Let's talk for a minute about the real versus the virtual. Is there a difference, or are we just talking about sheer Luddism here? (Pardon my excluded middle)Particular critics of virtual worlds cite repeatedly that it's virtual therefore it's not as important as what is real. I'm not going to argue the importance of real versus virtual here. I'm going to ask where real ends.
Proponents of the real feel that proponents of the virtual lack social contact - even if you're buried under social engagements, friends and social activities in a virtual world, that's not real - and therefore doesn't count, because the people aren't real.
Well, manifestly two human beings are involved in our virtual interactions. Let's talk about Alice and Bill for a moment.
Alice meets Bill in a cafe (the Golden Tower in Swanston Street, Melbourne has always been a favorite of mine). That's real. We're all agreed?
Alice and Bill speak on the phone the next day. Surely their interaction isn't imaginary. Real.
Bill sends Alice a letter, maybe with some photos of a trip he took to Wilson's Promontory. Real.
Alice sends Bill an email with a bundle of photos from her trip to the Dandenongs. There's no qualitative difference between this and Bill's letter is there? Surely this must also be a real interaction.
Bill sends Alice an IM asking for a project design document. She brings it to his office. Golly. IM's. Surely that's not really a real interaction between these two people, is it?
Alice has a meeting in Second Life with Bill, and a potential customer, to save on travel expenses. Arrangements are made, and deals are concluded. Well, now we're talking about virtual worlds, and that's totally not real is it? Try telling that to Bill and Alice who make a very tidy, very real profit from the deal.
The key thing to remember is that in every interaction, there are real people. It doesn't so much matter what they believe, how they dress or appear, or what the medium is. They're two real people having a social or a business interaction.
Sure, you can gender-bend or have a non-human avatar. You can even pretend to be someone entirely different. Is that all that different to Bill and Alice getting together in an apartment in the physical world, dressing up, and calling themselves Captain Happy-Pants and Mistress Spank-Me? That sort of role-playing is just as valid an interaction between people as a football game, a handshake or a business meeting.
Does doing it over the phone, by post, email, IM or virtual world make the interaction invalid? Did it not happen? If I have an argument with you over the phone, do we say that it doesn't matter - that's not real? How about by IM? How about in a virtual world?
Do I have to have been in the same room with you before we can be said to be having real interactions? Where do you draw the damn line?
Real people do what real people do. Their interactions are real, regardless of the medium. That said, taking something more or less seriously because of the medium is confusing the medium with the message, and sheerest sophistry besides.
1. I've known for a long time that, while the community may be virtual, the people behind it are real, and they can accomplish many real things as a result of their "virtual" interaction. I learned it from people like Howard Rheingold, and Andre Durand, and Casey Hughes, and it was reinforced by the group of people that made up Electric Minds. And we accomplished something very real together...we saved the community from oblivion when the parent company wanted to shut it down, and gave it a home and a new state of independence that it's known for nearly six years now.
I brought all those lessons with me when I first set foot on the Grid. I've applied them, and, in turn, I've learned many new things from the new environment and the people that came there before me. But the underlying principle is the same; the people are real, even if the interaction is "virtual."
Posted at 6:32PM on Jan 23rd 2007 by Erbo Evans