<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>SL, MIIM, knowledge and capital (cc Newton)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>I have changed the thread title as this has moved a long way from Jackson and fame.<BR>
<BR>
I think SL is an extremely interesting model which portends the development of further examples of massively immersive interaction media (let’s call it MIIM - I find the MMORPG concept, with its focus on games and role playing, limited – I do neither in SL). Somebody asked me the other day whether I thought SL is the future. I replied that I didn’t but that it was a prototype of what could become the future. If I think MIIM has a future then why don’t I think SL has one too?<BR>
<BR>
Firstly, it is not an open system founded on open protocols. It is a proprietary system that is owned by a private unlisted corporation. This is not a criticism of Linden – for a private company they have been very good with things like IP, interoperability and access. However, it is very unlikely that this form of constitution will lead to the development of the sort of open system that will be required if it is to satisfy the many. Corporate interest will be the bottom line. The web is a good example here. Nobody owns the system, although bits of it are privately (or publicly) owned. As has been observed many times, the success of the web has been driven by its openness.<BR>
<BR>
Secondly, SL functions as a close replica of the social organisation we in the West take for granted as a social reality, consumer capitalism. Many people on this planet (and apparently on the list) aren’t really that keen on this model and would prefer to explore others. Furthermore, there are many cultures around the world where Capitalism is not the dominant cultural mode (although few cultures escape its influence). A good proportion of the world’s population do not live within a Capitalist culture. Why would they want to join an MIIM that is predicated on a cultural model they have little involvement with?<BR>
<BR>
Thirdly, SL struggles to work across other cultural differences, especially linguistic. SL is primarily an English speaking world and, more specifically, an American world. Other important cultural differences (ethical, religious, etc) also present problems in SL. Even the issue of age is important, with two historically separate SL’s existing (one for adults and the other for kids – the Teen Grid). However, the idea is that these two will become one (if that hasn’t happened already – I’ve not been in SL or a few weeks). Having a small child I can say that there is a lot in SL I wouldn’t want them to visit unsupervised. Of course there is a lot in RL I don’t want them to enter unsupervised – but I can control that to a degree, entering such places (a red-light district, a hard-core club, a Rio favela, take your pick) with them, allowing an insight into how people live and behave with minimum risk. In SL this is far harder, especially as there are predators about. However, I agree in principle that there shouldn’t be different MIIM’s where there are gatekeepers controlling who and who cannot enter. That is censorship. Like many people, I am not sure how to deal with this problem.<BR>
<BR>
At some point an open MIIM protocol will begin to emerge that is both accessible and easy to learn and use (like http and html). VRML (which so far has failed to establish itself) is an example of what it might look like. When that happens we may begin to see the emergence of what will be the future. In the process, due to its openness, we might also see many of the issues that bedevil SL and inhibit its capacity to be a really successful MIIM resolved. I argue this because it is when knowledge and its means of production are freely circulating that problems get solved. As Newton observed, this is when the labour of the many becomes freely available to all (although he actually said something about standing on the shoulders of giants).<BR>
<BR>
Regards<BR>
<BR>
Simon<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Simon Biggs<BR>
Research Professor<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#FE7700">edinburgh college of art<BR>
</FONT>s.biggs@<FONT COLOR="#FE7700">eca</FONT>.ac.uk<BR>
www.<FONT COLOR="#FE7700">eca</FONT>.ac.uk<BR>
www.<FONT COLOR="#FD7600">eca</FONT>.ac.uk/circle/<BR>
<BR>
simon@littlepig.org.uk<BR>
www.littlepig.org.uk<BR>
AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="3" WIDTH="95%"><B>From: </B>patrick lichty <voyd@voyd.com><BR>
<B>Date: </B>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:59:22 -0500<BR>
<B>To: </B>'Christian Fuchs' <christian.fuchs@sbg.ac.at>, 'Julian Kücklich' <julian@kuecklich.de>, 'idc' <idc@mailman.thing.net><BR>
<B>Subject: </B>Re: [iDC] Michael Jackson and the death of macrofame<BR>
<BR>
In this <BR>
> sense we could also call playbour the Taylorization of leisure. Like <BR>
> other forms of affective or immaterial labour, playbour is not <BR>
> productive in the sense of resulting in a product, but it is the <BR>
> process itself that generates value.<BR>
<BR>
But consider Second Life. It is for many people a sense of Playbour in that<BR>
it creates an environment where people pay for the service that allows<BR>
themselves to create their/LindenLabs' content for free, or to arrange<BR>
pre-built/purchased props for enjoyment. In this case, it is not just the<BR>
process that creates value, but it is also the interaction that also doubly<BR>
brings capital into the environment, either on the side of labour-value or<BR>
in terms of acceleration of capitalization of the subject. Therefore, we<BR>
have a concomitant multiplying of capital under this model of playbour here.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
My question is whether the residents of Second Life understand this and<BR>
accept it as analogous to regular visits to an amusement park, game arcade,<BR>
or MMORPG where they make game content (I know SL is not a game), the rank<BR>
and file are oblivious, or if there are modalities of resistance (Hobos and<BR>
Freebie Stores being only two).<BR>
<BR>
Mechthild? Simon?<BR>
<BR>
Patrick Lichty<BR>
- Interactive Arts & Media<BR>
Columbia College, Chicago<BR>
- Editor-In-Chief<BR>
Intelligent Agent Magazine<BR>
<a href="http://www.intelligentagent.com">http://www.intelligentagent.com</a><BR>
225 288 5813<BR>
<BR>
FAX 312 344-8021<BR>
voyd@voyd.com<BR>
<BR>
"It is better to die on your feet <BR>
than to live on your knees." <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: idc-bounces@mailman.thing.net [<a href="mailto:idc-bounces@mailman.thing.net]">mailto:idc-bounces@mailman.thing.net]</a><BR>
On Behalf Of Christian Fuchs<BR>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 6:56 AM<BR>
To: Julian Kücklich; idc<BR>
Subject: Re: [iDC] Michael Jackson and the death of macrofame<BR>
<BR>
And how is this category of playbour or play-labour connected to Michael <BR>
Jackson? Was Michael Jackson a playbourer, a capitalist, an immaterial <BR>
worker, or something else? If there is no theoretical way that allows us <BR>
to distinguish the class position of Michael Jackson from the class <BR>
position of a precarious call center agent or a precarious <BR>
singer/dancer/writer etc, and we consider them all as part of one <BR>
"class" or describe them all with one category such as "playbour", then <BR>
such categories do not make sense because they too much intermingle <BR>
different socio-economic life worlds. So what categories should we use <BR>
for describing the political economy of Michael Jackson? Is playbour a <BR>
sufficient category=<BR>
<BR>
Christian<BR>
<BR>
Julian Kücklich schrieb:<BR>
> Hi all,<BR>
><BR>
> Trebor asked me to write "a succinct, one paragraph definition of <BR>
> playbour." Okay, here goes:<BR>
><BR>
> If we assume that play is distinct from "ordinary life" (Huizinga), <BR>
> and that it constitutes an "occasion of pure waste" (Caillois), then <BR>
> playbour is the re-entry of ordinary life into play, with a <BR>
> concomitant valorization of play activities. Insofar as life (bios) is <BR>
> always productive, and be it only in the sense that it produces waste, <BR>
> the extraction of value from play can be seen as a form of waste <BR>
> management; and insofar as play can be seen as a waste of time, the <BR>
> logic of playbour demands that time be wasted efficiently. In this <BR>
> sense we could also call playbour the Taylorization of leisure. Like <BR>
> other forms of affective or immaterial labour, playbour is not <BR>
> productive in the sense of resulting in a product, but it is the <BR>
> process itself that generates value. The means of production are the <BR>
> players themselves, but insofar as they only exist within play <BR>
> environments by virtue of their representations, and their <BR>
> representations are usually owned by the providers of these <BR>
> environments, the players cannot be said to be fully in control of <BR>
> these means. Playbour is suffused with an ideology of play, which <BR>
> effectively masks labour as play, and disguises the process of <BR>
> self-expropriation as self-expression. However, exploitation and <BR>
> empowerment, subjectification and objectification, wastefulness and <BR>
> efficiency coexist in the ambiguous "third space" of playbour, where <BR>
> these binary oppositions break down, and thus open up new <BR>
> possibilities of intersubjectification.<BR>
><BR>
> Hmm, maybe not so succinct, but it'll have to do for now. I'll try to <BR>
> condense it to 140 characters and tweet it later.<BR>
><BR>
> Julian aka @cucchiaio<BR>
><BR>
> 2009/6/25 Trebor Scholz <trebor@thing.net <a href="mailto:trebor@thing.net"><mailto:trebor@thing.net></a>><BR>
><BR>
> Hi Julian,<BR>
> Great, could you re-join the discussion with a succinct, one<BR>
> paragraph definition of playbour<BR>
> and a very short argumentation of why neither play nor labor<BR>
> easily fit the situation?<BR>
> Cheers,<BR>
> Trebor<BR>
><BR>
> ----<BR>
> Written tersely, typed imperfectly, and then sent from my phone<BR>
><BR>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
><BR>
> _______________________________________________<BR>
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity<BR>
(distributedcreativity.org)<BR>
> iDC@mailman.thing.net<BR>
> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc<BR>
><BR>
> List Archive:<BR>
> <a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a><BR>
><BR>
> iDC Photo Stream:<BR>
> <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a><BR>
><BR>
> RSS feed:<BR>
> <a href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc">http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a><BR>
><BR>
> iDC Chat on Facebook:<BR>
> <a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647</a><BR>
><BR>
> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-- <BR>
- - -<BR>
Priv.-Doz. Dr. Christian Fuchs<BR>
Unified Theory of Information Research Group<BR>
University of Salzburg<BR>
Sigmund Haffner Gasse 18<BR>
5020 Salzburg<BR>
Austria<BR>
christian.fuchs@sbg.ac.at<BR>
Phone +43 662 8044 4823<BR>
<a href="http://fuchs.icts.sbg.ac.at">http://fuchs.icts.sbg.ac.at</a><BR>
http;//www.uti.at<BR>
Editor of <BR>
tripleC - Cognition, Communication, Co-Operation | Open Access Journal for a<BR>
Global Sustainable Information Society<BR>
<a href="http://www.triple-c.at">http://www.triple-c.at</a><BR>
Fuchs, Christian. 2008. Internet and Society: Social Theory in the<BR>
Information Age. New York: Routledge. <BR>
<a href="http://fuchs.icts.sbg.ac.at/i&s.html">http://fuchs.icts.sbg.ac.at/i&s.html</a><BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity<BR>
(distributedcreativity.org)<BR>
iDC@mailman.thing.net<BR>
https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc<BR>
<BR>
List Archive:<BR>
<a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a><BR>
<BR>
iDC Photo Stream:<BR>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a><BR>
<BR>
RSS feed:<BR>
<a href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc">http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a><BR>
<BR>
iDC Chat on Facebook:<BR>
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647</a><BR>
<BR>
Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (distributedcreativity.org)<BR>
iDC@mailman.thing.net<BR>
https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc<BR>
<BR>
List Archive:<BR>
<a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a><BR>
<BR>
iDC Photo Stream:<BR>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a><BR>
<BR>
RSS feed:<BR>
<a href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc">http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a><BR>
<BR>
iDC Chat on Facebook:<BR>
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647</a><BR>
<BR>
Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref<BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
<!--qsdbegin-->
<br>
<pre>Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201
</pre><br>
<!--qsdend-->
<br></BODY>
</HTML>