The spectacle is not a collection of images; rather it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images.

What would the Situationists think of Second Life? I have been pondering this question since it was posed by my theory friend (who also tipped me to the 1000+ avatar project - http://1000avatars.wordpress.com/). While I find that I have no idea what the Situationists might think about anything, I am interested in thinking about what their thought might reveal when applied to a virtual world. SL is spectacle – no question – in some cases all spectacle and no substance – and because of this it is ripe for manipulation since it is fundamentally a liminal environment. OK lets get the Marxist shit out front. “The spectacle is capital accumulated to the point where it becomes an image.” SL is free to join. SL has tons and tons of free stuff available to anyone who wants to click on it. You can freely fashion just about anything you can imagine and your skill can create from the digital tools provided. Linden labs supplies a playground for all to enjoy seemingly without asking for anything in return. Wow – it seems like an anti-capitalist paradise – free shit and no strings.

I didn’t do that with this space – nor did we ask the students to do that (and at this point I am not giving up my groovy part free/part paid wardrobe, hair, skin, etc). The avatar project was in reality a call to spending – a visit to the marketplace. We buy lindens or earn lindens and we buy stuff – clothes, hair, fingernails, tattoos, skins, bling, dances, vehicles, homes, chat statements, genitalia, pets for very little RL money – but RL nonetheless. We freely visit clubs, dance, play games, talk, flirt, engage – but everyone seems to have their hand out. If I had to guess at the greatest number of single objects in SL I would have to say “tip jars.” Do I begrudge folks the impulse to make some quick cash off of their digital selves even if it is merely to support that digital self? Not really. But I do find I tip my SL friends – or folks who’s company I enjoy - and I am trying to imagine that type of activity in RL. “Great having a cup of coffee with you here’s five bucks just for being you.”

But Marxist critiques in the world of late capitalism are far too easy – and also – I don’t feel – get to the central issue. The idea I am trying to articulate here is what exactly is the process behind a heavily mediatized relationship? All the rhetoric about friendships, connections, emotional involvement, erotic involvement, healing, communication, etc are perceived relationships filtered through - at the very least - a user, a computer, a server (or two), an avatar, an avatar, a server, a computer, a user. WOW! Plato only ever talked about once, twice, or thrice removed – how fast would his head spin with eight? If you add voice chat and disguise the voice then the mediatization multiplies beyond this even.

So - what do I think the thought of Guy Debord and company says about all this? “The spectacle is not a collection of images; rather it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images.” And that is the main issue. This is not just true of SL – but any mediatized form – like Facebook, live theatre, film, books, RL. The interaction is filtered, delayed, asynchronous, blocked, glitched, frozen, crashed, frayed, and torn. And I find that I kind of like it that way. No substitution for a “real connection” (whatever that is since all of this goes on in RL also), but the mediatized form offers a kind of position of power much like the age old feminist critique of the “male gaze” – a unidirectional viewpoint protected by a voyeuristic stance. How many people check FB for information on people they don't want to friend, but still spy on nevertheless? There is no RL equivalent of the SL camera that can close up on objects and people without the objects and people being aware of the view. Its like living behind a one-way mirror – only everyone has one. When I first meet someone I can check out their profile to see if I am interested in talking to them. Imagine how many dead end coffee shop, cocktail party, airport lounge conversations could be avoided if you knew in advance that God was in their heart, or they loved kitties, or listened to industrial, or voted libertarian, or hated Kafka, or desperately needed someone to talk to. What I need is a RL app that scans my immediate vicinity and pulls up this type of info on everyone within a 100 yards. And yet – I may prejudge and miss out a life changing experience. Plus - I can only know what someone chooses to let me know. The real question is - should I believe them?

Subsequently – does it matter? SL is a playground – one with certain rules that prohibit griefing and other types of vandalistic acts – but aside from that is fairly wide open – just ask the furries. So in this respect it is a space in which the user can create the content. This is not fully determined by the rules in RL since SL can basically be anything one imagines it to be and thus is a “situation” that is created “to be lived by its constructors.” In many ways it is, and in many ways it is not. Ok – if I can fly why the fuck are their stairs in here? Why do people have jobs in here and get “owned” by someone in here? For me those things are somewhat problematic in RL – why replicate them in SL? If you can literally look any way you want to look or dress any way you want to dress why cop to the idealized plastic form on display in RL? Why not be a ball of light or a question mark or a statue of Don Gonzalo? Why not . . .

The critique has given way to a rant – not my intent. I guess that I am just surprised that given an essentially clean digital slate (but a slate built on a capitalistic, pastoral, suburban frame) as a species we seem to replicate our first lives in our second lives. Or do we? Is it all just mere spectacle – unbound by any RL properties or do these properties slip through despite the media? Is being a stripper, host, musician, builder, etc more liberating than being a clerk, bank teller, teacher, student in RL? If I find any truth in here it is not in the image, but in the conversation. Yes I will judge you on your appearance even though I know it is an intentional body that can change with a mouse click, but do you make me laugh, want to respond, think? These are the same characteristics I look for in friends in RL. Can this be manufactured? Is this mediatized? Can someone clever tell me what I want to hear but also remind me to tip them? HMMMM clearly I need to think on this more.