Avatars & The Sim-ulacra

    Baudrillard's theories on simulation and the sim-ulacra are fascinating. That notion that reality no longer emits signs to indicate its existence and that simulacrum is not just a copy, but the hyperreal, is genuine food for thought making me deeply consider the true value of signs and symbols in constructing our reality. Looking deeper into the concept, Baudrillard discusses a four stage breakdown of signs:

1.     A faithful image/copy

2.     Perversion of reality

3.     Profound reality

4.     Pure simulation

My research into the topic led me to consider avatars and their use today.  What I found is that there an array of ways in which avatars are used by people, in particular when playing social games such as Second Life. Derived from Sanskrit, the word avatar is translated to 'incarnation'. In its modern sense, avatars are an online representation of a user, and can take many forms such as a screen name or a three dimensional visual representation. Offering infinite possibilities, creation of an avatar gives a user an opportunity to express themselves outside of the physical world.

The thoughts of Sherry Turkle on this topic are interesting. Turkle believes that experiences with computer environments provide users with new forms of existence which can redefine the notion of identity. What this provides is a chance for individuals to express unexplored aspects of the self, and in some circumstances provide a transformation of their identity. 

Whilst I'm not much of a gamer these days, I used to be prone to some online sports gaming. Personally, my online avatars have always been fairly simple recreations of myself. I'm boring in my avatar creation and use my own nickname for my characters, visually making them as similar a recreation of myself as I could.

In my readings on avatars and social gaming, I discovered that I am a minority in this regard with many people going to elaborate measures in creating an avatar. Most fascinating to me was the lengths people go to, in joining communities within games like Second Life.

Rules, roles and rituals play a huge part in a world that offers endless opportunities to be as individual as one desires. Things like wedding customs, special greetings and choreographed dance routines are part and parcel of interaction in Second Life. I was puzzled that when offered genuine freedom in a virtual world like Second Life, users swarm to join groups like Goreans or vampire bloodlines which have strict requirements governing how users can act and interact within the game.

Whatever their reasons, it is clear that people love Second Life and the opportunities to interact with the virtual world it provides; in 2011 Second Life averaged approximately 14-18 thousand new registrations each day.   

REFERENCES:

Adee, S 2012, 'Me, Myself, I', New Scientist, 215, 2877, pp. 38-41, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 21 January 2013.

Koles, B, & Nagy, P 2012, 'Virtual Customers behind Avatars: The Relationship between Virtual Identity and Virtual Consumption in Second Life', Journal Of Theoretical & Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 7, 2, pp. 87-105, Computers & Applied Sciences Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 21 January 2013.

WikiLeaks

I am the first to admit; through all the controversy I have been totally oblivious to the inner workings of WikiLeaks. It was hard to ignore, given all the media attention but I just hadn’t taken the time until recently to weigh up all the information and form an opinion on the site and its spokesperson/co-founder Julian Assange. My initial view based on my limited understanding was that Assange was a nothing more than a hacker. A cowboy who was stirring up trouble, and who would fade from the spotlight fairly quickly. After some investigation though, my views have somewhat changed.

I say ‘somewhat changed’ as I still find myself questioning much of what Assange and WikiLeaks stand for. I believe in government transparency and accountability and the site clearly offers that. As a voter, taxpayer and citizen I want to know as much as I can about the government and those at the top end of town as I can. I believe that’s my right. If corruption is there to expose, I want it exposed. However I am also a big believer in ethics, and the manner in which WikiLeaks obtains and spreads information raises so many ethical questions that I simply cannot get onboard 100%.

WikiLeaks claims to be intermediary service for whistleblowers. That’s all well and good, however when it’s stolen or hacked information I cannot support its release. Quality investigative journalism is fine, interview, research and dig to see what you uncover. If it’s worthy, print it. However obtaining stolen or leaked information from sources who don’t own that information is a shoddy practice. Furthermore, when information can lead to major consequences for national security and in some cases put innocent individuals at risk, I staunchly believe it should not enter the public domain. Assange himself admitted in an interview with Raffi Khatchadourian (2010) in the New Yorker, that WikiLeaks may one day end up with “blood on its hands”. I ask, if that ever does eventuate, how does it separate Assange and WikiLeaks from many of the corrupt they attempt to expose? He claims in the same interview that this risk is worth taking, as the number of innocents protected by exposing the information WikiLeaks does outnumbers those at risk. Is collateral damage ever acceptable?

I will shy away from labelling Assange a terrorist or a criminal. This is a man contributing to the concept of participatory culture in unimaginable ways. He provides a voice, and an avenue for corruption to be exposed and for real government transparency and accountability to exist. However when ethics is pushed aside to cater to this, I simply cannot offer whole hearted support to the cause.

References:

Bertot, JC, Jaeger, PT & Grimes, J M 2010, ‘Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies Government’ Information Quarterly, vol. 27, pp.264-271.

Guardian News & Media Ltd 2012, The Guardian: Wikileaks, viewed 18 January 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/wikileaks

Khatchadourian, R 2010, ‘No Secrets: Julian Assange’s Mission for total Transparency”, The New Yorker, 7 June 2010, viewed 20 January 2013, http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian

Kinsman, J 2011 Truth and consequence: The Wikileaks saga, Policy Options Institute for Research on Public Policy, Canada, viewed 18 January 2013, http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/feb11/kinsman.pdf

Social Media & Politics: Engaging the disinterested

It's clear that social media is now integral in modern politics and must be a key focus point for any political strategy to win public support. Be it the way politics is reported, campaigns are run or public political debate and discussion is held, social media plays a key role in defining the aspirations of politicians. There is no better example of this than the 2008 and 2012 Obama election campaigns, which utilised a range of online tools to connect, engage and encourage conversation with voters. Furthermore, the multitude of news sites and blogs, both serious and satirical, reporting politics means that voters have never had a greater range of political viewpoints to consider, nor more of an avenue to express their own political voice. 

This presents clear advantages and disadvantages for politicians. Social media allows for political agendas to be spread more easily. Politicians can connect with their public using YouTube videos, tweets and Facebook pages. They can engage online communities and encourage supporters to promote political causes more easily and more economically. The obvious disadvantage, is that the same tools which allow them to connect with the public, can also destroy them. One slip up from a politician and  the ability to go 'viral' via social media can cause huge downfalls. Online tools are also striving to make politicians more accountable, with sites like GetUp! keeping track of political promises and catching out any that are not fulfilled.

One interesting facet of politics entering the social media realm, is the ability for campaigns to engage the disinterested. A politician who tweets, uploads YouTube videos or posts on Facebook can feel more human, more current and more in touch with society. Older style campaign tactics require voters to spend time carefully considering viewpoints. We know that the portion of the public with a strong interest in politics will be willing to carefully review all elements of campaigns before making voting decisions. However for the portion of the population who are generally disinterested in politics and don't desire spending long periods of time weighing up voting options, familiarity with a politician who has connected with them via a quick social media grab may be enough to sway a vote regardless of the core political views that politician holds. From the politicians perspective, it doesn't matter who votes for them nor the level of interest they hold in politics, but that the end result of obtaining votes is achieved. 

REFERENCES:


Germany, JB. 2009, ‘The online revolution’ in D. W. Johnson (Ed.) Campaigning for president: strategies and tactics, new voices and new techniques, Taylor and Francis, UK, EBL EBook Library, pp 147-159, viewed 8 January 2013, <http://www.swin.eblib.com.au/EBLWeb/patron?target=patron&extendedid=P_425530_0&>

Winograd, M & Hais, MD 2008, Millenial makeover: MySpace, YouTube and the future of American politics, Rutgers University Press, pp. 156-173, EBrary, viewed 8 January 2013, <http://ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/login?url=http://site.ebrary.com/lib/swin/Doc?id=10231500>

Young, S 2010, 'New, political reporting and the internet' in How Australia decides: election reporting and the media, Cambridge University Press Australia, EBL EBook Library viewed 8 January, 2013, pp. 203-228, <http://www.swin.eblib.com.au.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/patron/Read.aspx?p=647454&pg=225>