Democracy in Virtual Worlds, or What is your Value Proposition?
This is a response to this:
http://everamblings.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/blog-banter-10-shellfish/
The original prompt, which he gives, is repeated here:This month’s banter leans a little, OK a lot, on the academic side. It comes to us from xiphos83 of A Misguided Adventurer, who asks the following: ” Victor Davis Hanson argues that western culture, comprising of ideals such as freedom, debate, capitalism, and consensual government, are what make western society so successful at waging war. These ideologies create a warrior who’s direct participation in government, ability to think freely, and desire to remain free, fights harder and is willing to suffer more than his conscripted foe. Though a military must remain a structured oligarchy to fight a war effectively, why in a world where military conflict is as familiar as breathing are there so few alliances that embrace these ideologies when governing their members?”
Okay.
The core of Roc's argument is that this is a comparison of apples and oranges. But it's not his central argument that I want to address: as he and other respondents redundantly point out: differences do exist, and those differences are meaningful ones. Okay. The prompt itself agrees with that! So never-mind me while I snobbishly dismiss arguments that begin with, "It's a game."
What I want to address is some of Roc's assumptions regarding democracy itself. Thus, his main supporting argument is that democracy does not manifest itself in EVE because a strong, cohesive culture is not necessary: because it is just a game, we can walk away whenever we want. And because we can walk out with impunity, there is no benefit to democracy.
But that's not how human beings show themselves. Even in EVE, there is an unmistakable benefit to banding together. So unmistakable that it is arguably an implicit requirement! No, the essential question the prompt asks isn't answered by our fractured individualism and wayward ambitions: we can and do work together, but we do not see democracy as the best way to go about it.
Roc builds his argument of individualism through a dichotomy of selfishness versus selflessness. But this is not how democracy works, either. Democracy, at its essence, is not a matter of giving oneself up for their cause. A military fielded by a democratic nation is not more self-sacrificing than another: it is less. The autocratic, hierarchical paradigm of rule is that which demands selflessness. It demands that you relinquish your individualism so that you blend into the Grande Armie perfectly, so that the uniform you wear on the parade ground is the same one you wear in the field. Revolutionary War, hark!
Democracy is the governmental model that demands that citizens take responsibility. This is not self-sacrifice. It demands that all members be participants (with some obvious differences in execution, naturally; participatory, representative, however you like). So the soldier who goes out to fight for his country is not merely fighting for the country to which he belongs. He is fighting for the country which he owns and helps govern. Such ownership, such whole-hearted embrace of ideology and acceptance of self, is the basis for Hanson's men of stouter heart.
So back to the question: why don't you see this in EVE?
Because EVE is just a game. Ultimately, those few people who can care enough about their corporations and alliances and such to the extent that they would be citizen-governors are likely not playing for long, since the real world has a greater demand for such people, with far greater reward. Indeed, of those with this inclination, only a subset of them would prefer the escape a game offers; this is instead an indicator that they are likely not mentally healthy.
Fine. What is a virtual world to do about this conundrum?
Let us first agree that a democracy, of some kind, of an ideal form of government. We agree that intelligent, aware, and compassionate citizens can together be a more effective governing body on civic matters. (Let's disregard Hanson's point about waging war.) So, as a designer, how do you encourage democracy in your virtual world? Already we have detractors: the inefficiency of a democracy in the face of non-ideal citizenry is a problem, today solved by methods of control and coercion, such as laws and their enforcement, as well as child-rearing paradigms built primarily as a means of regulation. And then we have the problem that anyone approaching the ideal is more likely to either be pitiable or more interested in other things, diminishing your audience to the passionately insane and the incompetent. What is left for democracy?
How do you solve this?
P.S. Point of (amusing) order: xiphos83 never utters the word "democracy" in his prompt. That's just what everyone (including, I am ashamed to say, me) read into it.
http://everamblings.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/blog-banter-10-shellfish/
The original prompt, which he gives, is repeated here:This month’s banter leans a little, OK a lot, on the academic side. It comes to us from xiphos83 of A Misguided Adventurer, who asks the following: ” Victor Davis Hanson argues that western culture, comprising of ideals such as freedom, debate, capitalism, and consensual government, are what make western society so successful at waging war. These ideologies create a warrior who’s direct participation in government, ability to think freely, and desire to remain free, fights harder and is willing to suffer more than his conscripted foe. Though a military must remain a structured oligarchy to fight a war effectively, why in a world where military conflict is as familiar as breathing are there so few alliances that embrace these ideologies when governing their members?”
Okay.
The core of Roc's argument is that this is a comparison of apples and oranges. But it's not his central argument that I want to address: as he and other respondents redundantly point out: differences do exist, and those differences are meaningful ones. Okay. The prompt itself agrees with that! So never-mind me while I snobbishly dismiss arguments that begin with, "It's a game."
What I want to address is some of Roc's assumptions regarding democracy itself. Thus, his main supporting argument is that democracy does not manifest itself in EVE because a strong, cohesive culture is not necessary: because it is just a game, we can walk away whenever we want. And because we can walk out with impunity, there is no benefit to democracy.
But that's not how human beings show themselves. Even in EVE, there is an unmistakable benefit to banding together. So unmistakable that it is arguably an implicit requirement! No, the essential question the prompt asks isn't answered by our fractured individualism and wayward ambitions: we can and do work together, but we do not see democracy as the best way to go about it.
Roc builds his argument of individualism through a dichotomy of selfishness versus selflessness. But this is not how democracy works, either. Democracy, at its essence, is not a matter of giving oneself up for their cause. A military fielded by a democratic nation is not more self-sacrificing than another: it is less. The autocratic, hierarchical paradigm of rule is that which demands selflessness. It demands that you relinquish your individualism so that you blend into the Grande Armie perfectly, so that the uniform you wear on the parade ground is the same one you wear in the field. Revolutionary War, hark!
Democracy is the governmental model that demands that citizens take responsibility. This is not self-sacrifice. It demands that all members be participants (with some obvious differences in execution, naturally; participatory, representative, however you like). So the soldier who goes out to fight for his country is not merely fighting for the country to which he belongs. He is fighting for the country which he owns and helps govern. Such ownership, such whole-hearted embrace of ideology and acceptance of self, is the basis for Hanson's men of stouter heart.
So back to the question: why don't you see this in EVE?
Because EVE is just a game. Ultimately, those few people who can care enough about their corporations and alliances and such to the extent that they would be citizen-governors are likely not playing for long, since the real world has a greater demand for such people, with far greater reward. Indeed, of those with this inclination, only a subset of them would prefer the escape a game offers; this is instead an indicator that they are likely not mentally healthy.
Fine. What is a virtual world to do about this conundrum?
Let us first agree that a democracy, of some kind, of an ideal form of government. We agree that intelligent, aware, and compassionate citizens can together be a more effective governing body on civic matters. (Let's disregard Hanson's point about waging war.) So, as a designer, how do you encourage democracy in your virtual world? Already we have detractors: the inefficiency of a democracy in the face of non-ideal citizenry is a problem, today solved by methods of control and coercion, such as laws and their enforcement, as well as child-rearing paradigms built primarily as a means of regulation. And then we have the problem that anyone approaching the ideal is more likely to either be pitiable or more interested in other things, diminishing your audience to the passionately insane and the incompetent. What is left for democracy?
How do you solve this?
P.S. Point of (amusing) order: xiphos83 never utters the word "democracy" in his prompt. That's just what everyone (including, I am ashamed to say, me) read into it.