Reflections on Module 3

At the end of this module I am thinking about the issues raised in our discussion classes, which I would probably like to get back to in future.

First of all, I would like to think more on the discussion on socialization as afforded by online activities that we had in one of our classes. As part of both our pre- and post-discussion of Assignment 4 we outlined the main characteristics of online communities centered not only around the practice of gaming but also on various other interests. We briefly worked out a set of pros and cons, mentioning both advantages and disadvantages. Many questions have been raised, most of them of the sort of “Could internet relationships possibly be as “real” and deep as the real ones?” and “Isn’t there something missing in virtual contacts?”; most of them betrayed a conspicuous and palpable sense of suspicion. Thinking about this later, and attempting to formulate my own more or less categorical stance, I decided that the best way to put it would be this one:

The question whether to log in to the virtual chat room, a place providing the unique opportunity to meet people located often at the other end of the world, or not to log in, is essentially the choice whether to meet these people or not. Often, the chat room is the only way to connect to them, to get to know them, and, more importantly, to find out that they exist at all. The issue of limitations, I believe, is a secondary one and only comes next. Instead of being overly critical towards the limited possibilities for elaboration of human relationships that online communication provides, we can probably consider how other platforms for communication in internet and outside the virtual realm compensate for these limitations. We know very well by our personal experience that each platform satisfies a different need: emails predispose to one type of communication, Facebook messages to another one, Skype voice conversations to a third one, and so on. Not to mention that for me, personally, the chat room has often been the starting phase of a relationship which I would subsequently transfer to the “real” life. To make it even more convenient and responding to my needs, if I feel disappointed by my real-life encounter with a “virtual” contact, I can always bring it back to the internet realm and choose a communication type that allows me to communicate just as  much as I want. The right word to describe i-net communication is, thus, not limited but variegated, it allows for flexibility in communicating and gives you the possibility to regulate degrees of proximity by changing various communication modes.

2 ) What caught my interest in the examination of game communities was the “self-regulatory” character of some social formations established within games such as the “guilds”. In future research I would like to pay more attention to the qualities and character of these virtual societies, the way they are structured and the principles on which they operate. It is interesting to know more about these in-game terrains in which new rules for communication and collaboration complementing the official rules of the game, are introduced and guarded by the players themselves (In-game control and corrective as provided by the games themselves). When I first heard about this, in one of our discussion classes, the first association to pop up into my mind was the collaborative construction of the virtual encyclopedia Wikipedia, based on the principle of user-generated content, where everyone bears the responsibility of not only providing but also controlling and correcting content. It possesses a similar self-regulatory character. Could this be further elaborated and used in understanding the principles on which virtual group centered around a common interest/aim operate, or is it a mere formal similarity between two virtual terrains otherwise completely different in terms of character, communication and aims?  

3 )Equally useful for the purposes of this module would be to think not only about games themselves but also on the very books of games. To think about methodology and critical approaches, about the possibility for critical distance as well. Some of the books from the bibliography, in my opinion, displayed an overly positive and optimistic position about the character, effect and future of games. They seemed to be implicitly defensive in tone, aware of the aureole of suspicion surrounding computer games. One of the texts, for example, boldly stated that computer games have the potential to (even!) develop leadership skills.  I would like to think more about the necessity to reconsider, reformulate, and adapt traditional terminology before transporting (applying) it directly to this non-traditional and still quite young field. Media theorist boldly produce radical statements about the ‘social” aspects of games by often assuming “socialization” to be the mere act of talking, typing, speaking: but what do you talk about? How do you talk about it?- this is not that extensively discussed.       

In writing my essay on violence and aggression for this module, I realized that a more intensive dialogue between the disciplines of media and psychology is needed in order for both of them to work out in collaboration adequate analytical approaches and to increase the credibility and objectivity of the statements they produce.