Chronically Online: An Analysis of “Stan” Culture
"Twitter" by chriscorneschi is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.
On Feb. 5, the 2023 Grammy Awards celebrated another incredibly innovative year in music. While the show awarded many deserving artists from the past year, some of the winners appeared to shock the nation, specifically the recipient of the show’s most highly-anticipated award, Album of the Year. The reputable category was jam-packed with 2022’s most influential albums from some of music’s greatest artists, including Adele’s “30,” Bad Bunny's "Un Verano Sin Ti" and Beyoncé’s “Renaissance.” Ultimately, the coveted accolade went to an album that took over the world – Harry Styles’ “Harry’s House.”
2022 was the year of Harry. With his third studio album, “Harry’s House,” releasing in May, Styles was already making headway early in the year through his postponed 2020 tour, “Love on Tour,” traveling across the United States to finally play his sophomore album, “Fine Line,” live after the Covid-19 pandemic. Following the release of “Harry’s House,” Styles took no breaks. On top of the already upcoming Spring 2022 European tour leg, the artist announced five “Love on Tour” fall residencies across the U.S. The residencies placed Styles’ name on the map beyond his ex-One Direction reputation, each residency selling out within minutes. The communities fostered at these shows were ones of acceptance, unity and safety, with Styles always reminding his audiences to be whoever it is they wanted to be during his performances. Styles undoubtedly revolutionized live music with “Harry’s House" in a way no one could have expected.
“Harry’s House” is an album of versatility that perfectly encapsulates the pop-funk genre. Between the groovy, sonically-rich “Grapejuice,” the 70s/80s-esque “Late Night Talking” and the harmonious ballad “Little Freak,” the album’s quality combined with Styles’ influence arguably made him the best contender for Album of the Year. However, following the artist’s win, avid fans of the other nominees stormed to social media to degrade both Styles and the Academy.
Most commentary stemmed from the content of Styles’ acceptance speech. Coming from a low-income background in rural England, the artist acknowledged the fact that he could have never expected his rise to stardom. After being rejected as a solo artist during his first audition with the X Factor in 2010, Styles mentioned that his solo success was unprecedented and that “this doesn’t happen to people like [him].” Users ran to social media to criticize the comment, a humbling one that he has repeated frequently on tour to acknowledge his privilege and gratitude.
Many users conveniently weaponized his One Direction history to discredit his humility. “You were in one of the biggest boy bands of the world and have the audacity to step on stage and say things like this don’t happen to you…we aren’t serious right?” claimed Twitter user @keonaaa_w. Fans of Beyoncé in particular caused the greatest uproar. This was her fourth Album of the Year loss. “How many times does Beyoncé have to make the Album of the Year to win Album of the Year?” asked Twitter user @RichieReseda. Beyoncé officially became the most decorated artist in Grammy history during the show, with “Renaissance" even taking home the award for Best Dance/Electronic Music Album.
The social media discourse surrounding this award was appalling. Tweets went as far as threats. Invalidating and unnecessary conversations surrounding Styles’ sexuality also arose following his win; the artist has spoken about remaining unlabeled and the autonomy that accompanies self-expression. “I've been really open with it [my sexuality] with my friends, but that's my personal experience; it's mine,” he told Better Homes & Gardens in 2022. Instead of respecting this, Twitter users jumped at the chance to call him a “straight man” in response to his acceptance speech. Similarly, fans cried “queerbaiting”-- an inapplicable and tone-deaf argument that has been used countless times to belittle Styles’ identity. “‘People like me’ when will the queerbaiting end I know he knows what he just did,” argued Twitter user @S0UNDOFMETAL. Fandoms’ responses to this event raise an important question about being “chronically online.”
CNET describes that this phenomenon occurs amongst “those who spend so much time online [that] it skews their sense of reality and hinders their ability to effectively communicate about topics like politics or social justice because they lack real-world experience.” There is a dramatic difference between expressing disappointment in an award outcome and ruthlessly, insensitively beating down an artist with personal matters such as sexuality that have no relevance to the circumstances at hand and, frankly, are not the business of anyone but the individual. Twitter user @WATCHINGM0VIES said it best – “Can we as a society stop normalizing speculating on a celebrity’s gender and sexuality. it’s very odd.”
“Stan” culture, or the overzealous fandom lifestyle, is plagued by the chronically online person. Rather than seeing the moment for what it was, a deserving, hard-working artist receiving a life-changing award, people twisted the narrative to needlessly vilify Styles and create harmful conversations that one would not dream of conducting if not for the hyper-digital era of modern entertainment.
Online stan culture has redefined the meaning of “fan” in a way that erases the joy and comfort that comes with supporting individuals. The more digital stan culture becomes (we are already seeing this with the rise of TwitterBlue), the more lines will blur between objectivism from the real world and the dense subjectivism of the “chronically online.”