Ethnography Blog Entry Four

This week's readings are about the biopolis, and how it relates to the toys (augmented reality glasses) featured in the Japanese animated film “Dennou Coil- a circle of children”.

In Daikoku City, augmented reality glasses are distributed to children who, including the protagonist, Yuko, use these glasses to play games. They overlay information onto physical spaces by creating artificial creatures and data trails, for instance. They also program and trade illegal hacker software.

Hence the children are empowered to play with the city, to create uses beyond those imagined and legally permitted by Megamass, the corporation that manufactures the glasses. As the glasses are toys, they do not have preset objectives and can be repurposed to facilitate different types of gameplay. This is like paidia as proposed by Callois, which resists social control (e.g. surveillance by biocontrollers, including Megamass, adult family members of the children and the government).

Paidia, especially in the case of the child hackers in Daikoku city, can hence be expressed as resistance to manipulative corporation. It is also easier to exit the game than a commercial one that aims to seduce players into an immersive gaming experience.

However, the presence of biocontrollers can be justified, as control and disciplinary action may be necessary for the well-being of the biopolis, including health and security of the people. There is hence tension between bios and politics (i.e. life and power).

Bios and polis have different definitions, however. Foucault proposes the tension between bios and polis as the populace being shaped by institutions through apparatuses (i.e. bios shaped by polis), but Agamben describes a distinction between bios and zoe (the “undesirables”, people whose lives are stripped of citizenry by the polis). In this case, governments, or even corporations such as Megamass, act as an extended family to protect and care for its populace by ridding it of undesirables. This is opposed to state oppression (e.g. in sovereign societies as mentioned by Foucault).

Agamben also talked about subjects: an organic being tied to multiple subjectivities depending on the different ways apparatuses (e.g. mobile phones and not Foucault's instruments of control) can be repurposed. Hence apparatuses are generative.

However, apparatuses promote artificial/digital life forms (e.g. virtual pets in Daikoku) that are intangible. Yet these intangible life forms are capable of evoking feelings in organic beings while perhaps distancing relations between people (e.g. Yuko's emotional attachment to her dog versus her emotional distance from adults outside the game). These digital life forms are also prone to exterior control and provide opportunities for profit (e.g. corporations selling traceable data).

The reading also mentioned that networked control is elastic and seldom felt, yet even biocontrollers are not free as they are bound to those they control.

Question: What could be the impact of mixed reality toys/games (e.g. the augmented reality glasses in Daikoku City) in real life?

These gadgets support the biopolis, but “the mobile device is prone to exterior control, regardless of the user's conviction.” Does this mean there is less impact on non-players?

On the other hand, the biopolis seems to be a concept that applies to the society as a whole, not just to players in a mixed reality game. If so, what will happen to non-”players”?

For example, the elderly may be less receptive to mixed reality toys/games/gadgets. As a result, would the biopolis have less impact as these people will be free from the gadget's control? (For example, less results can be seen from tracking the elderly since they are less mobile, although their everyday lives can still be disrupted by play or controllers/subjects.) Or will these people be forced to be subjects or targeted as undesirables?

Ethnography Blog Entry Three

The reading mentioned “militainment”, where there is blurring of boundaries between military conflicts and entertainment in games (and films). For example, ordinary citizens can experience military conflicts through games while these military games can also be used for military training.

The reading also noted that virtual cities are increasingly being used as the setting for such military games, although the city's everyday flows (e.g. traffic and other civilian activities) are diverted for the game. This may be due to 21^st century warfare shifting from international conflicts to peacekeeping within the city. The city is targeted for its population density, where terrorists can inflict more damage. In response, technological advances give a smaller number of soldiers greater power to maintain order (i.e. there is asymmetrical warfare). Due to the city's vulnerability, there may be increased surveillance in the city to prevent terrorist attacks.

However, some players resist the “militarization of everyday life” in games through hacking. The author draws relations to Situationists' games where the flows of daily activities are set aside to explore urban spaces in a ludic manner. This is because hacking also disrupts the flow of gameplay. Uninvited exploration is the primary motivation for hacking, and it can be a form of play in itself. Frictions and misunderstandings result from hacking, especially when it borders on game-breaking. The author also feels that hacking does not mock the seriousness of war, as protests (another form of resistance) have become performative and artistic too.

MapleStorySEA is not exactly a military game, but one can find parallels (e.g. if one thinks of killing monsters as killing enemies in military training). For example, players can form guilds to kill more monsters and advance in the game. This can be likened to military strategies and military units where there is a leader who directs the efforts of the unit in achieving military goals (i.e. killing monsters in MapleStorySEA). Hence, albeit in a cuter and more unrealistic way, Maplers can still experience some kind of “militainment”.

(There are, however, different kinds of guilds. Apart from the more ambitious guilds that aim to advance in MapleStorySEA, some players may form guilds to socialize. The latter are hence less military-like. The same goes for party quests as no leader is required. Nevertheless, players leverage on the advantage of the party, or “unit”, to advance in the game.)

I also found an example of hackers deleting guilds:

This is similar to the city being targeted for its population density, as destroying guilds probably has greater impact than hacking individual players: guilds allow players to advance faster (for the ambitious guilds), and a guild can have up to 55 or more players. Hence, more friction can result (as the comments to the above Youtube video show), which probably gives more satisfaction to the hackers.

In addition, asymmetrical warfare is also seen in the Youtube video above, where one player can save many others from the hackers through technological skill.

Increased surveillance in cities can also be related to hacking, as hackers are like terrorists who disrupt the flow of gameplay, hence surveillance by administrators is needed to prevent them from wrecking havoc in the towns (or cities) of MapleStorySEA.

Question: Does “militainment” make players more violent?

* I feel my advancement to Level 20 is still not enough to join party quests or form guilds. (I'll probably be lose at party quests or get expelled for being at the lower end of the guild. Or maybe I have not interacted enough to know others at my levels...) Hence the information above is based on what I have found in forums.

References:

http://www.basilmarket.com/forum/1041392/0/Guilds_All_you_need_to_know.html

http://maplestory.nexon.net/News/News.aspx?boardNo=101&contentNo=00BBj

http://strategywiki.org/wiki/MapleStory/Party_Quests