To all friends, contributors, and fans (?) I offer up my sincerest apologies for my prolonged absence from posting. However, I am back, but unfortunately not to write about the pro-seminar readings. Instead, I want to write a review of Prof. Tom Boellstorff's latest book, "Coming of Age in Second Life." Although this post will focus on the theoretical and methodological questions that Boellstorff brings to the study of virtual worlds, I hope that I can also connect it to Lee's latest post on Frazer, so far as his question regarding the role of "armchair anthropology" today.
As Boellstorff states in his opening, he is unsure about the audience that this text will reach. Is it written for academics, for the "public," or for both? Certainly, there is plenty for us anthro-theory-dorks to eat up, but it is also written in a style that should be accessible to those unfamiliar with anthropology, or with Second Life for that matter. What sets this book apart from previous ethnographies of virtual worlds is that it is the first (to the best of my knowledge) to examine a virtual world in its own terms. Boellstorff did not concern himself with the "real world" lives of his informants, and instead focused on "thick description" of the culture of Second Life itself; the symbols and actions that guide interactions between avatars completely within the realm of Second Life.
I don't want to get into too much detail, and I am sure that my review will be biased (after all, he is the primary reason that I decided to attend UC-Irvine!). Instead, I will focus on a few key points, both theoretical and methodological, that he puts into conversation with this book. The first is the philosophical distinction Boellstorff draws between episteme (knowledge) and techne (art), going so far as to declare the dawning of the "Age of Techne" and the birth of "homo cyber." Drawing upon everyone from Plato to Nietzsche, Boellstorff explains how humanity has always been virtual. The emphasis he chooses to focus on is human as intentional creator of virtual selfhood. Especially salient to this point is the story of Prometheus and fire, as well as the shadows dancing on the wall in Plato's "Allegory of the Cave." Whereas some theorists have heralded the emergence of virtual worlds as a re-configuring of what it is to be human, perhaps even an emergence of the "post-human," Boellstorff argues that "it is in being virtual that we are human" (pg. 29, emphasis in original). Throughout history, humans have engaged in creative activities that allow them to alter their natural environment in come way, producing what we could call a virtual environment (whether it be the cave drawings in Lascaux or someone in Second Life engaged in "building."). How then is the phenomenon of Second Life all that different from creative activities (those built on techne, not episteme) of the past?
Another important point about the culture of Second Life is how it reorganizes "traditional" understandings of time and space. The phenomena of lag (i.e. when the interface one is using slows down due to a variety of factors, for example an overloaded server) and "afk" (when a "real-world" operator is "away from the keyboard" and yet their avatar remains "in-world" for others to interact with and observe) are just two of the ways in which Second Life reconfigures place and time. Questions of birth, aging, and death, are also reconfigured within the confines of the program, as well as the ability to traverse space in a matter of nanoseconds.
In addition, the phenomenon of "alts" (i.e. an avatar that is distinct from the "primary" avatar controlled by the same "real-world" operator) "[operationalizes] the gap between actual and virtual into a resource for fractal subjectivity, into a kind of 'dividual' (rather than 'individual') selfhood for which persons are 'constructed as the plural and composite site of the relationships that produced them'." (pg. 150, Taylor and Mark will note that the quote comes from Marilyn Stathern: 1988). Another point about selfhood within Second Life that I found fascinating was when Linden Labs (the creators of Second Life) decided to add a real-time voice chat function to the world. This decision was met with fierce opposition by many residents because they viewed Second Life as a place where they could create multiple, "dividual," selfhoods and the imbrication of in-world interaction with "real-world" communication threatened the authenticity of these selfhoods. I find it interesting because in the communities of online gamers I have recently observed, the ability to speak with co-gamers in real-time (using Bluetooth technology) often presents a distinct advantage, especially in goal-oriented games such as "Call of Duty 4" and "Grand Theft Auto 4." However, in Second Life, an online community that is not primarily based around achieving objectives, the possibility of voice-chat could actually function as an unwelcome bleeding of the "real-world" into the virtual.
Methodologically speaking, Boellstorff's investigation brings up questions about how to approach an ethnography of a virtual world. He decided to create a single avatar that was much like himself, and never "pretended" to be anything but an ethnographer interested in the culture of second life. In order to explore Second Life in its own terms, he did not seek out "real-world" information about his informants, rather focusing on their in-world selves. He followed similar, established methods, such as participant observation and focus groups, as anthropologists have been using since Malinowski, and as he used in his previous work in Indonesia. Yet here is what I find interesting in regard to Lee's latest post about Frazer: in the "Age of Techne" perhaps "armchair anthropology" does have a place, although I wouldn't equate the two. Certainly, anthropologists in the post-Frazer era have had a guiding ethos of going to the field, but in the "Age of Techne" anthropologists can conduct field research from an armchair with the same methods of field research that Malinowski and Mead employed.
In conclusion, this book does a very good job of toeing the line between techno-enthusiasm and techno-skepticism. As Boellstorff points out, the ability of humans to create in Second Life is vast, yet it also operates within the limits set by Linden Labs. Boellstorff does explain a little about the issues of social inequality in Second Life, although I would have liked to see a more detailed investigation (I understand that this is beyond the purview of what he intended to write). Also, I would like to know more about how "real-world" culture and practice is grafted onto Second Life culture and practice, about the imbrications between the "real-world" and Second Life (again, this was clearly not the point of this investigation, but could be a useful complement). It will be interesting to read this book in tandem with Prof. Thomas Malaby's (UW-Milwaukee) forthcoming book about the culture of Linden Labs; I imagine that the two would be wonderful companion pieces for anyone interested in the anthropology of virtual worlds.
In the coming weeks, I intend to FINALLY do my post on Durkheim, so be patient and I will do my best to break down Structural-Functionalism (of which, I will reveal now, I am not a big fan).
Update: There are a couple of posts over at Savage Minds that are a little less enthusiastic about "Coming of Age in Second Life," if anyone is interested in another opinion.
Later update: Another post of at Savage Minds by Prof. Alex Golub of the University of Hawaii at Manoa regarding the book is definitely worth a read (my apologies to Alex for turning down Hawaii's offer! It was a really tough decision.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)