Stewart’s audience and the ways in which the ImClone scandal made the distinctions between the two groups less clear.
Method
The research I discuss is based upon a focus group interview model in which I gathered data about audiences’ relationships to and feelings about Martha Stewart and her media offerings through open-ended discussion with groups of participants (see Lewis 1991; Lindlof & Taylor 2002; Lunt & Livingstone 1996). I conducted a pilot focus group interview in April 1999 and eight additional focus group interviews between October 2002 and July 2004. In total, I interviewed thirty-eight people.2
Each group meeting was audio recorded for transcription purposes, and the transcripts were examined for similarities and dissimilarities in both what was said and what was not said in each group. In my analysis, I uncovered general patterns and made comparisons to see if and how the differences in demographic characteristics and exposure to Martha Stewart within and across groups affected group members’ attitudes toward Martha Stewart and Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia. However, one of the most interesting aspects of my research was the ways in which the participants related to Martha Stewart Living and Martha Stewart, and the ways in which these relationships changed in response to the ImClone scandal.
One of my most difficult—and most basic—research tasks was determining who was a Martha Stewart fan and what that meant. Of the thirty-eight interview participants, twenty-five participants responded “yes,” and six responded “no” when asked whether they considered themselves to be a fan of Martha Stewart. Seven hesitant respondents answered “don’t know,”“not really,”“quasi,”“yes/no,”“to a certain extent,” and “undecided.” Even more intriguing, many of the respondents who replied that they were not fans of Martha Stewart knew more about Stewart’s personal life and media texts than those who responded that they were fans of Martha Stewart; and the participants who responded that they were fans of Martha Stewart repeatedly expressed ambivalence when discussing Stewart and her media texts.
Making sense of the positions the interview participants took required that I reexamine the term “fan.” Jenkins offers one definition: “one becomes a fan not by being a regular viewer of a particular program but by translating that viewing into some type of cultural activity, by sharing feelings and thoughts about the program content with friends, by joining a community of other fans who share common interests” (1988: 88). Many of my interviewees were regular viewers, but not all of them felt comfortable taking part in public activities or discussions about Stewart, and none of them shared that they were part of a community of other fans. Were they still fans?
Tulloch and Jenkins differentiate between fans and followers, suggesting that fans are “active participants within fandom as a social, cultural and interpretive institution,” and followers are “audience members who regularly watch and enjoy [media texts] but who claim no larger social identity on the basis of this consumption” (1995: 23). This distinction comes closer to explaining the identifications of my interview participants; but through the course of my interviews, it became increasingly clear that many of the people I interviewed in Stewart’s audience were both “active participants” and regular consumers, yet they adamantly disliked Stewart and did not call themselves fans. Where do they fit in?
Gray calls attention to two important, and often overlooked, types of fans: “anti-fans” and “non-fans.” “Anti-fans,” he argues, are those “who strongly dislike a given text or genre, considering it inane, stupid, morally bankrupt and/or aesthetic drivel” (Gray 2003: 70). Though they evaluate a text entirely oppositely from fans as commonly defined, Gray suggests that anti-fans may be as intimately involved in texts as fans, and may be similarly organized and visible. “Non-fans,” on the other hand, are those “who do view or read a text, but not with any intense involvement” (Gray 2003: 74). Unlike fans and anti-fans, non-fans may experience the text from a considerable distance and thus while they may enjoy a text, they “watch when they can rather than must” (Gray 2003: 74). Gray’s offerings help to explain those who adamantly oppose Stewart and those who are not sure if they are Stewart fans. However, like fans and followers as described above, anti-fans and non-fans are clear-cut and separate categories. Some of the audience members I interviewed described that their feelings for Stewart changed as the ImClone scandal progressed. Can one audience member exhibit differing fan characteristics, and how do we account for changes in fandom over time?
Hills persuasively argues that fandom is not a “thing” but is instead performative (2002: xi). He suggests that a question that audience researchers have not yet addressed is “what fandom does culturally” (Hills 2002: xii). This echoes Jensen’s claim that “fandom is an aspect of how we make sense of the world, in relation to mass media, and in relation to our historical, social, cultural location” (1992: 27). The people I interviewed may or may not be fans—and their fandom no doubt changed with time and the progression of the ImClone scandal. Importantly, the ambivalences Martha Stewart fans expressed as they put down and took up new fan positions in response to ImClone demonstrate that being a fan is a complex experience affected by the social contexts in which a text exists.
While my interview participants were drawn to Martha Stewart Living as a text, the ways in which they viewed the television program, read the magazine, and responded to Martha Stewart in general differed.3 While I hesitate to construct separate fan groups, a distinct pattern of fanship did develop as my interviews progressed. In my research, I have found two different groups in Stewart’s audience that I believe might be called “fans”: those who are drawn to Stewart’s texts and products for their perceived high quality and their beautiful presentation, but disassociate from her persona (Living fans); and those who are drawn to public debate over Stewart’s persona and read her media texts as a way of watching for cues about Stewart’s “true” persona (Martha fans). The line between the two groups is fuzzy, however, and fans’ identifications are not static—they moved quite a bit over the course of the ImClone scandal.
The first group I discuss are the fans who prefer the information Stewart delivers through her various media texts (almost all of which share the title Living) to her public persona. Living fans are drawn to Martha Stewart because of their interest in what she does and how she does it; but unlike fans as traditionally understood, they distance themselves from Stewart’s persona in response to public criticism of her actions—whether in response to criticism of Stewart by members in the small group interview, in response to their own experiences with or beliefs about Stewart, or in response to media stories about Stewart.
What I heard repeatedly from the people I interviewed is a sense that their feelings about Stewart’s texts sometimes are separate from their feelings about Martha Stewart the celebrity. Living fans were drawn to Martha Stewart Living not for its host, Martha Stewart, but for its content. Can-dace4 clearly articulates this: “it’s not her personality, because I find that she’s kind of phony in a way[….] The show, the presentation and what she does I’m interested in, but her personally, there are others on the Food Network that I prefer to her.” Beatrice likewise explained, “I don’t really watch her, I watch what she’s doing.”
Despite their selection of Martha Stewart Living based on the content of the show, most participants said they watch more to observe than to actually undertake the projects Stewart offers. Again and again, interviewees described Stewart’s programs and periodicals as an outlet for relaxation and escape. Of Stewart’s television programs, Karla conveyed, “There are beautiful things on it, it’s relatively mindless, I don’t have to think a whole lot.” Delores suggested that the magazine takes her “away from all the stuff in my life, it’s relaxing.”
Even though fans of Stewart’s media texts do not often undertake Stewart’s projects, they do collect information on tasks that they may want to undertake at a later time. Grace reported that she has “a ton of magazine clippings that I will put to use one day.” Hailey similarly offered that she and her spouse clip information deemed useful from Stewart’s magazine: “we cut out the articles that we think are going to be useful and we do have a giant binder in the house that we do use.”
While Living fans take great pleasure from watching and reading Stewart’s texts, many of them are reluctant to share their interest in Stewart with others, in part because of the public criticism of Stewart. Carole revealed that she used to be less open about her interest in Stewart than she now is: “I was sort of like a closet Martha Stewart devotee for a long time […] I was so stupid about it and then I decided ‘this is ridiculous,’ but so many people I knew were really discouraging about her.” When discussing his interest in Stewart, Aaron confessed that “I love to talk about her, and I think she’s fascinating, and part of me feels really pathetic, too, that I read her.” Rachel is so guarded about her feelings for Stewart that she did not even tell anyone that she was attending my interview: “I kind of like her stuff, but I wouldn’t tell anybody necessarily and that’s the straight up truth.”
A few participants disclosed that their friends and family teased them for their interest in Stewart. Carole is teased by one of her daughters: “She’s one of those really practical people […] and she works […] and it’s a little too much for her, she laughs at that, good natured, but you know.” Pamela reported that sharing her interest in Stewart with friends and family sometimes “elicits a giggle or an eye roll.” Mary reported that her two sons think she is “psychotic” for taping Stewart’s television programs and keeping a well-marked collection of videotapes.
Despite the possibility for teasing or scorn, a few fans openly maintain their interest in Stewart; these Living fans use humor to reference their interest in Stewart in daily contexts. Lane, a clergywoman, disclosed that she has referenced Stewart in her sermons: “if I talk about […] how people get stressed out before the holidays and we want everything to be perfect, I’ll confess to having been in the ‘Martha Zone.’” Mary relayed that she often quotes Stewart to others: “I say it to everyone, it drives my family to distraction. I say it to people at work […] ‘Oh, that’s a good thing, like my friend Martha will always say.’”
In sum, Living fans are drawn to Martha Stewart Living for its content and beauty. They admire Stewart’s expertise, attention to detail, and professionalism. While they use the text to relax or escape, and collect the information contained in the text, Living fans do not necessarily undertake the projects Stewart demonstrates. Many Living fans suggest that they are fans, yet they can be reserved about their interest, in part because of the public ridicule of Martha Stewart. Only a few are such strong fans that they do not care what others think of them. In many ways, criticism of Stewart, and the impact it has on Living fans, shames them into silence about their interest in domestic activities. If, as I argue, the controversy around Martha Stewart reflects the push-and-pull relationship between femininity and feminism, the reluctance of many Living fans to openly own their interest in Martha Stewart Living suggests that the devaluation of the domestic sphere continues.5
Martha Fans
The next group of fans I felt I could identify as such were, unlike Living fans, less interested in the information Stewart conveys through her media texts than they were in Stewart’s persona—as constructed through both media texts and her very public persona as a celebrity. Many of these fans made fun of Stewart and/or adamantly disliked her; however, like Gray’s anti-fans, they were intimately familiar with Stewart’s life and her media texts.
Many Martha fans regularly watched Stewart on television, read her magazines, and followed stories about Stewart in the popular press. Unlike the Living fans, they described their interest in Stewart as connected to Stewart as a celebrity, not the ideas that she offers. Correlated with the degree to which these fans were conflicted or adamant in their dislike of Stewart, their reactions to her ranged from amusement to hatred. Nadia offered that she found Stewart to be humorous: “I like watching her shows, they’re somewhat entertaining and it is just hilarious watching her […] it’s just a trip to me.” Abby reported that in Stewart’s television shows “there was a tone that was patronizing, there was an edge that was just like, I wanted to say ‘F.U.’ to her.”
Martha fans used media stories and gossip to help construct their opinions of Stewart. Maggie used what she read in Jerry Oppenheimer’s 1997 unauthorized biography of Stewart to develop a position on Stewart’s personal life: “I think she […] keeps in touch with her sister and the biographer tried to paint a very negative picture of her as a mother, but I think she’s very close to the daughter, they do things together and then, then friends, I think she has a pretty rich social life.” Rachel shared that she watched NBC’s May 2003 made-for-TV movie, Martha Inc; she described it as portraying Stewart as “really bitchy” and “super non-forgiving.”
Many interviewees reacted to what they perceived as a rigidity in Stewart. Kira described Stewart as “a bitch on wheels.” Jackie described Stewart as “elitist” and “arrogant.” For Rachel, Stewart has an “arrogance” as if she’s “the standard,” which she explained makes it “hard for me to watch the entire thing because it’s just her half the time and there’s no, there’s no room for flexibility at all.”
Despite the fact that these “fans” do not sound much like fans, many are regular viewers and readers of Stewart’s media texts. Interestingly, many participants watched Stewart’s television show just to watch Stewart’s behavior, especially with guests. Sarah’s description of her motivation was similar to several participants’ reasons for watching Stewart: “I’m more interested in her as a person than anything she does, so, I’m just fascinated to see how this dour, creepy woman, what’s she going to be like on her show today?” The interest of the guest segments for these viewers lies in the challenge of Stewart’s authority, especially because she is self-constructed as an expert who has a vast knowledge and performs tasks perfectly. Aaron described that he enjoyed segments in which Stewart interacted with a guest; he felt this is when one could see Stewart’s “true” persona: “when she interacts with other people […] you kind of see this iciness in her that you always hear about in her.”
Unlike Living fans who reported that they watched Martha Stewart Living to relax and escape, Martha fans reported amusement, irritation, or anger when watching the show. Janice insisted that she “mouths off” at Stewart while she is watching her program. Maribel reported that she sometimes phones her friends when she is watching Stewart on television to share her amusement or frustration, “I’ll call people when I’m watching Martha Stewart and be like ‘Oh my God that idiot’s at the miso factory, you’ve got to see this,’ and then my friend Sara’s at home, and she pulls on the TV and she’s like, ‘What a fuck-wad!’”
While the Martha fans are drawn to Stewart for different reasons than the Living fans, they similarly are devoted in their interest in acquiring information; instead of collecting and treasuring Stewart’s texts, they read biographies and parodies of her, and create or seek information critical of Stewart. Emily reported that she writes parodies of Stewart’s “projects that may or may not be worth the effort” and emails them to her friends and her mother. A number of the interviewees enjoyed parodies of Stewart on Saturday Night Live; Rachel related that these parodies “are really funny, just because she goes on and on about the little particularness [sic] of certain things.” Several respondents discussed taking pleasure in a series of published parodies by Tom Connor. Olivia mentioned that the parody she owns “portrays her as real, very difficult to work for; she’s literally beating up the waiters and waitresses at this wedding she’s catering and the people that are working for her.”
Unlike Living fans, Martha fans are drawn to Martha Stewart Living to observe and critique Martha Stewart. They dislike Stewart for what they perceive as arrogance and hostility, especially as these behaviors play out with guests on Stewart’s TV show. To Martha fans, Martha Stewart is a joke; they are provoked to respond to the text. Martha fans are more likely to share their interest in Stewart with others, yet their interest lies in critiquing Stewart the celebrity. The critiques of these fans are, no doubt, part of what keeps Living fans silent about their interest in Martha Stewart Living. The draw for Martha fans, at least in part, is to question Stewart’s authority; as a result, the lifestyle advice she offers can be demeaned and ignored. Martha fans’ debates over Stewart’s worth are expressions of the conflict between women’s roles in and out of the home. Martha fans’ critiques of Stewart position her interest in and attention to the domestic as trivial. Thus this group prioritizes women’s empowerment outside the home as more relevant to U. S. women’s lives.
ImClone
My interviews with fans spanned nearly the entire time in which the ImClone matter was unfolding. Each interview allowed me to “check in” with Stewart’s fans to gauge their reactions to the ImClone situation as it progressed. While most of the fans I interviewed did support and defend Stewart’s actions through ImClone, some of the respondents rebuked Stewart for getting into trouble. However, despite their criticism of Stewart’s role in the ImClone scandal, both the Living and the Martha fans were supportive of Stewart and were likely to express that Stewart had been treated unfairly.
Fans’ feelings about Stewart’s treatment softened their feelings for her and made them more sympathetic to Stewart as a celebrity. As aforementioned, the allegations, indictment, and conviction of Stewart unfolded at the same time major corporate scandals were unfolding at Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom, among others. Many fans referenced these scandals and used them as a benchmark for judging Stewart’s alleged crimes. Every interviewee expressed, in differing degrees, that Stewart’s crimes were lesser in comparison. Pamela offered that Stewart’s case was “small potatoes” compared to the other corporate scandals. Tom offered, “Martha Stewart, that was pennies compared to what’s going on, she just got a raw deal.”
Those who believed that Stewart was treated unfairly referenced the public’s negative opinions of Stewart to explain why she might have been an easy target; this is an interesting move for Martha fans, most of whom had previously participated in the negative constructions of Stewart. A few fans suggested that the media’s appetite for scandal influenced some of the publicity around the case. When asked to explain why she felt the allegations about Stewart’s stock sales were unjust, Grace replied, “I think the media eats up the idea of Martha Stewart doing something wrong.” Max also referenced what he believed was the media’s constant focus on the details of Stewart’s life: “it was just blasted all over, […] I think it goes back to people like to see the perfect fall or like to see someone that’s this far up and knock them down a few pegs.” Some fans argued that hatred of Martha Stewart blew the ImClone scandal out of proportion. Aaron, for example, suggested that Stewart “was made a scapegoat, you know, there were a lot people that always hated her and they were looking for any excuse they could to burn her at the stake, so to speak; and I think this was the perfect opportunity to do that. Or try.” Abby similarly stated that she felt that Stewart had “been targeted, people have gone after, people really hate Martha.”
A number of participants felt gender discrimination was at the heart of the supposed mistreatment of Stewart. Nadia emphasized that she thinks it is “clear” that Stewart was targeted “because she’s a woman.” Karla maintained that the treatment of Stewart “reeks of sexism.” Abby saw the treatment of Stewart as a reprimand for being too powerful: “You want power? We’re going to punish women of power. You want to have this big empire? You’re going to get punished.”
Importantly, many of the Martha fans were so angered with what they perceived as mistreatment of Stewart through the progression of the ImClone scandal that some who had previously had negative feelings about Stewart softened their positions. Rachel, who had previously said she had difficulty watching Stewart because she seemed arrogant, now said, “I feel bad for her and everything […] I just don’t want to listen to the media say ‘yes, this is deserved of her’ because I really wonder, is it?” Jackie, who had previously called Stewart “the bitch of life,” expressed that she felt Stewart was treated unfairly in comparison to male corporate executives: “I resent how she’s being handled as opposed to the way, like, Kenny Boy Lay, and Skilling and all those folks [are being treated].” Abby was perhaps the most sympathetic of all of the non-fans; soon after Stewart was sentenced, she reflected upon the changes in her feelings about Stewart:
I like her more now, I’m much more sympathetic and empathetic to Martha now, much more so. Now my thoughts about Martha Stewart are more about that she’s been targeted as a strong dynamic woman in a sexist society […] I want to like rescue her.
When I asked Living fans if their feelings about Stewart would change if she was found guilty, almost all of them said no. Candace explained her position this way: “she’s not my moral compass, I’m just going to her for information and I like the way it’s presented.” Nadia, who answered my question after Stewart had been found guilty, also maintained that the decision did not change her position about Stewart “at all”; she said, “I would still watch her show, yeah I don’t care. If it’s on when she’s out of jail, I’ll watch it.”
Through the ImClone scandal, Living fans and Martha fans amended their positions on Martha Stewart Living and Martha Stewart. Living fans finally articulated their frustration with the negative public construction of Martha Stewart. Whereas the impact of this negative construction had previously made them reluctant to communicate their interest in Stewart’s media texts, the public discourse about Stewart’s alleged mistreatment through ImClone gave them courage to discuss their interest in her. Martha fans, partially responsible for the negative public construction of Martha Stewart, softened their critiques of Stewart and supported her by critiquing the U. S. legal and media systems. As both fan groups rallied around Martha Stewart, the distinctions between them became more unambiguous.
Conclusion
Ang, in her study of Dallas fans who expressed both love and hate for the show, offered that hating and loving are “only labels people stick on the way in which they relate in general to the programme” (1985: 13). These labels, far from being unambiguous descriptions of fan positions, relate to the ways in which viewers react to a text. Ang argued that inevitably viewers’ experiences of a text are “ambivalent and contradictory” (1985: 13). In my study of Martha Stewart Living audience members, I found exactly the ambivalence Ang described. I was able to isolate two distinct audiences: one who loved Stewart’s texts and one who hated Martha Stewart; however, in neither case were these categories stable—conflicted fans moved between both groups, especially as the ImClone scandal progressed.
Interestingly, when Martha Stewart, and her texts as a result, were threatened with legal action and received incredibly negative media attention, the differences between the groups lessened and they both rallied to support Stewart against what they believed was unfair treatment. This movement in response to real threats to Martha Stewart Living and Martha Stewart suggests that it may not be useful to study fans as stable categories, but instead it may be more useful to study what fan beliefs and practices mean and how they function culturally. In this case, the fan positions taken before ImClone suggest that the public devaluation of the domestic sphere was strong enough to keep Living fans silent. The negative popular construction of Martha Stewart as a celebrity, in part because she did not clearly perform gender roles fitting of a powerful public U. S. woman, aided this process. Ridicule of Stewart, an activity practiced by Martha fans, thus served to discipline Stewart’s power and delegitimize the focus of her media texts, namely, domestic information and projects. Both fan groups changed their positions in the context of the ImClone scandal, in which Stewart’s perceived power was reduced and she was positioned as a victim; both fan groups believed Stewart was mistreated and thus rallied to support her.
Fan positions and media texts are never stable or final. Studying audiences as classifiable groups keeps us from understanding the ways in which audiences adapt to texts over time. In March 2005, Stewart was released from Alderson Federal Prison for Women to incredible media fanfare; it seems that punishment made Stewart a more likeable figure. Stewart spent the five months of her house arrest planning a comeback. In September 2005, she launched two new television shows: Martha, a live reworked version of her daily show, and Martha Stewart: The Apprentice, a spin-off of Donald Trump’s Apprentice. Martha Stewart and her media texts continue to evolve, and her audiences will also as a result.
NOTES
1. Because the various formats through which Stewart delivers her messages are quite similar, I refer to each of these formats as one unified text, Martha Stewart Living. Indeed, almost all of the different formats share this moniker, and the skill with which Stewart repackages information from one format for another has been duly noted (Tyrnauer 2001: 398).
2. Though I do not have the space to list participants’ demographic characteristics here, I interviewed participants from a range of demographic characteristics, including sex, race, class, and sexual identity.
3. Though not the focus of this essay, elsewhere (Click forthcoming) I examine the important impact of fans’ genders, classes, sexualities, and races on their relationships to Martha Stewart.
4. The names of the people I interviewed have been changed to conceal their identities.
5. Twenty-three respondents shared that they considered themselves to be feminists. The strength with which respondents claimed feminism contributed to the positions fans took on the gendered messages produced by Martha Stewart’s persona and her lifestyle suggestions yet seems to have no bearing on whether respondents were Living or Martha fans—feminists were equally distributed in both groups.