Reality in World of Warcraft

In her article “Don’t Hate the Player, Hate the Game: The Racialization of Labor in World of Warcraft,” Lisa Nakamura talks about how ‘worker players’ within the game WoW are becoming discriminated against in terms of race. Her focus is not on the game itself, but rather on the racializations players bring to the game, breaking the players into two distinct groups: leisure-players and worker-players.  Worker-players, “produce and sell virtual goods such as weapons, garments, animals, and even their own leveled-up avatars or ‘virtual bodies’ to other players for ‘real world’ money,” (130) this resentment against these worker-players aka famers has led to many being targeted and even killed online. Now while it is interesting to notice the parallels between reality and the online medium, the main focus of this blog is going to be the use of machinima by players of WoW. Before I go into detail with my conclusion of the piece I think it is important that you know I know nothing about WoW, except that Chuck Norris plays it and that if he plays it then it must be awesome.

I wanted to touch briefly how the racism against WoW ‘Chinese farmers’ have parallels in recent history. When I first heard Nakamura use the term ‘Chinese famers’ I was immediately drawn to the American Gold Rush and the surge of Asian immigrants to the West coast, these immigrants were essential to the construction of the railway system connecting the East coast to the West coast, by performing manual labor, laying the foundation for America. The other parallel I saw when reading this article was how the individuals who have come to represent the ‘Chinese farmers’ are actually working in sweatshop conditions, working in twelve hour shifts before going to sleep on a pallet in the other room before they get back on WoW and start all over again. It is also interesting to note that leisure-players are disgusted at the idea of worker-players selling their virtual goods; however, they are not above paying for these good because they themselves do not have the time to obtain these goods on their own.

The main focus on Nakamura’s article was how WoW players are using WoW to create racist rhetoric through machinima. Machinima, according to Wikipedia, can be defined as: “the use of real-time 3D computer graphics rendering engines to create a cinematic production. Most often, video games are used to generate the computer animation. Machinima-based artists, sometimes called machinimists or machinimators, are often fan laborers, by virtue of their re-use of copyrighted materials.”  Users of WoW have taken the game and used it to create their own rhetoric expressing their personal views about the game. According to Warnick, the players of are consciously using rhetoric to persuade other players to identify with their viewpoints and concerns (97).  While some of these productions are adopted by the developer of WoW and end up becoming part of the official game, other productions are rejected by the developer and a key part of their content winds up dealing with race.

http://warcraftmovies.com/machinima.php

This appears to be the official website of WoW machinima, within this website there are different categories depending on the user’s interest. When I went to the website I was able to access the underground machinima and good number of the postings dealt with the worker-player and how they are corrupting the game of WoW. By taking aspects of the game WoW these users are able to create their own digital rhetoric which they then post online creating a forum for other who have the same opinion to come together in agreement  without fear of prejudice. It is interesting to see how the internet has become an extension of us; we take the information we have at our fingertips to create rhetoric that represents us or our causes.

Creating this rhetoric has its consequences, however, and for gamers playing the WoW it has created a racist environment in certain players have to contend with ridicule and persecution.  While many of the users who share anger on how the worker-players are corrupting WoW they would not consider their viewpoints to be racist but rather a legitimate claim. It is interesting to note here that Nakamura distinguishes between ethnic and cultural racism, many of the WoW players who are angry at the worker-players feel the way they do because the worker-players do not act American, instead, they act ‘Chinese.’ From this perspective economics comes into play, leisure-players are taking a consumer perspective, while worker-players are the producer. Therefore, without these ‘Chinese farmers,’ leisure-players would be forced to produce for themselves and the joy would be taken out of the game. 

~Olivia Emry

Users Like You...May Need to Rethink your Agency

        When discussion turns to the implications of user-generated content (UGC) on individual agency online, van Dijck (2008), prompted by Time’s 2006 Person of the Year (“you”), explores a reframing of traditional perceptions of users’ contribution.  More specifically, van Dijck seeks to point out possible shortcomings in considering users “active internet contributors, who put in a ‘certain amount of creative effort’...’created outside of professional routines and platforms’”(p. 41) which exceed previous discussions of agency offered by Howard (2008) in terms of scope of consideration; van Dijck’s assertions depart from the vernacular dialectic in an approach to agency that examines cultural and  economic perspectives and  labor relations, and identifies YouTube as a fitting locus of exploration.  Van Dijck supports the need for developing new approaches to agency by positing, “…user agency is a lot more complex than these bipolar terms (produser and co-creator) suggest; we need to account for the multifarious roles of users in a media environment where the boundaries between commerce, content and information are currently being drawn” (p. 42).  Van Dijck’s agency then turns to three perspectives in order to move toward a more representative agency model:

1. The Cultural Perspective (p. 42-46)

                The emergence of a participatory culture, fueled by a call for ordinary citizens to simultaneously produce and disseminate messages of their own, has cultural theorists celebrating the advent of new media technologies (p. 42).  Van Dijck wishes to reframe this perception, however, as the notion of participatory culture as an occupier of digital space rests on arguably un-sound assumptions (p. 43). The first of these assumptions is that content generating internet users share a unique relationship with digital media, one not encountered with “old media” including television.  This, according to van Dijck, is a “historical fallacy;” this assertion is supported by several examples of an “intrinsic engagement of the viewer with the medium” including bands covering popular songs, fandom, and reality TV (p. 43).  What is different about new media, according to van Dijk, is sophisticated networking that affords users an opportunity to engage with the medium immediately.  Moreover, van Dijk provides statistical support for the low rate of actual content contribution on sites such as Facebook; participation with media, it seems, does not necessarily yield active contribution (p. 44). 

                Another assumption supported by the cultural perspective of user agency is that of digital community, which is similarly cast as a hopeful perception lacking historical accuracy: brand communities and entertainment consumer groups carry the same cultural preferences as online communities, but we attribute potentials for grassroots mobilization to the latter.  If we consider Hess’ (2009) findings about YouTube as a site for deliberation, is this an accurate assertion about online community? Are we, as van Dijck posits, giving online communities too much credit for their ability to mobilize users and offer an unprecedented sense of community involvement?  Finally, in the same vein, what happens to the online community if we consider the final assumption discussed in this article regarding the role fulfilled by the institution in “steering the agency of users and communities” (p. 43)? (Structural features on YouTube serve as an example here, i.e. how the site might be navigated differently depending on the display of “Top Viewed” videos, etc.)

2.  The Economics Perspective (p. 46-49)

                While discussing economics’ role in shaping internet user agency, van Dijck offers a triangular model for understanding the spaces occupied by media producers, consumers, and advertisers (p. 46).  This model has a long tradition, and our tendency to rethink consumers’ status (placing them in the same category as producers via UGC) is an oversimplification of this triangular relationship; producers as an institution still work very closely with advertisers in an increasingly intimate power exchange.  Not unlike targeted advertising in traditional media, van dijck affords examples of sites that track usage preferences, and this is often coupled with personal information such as age, gender, and income.  These pieces of “metadata…can be mined for various purposes, from targeted advertising to interface optimization, but the bottom line is that users have no power over data distribution” (p. 47).  In this sense, user agency is slighted when new media companies steer users through structural elements such as cookies, IP address tracking, browser type, etc. (p. 48), and to ignore the increasing intimacy of the triangular relationship described above “downplays the tremendous influence of new media companies…” (p. 49). 

                Our classroom discussions frequently touch upon this point; there seems to be a general consensus that targeted advertising online is pervasive and influential.  If we recall earlier course readings regarding interactivity and intertextuality, it appears that van Dijck’s claims are supported. We have similarly discussed notions of retracing site builder’s mental processes during content creation, with the interactive maps discussed in the Davisson (2011) piece as an example.  What about the effect these elements have on agency, especially with regard to negotiations of power between media producers, consumers and advertisers or YouTube’s business model discussed on p. 48?

3. Labor relations (p. 49-54)

                The final approach to understanding user agency offered by van Dijck considers labor and UGC, or online volunteerism v. paid content contribution.  In this sense, even content (such as that found on YouTube), that is considered user-generated is not under complete user-control, even with rating and evaluation systems; these structures are subject to commercially-driven control (discussed above) and are increasingly subject to review by institution-supported professionals. This is especially true since Google’s takeover of YouTube, as, “…commercial stakes are rising and YouTube’s paid staffers are taking over an increasing portion of the sites moderating tasks” (p. 52).  As site owners become increasingly concerned over an apparent “demise of the professional system” (p. 53), van Dijck warns us of a simultaneous demise of user agency, claiming, “…it is a myth to expect that amateurs or volunteers will gain more control over the monetization (or moderation) of their immaterial labour…On the contrary, user agency is defined more than ever by the capital-intensive and technology-driven economies of global, vertically integrated markets” (p. 54).  

                The concept of agency discussed here speaks to our previous discussions of vernacular v. institution.   Are sites such as YouTube, which seemingly embody the flourishing of community and free amateur content just institutions under an attractive (vernacular) guise?

                Whatever the case, I find an emergent theme throughout our classroom discussions and participation on this blog that speaks to van Dijck’s central assertion: when considering new media, a multifaceted approach subject to change in time with the technological and economic landscape is necessary for understanding their rhetorical implications. 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Davisson, A. (2011). Beyond the borders of red and blue states: Google maps as a site of rhetorical invention in the 2008 presidential election. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14, 101-124.

Dijck, J. van (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society, 31, 41-58.

Hess, A. (2009). Resistance up in smoke: Analyzing the limitations of deliberation on YouTube. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 26, 411-434.

Howard, R. G. (2008). The vernacular web of participatory media. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 25, 490-513.

GBV In the White House (no way dude)!

After our discussion concerning the Howard piece yesterday I was thinking about how common vernacular can attach itself to institutional discourse thereby providing participants in on-line media new access to audiences and widening spheres of influence. This reminded me of a recent occurance in the White House Press Briefing Room involving White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and his love for the seminal (yet relatively unknown) Dayton band Guided By Voices . Watch the clip (he mentions GBV about thirty seconds in) with the thought that no GBV fan would ever imagine having any agency in the White House, no matter how cool President Obama seems about most things. Having been a fan for going on twenty years this really blew me away. After he mentioned their band name, the video went up on GBV's website, Facebook, and YouTube within minutes. I believe that this directly speaks to the "pulses of electricity", "digtal bits", and "myriad of everyday expressive moments" that Howard claims can influence the "discourse of powerful institutions" (Howard, 2008, p.509). While it is far fetched to believe Carney's statement could have any bearing on major policy decisions, it does add a certain element of identification with the people who work in that particular institution daily. Our shared identity could be all that is neccesary in this age of digital rhetoric to enhance argumentation or identify and define the profile of our audience.

A Problem With the Vernacular

Hey classmates.  So this is an article my brother sent me for some delicious debate via facebook, and while that could lead to an entirely different rhetorical conversation itself, I think it goes really well with what we were talking about tonight.  While the fundamental data collection and major argumentation is flawed, (at least in my opinion...discuss?), and it showcases some significant bias, the article talks about younger people lacking the verbosity necessary to contribute to the identification of morality within society.   So, in short, here's an example of people from the digital age using the vernacular and an argument for how that is bad for society, specifically in regard to ethics.  Is this a bi-product of living in a hypertextual\intertextual world, and do you agree with the argument?  When should we start worrying about how the vernacular may be holding back educational progress?  Are we doomed for idiocracy?!

http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/sociology-and-the-life-of-virtue.html

Television Ad - Montage of Memes

Vitamin Water has a recent television ad that includes a number of internet memes. After watching the Weezer Pork and Beans video, I thought this would be an appropriate video to share with the class. See how many memes you can spot.

Vitamin Water Commercial

Flour Bombing?

Kim Kardashian was flour bombed at a red carpet gala to celebrate the launch of her new perfume. Not sure if the act had act political significance (there's speculation that it's because she wears fur), but it did remind me of the "glitter bombing" we talked about in class and the Harold article on pranking.

Heat in Hoodies

Not sure where it fits into our current discussions but I thought this was interesting: the Miami Heat basketball team posted this picture to draw attention to the story of Trayvon Martin, the black teenager who was shot to death by neighborhood watch volunteer. This could become something of an Internet meme if other people start mimicking the gesture. ... Story has been all over the media last day or so. Geraldo Rivera, the Fox News blowhard, said the hoodie Martin wore was as much to blame for his death as the man who shot him. I wish I was kidding.