Drift Reality > London, England > The Role of the Everyday User in the Evolution of MMORPGs

- Click icon to view the entire paper in PDF.

Introduction

Traditionally, there have been two schools of thought in regards to the manner in which the social world interfaces with the technological. One field, sometimes referred to as technological determinism, has been heavily influenced by McLuhan and Innis from the Toronto School of Communication. Determinism projects a profound significance in the way technologies influence societies. One of the main critiques of determinism is that it subverts the role of human agency to that of technologies. It “focuses our minds on how to adapt to technological change, not on how to shape it” (Mackenzie & Wajcman, 1999). This deficiency is addressed in the social constructivism model. One theory has been particularly influential in the development of constructivism: The social construction of technology (SCOT). SCOT, developed by Bijker and Pinch (1987), postulates that relevant social groups will have different problems associated with a particular technological artifact. Due to the interpretive flexibility of an artifact, these social groups will be able to create varying solutions to these problems, and infuse the technology with different meanings. Ultimately, certain interpretations or solutions will become more widely accepted than others, and the shape of the artifact will stabilize.

Winner (1993) points out a number of deficiencies with SCOT, including its failure to consider the social consequences of technical choices; its marginalization of “irrelevant” social groups; and its neglect of more underlying social dynamics that may influence the development process. Barkadjieva uses Winner’s critique of SCOT to aid in the development of her theory of everyday users. According to her, SCOT can not include the ordinary user as a relevant social group because of their dispersed state of existence. In a Critical Theory of Technology, Feenberg (1991) addresses many of Winner’s PE concerns with SCOT by proposing an approach called critical constructivism. In critical constructivism, dominant groups fuse their interests into the development of technologies with the end goal of “sedimenting values and interests in rules and procedures, devices and artifacts, that routinize the pursuit of power and advantage by a dominant hegemony.” Concurrently, the force of “subversive rationalization” seeks to undermine the dominant hegemony and force it to recognize the voice of the subordinate groups in society. It is within the context of critical constructivism that we can understand the significance of Bakardjieva’s (2005) quote on the role of the ordinary user.

In Internet Society, Bakardjieva (2005) states, “the inventions of functions and meaning on the part of ordinary users is particularly vibrant at the early stage of the social shaping of a new technology and communication medium. Later in the process, the influence of dominant commercial and political interests will dictate the eventual shape of a technology.” Bakardjieva goes on to state, “alternative possibilities initially evolved by users die out if they do not fit the dominant mould.” This essay will critically examine Bakardjieva’s claims about the role of ordinary users in the shaping of ICTs, focusing on the development of Multi-user Domains (MUDs) and Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games (MMORPGs).

Two points need to be addressed beforehand: First, the “ordinary user” is a central element in this discussion. “Ordinary users” will be referred to in accordance with Bakardjieva’s definition, which describes the “ordinary user” as an actor who is “not involved as a professional (engineer, programmer, designer, etc.) or decision-maker in the industrial, commercial or service sectors developing computer-networking technology.” Secondly, the concept of innovation needs to be explained. Bakardjieva refers to the “inventions of functions and meanings.” This essay will use Haddon’s (2005) framework of user innovations to aid in defining the scope of innovation. This framework includes four levels of innovation: users designing and redesigning ICTs; users developing new practices around the usage of ICTs; the more widespread “emergence of creative design and content”; and “the emergence of new patterns of use or new practices within the wider public or subgroups of it.”

Furthermore, it should be noted that Bakardjieva’s overall theory on the role of the user in the shaping process is more complex than what is indicated in the quote. This essay is a critical examination of the noted statement, not a critique of her general theory, which incorporates elements of Feenberg’s theory on critical constructivism with elements of linguistics and semiotics. A more comprehensive study of her statement would consider how it relates to her overall theoretical framework.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4