On page 69, Castells discusses Second Life as a form of mass-self-communication that creates a "social space of virtual reality that combine sociability and experimentation with role-playing games. He reveals that players inability to create a utopia in Second Life make it so players are leaving, expanding the virtual frontier. How is the ability to leave and create new spaces of living going to affect how we relate to others online and in real life? Is virtual reality a new frontier if we're continually recreating the life we already have in reality?
On page 135, Castells writes that "convergence is fundamentally cultural and takes place, primarily, in the minds of the communicative subjects who integrate various modes and channels of communication their practice and in their interaction with each other." Do you agree with this statement, why or why not?
-Elizabeth and Leigh
I found it very interesting that even in a virtual world people still managed to create society's pitfalls. Although, the more I thought about it, the less it surprised me. The anonymity of the internet and of these virtual sites gives people the freedom to do these things, and not only do they not have the risk of getting into trouble as they would if they robbed a store etc. in the "real world", they also have the comfort of knowing that nobody will be able to identify them.
ReplyDeleteThis stems to my answers to the questions above. When looking at how the ability to leave and create new spaces of living is going to affect how people relate to others online and in real life, I feel that it does exactly what was stated earlier. People will be braver online, and do things that they may not normally do (or say) in real life, and this is because of the anonymity that the internet provides. I think that it might slightly change how we interact with people in real life, but not substantially. We are still going to have boundaries that we do not cross, that might not exist in virtual reality. People may be more comfortable partaking in activities that interest them on a virtual world than they would with their friends in real life, because they may be embarrassed that they interested in World of Warcraft, for example.
I feel that virtual reality is a new frontier, even if it is recreating, at times, life we already have. In the article it talks about how schools actually open campuses on the Second Life program. It also talks about it being a learning platform in that companies (banks) can create companies and test out different styles of management or ideas they may have. They can get an idea of the outcome of the choices they make through these virtual reality sites, and through their failures or successes base their decisions in real life on what takes place in their virtual one.
What Amber mentioned really makes sense. She pointed out that she is not surprised that the pit falls of society are represented in Second Life. She says that she was not surprised because second life offers an opportunity for people to behave in ways that would be punishable in the real world. This observation makes complete sense to me and leads me to my first question about the reading. Castells mentions that "the most interesting trend among second life communities is their inability to create Utopia, even in the absence of institutional or spacial limitations." This statement seems very strange to me because Castells never specifies what a Utopia is. I feel that the definition of Utopia would probably vary on an individual basis. Maybe to some people in a Utopian society they would be able to re-create the pitfalls of our society and not face punishment. In that case Second Life is offering that opportunity for those people. I am left wondering what exactly Castells would consider a Utopian society or how you would know if you were living in one.
ReplyDeleteIt is also mentioned that those individuals who are not satisfied with the direction that Second Life is taking are leaving to find freedom in another virtual land where they can start a new life. I am confused by this as well. Where exactly are they going? As far as I am aware Second Life is a virtual reality game. A place where people can create an avatar and lead an alternate life. If you don't like the way Second Life is then your only option from what I can see is to not play. Where is this other land, how can there be a frontier? I find it strange that Castells compares Second Life and virtual reality worlds to a real place.
I have hardly ever played video games let alone participated in anything remotely similar to Second Life so maybe I am just not really understanding what it involves or the basic nature of it.
After reading the Chapter and considering what Castells says about Second Life, I felt somewhat disturbed by it. I feel that if people have the ability to create a life online, that may or may not be better than their actual life, it could lead to severe problems down the road for our society. With people having the capability to express feelings, including pitfalls, and move spaces to try to find their utopia, it is going to create a barrier around those who use these games and those who don’t.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the questions, with the concept of individuals being able to pick up and move spaces, easily on line, that they might think that they will be able to do that in the real world, which is not the case at all. In addition, concerning emotions and being able to express them online without, or little, consequences for actions, many who use the games might start to think that it is the same in real life. For instance, as I mentioned earlier, the pitfalls, such as aggression and rape, if those who use the games, believe this is ok, or acceptable online, believe it is also acceptable to display the same actions in the real world, will be in for a rude awakening. I think that the display of such actions shouldn’t even be allowed online, for it creates a false display of actions and consequences.
I would like to believe that virtual reality is not the new frontier, although with the creation and hype of these games, it seems to be moving in that direction. It might be that people think their real life is not good enough, or would like it to be different, that they do such things as engulf themselves in the game so much as to think it is the real thing. While schools, and other organizations are diverting their attention and business to games such as Second Life. The whole concept seems so foreign to me that I can’t wrap my mind around the idea, but I do feel, whether we like it or not, that the virtual world will become a main part of our lives.
When Castells mentioned that the players of Second Life were unable to make a utopian society and instead fell into many of the problems found in real life, I was not too surprised. If life as a whole as taught me any lesson, it is that there is little chance that there every really will be a “utopian community.” This is quite simply due to the issue that a “utopia” would be something different to almost everyone, as everyone has a different idea of what would be a “perfect world.” In addition, the anonymous nature of the internet allows people to further their own goals and ambitions with very little risk involved.
ReplyDeleteMany people, however, are also driven by another goal: money. Most people are quite familiar with the concept of “human nature,” and honestly it should not be a surprise to anyone to learn that making money is perhaps one of the largest motivating forces in the world. Thus, I was not too surprised to learn that money has become a partial driving force within Second Life is well. In truth, this quest for a profit often finds its way into many places where you wouldn’t expect it. Take World of Warcraft for example (which I personally happen to play). In recent years, many companies have popped up that sell in-game currency for real-life money. Through this, they make a profit (and an illegal one as far as the game is concerned, as it is against the EULA and Terms of Service to do such a thing). How do they make enough in-game money to sell though? Simple: They use key-loggers, phishing emails, and other malicious techniques to hijack players’ accounts. Thus, this brings me to my point: It is not necessarily the player base as a whole that is unable to create a utopian society, but rather that it may be a few selfish individuals preventing such a thing for the sake of their own profit.
Also, as a side note for those who are saying they do not understand how players leaving Second Life “move on” to another place: I personally take that to mean that they simply go to another game. Having failed to find what they wanted in one game, they will move on to another game to see if they can find it there. This eventually leads to “new frontiers/worlds” that are created as a reaction to these people hoping to find their place. I suppose only time will tell if they will ever succeed in their search.
In answering the second question regarding convergence, I have to disagree with the statement. Primarily, I disagree with Castells belief that “convergence is fundamentally cultural”. Like I have said in class, I pretty strongly agree with the humanist side of the technological determinist argument. Just like the amount and ways in which we use technology is by choice, so is convergence. I believe that it is a choice that companies have made to integrate different modes of communication. There is not a necessity for someone to have to check their email on their cell phone while riding a train home from work. There is also no need for a phone to double as a music player. Personally, I try and avoid these types of all-in-one technologies. It’s hard for to understand why I need a phone that can do all of these things when I have a computer and an IPod. I’m not saying that I detest any technology, but I don’t feel that I need all of the technologies wrapped up into one.
ReplyDeleteAren’t technologies developed out of a need? Is convergence a necessity, or are companies creating the need? By creating the need, companies convince people that they need to have their product. Ultimately, this creates an endless cycle because it causes other competing companies to make similar products. With all the convergence today, it just makes me question where it will end.
One of the first things that came to my mind when reading the part of Second Life was the recent Army recruitment center that was put up in Philadelphia to try and help get people to join the Army. they use the tool of virtual reality video games to put people in the positions of a real soldier so they can see how it is to be in war. However, I think this can be a really big problem. You get these teenagers and young adults involved in the video games where death isn't a real consequence of your actions. It's easier to make decisions in the virtual reality world when you know that there is no real consequence that comes from what you decide to do. You can simply push the restart button and start over with a brand new life. This relates to what Castells was saying about those people who cannot create a utopia in the Second Life. These players leave and go to another virtual fronteir to try and create their ideal lifestyle. In my opinion, this can be fairly detrimental to how we relate to others online and in real life. If we know that the decisions we make in the virtual reality world don't have any real consequences, than we are going to act differently. people are going to start acting with much more confidence online. As is the case in my example of the Army recruitment center. Teenagers can act with much more bravery in these games because they know nothing will actually happen. It really calls into question if this is really safe for those who are involved. Should these teenagers who participate in the Army games be able to actually join the Army where your decisions on the battlefield could be a matter of life and death. If they take their actions from the video games to real life it could be really unsafe. I'm not really sure where I stand on if virtual reality is a new fronteir or not. I think it could be because like was said by Castells, banks can create companies and test out different things to see if they might work. I mean this could definitely work in some cases, but I also feel that it could be detrimental. If something works in the virtual reality world, it doesn't mean it will work in the real world. And in the real world there isn't a restart button to correct your mistakes.
ReplyDeleteI really think that being able to experience virtual worlds allows us a unique perspective when we relate those experiences to our real lives. Being a science fiction fan I really enjoyed watching Star Trek. In that show the characters have access to anything they can imagine inside a virtual world called the "Holodeck." While their virtual world is far more complete than the video games we have today, the concept is the same. If we are allowed to do things we cannot do in our everyday lives because of the rules of society in a virtual world we can do things like express feelings, reduce stress, have fun, and do all these things without repercussions. Of course virtual worlds will be similar to real ones because just as you write what you know, you can use the real world as your model. This is why popular games like Grand Theft Auto and Saints Row are nothing more than violently exaggerated replications of real life.
ReplyDeleteP.S. I did not answer the second question because although we talked about it in class, I'm not sure I completely understand Castells or the question.
I think that the ability to leave and create new spaces is going to effect how we interact with others online in that we will be overall less interactive. With all of the different avenues one can use now in the virtual mass-self communication world people will be able to get to know greater amounts of people, but never on much of a personal level. For example I have about 700 facebook friends, but i might actually only really know a third of them personally and could describe their personality.
ReplyDeleteTo the second question, I agree with that statement in that people who rely on communication seek convergence because of how efficient it makes their access to communicating and interacting with others. The new Ipad can do just about anything and many new cell phones are the same way. These products are targeting people who want communication efficiency and today there is an abundance of those people.
I think the affect of an individual’s ability to leave and create new spaces of living depends on one’s mindset when they enter the virtual world. For instance, if they are passively partaking in this virtual reality, they may be better able to relate to people in real life, able to create a distinction between what is real and what is not. Additionally, I think the amount of consumption of virtual reality is an important factor when considering potential affects in communicating with others online and in real life. I think that an increased consumption of virtual reality may make it more difficult to readjust to reality and its norms and expectations. In other words, the sociability between the two social spaces may become blurred, affecting one’s ability to effectively interact and communicate with people outside of the social spaces of virtual reality. However, this may enhance their ability to relate to others online who are equally as engrossed in the common virtual space.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I believe that virtual reality is a new frontier. Initially, I don’t think it recreates the life we have in reality (or why would people bother to join?). However, over time, these virtual spaces begin to replicate our culture simply because I think it is a factor of comfort. People, as a whole, feel that what they know and are used to is safe. To go outside of “the safe zone” would be scary. When new virtual realities are created, it is in an effort to allow for the freedoms that exist in any new, uninhabited space. The idea may be exciting, but the trend to adopt features of our reality does not fail, creating an endless cycle of uncertainty becoming the known.
I feel that the ability to leave and create new space of living is a scary concept to grasp. I already feel that our communities are developing fast but to add in this “real virtuality” to other forms of interactions will just increase the speed of how we go about in everyday life. There is so much freedom that comes along with these virtual sites, it makes me question how much monitoring there would be how they could construct boundaries. I also feel like by having these virtual realities, hurts our abilities to interact in person with face to face contact. I feel like there is always something being lost when you don't have that first initial instinct to say or do something.
ReplyDeleteI also feel that even though virtual reality may seem innovating and refreshing to some, I do not feel it should be called a new frontier. Maybe because I have seen how new technology has affected our generation, as I feel making our generation move to fast. There is always the new thought of how it will change the future. This concept scares me probably because if thinking its a new frontier I would be going against my comfort level. I don't feel comfortable with the continual recreating how life is, will one ever be able to keep up with its expanding infrastructure?