Beautiful Fighting Girl wrote:Otaku and Maniacs
Now that we have made clear the limitations, and even the absurdity in some cases, of trying to understand otaku in terms of personality type, we can nonetheless abstract a few characteristics of the otaku. An otaku is
a person with a strong affinity for fictional contexts.
a person who makes use of fictionalization as a way to "possess" the
object of his or her love.
a person who inhabits not just two but multiple orientations.
a person capable of finding sexual objects in fiction itself.
Before I try to explain each of these in turn, there are a few points I need to clarify. First, I defer all value judgments about otaku. Problems of adaptation such as "fleeing from reality," "taking refuge in fiction," and "lacking common sense" may seem easy to spot in otaku, but they are not essential aspects. When value judgments become mixed up in the description they only create more confusion. If my descriptions are to be of any use at all, it will be because they are free of value judgments.
When describing a given type, it is often easier to grasp if one compares it with another very similar type. The closest type to the otaku is surely the maniac.
Although they are still often confused with each other, the otaku and the maniac are clearly different in subtle but important ways. If the two were in fact synonymous, there would be no point in theorizing the meaning for us today of the "psychopathology of the otaku." This is because the maniac is a universal type, while the otaku is historically specific. Understood as a kind of fetishism, mania has a history that may stretch back to the beginning of civilization. Even if there are many areas of overlap, let us begin by discussing the differences between the two. To state my conclusion partly at the outset, I believe that today's otaku derive from a group of maniacs who have reacted to the changes in the media environment by a proliferating set of adaptations. Just as the marsupials on the Australian continent mimicked the specialization of the mammals as a whole, the otaku mimicked the specialization of the class of maniacs within the isolation of the media environment.
The difference between these two communities is made clear through the kinds of objects to which they become attached. The following is a provisional list of the types of object each group might choose.
Otaku Objects:
Anime, video games (mostly so-called girl games), young-adult novels, voice actor idols, special effects, C-class idols, fan magazines (dojinshi), yaoi (see note 19), fighting girls.
Potential Crossover Objects: Trains, personal computers, film, manga, B-class idols, science fiction, American comics, the occult, amateur radio, police dramas, plastic models, figurines.
Maniac Objects:
Philately, bibliomania, audio, cameras, astronomy, bird-watching, insect collecting, all forms of music, and all other forms of collecting.
These classifications are based on my personal impressions rather than any empirical data. So there may well be many exceptions and disagreements. If I were asked whether collectors of "anime figurines" (see chapter 2, note 1) were otaku or maniacs, for example, I would be hardpressed to come up with a satisfying answer. But I do still believe these classifications accurately reflect the tendencies of each group. And they provide the starting point for the discussion of the difference between the otaku and the maniac that follows.
What strikes us most about these objects is what I call the "difference in level of fictional context." Here we might think of the "fictional" as an abstraction of reality on the basis of some sort of bias. Of course, it is more complicated than that, but let us assume it is the case for now. On the basis of this assumption, then, we can rank objects according to "degree of fictionality." Documentaries based on interviews and primary sources, for example, would have a low level of fictionality. Through techniques such as citation and parody, "fiction" itself can be limitlessly abstracted and further fictionalized. Thus metafiction can be understood as having a higher level of fictionality than fiction. To put it a different way, the more forms of media that mediate the original information, the higher the level of fictionality. This is what we call the "difference in the level of fictional context."
The term context here, following the work of Gregory Bateson and Edward T. Hall," is used in the general sense of the term, as that which determines the meaning of a given stimulus. It is important to keep in mind here that we cannot assume a straightforward ratio whereby the higher the level of "fictional context" is, the higher the level of fictionality will be. I return to
this point again later. The term maniac referred originally to the kind of person who is obsessed with something that yields no practical advantage. But compared with the otaku, the objects of maniacs can look quite concrete (not practical perhaps, but concrete). Looking back at the list of objects, we can see that those preferred by maniacs, such as audio equipment, stamps, antiques, and insect collections, are certainly for amusement and serve no practical function. But compared with those of the otaku, the objects of the maniac do have a concrete materiality. By concrete materiality I mean simply that one can pick them up in one's hands and that they can be measured. Generally speaking, maniacs compete with each other in terms of how effectively their hobbies translate into materiality. Collectors pride themselves on the size of their collections. And of course, this involves speculations about their value and rarity. Audio maniacs want faithful playback of sound with as little noise as possible. For insect collectors, it is not enough merely to know about rare bugs; their reputations as collectors depend on actually owning specimens of them. The unspoken rule of a naive "orientation toward material objects" is still very much in force here. Otaku are lacking in this orientation toward the material and the practical. They know that the objects of their attachment have no material reality, that their vast knowledge has no use for other people in the world, and that this useless knowledge may even (especially after the Miyazaki Tsutomu incident) be viewed with contempt and suspicion. And knowing all of that, they still enjoy the game of performing for each other their passion. The expression, "having a strong affinity for fictional contexts" is meant to clarify this sort of difference.
I just used the expression "performing their passion," which requires a bit more explanation. The passion of the otaku is more performative than that of the maniac. Otaku are in communication with other otaku through the code of "passion." They are certainly not cool or disinterested, but neither do they completely lose themselves when indulging in their passion. This sort of slightly "canted stance toward passion" is very closely related to the essence of the otaku's "affinity for fictional constructs." Later we will see how perfectly the expression "X-moe" describes this.
Of course, we should consider the possibility that this has to do with how otaku deal with the society around them. Most of the objects to which otaku find themselves attracted are "embarrassing" in one way or another. They can be very easily ridiculed for their infatuation with anime at an age when most people have moved on. As a defense against this, it is perhaps inevitable that they might want to give the appearance to others that they are "only pretending to be obsessed." If we were to borrow a Benjaminian metaphor for what I have said so far, we could say that maniacs are enchanted by the aura of the original object, while the otaku fashion an original aura for their (fictional) reproductions.
