The virtual community of LambdaMOO has an intense reaction to the cyber-rape of several characters by Mr Bungle. Although this story seems to unfold in a world far from ours in the reading A Rape in Cyberspace by Julian Dibbell, I found the links to the real life or ‘RL’ eerie and disturbingly close to home. Although the rape only happened to two characters, the emotional and ethical repercussions begin to concern the majority of the cyber community of LambdaMOO. Amongst the outrage, there are also several groups willing to let the matter slide in order to preserve the freedom of cyber communities. A freedom which is censored within RL. Dibbell says the rape is “Ludicrously excessive by RL’s lights, woefully understated by VR’s.”(p203) which shows the exact reason for our hesitance towards such on-line crimes. This is where the gap between the real world and cyber clash within the undefined structure of technological existences and intermingling.
Dibbell highlights the effects that cyber culture has on its real life participants. Legba, a participant of LambdaMOO cried at her computer as she posted her reaction to her cyber rape, calling for “Virtual castration”(p203). When discussion arises as to what punishment should be handed down to Mr Bungle, it comes about due to the fact that cyberspace and real life cannot be separated. Without even realising it, our ideas about cultural ethics cross into our social environments on the web. The link between both is together a blessing and a curse. It allows us to perhaps use our cyber culture as a tool to enhance our real life experiences whilst simultaneously creating the same rules in cyberspace that hinder our ultimate freedom in the real world. The gap between the virtual and the real is the critical problem we face when blogging, facebooking or walking within these online communities. Do we resolve tensions through applying the same rules we have in the real world?
It is also important to note through Dibbell’s reading that although “LambdaMOO has never been the same since…nothing’s really changed”(p210). Many issues can be raised from ‘The Bungle Affair’ such as the intensity at which issues online are raised and then evaporate. It is also interesting to note that even though Mr Bungle was ‘toaded’, he was still able to return as another character, rendering the online judicial system somewhat of a farce really. The threat of the rape is still ultimately there, yet virtual time, and perhaps the virtual community, has healed and learnt so fast that blocks have been put in place to prevent it happening again. Viewing this from afar, we could say that perhaps the community system in cyberspace is more effective then a judicial system setup like in RL.
The cyber community of LambdaMOO, unlike the real world, is segregated over the rape. There are many justifications, approaches and arguments from groups such as the ‘technolibertarians’, royalists, parliamentarian legalists, anarchists and even a strong female participant response over how to deal with the rape whilst maintaining the freedoms of cyber space. Which group would you belong to and why? Do you think that actions performed online, such as the cyber-rape, should be punished or is it simply a consequence of the freedoms of cyber culture?
Friday, October 3, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Week Nine: Pranking Rhetoric
Culture jamming, according to Harold, is ‘an artful proliferation of messages…which challenges the ability of corporate discourses to make meaning in predictable ways.’ However, Harold distinguishes between parody and pranking.
Pranking, Harold’s preferred method, can be viewed as the adornment and folding of texts. The goal is not to create a new meaning, but to challenge the idea of meaning itself. A good example of this is the Biotic Baking Brigade, which threw pies into faces of famous people it considered to be promoting questionable values (such as capitalism). The act in itself did little to challenge norms, other than that of authority.
In contrast, parody aims to change things in the name of a presupposed value. A successful example would be Adbusters' 2003 campaign to sell the ‘ethical’ Blackspot sneaker as an alternative to Nike. Here, Adbusters drew on the presupposed value of fair labour to challenge Nike’s use of sweatshops. Parody can also be successful in ‘rebranding’ products. Brands aim to associate themselves with concepts: for Nike, these may be freedom, or discipline. Instead, Adbusters attempted to associate the Nike brand with unfair labour.
Harold criticises parody because it fails to challenge the hierarchy of language and all its binaries. However, I believe that this is a positive thing. All texts and authors (including culture jammers) are socially, economically and politically situated and thus have their own biases. Trying to pretend otherwise would be counter-productive. Presenting parody against corporate advertising, I believe, allows the audience to arrive at their own ‘truth.’ This works in a manner similar to our adversarial court system. Hearing binary arguments does not prevent the reader from choosing a middle ground.
Like advertisements, subvertisements rely on existing norms and values. The fashion industry associated the norm of beauty with its models and clothes. Retaliating, subvertisements used commercial rhetoric to associate the industry with unhealthy choices. Adbusters featured a model vomiting into a toilet. Recently, Dove launched its Campaign for Real Beauty, appropriating the norm of natural beauty from subvertisements in order to sell its beauty products. Should the norms of the advertisement be celebrated, or is it even more dangerous than other commercial advertisements? Unlike pranking, parody is open to challenge.
Another example of parody moving into the mainstream was ABC TV’s Gruen Transfer, which dissected various advertisements. It aired subvertisements (such as anti-tourism) and encouraged critical engagement with culture and advertising. For example, in ‘Consumer’s Revenge,’ users are invited to mix their own advertisements.
Do you believe that parody or pranking is the more successful method?
Does the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty make you uncomfortable, in that it is ‘hijacking’ parody for commercial purposes?
Can culture jamming make a real difference?
Pranking, Harold’s preferred method, can be viewed as the adornment and folding of texts. The goal is not to create a new meaning, but to challenge the idea of meaning itself. A good example of this is the Biotic Baking Brigade, which threw pies into faces of famous people it considered to be promoting questionable values (such as capitalism). The act in itself did little to challenge norms, other than that of authority.
In contrast, parody aims to change things in the name of a presupposed value. A successful example would be Adbusters' 2003 campaign to sell the ‘ethical’ Blackspot sneaker as an alternative to Nike. Here, Adbusters drew on the presupposed value of fair labour to challenge Nike’s use of sweatshops. Parody can also be successful in ‘rebranding’ products. Brands aim to associate themselves with concepts: for Nike, these may be freedom, or discipline. Instead, Adbusters attempted to associate the Nike brand with unfair labour.
Harold criticises parody because it fails to challenge the hierarchy of language and all its binaries. However, I believe that this is a positive thing. All texts and authors (including culture jammers) are socially, economically and politically situated and thus have their own biases. Trying to pretend otherwise would be counter-productive. Presenting parody against corporate advertising, I believe, allows the audience to arrive at their own ‘truth.’ This works in a manner similar to our adversarial court system. Hearing binary arguments does not prevent the reader from choosing a middle ground.
Like advertisements, subvertisements rely on existing norms and values. The fashion industry associated the norm of beauty with its models and clothes. Retaliating, subvertisements used commercial rhetoric to associate the industry with unhealthy choices. Adbusters featured a model vomiting into a toilet. Recently, Dove launched its Campaign for Real Beauty, appropriating the norm of natural beauty from subvertisements in order to sell its beauty products. Should the norms of the advertisement be celebrated, or is it even more dangerous than other commercial advertisements? Unlike pranking, parody is open to challenge.
Another example of parody moving into the mainstream was ABC TV’s Gruen Transfer, which dissected various advertisements. It aired subvertisements (such as anti-tourism) and encouraged critical engagement with culture and advertising. For example, in ‘Consumer’s Revenge,’ users are invited to mix their own advertisements.
Do you believe that parody or pranking is the more successful method?
Does the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty make you uncomfortable, in that it is ‘hijacking’ parody for commercial purposes?
Can culture jamming make a real difference?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)