University of Ljubljana

Faculty of Social Sciences/ Biotechnical Faculty

Master study of Anthropology

SILICON METACULTURE
Perspectives on "Virtual Culture"

Celje, May 2007 Lenart Kodre

"SILICON METACULTURE "

Introduction

First of all I would like to say that I perfectly understand the meaning of this assignment and the
methodological principles of operationalisating the concept indicators into questions. In dealing
with very concrete, down-to-earth problems, a (social) scientist is at first confronted with, what
appears to be, an impenetrable forest of ideas, theories, symbols, inconsistent data and concepts
about the nature of social phenomena. In order to get a clearer picture, to eradicate all the
unnecessary "noise", a structured approach must take place. To achieve this, a sort of a
deconstruction of a general research question to a less and less complex level is essential. The
path to structure therefore leads trough the process of deconstruction.

RESEARCH

QUESTION
Abstraction
KEY CONCEPTS OPERATIONALISATIONS

FIELD
INDICATORS OF
QUESTIONS
CONCEPTS

Diagram 1: Operationalisation of indicators into questions.

What follows is, the more broad and general the overall research question, the more steps (and
time) are required to obtain the solution, which is the case in my particular research question. I
could easily choose another topic for this assignment, an easier and less time-consuming one.
Since I work full-time, time is a factor. But I choose not to. At first I wrote a short text, which
then became longer and longer. But as I got tangled in abstract concepts and with deadline
approaching, I realized the difficulty and the scale of my enterprise. This said, I realize I am the
one who got lost in the forest of concepts and meanings.
The topic that has intrigued me for the past couple of months is the rise, the increasing
complexity and the broad implications of the online virtual social environments or virtual social
worlds. I will explain the concept of virtual worlds later. If I refer back to my notion about the
complexity of the research question, and mine is, I admit that my paper does not fulfill all the
necessary requested criteria. I am not sure, if I will be able to come up with the good
operationalisation of indicators into questions. The paper is more like an attempt; a general
overview of what can be done and why I think this is such an interesting issue. Hopefully, a more
detailed and insightful work follows in the near future.

On methodology

The next thing I would like to share with you is my reflection and opinion on the whole
methodological approach of learning, gathering information, theories, and concepts in advance,
prior to the actual field research. I see this as a possible threat, since every paradigm, a theory is
in a way an ideology, as demonstrated by Foucault (Foucault, 1984), something that can be
termed “neutral knowledge” does not exist. Theories come and theories go. If I accept a specific
scientific theory that will help me explain a phenomenon, am I not narrowing my perception and
in a way ""infecting" my possible understanding of the nature of things with predetermined
assumptions? I have doubts in a general social theory, since dealing with human affairs is always
about opinions on the subject. It is not about facts; it is about judgments on facts. Paradigms and
theories can never be 100 % accurate, but I do understand that they can be very useful,
nevertheless it is the only tool we have, though I think in some cases not knowing all the facts
might actually be a good thing. This is what Malinowski (Malinowski, 1922) did and his
conclusions did shed some light from the rather new perspective on the understanding of culture.
This brings us back to my point about the scale of my task. As I intend to write about the virtual
culture, I can not loose the feeling that, if I were to write a good research paper, it would be a lot
better to actually do a "virtual ethnographic" research in one of the interactive online virtual
social worlds, that is to actually participate online. I have done so briefly and I do have a general
idea about the topic, but the there is, in my opinion, a lot of potential in doing anthropological
research in this kind of environments. Even more so, if I realistically assume, that it will be quite
difficult for me to do a "real", extensive fieldwork in a non-European society. The problem of
evaluating the hypothesis arises not so much in the theoretical field, but in the methodology of
studying something that “can not be seen”, that is culture as an invisible entity, a complex
configuration of interrelated meanings. This concept was formulated by Edward Sapir, who
argued that culture is a phenomenon of the same order as the early psychoanalytical concept of
the Unconscious. It is trough the observation of concrete individual behavior the realms of the
invisible could be penetrated. The logic of a particular culture could then be extracted, derivated
from the individual acts of behavior. In that sense I agree with the Sapiric notion of what culture
is, but why and how it has come in existence is another question.
There is a cheap and relatively unexplored realm of virtual worlds, where people interact in an
array of ways, waiting to be explored. The problem of methodology of internet research, the new
problems ethnography (and anthropology) faces in the computer age, where borders between
virtual and real are getting blurry, is well argumented in, now almost classical work on virtual
ethnography, Virtual ethnography (Hine, 2000).

Culture: concepts and indicators

My overall research question is therefore: is there such a thing as an emerging, distinctive

culture of virtual social worlds, a "virtual culture"?

The most important concept of my research question is, without doubt, culture. What is the
definition of “culture”? There are numerous definitions, but no full theory of culture. Many
important (British social) anthropologists (Radcliff-Brown, 1952) did not put much emphasis on
the issue of culture, but some other did: Sapir (Sapir, 1994), drawing upon linguistics, Benedict
(Benedict, 1934) demonstrated the dependence of concrete and manifest cultural forms upon
deeper-lying, pervasive principles, Kroeber attempted to trace the ”behavior” of cultural
configurations in time. Most anthropologists agree on several assumptions about culture. In my
paper I chose a rather general definition offered by Kroeber and Kluckhohn, after giving more
than 160 definitions of culture in their work Culture: A critical review of concepts and
definitions. The central idea is now formulated by most social scientists approximately as follows
(Kroeber, Kluckhohn, 1952:181):

"Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired and
transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups,
including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential (i.e., historically derived and
selected) ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems may, on the one
hand, be considered of products of action, on the other as conditioning elements of
further action."
Although sociobiologists might object the non-hereditary criteria, the rest of the definition is
broad enough to include all major anthropological concepts of culture. The culture is transmitted,
passed on consciously and unconsciously from those individuals, who have already acquired the
consensual concepts of a common symbolic reality, based on a specific value system. It defines
what is “normal” behavior and interaction within the specific society. The moral and intellectual
conformity about what is “right-wrong”, “normal-abnormal” is hence vital for the coherence of
any society. Therefore the culture could be understood as a programme, a mechanism that
enables a specific human society to function as a whole and survive. Kroeber (Kroeber, 1948)
compared culture to an (super)organism, where every composing part, cell, is essential in
constituting the full-functioning organic system. While browsing trough the Internet in search of
references for this assignment, I came across an illustrative definition, which reminded me of
Kroeber’s vision of culture. I find this description interesting, since even a basic personal
computer system in a way mimics the functioning of a society: hardware components are like
institutions, materializations in function of software, which could be seen as culture, as an
instruction of how to operate, to live: “Integrated circuits are composed of many ovelapping
layers, each defined by photolithography, and normally shown in different colors. Some layers
mark where various dopants are diffused into the substrate (called diffusion layers), some define
where additional ions are implanted (implant layers), some define the conductors (polysilicon or
metal layers), and some define the connections between the conducting layers (via or contact
layers). All components are constructed from a specific combination of these layers
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuits ).”
The culture is not a static entity. It changes trough time (Radcliffe-Brown, 1952). It is an
abstract, invisible system of meanings and symbols, but its effects are real. The specific cultural
environment thus models, shapes every member of the specific culture. This does not mean there
is no room for free choice, but stepping out of culturally defined limits of what is “right and
wrong”, might have more or less negative consequences.
If we simplify our definition of culture even more, we can define it as a configuration of
non-hereditary transmitted expressions of all aspects of life of a self-conscious human
community. We have agreed on basic concepts of what culture is:
1. Culture is an “invisible” highly complex system. It is immaterial in it’s essence
2. Culture produces material forms, observable in learned behavioral patterns and artifacts
3. Culture is learned
4. Culture is associated with value systems

Indicators of these concepts would then be:

1. " Culture is an “invisible” highly complex system. It is immaterial in it’s essence"- this
is still an abstract level of description. I do not see how this could be relevantly
 indicated. We just have to be careful not judge observed cultural phenomenon too
quickly. We are dealing with highly abstract meanings of things, structured in a
interrelated system. Further indicators are needed.
2. "Culture produces material forms, observable in behavioral patterns and artifacts "-
Sapir stated that understanding of culture is possible by isolating and concentrating on
behavior of individuals. But not all behavior. We should put the emphasis on typical,
repeated and shared conducts of action:
• language (what, how and when to say something)
• typical behavior
Artifacts are a man-made object which gives information about the culture of its creator
and users

3. "Culture is learned" - This is still a very abstract level of understanding the concept. We
could indicate learning as the acquisition and development of memories and behaviors,
including skills, knowledge, understanding, values, and wisdom. It is the goal of
education, and the product of experience. Learning is closely associated with concepts of
enculturation and socialization. Both concepts are related, since both "teach" the
individual how to be a "normal" member of a human group. Enculturation is a conscious
or an unconscious process, whereby an established culture teaches an individual by
repetition its accepted norms and values, so that the individual can become an accepted
member of the society and find their suitable role. Most importantly, it establishes a
context of boundaries and correctness that dictates what is and is not permissible within
that society's framework (Kottak, 2004).
Socialization is the inculcation of formal and informal social rules and expectations for
an inexperienced member of an existing social order. While this learning typically refers
to human children in their native social group, it is applicable to persons whose
prospective social group ( e.g. nation, organization, etc.) is sufficiently different from
their current environment as to warrant the development of new sociocultural interaction
styles and patterns of conduct. This learning includes exposure and internalization of
rules and expectations that are considered normative to the social order. Socialization is
the process whereby people acquire a social identity and learn the way of life within their
society. Agents of socialization are people and/or groups that influence self concepts,
emotions, attitudes and behavior of a person. (Henslin, 1999, pp.76-81)
Enculturation and socialization are therefore closely associated with norms, values, social
identity and social roles.
 In sociology, a norm, or social norm, is a rule that is socially enforced. Violations of
norms are punished with sanctions, possibly enforced by law. Violators of norms are
stigmatized. Alternative behaviors are not acknowledged. The norm is presumed, often to
an extreme, in an attempt to avoid any challenge that might provoke stigma or sanction or
even lead to redefinition of normative behavior (Haralambos, 2005).
Each individual or culture has certain underlying values, of which the norms are explicit
expressions. Definitions of "right and wrong" are subjective and vary greatly across
people and cultures. Personal values evolve from experiences with the external world and
change over time. Personal values are not universal. More important for understanding
culture are values that are largely shared by its members, the so called cultural values.
A role or a social role is a set of connected behaviors, rights and obligations as
conceptualized by actors in a social situation. It is mostly defined as an expected behavior
in a given individual social status and social position. A role, in this conception, is not
fixed or prescribed but something that is constantly negotiated between individuals in a
tentative, creative way. Social status is the honor or prestige attached to one's position in
society (one's social position). In modern societies, occupation is usually thought of as
the main determinant of status, but other memberships or affiliations (such as ethnic
group, religion, gender, voluntary associations, specific personal relationships, fandom,
and hobby) can have an influence.
In cognitive psychology, the term identity refers to the capacity for self-reflection and the
awareness of self (Leary & Tangney, 2003). The psychological idea of identity in humans
is related to self image, namely a person's view or mental model of him or herself.
Meanwhile, sociologists often use the term to describe social identity to describe group
membership Sociology places some explanatory weight on the concept of role-behavior.
So the concept of identity is related to the concept of social role.

Everything written above should be true of any human community that has a perception of itself
as being different from others, that is, it has its “own” culture. But what about so called “virtual
communities”? Do they share a feeling of "us against them"? Cultures are changing all the time,
some faster, some slower. Virtual, computer-based-reality cultures should therefore change
rapidly, since there is a constant influx of new members. So I imagine it should be quite difficult
to create a common awareness of “us”.
Again, I state, I can not imagine writing about the concept culture, operationalisating questions
from indicators of concepts, without participating and observing. One can not ask about "learned
behavior patterns", they should be observed.

The term virtual is a concept applied in many fields with somewhat differing connotations, and
also, differing denotations. Colloquially, 'virtual' has a similar meaning to "quasi-" or "pseudo-"
(prefixes which themselves have quite different meanings), meaning something that is almost
something else, particularly when used in the adverbial form e.g. The term "virtual" is used in
physics, philosophy, networks and internet and computing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual).
Concepts like virtual reality and virtual worlds are associated with the latter. The origin of the
term virtual reality is uncertain. The concept of virtual reality is only one representative of the
"computer mediated communication" (Jones, 1994), generally known as cyberspace. The other
versions include Barlowian cyberspace (named after John Barlow) and Gibsonian cyberspace
(named after William Gibson). In Barlowian cyberspace there is no face to face interaction; it is
the crudest of the three. When we talk on the phone we are "in" the Barlowian cyberspace.
Gibsonian cyberspace allows highly realistic interactions of image representations, called
avatars. It is meant to be combination of Internet and virtual reality, as depicted in the movie The
Matrix. The VR developer Jaron Lanier claims that he coined the term virtual reality
(Featherstone, Burrows, 2001). A related term coined by Myron Krueger, "artificial reality", has
been in use since the 1970s. The concept of virtual reality was popularized in mass media and the
VR research boom of the 1990s was motivated in part by the non-fiction book Virtual Reality by
Howard Rheingold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality).
Virtual reality (VR) is a technology which allows a user to interact with a computer-simulated
environment, be it a real or imagined one. Or as Heim (1993, pp.108) puts it: "Virtual reality is
an event or entity that is real in effect but not in fact."
A virtual world is a computer-based simulated environment intended for its users to inhabit and
interact via avatars. This habitation usually is represented in the form of two or
three-dimensional graphical representations of humanoids (or other graphical or text-based
avatars). Some, but not all, virtual worlds allow for multiple users.
The world being computer-simulated typically appears similar to the real world, with real world
rules such as gravity, topography, locomotion, real-time actions, and communication. The
earliest virtual worlds were not games. The concept of a virtual world has become a popular
fictional motif and setting in recent years, although science-fiction writers have been portraying
similar ideas (for example, cyberspace) for decades. Among the most prominent virtual worlds in
the literature is the ones written about by William Gibson. Virtual worlds were prominent in
"cyberpunk" subculture, in movies and books as TRON, Neuromancer, The Lawnmower Man,
Snow Crash, and Ghost in the Shell. There are many other examples of the virtual world; for
example Lyoko in the French animated television series Code Lyoko (Bell, 2001).
A popular example of a virtual world in fiction is The Matrix, a virtual reality so realistic that the
great majority of those humans plugged in think they are living in the real world and do not
know that they are living in a virtual world.
The first virtual worlds presented on the Internet were communities and chat rooms, some of
which evolved into "MUDs (multi-player computer game)" and "MUSHes (Multi-User Shared
Hack, Habitat, Holodeck, or Hallucination-text-based online social medium to which multiple
users are connected at the same time.)". They attempted to create sets of avatars for virtual
interaction. Community virtual worlds allowed access to the environment and encouraged
creating buildings, art, and structures (and many did not include avatars).
Perhaps the most frequently used term associated vith virtual worlds is 'MMORPG,' which
means 'massively multi-player on-line role-playing game,' (Castronova, 2001). Massively
multiplayer online games (MMOGs) are highly graphical 3-D videogames played online,
allowing individuals, through their self-created digital characters or “avatars,” to interact not
only with the gaming software (the designed environment of the game and the
computer-controlled characters within it) but with other players’ avatars as well (Squire &
Steinkuehler, 2003).

Similarities between virtual and the "real" world

The new concept of online computer games that take place in complex virtual realities has seen
exponential rise in number of users and forms. Virtual worlds like Second life, Active Worlds,
There, and newcomers such as Entropia Universe, Dotsoul Cyberpark and Red Light Center
(http://www.virtualworldsreview.com/ ), should not be seen just as computer games, they are
more that. They enable interaction of thousands of online users with each other through motional
avatars, providing an advanced level of a social network service. Residents can explore, meet
other “Residents”, socialize, participate in individual and group activities, and buy items (virtual
property) and services from one another. A term virtual social world was proposed (Book,
2004).
All virtual worlds, whether gaming or social, have several features in common (Book, 2004):
1. Shared Space: the world allows many users to participate at once.
2. Graphical User Interface: the world depicts space visually, ranging in style from 2D “cartoon”
imagery to more immersive 3D environments.
3. Immediacy: interaction takes place in real time.
4. Interactivity: the world allows users to alter, develop, build, or submit customized content.
5. Persistence: the world’s existence continues regardless of whether individual users are logged
in.
6. Socialization/Community: the world allows and encourages the formation of in-world social
groups like guilds, clubs, cliques, housemates, neighborhoods, etc.

The most striking thing about the so called virtual social worlds is their complexity in form and
organization on one hand and the impression that we are never the less dealing with a sort of a
computer game and therefore not take them seriously. But if we look closer at some of the
processes taking place there, one can not loose the feeling that we are dealing with something
more profound.
The first feature of human interaction that has clearly shifted from the physical domain to the
virtual is the economy, which may be seen as an important building block of every society.
Edward Castronova (2005) has written major works on business of these synthetic worlds.
Unlike many internet ventures, virtual worlds are making money -- with annual revenues
expected to top USD 1.5 billion by 2004 -- and if network effects are as powerful here as they
have been with other internet innovations, virtual worlds may soon become the primary venue
for all online
activity. At least 10 million people pay $15 and up a month to play these games, and maybe 20
million more log in once in a while. In January inside Second Life alone, people spent nearly $5
million in some 4.2 million transactions buying or selling clothes, buildings, etc.
(http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_18/b3982001.htm ).
In March 1999, a small number of Californians discovered a new virtual world called "Norrath",
populated by an exotic but industrious people. About 12,000 people call this place their
"permanent home", although some 60,000 are present there at any given time. The nominal
hourly wage is about USD 3.42 per hour, and the labors of the people produce a GNP per capita
somewhere between that of Russia and Bulgaria (Castronova, 2001).
Second Life hurls all this to the extreme end of the playing field. In fact, it's a stretch to call it a
game because the "residents", as players prefer to be called, create everything. Unlike in other
virtual worlds, Second Life's technology lets people create objects; artifacts like clothes or
storefronts from scratch, LEGO-style, rather than simply pluck avatar outfits or ready-made
buildings from a menu. That means residents can build anything they can imagine, from houses
to candles that burn down to pools of wax. I refer to this regarding the indicator of cultural
Artifacts; man-made object which gives information about the culture of its creator and users.
Virtual artifacts have certain similarities to real-life artifacts even though they do not have
physical properties in the traditional sense. Virtual artifacts can have a virtual and/or "real"
exchange value, and thus can be considered as products. A person or other juristically defined
actor can claim ownership and invest money in virtual artifacts. Virtual artifacts can also be
valuable in an economical sense outside the environment they are created in. For example game
items and characters are valued in terms of real currencies (Lehdonvirta, 2005). The "game"
EverQuest has lived through its share of controversy, much of it shared by the entire MMORPG
genre. One example involves the sale of in-game objects for real currency, often through eBay.
The border between real and virtual has clearly become dim.
Within many virtual worlds, there exists a virtual economy that often mimics real-life
commercial features and models such as trading with in-game virtual artifacts, virtual currencies,
supply and demand, etc. For example, Second Life's virtual currency is the Linden Dollar
(Linden, or L$) and is exchangeable for US Dollars in a marketplace consisting of residents,
Linden Lab, the creator of Second Life, and real life companies. Virtual social world, Second
life, had thousands of registered users in February 2007, its growing importance and influence
has since drawn corporations from the outside “physical” world to open their virtual offices. A
general hype about the mentioned is constantly being generalized by the media. Although the the
numbers of participants is not as big as it is being reported
(http://many.corante.com/archives/2006/12/26/
lindens_second_life_numbers_and_the_presss_desire_to_believe.php), plus the graphic
visualization is still a little raw, major companies such as IBM Corp., Dell Inc., CNet Networks
Inc. and Adidas are recognizing the importance of the new media and have established a
presence in Second Life. Thousands of dollars are being spent for constructing virtual offices and
advertisements and even more will be in the future. Recently Sweden opened an embassy in this
metaverse and some Second life communities are thinking of doing the same in the “real” world.
Different MMPORGs or virtual worlds that are not purpose-oriented have their own symbols,
rituals and language. At fan meetings, one sees how symbols have been woven into the lives of
the players by being applied to their clothing and equipment. A number of terms used in-game
have been coined by players from a wide variety of MMORPGs and players of EverQuest
especifically. EverQuest carries an internal language and culture of its own, including a plethora
of arcane abbreviations aiding communication between players. For example, SoW (which
stands for Spirit of Wolf, a popular spell which accelerates players' movement), and vernacular
usages such as 'crack' or 'mind candy' which within the context of EQ refer to mana regeneration
spells such as Clarity or KEI (an acronym for Koadic's Endless Intellect). While mostly
consistent, there are also some differences in jargon between servers, and between the Asian,
European and American gaming communities. For example, KEI is known on some servers as
C3 (it is the third version of Clarity). In-game chatting can practically be a foreign language to
anyone who has not played it extensively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Everquest#Gameplay_jargon). It should also be noted that language conventions from the virtual
worlds have entered real-world dictionaries, for example see http://www.bartleby.com/61/41/
L0234150.html . Though language in such settings exhibits all of the very same functions as in
every day talk, novel linguistic forms emerge because online gameplay asks ASCII language to
serve the same range of functions but under very particular constraints (Steinkuehler, 2003).
Players need to communicate quickly during battle within the tight constraints of small text
windows. They express emotions, intent, and identity in the absence of other communicative
channels while slaying monsters, battling other players, harvesting resources, or crafting items.
Not only economy, politics is also entering the virtual arena. French presidential candidates
Nicolas Sarkozy, Segolene Royal and Jean-Marie Le Pen, the American John Kerry all “opened”
their election offices; Reuters has its own permanent journalist based in Second Life. In January
2007 a "virtual riot" erupted between members of the French National Front who had established
a virtual HQ on Second Life, and opponents, including Second Life Left Unity, a socialist and
anti-capitalist user-group. Since then, several small Internet based organizations have claimed
some responsibility for instigating the riots. Recently, long time gamers decided to "nuke "two
corporate-owned stores (American Apparel and Reebok).
On the matter of enculturation and socialization. When first logging to Second Life, a new
member is given a tutor, who shows him around and explains him the basic rules of the virtual
world. Mentors are available to Residents on "Help Island", the mainland "Welcome Areas",
"sandboxes", "InfoHubs", and a variety of public places. Mentors answer questions, give advice,
and provide guidance. They can also work as greeters, introducing brand new Residents to
Second Life and encouraging them to explore it. The role of Mentors in the Volunteer Program is
to primarily provide face-to-face (avatar-to-avatar) assistance to Residents. As it is stated on the
official page of the virtual social world Second Life: "Within your first hour, you'll notice that
several residents approach you and introduce themselves – Second Lifers are eager to welcome
you and show you around (http://secondlife.com/whatis/meet.php)."
All virtual worlds have defined "community standards", norms of proper conduct. In Second Life
the Community Standards are as follows: "treat each other with respect and without harassment,
adhere to local standards as indicated by simulator ratings, and refrain from any hate activity
which slurs a real-world individual or real-world community (http://secondlife.com/corporate/
cs.php)." Behavioral guidelines are stated in the "Big six", the "Ten commandments" of
particular virtual social world (http://secondlife.com/corporate/cs.php):

1. Intolerance
Combating intolerance is a cornerstone of Second Life's Community Standards. Actions that marginalize,
belittle, or defame individuals or groups inhibit the satisfying exchange of ideas and diminish the Second
Life community as whole. The use of derogatory or demeaning language or images in reference to another
Resident's race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation is never allowed in Second Life.
2. Harassment
Given the myriad capabilities of Second Life, harassment can take many forms. Communicating or
behaving in a manner which is offensively coarse, intimidating or threatening, constitutes unwelcome
sexual advances or requests for sexual favors, or is otherwise likely to cause annoyance or alarm is
Harassment.
3. Assault
Most areas in Second Life are identified as Safe. Assault in Second Life means: shooting, pushing, or
shoving another Resident in a Safe Area (see Global Standards below); creating or using scripted objects
which singularly or persistently target another Resident in a manner which prevents their enjoyment of
Second Life.
4. Disclosure
Residents are entitled to a reasonable level of privacy with regard to their Second Lives. Sharing personal
information about a fellow Resident --including gender, religion, age, marital status, race, sexual
preference, and real-world location beyond what is provided by the Resident in the First Life page of their
Resident profile is a violation of that Resident's privacy. Remotely monitoring conversations, posting
conversation logs, or sharing conversation logs without consent are all prohibited in Second Life and on
the Second Life Forums.
5. Indecency
Second Life is an adult community, but Mature material is not necessarily appropriate in all areas (see
Global Standards below). Content, communication, or behavior which involves intense language or
expletives, nudity or sexual content, the depiction of sex or violence, or anything else broadly offensive
must be contained within private land in areas rated Mature (M). Names of Residents, objects, places and
groups are broadly viewable in Second Life directories and on the Second Life website, and must adhere
to PG guidelines.
 6. Disturbing the Peace
Every Resident has a right to live their Second Life. Disrupting scheduled events, repeated transmission of
undesired advertising content, the use of repetitive sounds, following or self-spawning items, or other
objects that intentionally slow server performance or inhibit another Resident's ability to enjoy Second
Life are examples of Disturbing the Peace.

As norms are defined as rules that are socially enforced, violations of norms are punished with
sanctions, possibly enforced by law. In Second Life violations of the Community Standards first
result in a Warning, followed by Suspension and eventual Banishment from Second Life.
In-World Representatives, called Liaisons, may occasionally address disciplinary problems with
a temporary removal from Second Life.
Social roles are defined through communication with other avatars-users. The communication is
in the form of a clipped written English ("chat"). An avatar may approach another avatar, type a
message out on the keyboard, and send that message to the other avatar. Depending on the nature
of the laws of sound in the VW, an avatar may also be able to overhear the conversations of
others, as well as hold conversations with avatars hundreds of virtual miles away. These
communications allow social interactions that are not a simulation of human interactions; they
are human interactions, merely extended into a new forum. As with any human society, it is
through communication that the VW society confers status and standing. As it turns out, the
social standing of the avatar has a powerful effect on the entertainment value of the VW. Given
that people are trying to speak by writing in real time, chatspeak is infused with extensive
abbreviations and there is little punctuation. "omwb – brt" means ( Castronova, 2001). The
discourse communities these practices serve likewise expand from collections of in-character
playmates to real-world affinity groups, and the social structures so generated are complex and
overlapping – comparable, as Jakobsson and Taylor (2003) point out, to traditional “mafia”
structures. Like the mafia or other organized communal systems, MMOG social structures
appear to be powerful means for mobilizing players’ identities. In such communities, fluency in
the discourse determines whether one is located on the periphery (as a “newbie”) or at the center
(as a “beta vet”) (cf. Lave & Wenger, 1991). Understanding the forms of (voluntary)
participation in complex communities and environments such as MMOGs is crucial: Such virtual
communities function as a major mechanism of enculturation for those engaged with them:
“Playing one's character(s) and living in [these virtual worlds] becomes an important part of
daily life. Since much of the excitement of the game depends on having personal relationships
and being part of [the] community's developing politics and projects, it is hard to participate just
a little" (Turkle, 1995: 184).
One of the most interesting concepts related to culture is identity. The new "synthetic worlds
(Castronova, 2005)" have offered a medium which for the first time allows thousands of ordinary
people, though only briefly, to choose any identity they want. They can experiment with physical
shape, gender, race, age, class and feel how it is like to be someone or something else. The
implications of cyberspace for the ways we think about identity are immense. There has been an
explosion of work on questions of identity. The virtual is redefining the concepts like gender,
race and class, some scholars speak of "crisis of identity...as part of a wider process of change,
which is dislocating the central structures and processes of modern societies and undermining the
frameworks which gave individuals stable anchorage in the social world (Hall, 1995: 596)."

Conslusion

It is evident that virtual worlds, like Second Life in some way or another mimic the sociocultural
patterns of the “real” world. We could argue that we are witnessing an emergence of a true
“virtual society”, with its own sets of rules and laws.
The question that I tried to put in perspective is: Do they poses a unique, virtual, culture, which
in its utopian escapist fundaments differs from the outside, real culture of their society, or is the
this culture, if there is such, merely a reflection, a mirror of the outside conditions? It is true that
participants in the virtual social network originate from different “outside” cultures. So how do
they function as a whole, if at all? If yes, they must share, or create a common symbolic reality
of rules and values in order to communicate and function as coherent community. There is
something almost perverse in attaching attributes of the observable material world to the
"virtual". Comparing, for example Inuit culture to "virtual" culture of Second Life seems absurd.
But I think the very absurdity in and of this endeavor is the "catch". Culture is a construct; it
exists only in our minds. It is not real. It is "virtual" in its essence; a man-made web of rules and
guidelines how to deal with chaotic realm of the material world.
I assume that the virtual world “games”, the communities like Second Life have a unique culture
of its own, or will develop one, in time influencing even the “outside” culture.
I think cyberworlds, synthetic worlds, virtual (social) worlds or whatever we want to name them
are a legitimate object of anthropological, sociological and psychological research. And they are.
And they will be even more so in the future. They are suitable testing ground for the evaluation
of all sorts hypothesis in human relations. For example: what are the origins of crime? “Second
Life has been attacked several times by groups of “residents” abusing the creation tools to create
objects that harass other users or damage the system. This includes “grey goo” objects which
infinitely reproduce, eventually overwhelming the servers; orbiters which throw an avatar so far
upwards they cannot get back down in a reasonable timeframe without teleporting; cages which
surround avatars, preventing them from moving, and similar. Although combat between users is
sanctioned in certain areas of the world, these objects have been used to cause disruption in all
areas; attacks on the grid itself, such as Grey Goo, are of course strictly forbidden anywhere on
the grid. Recently Linden Lab announced that new plans to combat grey goo attacks are under
consideration, including changes to the back end code to minimize damage from attacks, and
possible restriction of scripting privileges to trusted or verified accounts”.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Life_issues_and_criticisms#Non-Commercial_Content)

How to study virtual culture and is there such thing in the first place? Maybe we should study it
as if it were and then acknowledge if we are dealing with something new. In praxis the most
appropriate method to observe the individual behavior is participation by observation, which
means an anthropologist should “sign in” and become a member of the specific virtual
community.
The indicator of culture as learned, transmitted, non-hereditary, “invisible” highly complex
system, implies to formal and informal training for and by the individuals and institutions about
behavior and norms based on the value system, enabling the orderly functioning of the system.
This heavily implies to the problem of constant change. How to ensure that the system stays a
coherent unit? In reality this is seen in several “rebellions” of the senior Second Life members,
who were not pleased with behavior of the newcomers. This means there are strictly defined
rules which participants need to follow in order to normally interact. Who makes and enforces
the rules and laws? How do people resolve conflicts? How do participants get familiar with rules
and laws that govern the virtual community? Are there any particular ways in which people
communicate? Do they use in a way a separate language, words that have no meanings in the real
world? How do people know which action is tolerable and which is not? Are there any
“unwritten” rules how to do things? Who can do what? Is there any social hierarchy among the
participants? If yes, based on what? Are there any specific rituals, “rites of passage”? Do they
share a common belief system? Are there any interest groups, sort of "virtual kinship systems"?
Based on what do these groups associate?
We could easily answer the above questions in a positive way. There are signs of emerging
patterns and structures that could indicate the emergence of a virtual culture, or at least a
"metaculture" as meaning "after", "beyond". A concept which is an abstraction from another
concept, used to complete or add to the latter.

I know the determining and proving a concept like culture, even much so “virtual culture” is a
difficult task. I have failed to fully operationalise indicators of culture into questions. But I have
learned some important lessons; the impossibility of studying abstract with social methods and
their usefulness in studying observable phenomena. It also made me think about the whole
relationship between real and unreal. Are the things we see and even measure "really" real?
I also hope my poor attempt sparked some interest on the topic in you, if you already have not
taken a closer look at these things.
REFERENCES

Castronova, Edward. 2005. Synthetic worlds: The Bussiness and culture of online games.
Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Castronova, Edward. 2001. Virtual worlds: A first-hand account of market and society on the
cyberian frontier. CESifo Working Paper Series No. 618. Center for Economic Studies and Ifo
Institute for Economic Research, California State University, Fullerton, December 2001.
http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=294828

Bell, David. 2001. An introduction to Cybercultures. London: Routlege.

Benedict, Ruth. 1934. Patterns of Culture. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Benedict, Ruth Fulton. 1934. The Integration of Culture. Patterns of Culture. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, Co., pp 45-56.

Book, Betsy. 2004. Moving Beyond the Game: Social Virtual Worlds. State of Play 2
Conference, October 2004
http://www.virtualworldsreview.com/papers/BBook_SoP2.pdf

Featherstone, Mike & Burrows, Roger. 2001. Kiberprostor, Kibertjela, Cyberpunk. Zagreb:
Naklada Jesenski i Turk.

Hall, Stuart. 1995. The Question of Cultural Identity, in S. Hall, D. Held, and K. Thompson (eds)
Modernity: an introduction to modern societies, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Haralambos, M. in Holborn, M. 1999: Sociologija. Teme in pogledi. Ljubljana: NUK.

Henslin, James M. 1999 Sociology: A Down-To-Earth Approach, (4th Ed) Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Heim, Michael. 1993. The Metaphysics of Virtual Reality. New York, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Kottak, Conrad. 2004. Window on Humanity: A Concise Introduction to Anthropology.

McGraw-Hill

Kroeber, A. L. and C. Kluckhohn, 1952. Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions.
Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum.

Kroeber, Alfred. 1948. The nature of culture. Cultural Patterns and Processes. New
York:Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., pp. 60-64.

Leary, M. R., & Tangney, J. P. 2003. Handbook of self and identity. New York: Guilford Press

Lehdonvirta, Vili.2005. Real-Money Trade of Virtual Assets: New Strategies for Virtual World
Operators. Proceedings of Future Play 2005, Michigan State University, 13-15 October 2005.

Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Routledge.

Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred.1952 (1940). "On Social Structure." Structure and Function in Primitive
Society, New York: The Free Press.

Sapir, Edward. 1994. The Psychology of Culture: A Course of Lectures. Reconstructed and
Edited by Judith T. Irvine. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Sherry, Turkle. 1995. Life on the Screen. New York: Touchstone.

Squire, K. D. & Steinkuehler, C. A. 2003. Generating CyberCulture/s: The case of Star Wars
Galaxies. In D. Gibbs & K. L. Krause (Eds.), Cyberlines: Languages and cultures of the Internet
(2nd ed.). Albert Park, Australia: James Nicholas Publishers.
http://website.education.wisc.edu/kdsquire/manuscripts/squire-steinkuehler-final.rtf
Taylor, T.L.2004.The Social design of virtual worlds: Constructing the user and community
through code. Internet Research Annual Volume 1: Selected Papers from the Association of
Internet Researchers Conferences 2000-2002. New York: Peter Lang.
http://www.itu.dk/~tltaylor/papers/Taylor-SocialDesign.pdf

Internet:

http://www.gamestudies.org/0401/kolo/

http://www.gamestudies.org/0302/castronova/

http://www.gamestudies.org/0301/walther/

http://www.virtualworldsreview.com/papers/BBook_SoP2.pdf

http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/pmc/text-only/issue.904/15.1gaylard.txt

http://www.ctheory.net/home.aspx

http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/pmc/text-only/issue.103/13.2tofts.txt

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_18/b3982001.htm

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.10/slshopping.html

http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2006/11/06/learning-the-facts-of-second-life

http://many.corante.com/archives/2006/12/26/
lindens_second_life_numbers_and_the_presss_desire_to_believe.php

http://secondlife.reuters.com/stories/2007/05/01/cnbc-gets-worked-up-about-nba-in-second-life/

http://anthropology.net/tags/second_life

http://news.com.com/2100-1043_3-6135699.html