TMI Research Library
Meaning System Science Monograph Series · C3 (2025)

Pop Culture as Meaning Systems

A Governance Model for Interpretation in Mass-Scale Cultural Environments

Authors: Jordan Vallejo and the Transformation Management Institute™ Research Group

Status: Monograph C3 | December 2025

Abstract

Pop culture is widely treated as entertainment, yet it functions as one of the most influential modern meaning systems. Early moviegoing created a rare interpretive condition: large groups received the same structured signals in the same order, at the same time, inside a controlled environment. That synchronization produced a shared baseline that later cultural ecosystems inherited.

As pop culture expanded across franchises, platforms, and global audiences, the stabilizers that once constrained disagreement weakened. Interpretation became asynchronous, participatory, and distributed. In that environment, drift propagates quickly and audiences compensate through canon enforcement, fandom norms, meme mutation, remix, and collective reinterpretation. These behaviors are not cultural anomalies. They are governance demand expressing itself inside systems that lack formal governance.

This monograph analyzes pop culture through the variables of Meaning System Science and shows how cultural ecosystems maintain or lose interpretive stability under scale and participation. Through case studies of Star Wars, Pokémon, Studio Ghibli, Game of Thrones, Clair Obscur, memes, and participatory communities, it demonstrates that interpretive stability is not a product of quality or popularity. It is the outcome of proportional conditions that keep meaning usable over time.

Pop culture is one of the clearest public laboratories for Meaning-System Governance because its meaning systems are visible, fast, and emotionally consequential. The same dynamics are increasingly present in institutions, platforms, and AI-mediated environments. Understanding their structure is essential for governing meaning in the century ahead.

I. Introduction

Moviegoing was one of the first modern environments where large groups interpreted the same sequence of signals at the same time under controlled conditions. The darkened theater constrained external cues, synchronized attention, and reduced interpretive variance during the experience. The screen delivered information through a fixed pathway that all participants received in the same order. That structure produced a shared baseline among audiences who had no prior coordination with one another.

Pop culture became a mass-scale meaning system not because it was “art,” but because it aligned truth conditions, signals, structure, and affect simultaneously. Competing inputs were minimized. Drift was constrained by design.

As media expanded beyond theaters into television, franchises, games, streaming platforms, and networked digital spaces, the same meaning-system architecture persisted while the stabilizing environment dissolved. Two structural shifts followed. Interpretation became asynchronous, and authorship became distributed across creators, platforms, and audiences. Meaning production accelerated, and the conditions that once limited drift weakened.

Modern cultural ecosystems therefore exhibit the full architecture of a meaning system. They maintain internal truth conditions through canon and rulebooks. They coordinate interpretation through alignment signals such as genre conventions, iconography, character templates, and recognizable loops. They rely on continuity structures to carry meaning across installments and formats. They experience drift through reinterpretation, retconning, and subsystem formation. And they regulate collective affect through tone, pacing, and emotional invariants.

Pop culture is a uniquely visible domain for Meaning-System Governance because it operates at scale, under participation, without formal authority. It reveals how meaning behaves when stabilization depends on distributed infrastructure rather than institutional design.

II. What Makes Pop Culture a Meaning System

Pop culture qualifies as a meaning system because interpretation inside it shapes coordinated understanding at scale. Audiences do not merely consume content. They inherit baselines, enforce continuity, negotiate boundaries, and transmit meaning across time and communities. These dynamics follow the same structural rules that govern interpretation in institutions, organizations, and artificial systems.

Truth Fidelity (T)

Fiction establishes internal truth conditions: what is allowed to count as real inside the world. Canon, lore, and rulebooks function as reference conditions. When truth conditions become ambiguous, communities diverge and drift accelerates.

Signal Alignment (P)

Pop culture relies on portable alignment signals that let strangers decode meaning consistently: iconography, musical motifs, genre cues, character archetypes, and recognizable loops. Strong signal dictionaries reduce interpretive variance across formats and generations.

Structural Coherence (C)

Coherence is the continuity labor that keeps a baseline usable across time: compatible character arcs, stable world logic, and legible pathways that connect installments. When structure becomes discontinuous, audiences compensate by forming local baselines.

Drift (D)

Drift is the rate at which inconsistency accumulates faster than correction can keep up. In cultural systems it appears as incompatible canon, abrupt tonal reclassification, factional interpretation, and fragmentation into sub-communities with distinct reference points.

Affective Regulation (A)

Cultural systems regulate collective capacity for interpretation. Tone, pacing, and emotional invariants determine whether complexity can be integrated without overload. When affect destabilizes, reinterpretation accelerates and discourse becomes more punitive.

The absence of formal governance does not remove these variables. It shifts stabilization to audience behavior. This makes pop culture a clear demonstration of meaning-system dynamics under distributed authorship and high interpretive velocity.

III. Star Wars

Star Wars is a long-running meaning system with unusually high interpretive load. It spans films, television, novels, comics, games, theme parks, and decades of audience inheritance. That scale makes coherence (C) a governance problem, not a storytelling preference. Without explicit continuity rules and continuity labor, the system cannot keep a shared baseline.

The original trilogy established a compact set of reference conditions that were easy to share. The system’s world logic was legible, its moral geometry was stable, and its symbols traveled cleanly across audiences. Even when interpretation varied, the baseline stayed recognizable because the canon surface was small and the structural pathway was linear.

As licensed novels, comics, and games grew, the system gained depth, but coherence became layered. Lucasfilm attempted continuity management through internal tracking and tiered canonicity practices, but the practical reality for audiences was mixed: many treated the Expanded Universe as “real” Star Wars, while others treated it as optional. This created a long-running ambiguity in truth conditions. The system expanded without a single universally accepted rule for what counted.

The Disney-era canon reset formalized a new reference boundary: the prior Expanded Universe was reclassified as “Legends,” while future storytelling would be coordinated under a single continuity alignment strategy. Structurally, this was a coherence move: it reduced contradiction risk by shrinking the official baseline and clarifying which sources could set internal truth conditions.

The trade was predictable. Coherence improves when reference conditions simplify, but legitimacy falls if the audience’s lived canon is removed. A large segment of the meaning community had built identity, memory, and emotional commitment inside the former baseline. The reset therefore stabilized the future while destabilizing parts of the inherited past.

The sequel trilogy illustrates a different coherence challenge: not simply “more content,” but interpretive discontinuity in character arcs, tone, and stakes. When audiences cannot predict what rules will hold across installments, local communities compensate by forming subsystem baselines.

In practice, this looks like parallel coherence regimes: Legends-first readers who treat the pre-2014 continuity as their stable reference, sequel-defenders who treat Disney canon as the only valid baseline, and hybrid audiences who selectively fuse rules across eras. The result is not just disagreement, it is incompatible reference conditions, which makes shared interpretation harder even when people discuss the same scenes.

Star Wars fandom also demonstrates how audiences perform governance when formal authority cannot. Fan encyclopedias, wiki editorial rules, timeline debates, canon tier explanations, and community moderation are not side activities. They are continuity infrastructure that keeps the meaning system usable.

This labor becomes most visible during periods of high dispute: canon arguments, harassment events, review-score manipulation claims, and conspiracy narratives about “hidden cuts” all function as improvised attempts to restore a stable story about what is happening, who caused it, and what should count as real.

Governance Lessons From Star Wars

Canon boundaries are governance boundaries. A meaning system must publish reference conditions clearly, and maintain them consistently across media.
Continuity labor must be resourced. Coherence does not persist by default at franchise scale. It requires dedicated tracking, enforcement, and correction mechanisms.
Audience participation is not optional. In a distributed environment, the fandom becomes a co-authoring layer. Ignoring that layer increases drift and accelerates subsystem formation.
Affective stability matters. When tonal and moral invariants change without preparation, coherence disputes intensify because emotional expectations are part of the baseline.
Transparency reduces drift. When official truth-fidelity rules are unclear, audiences fill gaps with competing narratives. The system then spends attention on conflict instead of meaning.

IV. Pokémon

Pokémon stays interpretable at global scale because it protects a small, learnable “signal dictionary” and uses it to govern endless variation. Most long-running franchises expand by increasing narrative complexity. Pokémon expands by increasing inventory while keeping the decoding key stable.

Pokémon’s alignment system is not primarily story-based. It is rules-based and icon-based. Pokémon’s core rules function as reference conditions (T), but the franchise’s advantage is how those truths are made portable as a shared signal dictionary (P).

Types and effectiveness provide a universal reading rule for conflict outcomes.
The capture loop standardizes what encounters mean: rarity, risk, reward, and ownership transfer.
Evolution encodes progress as a recognizable transformation path with consistent expectations.
Battle constraints keep decisions legible: limited moves, turn structure, and bounded team sizes.

These elements operate as alignment infrastructure. Once learned, they reduce interpretive variance across regions, generations, and formats.

Pokémon repeatedly introduces new creatures, moves, regions, mechanics, and media adaptations without requiring the audience to renegotiate the basics.

That works because new content is designed to remain readable through existing signals. A new Pokémon does not need backstory to be interpretable. Its type, silhouette, and move patterns often provide enough alignment for competent play and shared discussion. This design choice creates a compounding effect: the longer the system runs, the faster audiences can coordinate interpretation because the dictionary remains reusable.

Pokémon’s biggest instability moments tend to appear when players believe the dictionary is being rewritten rather than extended.

The “National Dex” controversy around Pokémon Sword and Shield is a representative case. The conflict was not simply about quantity. It was about continuity of interpretive expectations tied to collection, transfer, and long-term ownership across generations.

When a meaning system trains audiences to treat prior investments as portable, removing that portability is experienced as an alignment break even if the battle rules remain intact. The system can stay mechanically coherent and still produce alignment backlash if the long-term promise of the loop changes.

Pokémon GO demonstrates how strong P can remain stable even when the environment changes completely.

Niantic added new location-based signals (PokéStops, Gyms) but anchored them to the original dictionary: catch, evolve, battle, team affiliation, and event-based rarity. The result was immediate shared interpretability in public spaces among strangers who did not need shared narrative context to coordinate behavior.

GO then added recurring synchronization governance through Community Day: a predictable global time window, a featured Pokémon, and standardized bonuses. That mechanism creates temporary mass alignment without requiring centralized narrative coordination.

Governance Lessons From Pokémon

The system identifies a small set of signals that carry the majority of interpretive load.
It keeps those signals stable across media, time, and localization.
It treats expansions as additive, not as replacements of the dictionary.
It introduces synchronization rituals when scale would otherwise increase divergence.

V. Studio Ghibli

Studio Ghibli is a meaning system that stays stable without relying on franchise canon. The films are mostly standalone, but audiences still recognize “this is Ghibli” within minutes. That consistency is not brand mystique. It is affective regulation (A) functioning as governance: the work protects the viewer’s emotional capacity to interpret, even when the story contains threat, grief, ambiguity, or moral conflict.

Ghibli maintains a recognizable emotional climate by controlling pace, volume, and escalation. Many scenes refuse the modern pressure to constantly “advance.” Characters cook, wait, travel, watch weather, notice animals, finish chores. These moments are not filler, they create integration time so the audience can absorb what the film is asking without emotional saturation.

Miyazaki has described this as ma: intentional emptiness, the space between beats that prevents a story from becoming “busyness.” Structurally, ma operates like a throttle. It keeps tension from locking at maximum and reduces the drift that follows overload: numbness, cynicism, and reactive reinterpretation. The viewer stays oriented long enough to register nuance rather than only outcome.

This regulatory design also changes what disagreement looks like. Ghibli audiences rarely fight over “what counts” the way franchise fandoms do, because the films do not require a shared timeline to preserve belonging. Interpretation stays plural without becoming a jurisdictional conflict over canon. The stabilizer is not an external rulebook. It is a predictable participation condition: the films will not punish attention, and they will not demand constant alarm to stay engaged.

Ghibli’s cross-cultural travel benefits from the same structure. Emotional cues are legible without heavy dependence on dialogue or insider context. The films do not ask viewers to already know the world, they ask viewers to stay present inside it. When the affective environment is stable, translation becomes less risky because the audience’s role remains clear even when cultural symbols differ.

Governance Lessons From Studio Ghibli

Affective consistency is governance. Tone and pacing set the conditions under which interpretation stays possible.
Integration time prevents overload. Quiet scenes preserve attention and reduce reactive reinterpretation.
Escalation limits matter. Continuous intensity increases numbness and accelerates hostile discourse around meaning.
Bounded worlds reduce governance burden. Standalone systems lower canon conflict because belonging is not gated by timeline mastery.
Participation conditions shape drift. When engagement feels emotionally safe, audiences do not need to invent coercive rules to stay coordinated.

VI. Game of Thrones

Game of Thrones became appointment television in an era that barely has any. The final season’s premiere drew roughly 17.4 million viewers across HBO platforms, and the finale reached about 19.3 million, depending on measurement windows and replay rules. The meaning system was not failing to reach people. It was failing to keep a shared baseline once it reached them.

The core governance problem was interpretive compression. The final two seasons were reduced to 13 total episodes, with Season 8 limited to six. The showrunners framed the series as a fixed-length project (“about 73 hours”), while reporting also captured HBO’s willingness to fund more episodes. Regardless of intent, the structural outcome was the same: the system increased resolution velocity while reducing the bandwidth required to justify resolution.

That shift pushed drift (D) ahead of coherence (C). Earlier seasons trained audiences into a style of explanation: slow causal build, political consequence chains, and character change that was legible as a sequence. The last season asked for major state changes without preserving the same legibility requirements. When the meaning system changes its own proof standards, trust collapses even among viewers who accept the broad end points.

The collapse was visible in its reference conditions. Long-running promises functioned as internal truth constraints, not trivia: the threat of the White Walkers, the moral logic of power, and the cost structure of survival. When those constraints appeared to dissolve quickly, the audience lost the ability to predict what “counts” from one episode to the next. Once prediction fails, interpretation becomes factional because communities rebuild stability locally.

The backlash was therefore not only aesthetic. It was a governance response to perceived baseline invalidation. A Change.org petition calling for the final season to be remade reached well over a million verified signatures, and cast members publicly addressed the petition as disrespectful to production labor. Review aggregation also recorded the rupture, with Rotten Tomatoes showing Season 8 at 55% (critics) and 30% (audience) at the time of retrieval. The dispute became a secondary meaning system that competed with the story itself.

Even small production errors became governance symbols. The widely circulated “coffee cup” and other continuity artifacts mattered because they were read as signals about attention, care, and internal coherence discipline. In high-trust environments, these are jokes. In low-trust environments, they become evidence in a larger explanatory fight about what happened to the system.

Game of Thrones is a clean example of a meaning-system collapse that happens at peak scale. The audience did not leave. The baseline did.

Governance Lessons From Game of Thrones

Interpretive velocity is a budget. When resolution speed increases, justification capacity must increase with it, or drift will outpace coherence.
Promises are truth conditions. A long-running system accumulates interpretive debt, and debt cannot be cleared by spectacle.
Compression changes proof standards. If the system stops showing the causal steps it previously required, audiences treat outcomes as ungrounded even when outcomes are plausible.
Low trust turns noise into evidence. Small continuity errors become structural signals once the baseline is contested.
When formal governance is absent, dispute becomes governance. Petitions, rating campaigns, and factional communities are not side effects, they are audience attempts to restore a stable account of reality.

VII. Clair Obscur: Expedition 33

Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 is a useful smaller-scale case study because it is not a multi-decade franchise, it is a single new title that reached mass visibility fast, including a Game of the Year win. That combination makes governance dynamics easy to see: a meaning system can form and scale in months, not decades.

A key part of the system’s early stability was not only the game itself, but the public story of how it was made. Reporting around the team’s “improbable” origin produced a powerful alignment signal: outsiders, discovered through online posts, building something that “shouldn’t exist.” That origin myth becomes part of the decoding key. It invites protective fandom behavior, raises expectations, and compresses the distance between creators and audience, which increases participatory pressure.

At the level of content, the game concentrates governance stress into a single interpretive fork: the Maelle vs. Verso ending debate. The community does not argue only about preference. It argues about reference conditions: what should count as “real,” what kind of suffering is admissible as the price of continuity, and whether mercy means preservation or release. The system is structured to provoke moral evaluation, so audiences naturally try to enforce a shared verdict.

What makes the debate instructive is that it does not stay inside “story talk.” It becomes a legitimacy contest over what a “good” ending is supposed to be. The same scenes are read through incompatible baseline assumptions, so discussion quickly turns into governance by social pressure rather than interpretation by shared reference.

The developers’ own remarks (including acknowledgment that the team argued internally about which ending is “good”) reinforce the core governance fact: the system intentionally refuses a single mandated moral resolution. That design choice raises drift risk because it transfers the burden of stabilization onto the audience. In practice, local communities respond by forming subsystem baselines (“Maelle is the humane choice,” “Verso is the responsible choice,” “both are valid,” “both are failures”), each with its own internal rule set for what counts as coherent.

The cast commentary adds an additional co-authoring layer. When highly visible performers publicly express preferences, their statements function as alignment signals. Even when framed lightly, they become evidence in a moral trial. The system then contains two overlapping meaning environments: the in-world canon and the out-of-world interpretive authority field.

As the audience layer thickens, governance becomes less about “stopping disagreement” and more about making disagreement interpretable. Spoiler norms, ending-label conventions, community moderation, and “good/bad ending” shorthand are all attempts to compress variance into manageable forms so conversation can continue without collapsing into constant re-litigation of reality conditions.

Governance Lessons From Clair Obscur: Expedition 33

Origin myths are alignment infrastructure. A viral creation story increases participation and loyalty, but it also increases interpretive intensity and the sense of shared ownership.
Moral forks are governance events. When a system asks audiences to judge outcomes ethically, it must expect rapid baseline divergence unless it provides interpretive scaffolding.
Creator and cast speech alters the signal field. Public commentary functions as an informal authority layer. It can stabilize meaning (“both endings are valid”) or intensify polarization (implicit canonization of one choice).
Subsystem formation is predictable, not pathological. When reference conditions are contested, communities create local coherence regimes so discussion can remain usable.
Stability requires visible boundary tools. Clear spoiler language, official naming conventions for endings, and lightweight interpretive notes can reduce drift without imposing a single “correct” reading.
Governance is not censorship. The goal is to preserve shared interpretability under high participation, not to prevent disagreement.

VIII. Memes

Memes are the clearest public demonstration of what meaning does when there is no stable authority, no fixed canon, and no shared obligation to preserve continuity. They are not just jokes that spread. They are a production format where reinterpretation is the default behavior and mutation is the distribution mechanism.

In a franchise, drift is usually treated as a failure condition. In meme ecosystems, drift is the point. A meme template is designed to be copied, altered, recontextualized, and redistributed with minimal friction. The unit that persists is not the message. It is the structure that invites variation.

In the native “for fun” setting, this is often the humor. The same image can support incompatible captions, opposing stances, and layered irony without needing a final answer. Subcultures treat remixing as play, recognition as belonging, and variance as the social reward. Meaning stays usable because nobody expects the template to carry a single stable truth.

This makes memes a drift catalyst (β₆) in the MSS sense: a mechanism that increases reinterpretive velocity faster than stabilizers can keep up. When a template takes hold, it produces meaning faster than communities can agree on reference conditions, and it does so across platforms with different norms, incentives, and moderation practices.

Two features make this especially powerful at scale.

First, memes depend on shared recognition more than shared truth. A viewer only needs to recognize the format to participate. The content can be sincere, ironic, hostile, affectionate, or incoherent, and the meme still works as long as it is recognizable. This creates a meaning environment where signal alignment can be high at the surface even when truth fidelity is not the point.

Second, memes routinely exploit context removal as a feature. Screenshots, cropped clips, reaction images, and stitched videos circulate detached from origin conditions. That detachment is not a side effect. It is a propagation advantage. But it also increases divergence because different audiences import different implied contexts to stabilize what they are seeing.

As memes spread, they also become boundary tools. Communities use memetic fluency as cultural capital: knowing the template, using it “correctly,” and detecting irony are membership tests. The result is that the same template can carry incompatible meanings across subgroups, while each subgroup feels it is maintaining the “real” interpretation.

Platform mechanics intensify this. Algorithmic feeds reward engagement loops, repetition, and recognizable formats. Reinforcement dynamics can narrow exposure and accelerate template reuse, which increases volume and speed while decreasing shared baselines across audiences. The system becomes a high-throughput meaning engine without shared governance.

Memes therefore are not merely a cultural curiosity. They are a working model of what meaning looks like when velocity is high, reference conditions are intentionally minimal, and participation is unconstrained. This is harmless or delightful in play contexts, and it becomes governance-relevant when meme logic is treated as evidence, accusation, or coordination signal in environments that require shared proof standards.

Governance Lessons From Memes

Meaning without stable reference conditions becomes highly context-sensitive. If nothing defines what must remain true, interpretation reorganizes around vibe, identity, and engagement incentives.
Context controls are governance controls. Provenance, timestamping, and source visibility reduce divergence by preserving origin conditions.
Surface alignment can hide deep instability. High template recognition does not mean shared understanding.
Velocity changes the needed safeguards. As production speed increases, stabilizers must become simpler and more explicit or they will not function.
Platforms are governance actors. Recommendation systems, remix tools, and moderation choices shape drift rates even when no one intends to “govern meaning.”

IX. Participation as Meaning Governance

Pop culture stops being “content” the moment audiences begin doing continuity work on its behalf. The scale problem is simple: once a meaning system spreads across millions of people, no studio, publisher, or showrunner can single-handedly maintain the shared baseline. The audience layer becomes the distributed infrastructure that keeps the system interpretable, usable, and socially transmissible.

Failure Modes Under High Participation

When participatory load increases, two distinct failure modes predictably appear.

Closure Failure occurs when communities attempt to stabilize meaning by sealing correction pathways. Canon becomes jurisdictional, reinterpretation becomes socially risky, and enforcement substitutes for repair even as inconsistency and resentment accumulate.

Constraint Failure occurs when evaluation constraints are under-specified. Provenance weakens, context is stripped, remix and reframing multiply, and drift rises because the system cannot preserve shared limits for what should count as “the same” across audiences and platforms.

Participation is not one activity. It is a family of practices that perform four governance functions at once:

Replication: keeping alignment signals recognizable
Extension: adding new material without official authorization
Correction: disputing inconsistencies and enforcing boundaries
Synchronization: creating shared moments that re-stabilize the baseline

Cosplay, fanart, fandom communities, and fanfiction are the clearest forms of this governance because they make authorship visible. They show what happens when interpretation becomes a public act rather than a private one.

Cosplay

Cosplay is alignment governance in its most literal form. A costume translates a character into an interpretable signal packet that can be recognized instantly by strangers. That recognition does not depend on plot recall. It depends on portable cues: silhouette, color logic, emblem placement, and gesture conventions.

Historically, costuming emerged as an organized fandom practice before most modern franchises even existed. Early convention culture treated costuming as a ritual of shared membership, not as performance for the internet. The important feature is not “dressing up.” It is that the community develops standards of recognizability and teaches them to newcomers through praise, critique, and imitation.

As conventions grew and then moved into platform visibility, cosplay also became a distributed quality system. Tutorials, build logs, pattern-sharing, judging rubrics, and community norms act like an informal standards body. Even when the norm is “everyone is welcome,” the system still teaches interpretive boundaries: what counts as a faithful reproduction, what counts as an intentional remix, and what counts as off-system noise.

Cosplay therefore stabilizes P (shared signals) while also testing C (coherence). When different eras of a franchise conflict, cosplay often reveals the conflict faster than discourse does, because two incompatible baselines show up in the same room.

Fanart

Fanart is often framed as celebration. Structurally, it is controlled drift that keeps a system alive between official releases. Fanart extends the meaning system by exploring alternative framings while preserving recognizability. It can exaggerate a trait, shift a tone, re-stage a scene, or repair an omission, but it usually keeps enough signals intact that the work remains legible as “from” the system.

This is governance because it creates a parallel archive of interpretation. Fanart becomes a memory substrate for the community: the emotions that mattered, the dynamics that felt true, the versions of characters the audience considers stable. When official production later shifts tone or retcons meaning, fanart archives often become evidence in baseline disputes. People do not only argue from recollection, they argue from preserved interpretive artifacts.

Fanart also exposes hidden rule sets. Communities develop informal limits on what counts as “in character,” what counts as respectful, and what counts as distortion. Those limits are not universal, and that is the point: fanart makes subsystem boundaries visible.

Fanfiction

Fanfiction is the strongest example of participatory governance because it operationalizes the question of authorship. It does not only interpret the text, it continues it.

The history matters here. Long before platforms, fandom built print zines, mailing lists, and convention networks that treated writing as a communal practice. Over time, the internet converted that practice into massive archives with tagging, filtering, and content warnings, creating a new kind of governance: readers and writers could coordinate interpretation through shared metadata rather than centralized authority.

Fanfiction performs three governance functions that official creators rarely can:

Stress testing canon. Stories probe contradictions in world rules, character motivations, and moral geometry. Where canon is brittle, fanfic pressure finds the crack.
Completing the system. Audiences write the scenes the official work refuses to stage: aftermath, repair, domestic continuity, emotional processing, or alternative ethical outcomes. This “completion” is not a side hobby, it is how communities preserve affective stability when canon moves too fast.
Creating interpretive institutions. Tag taxonomies, recommendation lists, ship communities, and moderation norms are governance structures. They determine what counts as searchable, discussable, and safe enough to share.

Because of this, fanfiction is not merely drift. It is audience-run authoring under constraints, and those constraints are negotiated and enforced by the community itself.

Fandoms

Fandoms behave like proto-governance systems because they do the work formal institutions do, but without formal authority:

They publish “what’s true” in accessible formats (wikis, timelines, explainers).
They enforce norms (spoiler rules, content warnings, harassment boundaries, community bans).
They adjudicate disputes (moderation, call-outs, meta essays, “receipts,” canon arguments).
They build legitimacy narratives (who the “real fans” are, what interpretation is “earned,” what counts as betrayal).

This is where pop culture becomes a governance laboratory. When reference conditions are contested, fandoms invent courts, rules, and enforcement mechanisms in real time.

This also explains why fandom environments can become overwhelming. High participation increases meaning production rate. If the stabilizers do not scale with that rate, communities default to blunt instruments: social sorting, moral labeling, and status enforcement. Those behaviors are not the essence of fandom. They are what appears when governance demand exceeds governance capacity.

Audience Enforcement

In mass fandom environments, audiences do not only interpret meaning. They enforce it. When a meaning system has no formal adjudication layer, communities still face the same structural problem: drift rises, reference conditions get contested, and participation becomes unstable. Reputational sanction is a predictable enforcement pattern that emerges at that point.

Structurally, this is not one behavior. It is a bundle of actions that attempt to restore a usable baseline through social and economic pressure:

withdrawal of support and calls for coordinated withdrawal
demands for removal from platforms, events, or official affiliations
review and rating campaigns used as collective signaling
boycott behavior aimed at sponsors or employers
community exclusion, bans, and public warning labels
archive work that assembles “receipts” to fix an authoritative narrative

These actions function as improvised governance because they attempt to stabilize meaning faster than clarification processes can.

Reputational sanction typically arises when audiences perceive one of two conditions.

First, they believe the system’s internal truth conditions have been violated, and that the violation is being denied or normalized. In that case, sanction becomes a method for forcing truth-fidelity acknowledgment through consequences rather than persuasion.
Second, they believe alignment norms are collapsing and that ambiguous participation will spread. In that case, sanction becomes a method for forcing signal alignment: clarifying what stance is required for belonging and what stances will be treated as disqualifying.

In both cases, the community is trying to prevent subsystem divergence by creating a clear boundary quickly. The enforcement is often emotionally intense because the meaning system is tied to identity, belonging, and moral self-concept.

Relation to MSS Variables:

Fast alignment (P).
Sanction compresses a complex dispute into a legible public signal: who is in, who is out, and what positions are acceptable inside the community.

Reference stabilization (T).
Many sanction cycles begin as an argument over what is true about an event, intent, pattern, or harm claim. When truth fidelity cannot be stabilized through shared evidence rules, consequence becomes the stabilizer.

Coherence repair (C).
Sanction protects internal consistency by forcing a single explanatory story about what happened and why it matters. It reduces ambiguity by narrowing the range of permissible interpretations.

Drift control under speed (D).
Once a narrative spreads, reinterpretations multiply. Sanction attempts to freeze the account and punish competing framings, slowing drift through deterrence.

Affective discharge and order-restoration (A).
High arousal environments demand action. Public consequence provides emotional resolution even when the underlying ambiguity remains unresolved.

This explains why reputational sanction produces mixed outcomes. It can temporarily stabilize participation by clarifying boundaries. It can also increase drift by triggering counter-communities, accelerating retaliation cycles, and converting interpretive disagreement into durable identity conflict.

This behavior is not an anomaly of “online culture.” It is what enforcement looks like when a high-participation meaning system lacks shared due process, shared evidence standards, and repair pathways.

Governance Lessons From Participation

Participation is not optional at scale. Once a meaning system reaches a threshold, the audience becomes the co-authoring layer whether creators endorse it or not.
Cosplay stabilizes signals through embodiment. It makes alignment portable and exposes baseline conflicts quickly.
Fanart preserves affective memory. It archives what the system felt like when it was stable, which becomes governance evidence during disputes.
Fanfiction is structured shared authorship. It extends canon under community constraints, creating informal institutions that regulate drift.
Fandoms build governance when none is provided. Wikis, tags, moderation, and norms are continuity infrastructure, not side content.
If a franchise wants stability, it must design for participatory governance. That means publishing clear boundaries, supporting community infrastructure, and avoiding sudden shifts that force the audience to legislate reality conditions in public.

X. Conclusion

Pop culture is one of the largest environments where shared interpretation is produced, tested, and maintained in public. It trains people in how to coordinate reality conditions, how to negotiate belonging, and how to respond when a shared baseline breaks. That training happens at scale, under participation, and under speed, which makes pop culture a reliable governance laboratory.

The examples in this monograph point to a consistent structural claim. Interpretive stability does not come from popularity, quality, or sincerity. It comes from proportion. When truth conditions are clear, signals stay readable, structure remains continuous, drift stays within correction capacity, and affect remains within integration capacity, meaning remains usable even under scale. When those relationships move out of proportion, audiences compensate. They build wikis, invent norms, write continuations, enforce boundaries, and sometimes escalate into sanction when no adjudication path exists. Those behaviors are not cultural quirks. They are governance demand expressing itself through the only tools available.

This matters because the same pattern is now moving from entertainment into every domain that depends on shared understanding. Workplaces, institutions, science, and AI-mediated platforms are increasingly participatory and asynchronous. They produce meaning faster than older stabilizers were designed to handle. Pop culture simply shows the pattern first, because its meaning systems are visible, high volume, and emotionally charged.

Meaning-System Governance therefore has a practical purpose in cultural environments. It is not a call for centralized control, it is a call for legible boundaries and repairable systems. At franchise scale, the most effective interventions are often straightforward:

Publish reference conditions clearly and maintain them consistently.
Protect a shared decoding key so new material stays readable without re-negotiating basics.
Resource continuity and correction work as real infrastructure, not informal cleanup.
Design participation conditions that keep emotional capacity intact across releases.
Provide repair paths and adjudication norms so disputes do not default to coercion.
Use synchronization rituals intentionally when scale would otherwise increase divergence.
Preserve provenance and context so interpretation is not forced to guess origin conditions.

Pop culture also clarifies a final governance fact that institutions often resist. Shared meaning is no longer authored only by creators, leaders, or experts. At scale, it is co-authored by participants. The question is not whether participation will shape the system, but whether the system will give participation stable structures to operate inside.

The century ahead will be shaped less by content than by interpretation. The systems that remain coherent will be the systems that treat meaning as a governed environment, with clear reference conditions, stable signals, coherent structure, bounded drift, and regulated capacity for affect. Pop culture is where that future is already visible.

Citation

Vallejo, J. (2025). Monograph C3: Pop Culture as Meaning Systems. TMI Scientific Monograph Series. Transformation Management Institute.

References

StarWars.com. “The Legendary Star Wars Expanded Universe Turns a New Page.” April 25, 2014.
StarWars.com. “Star Wars Rebels Hits Comic-Con.” 2014.
Wired. Baker, Chris. “Meet Leland Chee, the Star Wars Franchise Continuity Cop.” August 18, 2008.
StarWars.com. “Introducing… Leland Chee.” July 19, 2012.

Mittell, Jason. “Wikis and Participatory Fandom.” In The Participatory Cultures Handbook, edited by Aaron Delwiche and Jennifer Jacobs Henderson. Routledge, 2013.
Wookieepedia (Star Wars Wiki). “Canon policy.” Fandom.
Wookieepedia (Star Wars Wiki). “Holocron continuity database.” Fandom.

Bay, Michael. “Weaponizing the haters: The Last Jedi and the strategic politicization of pop culture through social media manipulation.” First Monday, 2018.
WIRED. “#ReleaseTheJJCut Brings Conspiracy Theories to Star Wars.” January 8, 2020.
Vice. “Someone Is ‘Rigging’ Rotten Tomatoes User Reviews of Star Wars: The Last Jedi.” December 20, 2017.
Quartz. “Someone is rigging Rotten Tomatoes reviews for Star Wars: The Last Jedi.” December 20, 2017.

TIME. “Daisy Ridley Quit Instagram After ‘Star Wars’ Fans Attacked Her.” August 17, 2016.
CBS News. “Kelly Marie Tran on leaving Instagram: ‘I wasn’t going to be marginalized anymore.’” June 2018.
NBC Boston. “After harassment, ‘Star Wars’ actress Kelly Marie Tran’s Wookieepedia page edited.” June 2018.
The Pokémon Company. “Pokémon types & type chart.” Pokémon Portal.
Niantic. “Visiting PokéStops and Gyms.” Pokémon GO Help Center.
Niantic. “Introducing Pokémon GO Community Day!” Pokémon GO Live. January 12, 2018.
Niantic. “Thank You for an Exciting Year of Community Day Events.” Niantic Labs. December 11, 2018.
Masuda, Junichi. “A Message for Pokémon Video Game Fans.” Pokémon.com. June 28, 2019.
Althoff, Tim, White, Ryen W., and Horvitz, Eric. “Influence of Pokémon Go on Physical Activity: Study and Implications.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 18, no. 12 (2016): e315.
Polygon. “Pokémon X and Y coming Oct. 12, will feature new Fairy type.” June 11, 2013.
GameSpot. “Pokemon Sword & Shield Dev Releases Statement About Limiting Pokedex.” July 2, 2019.
Bulbapedia. “Type/Type chart.” Bulbagarden.
Pokémon Database. “Type chart: strengths and weaknesses.”
Ebert, Roger. “Hayao Miyazaki Interview.” RogerEbert.com, December 14, 2012.
Napier, Susan J. Miyazakiworld: A Life in Art. Yale University Press, 2018.
Denison, Rayna. Studio Ghibli: An Industrial History. Palgrave Macmillan, 2023.
Cavallaro, Dani. The Anime Art of Hayao Miyazaki. McFarland, 2006.
Coyle, M. “The Magic of Miyazaki.” YAHS (Dalhousie University) Journal, 2022. (PDF)
Denison, Rayna. “Anime tourism: discursive construction and reception of the Studio Ghibli Art Museum.” Japan Forum 23, no. 1 (2011).
Rotten Tomatoes. Game of Thrones: Season 8. Rotten Tomatoes
Change.org. Remake Game of Thrones Season 8 with competent writers. Change.org
Entertainment Weekly. Game of Thrones season 8 showrunners interview (Benioff and Weiss on episode count and “73 hours”). EW.com
CBS News. “Game of Thrones” season 8 premiere draws record audience (17.4M premiere figure attributed to Nielsen). CBS News
Axios. Final season of “Game of Thrones” marks decline of appointment TV (17.4M premiere figure and context). Axios
Deadline. ‘Game Of Thrones’ Series Finale Viewership… (19.3M finale figure across platforms). Deadline
Vanity Fair. Game of Thrones’ Finale Was HBO’s Most-Watched Episode Ever (13.6M live, 19.3M total). Vanity Fair
Vox. A petition to remake Game of Thrones’ 8th season has 500,000 signatures (petition context, “coffee cup” as a backlash signal). Vox
TIME. Sophie Turner Addresses Those Game of Thrones Remake Petitions (cast response and production labor context). TIME
The Ringer. David Benioff and D.B. Weiss’s Rush to Finish ‘Game of Thrones’ (episode-count constraint framing, Night King example). The Ringer

The Game Awards. “Game of the Year | Winners.” The Game Awards, 2025.
Frank, Alyssa. “The steampunk game that died so Clair Obscur could live.” Polygon, May 13, 2025.
Stuart, Keith. “He’s very good at finding really cool people: Clair Obscur: Expedition 33’s director found its composer on SoundCloud and lead writer on Reddit.” PC Gamer, May 6, 2025.
Gach, Ethan. “Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 Interview: Speaking To Narrative Lead Jennifer Svedberg-Yen.” TheGamer, May 12, 2025.
Carpenter, Nicole. “Clair Obscur: Expedition 33’s director reveals it isn’t just the fans arguing over which is the ‘good’ ending.” GamesRadar+, December 2025.
Carpenter, Nicole. “Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 Maelle actor Jennifer English chooses her favorite ending…” GamesRadar+, November 27, 2025.
Bain, Matthew. “Indie Game Awards retracts Expedition 33 prizes due to generative AI.” The Verge, December 23, 2025.
Marnell, Blair. “Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 Just Lost Its Indie Game Of The Year Awards Over AI Concerns.” GameSpot, December 22, 2025.

Shifman, Limor. Memes in Digital Culture. MIT Press, 2013. MIT Press
Wiggins, Bradley E., & Bowers, G. Bret. “Memes as genre: A structurational analysis of the memescape.” New Media & Society 17, no. 11 (2015): 1886–1906. SAGE Journals
Milner, Ryan M. The World Made Meme: Public Conversations and Participatory Media. MIT Press, 2016. MIT Press+1
Phillips, Whitney, & Milner, Ryan M. The Ambivalent Internet: Mischief, Oddity, and Antagonism Online. Polity Press, 2017. Data & Society
Nissenbaum, Asaf, & Shifman, Limor. “Internet memes as contested cultural capital: The case of 4chan’s /b/ board.” New Media & Society 19, no. 4 (2017): 483–501. SAGE Journals+1
Baumann, Fabian, Arora, Nipun, Rahwan, Iyad, & Czaplicka, Agnieszka. “Dynamics of Algorithmic Content Amplification on TikTok.” arXiv:2503.20231 (2025). arxiv.org
“Where The Word ‘Cosplay’ Actually Comes From.” Kotaku.
“Discovering Worldcon: Masquerade, Costuming, and…” Glasgow 2024 Worldcon.
“Special Awards & Recognition.” International Costumers Guild.
“The First Masquerade & The Birth of Cosplay.” FIAWOL archive.

“Spockanalia — The First Star Trek Fanzine.” StarTrek.com.
“Spockanalia Vol 1.” Internet Archive.
“Spockanalia.” Fanlore.

Jenkins, Henry. Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture.
Review of Jenkins, Textual Poachers. H-Net Networks.
Organization for Transformative Works. Official site.
Organization for Transformative Works. “Legal Advocacy.”
“An AO3 Algorithm Would be Horrible, Actually.” Wired.
“AO3 is entering a new era.” Polygon.
Clark, Meredith D. “DRAG THEM: A brief etymology of so-called ‘cancel culture’.” Social Media + Society (2020).
Ng, Eve. Cancel Culture: A Critical Analysis. Palgrave Macmillan (2022).
Ronson, Jon. So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed. Riverhead Books (2015).
Williams, Thomas Chatterton. “Thomas Chatterton Williams on Race, Identity, and ‘Cancel Culture’.” The New Yorker (2020).