Thinking about the virtual 2

50% of the group actively asserted that digital technologies make real life easier, whilst 75% of the group agreed that online communication supports offline community and this was used to initiate a discussion of how the virtual relates to the ‘real’. The group were asked how they conceptualised these modes and whether together they constituted a process.

Elaine asserted that virtual life

is part of the process [of real life], it’s not totally separate, because somehow, there is some way that these are actually connected to each other, the real life and virtual life.

Kevin echoed this with an assertion that digital technologies

have the potential to connect [virtual life] to real life […] and in some cases [they do].

Anthony took up this idea and forecast that technological development could facilitate the connectedness of virtual and real community, to the extent that this ‘will be the norm in the future’. He asserted that digital communication is ‘normal now’, a part of everyday life. It is not inconceivable that technology can determine the extent to which community can exist online. Herring refers to Markus, Spears and Lea and Walther and asserts that

technological determinism […] was vigorously critiqued in the early to mid-1990s […] but has been making a quiet comeback as a result of a growing body of empirical evidence that the medium can shape the message, or at least, how the message is packaged and processed (Herring 2004:26).

Arguably, it is not the medium shaping the message, as social, economic, political and cultural factors are shaping the medium. In any case, technological development could enable communication forms, such as high fidelity video projections of members of communities, coupled with high fidelity audio or development of realistic virtual worlds for example. This could allow transmission of physical cues and would increase the resemblance of online and offline worlds.

Elaine recounted a physical meeting, based in Malaysia , of an online group involved with an online role playing game called ‘Ragnarok online’. The members of the group were in the same ‘guild’, a collective that competes against other guilds for possession of castles. She asserted that

we [had] a gathering to get to know each other [and to discuss] the next war and strategy.

This exemplifies a group meeting based on shared interests and it can be seen that processes of virtualisation and actualisation are taking place here; initially, the individuals joined an online group to pursue interests or to fulfil needs that may or may not have been associated with digital technology. In turn, through online interaction, the group met face-to-face to discuss strategies for the game, but also to broaden their knowledge of each other. In turn, they met online to pursue their strategic aims, perhaps resulting in a fulfilment of an original ‘real’ life aim. That is to say, that the process can be characterised as stages of actual to virtual to actual to virtual and similarly, within this process, microprocesses of virtualisation and actualisation in the form of message exchange can be seen.

Elaine recited similar evidence of two of her friends who met online playing Ragnarok. After a year of online interaction, ‘virtually having a relationship’, whilst residing in different countries, they eventually met face-to-face and today are still in this relationship. As above, this shows a process of a real life situation, a desire to meet a partner (actual), using a virtual community to initiate this (virtual) and developing the relationship in real life (actual).

It was established from Elaine that there is a hierarchy within a guild, as there is a ‘guild master’ or ‘leader’, usually the founder of the guild. Elaine was asked if the hierarchical structure remained in place when the guild met face-to-face. Elaine perceived that the power relationship dissolved offline and characterised the relationship as one of equality, as ‘friends’, although she asserted that ‘[the guild leader] wants to act like the leader’, as he holds a high-powered managerial position in a company.

Kevin asked Elaine, when meeting offline, are the roles, attitudes and attributes of members ‘reproduced’ offline?. That is to ask, are identities and relationships structured in the same way?:

If there is somebody in your group who is […] not there all the time [and] they don’t really play that well, [when meeting face-to-face] would he be seen as [inferior] to someone who is really dedicated [and] plays the game well?

Elaine replied

everyone has to have their own opinion. […] The gap between our master with us is the age and the way he do things […] because he is dealing in business. […] To most of us, it is just a game.

She continued to say that when the guild meet offline, the strategies that the leader proposes, are presented in business terms and apparently informed by business and management principles. Elaine suggested that the process of selecting a master was based on skills, knowledge and possessions related to the game. A factor that roots the game in the capitalist system is the fact that possessions can be traded for ‘real cash’. By Elaine talking in terms of ‘master’, it can be construed, although is not necessarily so, that these relationships at least retain a trace of their structure.

Kevin compared the game to discussion in a chat room. He asserted that when discussing a certain subject, somebody with ‘superior’ knowledge is likely to hold more weight and this power of knowledge could be transposed into an offline community. To invert this, presumably it can be maintained that despite a diminution of status cues, offline community structures can retain some of their character online. These points can be seen to exemplify a continuity between on and offline community.

In discussing online games as communities, Anthony asserted that

it’s more personal and I can see myself having fun. […] I think this is a good example of a community.

Potentially, at least 75% of the group felt that online gaming constituted a community. Anthony’s attitude seemed to change from earlier discussion and this raised an issue of context, in that notions of fun through playing games could allow a different introduction to online community, one that allowed pleasant associations that seemed to counterbalance perceived problems such as surveillance. A role playing game was seen as a valid form of ‘acting’, because pretending is the nature of the game and all the players know this, whereas, perhaps with other forms of online interaction, the ‘rules’ of the ‘game’ are blurred; it is unclear who is pretending and who is not, leading some individuals to generalise that everyone is pretending. It might also be difficult for participants to identify whether norms are actual or simulations or both. This can be seen to reflect physical community, although the Internet can add a layer of simulation, that in some contexts, to some individuals, may present a barrier to a feeling of community. However, simultaneously, this seems to reflect imagined ‘physical’ community mediated by broadcast or newspapers for example.

Elaine discussed the process of buying a mobile telephone. She pointed out that product details available on manufacturers’ and retailers’ web presences differed to the information available on a bulletin board; for the former, products would be presented in their best light, whereas on the latter, anecdotal evidence of actual use of the products was available, outlining a range of views. As Anthony put it,

the community knows more about a product than […] the company does.

Elaine asserted that

within a group of your friends you might not get sufficient information, […] but with a forum [you can find out] which phone is the best before [buying one].

This demonstrates a ‘weak community tie’, to utilise different resources for different needs, in this case a community tie that can provide product reviews. Again, these points highlight the virtual as a process; researching, using a virtual community, then perhaps purchasing offline and potentially reiterating feedback into the virtual community.

The group were asked if they thought that the Internet reflected the disordered nature of ‘real’ life. Kevin agreed with this and pointed to the unregulated nature of the Internet and the asserted that freedom of speech is such that there is an abundance of information available for questionable activities. Elaine responded and asserted that there is freedom of speech but ‘you can’t confirm that [information] given is 100% true’ and signalled caution in this respect. During this discussion, there was an obvious awareness of participants of the perhaps unethical nature of some activities and communities on the Internet: one topic mentioned was mobile telephone ‘workarounds’ that obviate payment, including ‘cracks’ and unblockers’, information about which had been posted on bulletin boards.

It was proposed to the group that such communities can therefore be seen to develop a field of knowledge. Elaine and Anthony agreed and he asserted that

It puts people together to think, […] by scale. […] You could type in any question [in a bulletin board system] or even start a debate, […] come back a week later [(Anthony)], […] and find hundreds of people interested in that subject (Kevin).

Again, this embodies the idea of a collective intelligence and a process of interaction with physical community and returning to an online community, suggesting processes of real world problem resolution through online means, such as communities that share information about mobile telephone ‘unblockers’. The quote above also refers to ‘hundreds of people’ and an order of ‘thousands’ was mentioned during discussion, illustrating the scale of some online communities. Also, there was a suggestion that these knowledge communities develop knowledge exponentially, one idea perhaps generating several others, an occurrence that is probably not so concentrated in physical communities.

By way of a conclusion, the group were asked ‘when is a virtual community a community?’.

Kevin asserted that

It is when you become part of a group

Anthony discussed Elaine’s experience in gaming communities and asserted that

[Elaine] is a good example. […] You got inside a community, […] then got to know people and now you trust these people, because […] they are friends. First, she just went to a community because she is interested in [online gaming] and now you have made friends in there […] and now [new] people are entering your community.

Kevin added that

You have made a real community from a virtual community [(and in the context of a gaming community)], the only way to get to your real community is through the virtual, so that’s the access, that’s the door , to get to become part of your community, […] you have to go through the virtual, through the game.

Elaine responded and asserted that

In a country or a city that is so huge, [online gamers] might be connected between your friends […] but you never get to know them, [so, a gaming community] is another way to get to know each other, from the virtual to the real community.

Anthony asserted that

[Elaine’s experience] is a perfect example of what online communities are meant to do, […] because you’ve got your own community now, […] other people enter it and […] it’s the norm for you.

Kevin asserted that a virtual community

will never be real as you won’t have the other senses that make us human.