But what about spaces that are less...tangible?
Online spaces have been on a sharp rise over the course of the past two decades. There are a wide variety of communities on the internet that people flock to. But why? What is it that these communities provide that makes them so popular?
To answer this, I will take my discussion to the gaming community. While many may regard the reasoning of the gamer "space" as being one for procrastination, laziness, and abandonment of more intellectual pursuits, this space provides benefits for the community which subscribes to it.
World of Warcraft, the most successful online gaming community, is the world's largest MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game). Although its membership has been on decline due to the game's age, it still boasts a whopping 10.2 million monthly subscribers, all willing to pay $15 per month to play.
I believe that the reason why these spaces are so important can be broken down into 3 main categories:
1. Alternatives
World of Warcraft (and other community-based games like it) offer an alternative way of socializing to that of the norm. There is a very active stigma that gamers are very anti-social because they often prefer to spend time in their rooms online that out in the real world having fun with their friends. But I beg the question, do we have to leave the room to be physically present with others to have a social space? Are social interactions any less "real" because they are done online rather than face-to-face? World of Warcraft gives the option to people to socialize with people in an environment that is comfortable for them. Some students may prefer to spend the night hanging out with their friends in game, talking about life and having fun, rather than going out to parties with their "real life" friends. Rather than amusing themselves with party drinking games or whatever the case may be, the game provides them with a means to socialize without many of the social pressures.
2. Freedom of speech and Social Safety
One part of the gaming community's bad reputation is that it provides mind-numbing entertainment. While this may certainly be founded in some truth, it is certainly not representative of the whole. Games like Call of Duty don't inspire much faith in a great sense of intellectualism. However, in more community based games, such as World of Warcraft, a great deal of intellectual discussion actually does take place. A recent example of this could be the Kony 2012 campaign that went viral just a short time ago. Certainly a complex and controversial issue, I heard remarkably few discussions in most social spheres, and when I did, it did not go much deeper than "Have you seen that Kony video? Crazy shit, right?" However, when I logged in to WoW the night that Kony 2012 went viral, I spent about three hours talking with many of my fellow guild-mates about the issue. We talked about a lot of the research that we had done on the topic and our opinions, all while playing a game that we thought was fun. It also brought together a discussion from a wide range of viewpoints. In our 10 man "battleground" group, for example, we have a 16 year old from Vermont, a 40-year old couple from Washington, a member of the Puerto Rican National Guard, a bodybuilder from Green Bay, a 23 year old stay at home mother of two, and a guy who admits to smoking pot while playing. In what other sphere could such a conversation take place between such a diverse group of people? This gaming environment then becomes an important driver of social capital.
I certainly don't intend to make a claim that video games should be a respected means of intellectual conversation, but I do remark that it is often a product of what I would term "social safety." In any online community, whether it is a video game or an internet forum, there is a certain degree of anonymity. Because you are a relatively unknown person online, it frees you of many of your social constraints. You are much more free to give an honest, uncensored opinion on something, because there are fewer social repercussions. If, for example, I am discussing an issue like abortion while eating dinner for my friends and I say something that is contrary to the beliefs of my friends, or if I otherwise offend them with my opinions, there is a problem. I would likely create some tension among my friend group that would make me feel inhibited in having that conversation in the future. Online, however, if I have a problematic interaction, it is easy to simply slip back, as my social interactions on the internet have less bearing on my real life.
3. Team building
Lightbane encounter in World of Warcraft's Trial of the Crusader |
In the end, the question of whether online gaming is valid comes down to a consideration of the idea of "space." While I have just analyzed the space of online communities, perhaps a better way to think about it would be considering the space of any group activity. Side by side, many of the reasons for the existence of that space would likely look very similar. I encourage you, therefore, to try to break away from the cultural stigma against online video games, and try to understand the value to such communities in our society.
I totally agree with your point about virtual space, and I'd be interested in how you'd bring in Naomi Klein's concerns about the loss of public space and Jane Juffer's Foucauldian analysis of the relations among spaces. A lof of scholars have drawn upon the same theoretical tools that Juffer uses (for instance, Yochai Benkler's Wealth of Networks, that puns on Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations) to show how various virtual spaces (e.g., Facebook, wikipedia, etc.) changes the way people interact with each other in various physical spaces. Some people have tried to use online games to solve real world problems, though I have no idea whether they have done so SUCCESSFULLY.
ReplyDeleteI should add that there is a difference between Lacanians and Foucauldians on this point. For Lacanians, as well as possibly for Naomi Klein, such virtual spaces are figurative displacements of real world concerns that invent ideological fantasies, and are therefore more likely to be bad or just pointless. But for Foucauldians and Deleuzians, such as Jane Juffer, such spaces can be potentially empowering for the marginalized, oppressed, and/or depressed. Hence, just as the university is not apart from the "real world" (whatever that means) but rather is a constituitive part of it, so too are virtual spaces for both Lacan and Foucault (and Klein and Juffer.)
However, the question that both Juffer and Klein would throw at you is this: who benefits and who doesn't? Who is really empowered by any of this and in what ways such games just one of the many ways in which the youth of today are brainwashed?
I found this blog to be very interesting for multiple reasons. First of all, the idea that the internet is space is great because I at first didnt even think of that as being a possibility. Secondly, I am not a gamer or even that great with technology besides my Iphone so this blog brought light to a world that I didnt even no existed. I like that you compared that to the theory because not only did it connect but it also got me to understand a little better the thoery and how space is essential.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is cool how the internet created an endless space for things like this and that it can be a great tool to those who know how to use it. I also know very little about the gaming world but I think that it is interesting that engl243 pointed out how he doesn't know if any game has done so successfully. I think that it is interesting because in both worlds, humans are controlling the actions so it would make sense that the gaming world reflects, at least in part, the world we actually live in.
ReplyDeleteDude, this is an awesome post. The internet definitely is it's own space and in that space there are so many sub-spaces so to speak. I will admit that I used to be one of the millions who played World of Warcraft back in the day. You also really hit the nail on the head. Looking back those were my reasons for playing for the most part. Apart from the simple entertainment and very very very very very loose story plot. I played because it was
ReplyDelete1) an alternative to spending time watching tv, it got me involved in some subculture of other people just sitting on a computer.
2)The freedom to say/do what ever you wanted. There were no rules to what you did, and being a young kid, wanting to act out. I would follow people who were assholes and just piss them off. But on the other hand it also opened up to a sphere for discussion, a friend of mine met some other people online. Assuming there was only a little description of people's ages and what not, we had a pretty diverse group of people who did similar things of gathering together to discuss random news while killing things.
3) it was fun to finish school hang out with some friends in the band room (yes I was the band geek who played WoW occasionally after school. don't hate) and we'd all log on and play WoW together. It was just a lot of fun to team up together with your friends and try to achieve some main goal. It isn't much different then playing Call of Duty with friends or any other team game.