Some writing samples from the master’s in Media Psychology
=======================================================================================================
“The Muddied Metaphors of Net Neutrality”
Abstract
What is Net Neutrality? A relatively recent topic in the realm of public discussion which has received a lot of attention. A lot of confusing attention. The topic itself seems simple enough, Net Neutrality refers to the rules and principles which dictate that Internet Service Providers (ISPs henceforth) should provide access to all content & websites and applications regardless of who or what produced it, and without playing favorites to favored content. In other words, all legal content is equal in the eyes of the internet and should resemble the ‘marketplace of ideas’ many early adopters fell in love with to begin with. However, in the recent years the decisions pertaining to Net Neutrality have been made by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC henceforth) typically following the party lines and favoring that of the president in office at the time of FCC decisions. This already confusing conversation is further mucked up by the deliberate use of emotional words, frames, metaphors and propaganda on both sides of the aisle. This present paper will not assume what will or will not become of our beloved internet as a result of decisions made by the FCC. Rather, this paper will look at messaging surrounding the Net Neutrality debate. Anywhere public discourse relating to an event is pertinent, one can bet there will be a war of words, or as we’ll see, a war for words by all sides involved.
We begin with the statement echoed on all sides of the Net Neutrality debate; “We ALL want the internet to thrive.” However, the sides quickly devolve from there and one must answer the essential first question: “Do you want an open internet?” or “Do you want internet freedom?” Oddly enough, you cannot have it both ways. And soon we’ll see exactly why words are so very important to the discussion of Net Neutrality.
Network Neutrality, or Net Neutrality is a phrase first written by lawyer, author, law professor and internet hero, Timothy Wu (2003). Pulling from his own website he defines Net Neutrality this way, “Network neutrality is best defined as a network design principle. The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally” (timwu.org). This sounds lovely and indeed represents an idealistic democratic nature of the internet and Wu himself. According to Wu’s website, the Net Neutrality debate, “grew out of the concerns in the late 1990’s about possible threats to the end-to-end nature of the internet” (timwu.org). Wu (2003) suggested an anti-discrimination approach to the well-foreseen problem, thus the phrase Net Neutrality was born and has been the focus of a range of emotional debates since then.
The range of this paper’s time frame is 2008-2018, so with the exception of the briefest of prior history regarding the phrase, we’ll skip to some important FCC decisions pertaining to the Net Neutrality debate. On January 9th of 2008, the FCC launched an investigation surrounding Comcast blocking and delaying content and traffic of Bittorrent, a peer-to-peer file sharing company. This is an important notion, as the idea of self-regulation by ISPs is the guiding light in today’s FCC reaction to Net Neutrality. Later that same year, the FCC orders Comcast to stop discriminating. This decision in a Republican presidency, no less. Comcast appeals, not surprisingly. Enter Net Neutrality proponent Barack Obama as President of the United States. Shortly after, the Washington D.C. Circuit sides in favor of Comcast and in fact, questions the legitimacy of the FCC in making such demands. Murmurs of reclassification of ISPs are swirling about the internet, FCC, and Washington as both pro and con advocates discuss at length. Opting not to reclassify, the FCC issues the original ‘Open Internet Order’ which among other items has a seemingly pro-consumer lean as its main tenets are: transparency, no blocking, and no unreasonable discrimination of content. Sounds pretty good. A little too good for the likes of telecommunications giant Verizon. The company takes their case again, to the D.C. Circuit Court to question if the FCC even has the jurisdiction to implement the ‘Open Internet Order’. Comcast found pro-industry favoritism, why couldn’t Verizon?
Flash to September of 2012, AT&T is blocking Facetime from their mobile devices unless users purchase and enter into a ‘mobile share’ plan. Again, it’s important to note the behavior of an unregulated tech giant the likes of AT&T blocking, inhibiting, and otherwise favoring content toward its own benefit. Thanks to the persistence of public interest groups, AT&T opted to ‘unblock’ Facetime under the threat of FCC intervention.
September 2013, Verizon gets its day in court and in 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court finds in favor of Verizon, and overturns the FCC’s ‘Open Internet Order’. Still, the FCC persisted. In April, the commission had a leak. The ‘bewildered herd’ got a look at the FCC’s latest attempt at regulating the open internet. And in fact, it favored the implementation of fast and slow lanes. This attempt flew directly in the face of public interest and prior FCC concerns. The herd howled. By mid-2014, the public had taken to demonstrating as more and more, the leaked proposal piqued the minds of internet users everywhere and overwhelmingly the public support was in favor of strong Net Neutrality rules.
August of 2014 stands as the third example in the present paper of unregulated-acting tech giants exerting their power in the interest of their bottom line. Public Knowledge, a public interest group, filed a suit against AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon for failing to disclose policies for throttling wireless subscribers (publicknowledge.org). As 2014 went on, public interest grew at a staggering rate and once again, reclassification was considered. Only this time, President Obama threw his support to Net Neutrality in the form of favoring ISPs being considered public utilities, as ‘common carriers’, and as such be under the governance of the FCC in accordance with Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. This was a win for consumers, even if the rules were 80 years old, and created when even the idea of the internet was absent. Be that as it were, the FCC chairman at the time endorses this decision and soon, the commission votes in favor of reclassification and FCC jurisdiction of the internet under Title II authority, granted in the Communications Act of 1934. March of 2015, the FCC issues the new order and Net Neutrality is upheld. Familiar already to many, this new order reaffirms three major tenets; banning paid prioritization, banning blocking, and banning throttling.
After a tumultuous 2016 presidential, the world is introduced to pro-industry, republican Donald Trump to the seat of president. Trump in turn taps FCC’s Ajit Pai to head the FCC. Ajit Pai is determined to repeal the 2015 Net Neutrality rules and announces his intention to do so. In May of 2017, the republican-led commission votes in favor to start the rollback process of the 2015 order. Much to the public’s dismay, Ajit Pai and the FCC vote to repeal the ‘Open Internet Order’ so they may ‘Restore Internet Freedom’. As of the writing of this paper, the Senate passed a Congressional Review Act (CRA) Resolution to repeal the recent FCC decision. However, this bill faces an uphill battle due to the fact that it must pass the house and then be signed by the sitting president. This writer thinks there is a greater chance Verizon will convert itself to a non-profit providing essential telecom to underserved communities rather than the current CRA becoming enforced. Only time will tell. As for all the warriors in the battles of ‘Open Internet’ vs. ‘Internet Freedom’, the war is far from over.
We’ve seen a brief history of Net Neutrality, we’ve also noted the meandering FCC direction regarding the topic and also several examples of how ISPs act when they are either not regulated or with ‘light touch’ regulations applied. Now, let’s get into the real mud pen, metaphorically speaking.
Open Internet vs. Internet Freedom
Regardless of personals views on the confusing topic of Net Neutrality. There is a clear divide between supporters of ‘Open Internet’: Mostly democrats, consumer protection groups, public interest groups, those in favor of government regulation, and concerned internet users at large; And those supporting ‘Internet Freedom’: Majority of which are republican, pro-industry, anti-regulation, and apparently trusting of unregulated ISP promises. What creates such a clear and distinct seemingly moral divide within those involved in the discussion? The answer to this question can be traced back to the creation of specific worldviews set in motion from a very young age. To understand the formation of a worldview, let’s start from the beginning. As a healthy human brain develops, many seemingly miracles occur. For the purpose of this paper, we will first look at the miracle of neural networks.
Westen (2007) describes them as networks of association. Or rather, as Westen (2007) puts it, "bundles of thoughts, feelings, images, and ideas that have become connected over time” (p. 3). Westen (2007) goes on to say, "Neural networks represent our knowledge and attitudes toward everyone and everything we encounter" (p.83).
Neural networks are also responsible for the development of what Lakoff (2008) describes as primary metaphors. Primary metaphors are neural structures which come to represent and reinforce common metaphors over time (Lakoff, 2008). Often these physical structures are located in different and separate parts of the brain. When separate parts of the brain are stimulated together over and over, they develop a structure which stands for the physical representation of that metaphor. This joining together of two structures to become one metaphor is an example of neural networks in action. According to Lakoff (2008) and Narayanan (as cited in Lakoff, 2008) metaphors are a vehicle of understanding that we begin acquiring at a very young age, so as "by the time we are in our mid- to late childhood, we have hundreds of primary metaphors structuring our brains, available to bind to frames and to other metaphors to form new metaphorical concepts" (p.256). Thus, we begin acquiring and understanding metaphors before we fully grasp the language that transports them.
Lakoff (2008) believes thought, any and all thought happens inside the body, utilizing actual physical space and matter (tiny as it may be) in our world. As we develop, our neural pathways build upon these physical entities, metaphors, and develop further, this is known as neural recruitment and factor into metaphorical thinking. There are primary metaphors, which arise spontaneously and there are complex metaphors which are made up of multiple primary metaphors (Lakoff, 2008).
Metaphors help establish our thought processes and worldview by first, occurring naturally; second, through neural recruitment become solidified into physical neural structures which are; thirdly, built upon as we live our lives. This helps to establish our thought processes. Thus, thought and reason in creating a worldview is not disembodied or intangible as eighteenth century enlightenment thinking would have everyone believe; rather, a worldview is real and physical (Lakoff, 2008). It is a physical happening inside the brain & body, and over time is repeatedly supported by building increasing neural connections which reinforce the worldview.
If one identifies themselves with a worldview, as is often the case, cognitive science shows these narratives which relate to worldviews and identity rarely change because they are part of the physical brain in the form of neural pathways (Lakoff, 2008). While the brain is shown to have plasticity, the brain would have to physically change to alter these established neural pathways, and this is shown to be unlikely (Lakoff, 2008). Thus, once a worldview is adhered to, it is rare to shift away from its current form. This may or may not play a part in the stark divide between those in favor of strong Net Neutrality rules and those in favor of unregulated, industry players.
Still, there may be a deeper answer by looking at Lakoff’s (2008) ‘family as metaphor for country’. Lakoff (2008) believes much can be learned by applying the metaphor of family toward our country, illustrated with his question, “where is our first taste of being governed?” In the family.
For the purpose of making his point, Lakoff (2008) posits there are generally two types of parenting styles, that of ‘the strict father’ morality and that of the ‘nurturing parent’ morality. Important and telling in this line of thinking is to ask oneself, “what is the role of government in my life?” Is the role of government to be the ‘law & order’ that keeps peace through power, obey your officials because THEY knows best, do as the government says, because IT and IT alone has authority; the ‘strict father’ model of morality, or is the role of government to protect, empower, nurture personal growth and guarantee liberty; a more progressive path, the ‘nurturing parent’ model of morality?
Lakoff (2008) states morality is about welfare and well-being; Of self, others, those in groups, nations, and the world itself. These experiences are closely tied with narratives, specifically moral narratives. Moral narratives are two-parted, both of which exist in the physical world (Lakoff, 2008). First, the ‘dramatic structure’ of the narrative includes roles like hero, villain, victim, helper, and so on (Lakoff, 2008). Second is the ‘emotional structure’ which links the ‘dramatic structure’ of the narrative to either the positive (dopamine) or negative (norepinephrine) emotional circuitry (Lakoff, 2008). The emotional structure of the narrative is inseparable from the dramatic structure as these connections are neurally bound within our brain (Lakoff, 2008). Thus, metaphors, frames, and narratives physically impact our aspects of morality in life.
Lakoff (2008) believes the government should have a ‘moral mission’ siding more toward that of progressive views of ‘protection & empowerment’ of the citizen rather than to protect and empower corporate interests and industry actors, who are often working for the bottom line of a business. Lakoff (2008), speaking on the dangers of privatization, warns when there is not a clear ‘moral mission’ of the government, “the profit motive may intervene and undermine the moral mission” (p. 49). In this instance, privatization of monitoring and regulating currently comes down to previously-bad-actors promising they will not act bad again. Thus, the governance ‘of them’ has been privatized ‘by them’, almost surely for purposes of profit. True, there can be suits filed against bad actors, and true, the FCC and now FTC will investigate those claims. However, the time spent in litigation alone would be lengthy, costly, and depending on where a case is heard and what body investigates, may not end up being a suitable solution in the best interest of those affected.
It’s not difficult to make the mental jump in applying the ‘strict father’ morality to the ‘free market’ approach of governing. “Let the market decide,” has long been the battle cry for many political parties alike, typically for various self-serving reasons. And when you apply Lakoff’s (2008) ‘strict-father-moral-authority knows best’ to the ‘free market’ you can see quickly how this issue will be argued. “Do not question the free market, do not hinder (through regulations) the authority of the free market, it knows best and it is obviously what the people want.” In this line of thinking, there is nothing in the moral hierarchy above that of the ‘free market’ or any other sanctioned authority figure. While the many benefits of a ‘free market’ approach in our country are irrefutable, there are many drawbacks to it being the apex of moral authority. That discussion is for a different paper. For now, this writer believes there is a time and place for government intervention, especially when it comes to something as ubiquitous, important and volatile as the internet. Often an impassioned debate is won or lost before it’s even presented, as Lakoff (2008) writes 98% of thinking is below the conscious level, which is why the importance of framing cannot be denied.
The Frame Game of a Name
Frames are neural structures by which we understand and categorize our perceived reality, or as Lakoff (2008) puts it, "frames are among the cognitive structures we think with” (P. 22). Lakoff (2008) continues to reinforce the importance of frames by stating they structure huge amounts of our thoughts. Lakoff (2008) cites both sociologist Erving Goffman (as cited in Lakoff, 2008) and linguist Charles Fillmore (as cited in Lakoff, 2008) in hitting home the importance of frames to our cognitive understanding of our surrounding in that "all institutions are structured by frames” (p. 22) and "words are all defined relative to conceptual frames” (p. 22) quoted respectively.
Framing occurs when a person or entity carefully and with intent, presents an argument, policy, idea in a way which positions the topic in a chosen and deliberate point of view. By framing a position, politicians can often curate public opinion surrounding an issue, which in turn can work in their favor, as we have seen, words will elicit frames and may unconsciously influence the way people think about a given topic.
For the purpose of this paper, let’s look at a key phrase regarding regulations which framed the most recent Net Neutrality debate. Supporters of ‘Open Internet’ often refer to the regulations imposed in reclassifying ISPs as ‘common carriers’, as was such in 2015 in authority of ‘Title II’, as ‘light touch’ regulations. The ‘light touch’ of a caring and empathic government who is looking out for the best interest of citizens and empowering them to stand up to near monopoly tech giants. This is a progressive stand typical of democratic style governing.
Supporters of ‘Internet Freedom’ describes the 2015 reclassification choice and more robust rules governing ‘common carrier’ ISPs as ‘heavy-handed’. Thus, ‘heavy-handed’ government regulations are unnecessary in the eyes of any free market, ‘moral authority’ hawk. Even the current FCC’s ‘Restoring Internet Freedom’ page (www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom) utilizes the phrase ‘open internet’ and how the ‘Restoring Internet Freedom Order’ will usher in a ‘framework for protecting’ the ‘open internet’. This line, taken from the FCC page is a great example of words which frame and tell a story, [the ‘Restoring Internet Freedom Order’] “It replaces unnecessary, heavy-handed regulations that were developed way back in 1934 with strong consumer protections, increased transparency, and common-sense rules that will promote investment and broadband deployment”.
Interestingly enough, and further muddying the waters of the debate is that the phrases ‘light touch’ and ‘open internet’ are used by both sides. ‘Open Internet’ proponents use the phrase to support the ‘Open Internet Order’, a phrase used for nearly two decades, though here specifically pertaining to regulations placed in 2015. While ‘Internet Freedom’ proponents use the phrase to describe what the 2017 repeal of Net Neutrality rules did in restoring ‘Internet Freedom’, mainly that it brought back the ‘light touch’ which they claim is what brought the internet to success in the first place. This war of words begs the question, ‘open internet’ for who or what? In addition, ‘internet freedom’ for who or what?
Could it be that the confusing use of same and similar terms by both sides is an conscious attempt by each side to hijack the understanding of the topic? Maybe so. Is it possible the language used in debating the Net Neutrality topic is simply used to prime citizens for what is to come next? Perhaps. It depends on how much either side believe in the power of emotions and words and their effects when combined.
Priming occurs when neural networks are stimulated just enough to enter in to a state of latent activation, whereas the neural network is not yet activated but now has a higher propensity to actually become activated (Westen, 2007). Cognitive neuroscience has shown that when part of a neural network is activated, those associations spread their activation throughout the region and in effect activate other associations in the neural network (Westen, 2007). Combine this with the discussion of where one rests on the morality spectrum and hearing ‘heavy-handed regulations’ as opposed to ‘light-touch’ may create an intense emotional response worthy of a Facebook or Twitter post.
Proponents of an issue use priming in narratives when they set an idea in motion within the brains of people, whereby activating specific neural networks. Once an initial network is activated, this primes the nearby associated neural networks and thus politicians may 'spread activation' unconsciously in the minds of listeners (Westen, 2007). It’s possible that in the war for words, ownership of specific language like ‘open’, ‘freedom’, ‘transparency’, and ‘regulation’ is ongoing and either side want to prime and maintain cerebral control of the tangled narrative. Perhaps all parties know the power of owning the frames belonging to these words as well-established frames, and it takes deep effort to change the brain once a frame has taken hold (Lakoff, 2008). As we’ve already seen, ideas are physical, structures in our brain (Lakoff, 2008). If the brain is to change, it must change at the synapses (Lakoff, 2008). Synaptic changes, or long-term potentiation occurs under 2 conditions, trauma and repetition (Lakoff, 2008).
Lakoff (2008) knows we live out our narratives. Frames make up what we perceive as narratives. Thanks to neural binding, which is the "brains ability to bring together neural activation in different parts of the brain to form single integrated wholes” (Lakoff, 2008, p. 25), frames become an effective way to reinforce narratives. Simply put, narratives are stories. These stories help give meaning to life. Lakoff (2008) believes, "narratives are brain structures we can live out, recognize in others, and imagine, because the same brain structures are used for all three kinds of experiences” (p.93). Put in the hands of talented message crafters, the words and phrases themselves become artillery in the battle of frames.
Conclusion
There has definitely been a surge in public interest toward the Net Neutrality debate. It may be interesting to ask oneself and others where they first heard the phrase, and where they get their news about the topic. Interestingly enough, opponents of Title II authority governing ISPs often complain it is an outdated regulation. However, media critic Robert McChesney (2004) believes, "Each new media industry followed the pattern laid down by the newspapers: It began as a competitive enterprise and evolved into a concentrated oligopoly” (p. 228). Regardless of ones view on the recent FCC decision to repeal 2015 Net Neutrality regulations, it is impossible to argue consolidation of power is happening with our internet. And with the current FCC in place, it is the free and open market that favors the tech giants which is currently the pinnacle moral authority governing the internet and FCC.
Throughout researching this topic, it comes to my attention that the real focus and concern of the ISPs is not merely Net Neutrality rules. It seems to be the level of regulation they come under. Again, this writer believes this is a morality question. Regardless of what companies say and promise, it is their actions which determine the course of history. Time and time again, when the bottom line and profits are the main concern, something has to give. Currently, it is the citizen who is giving way to the industry players. Only time will tell if ISPs will be good or bad actors on the field of the internet landscape. History shows there will be trouble. Which is why, in closing, this writer would urge actual laws to be set in place, instead of a back and forth with every alternating political party in power. We all want the internet to be free, open, and thrive. Who or what entity wins the battle for the definition of those words actually mean, remains to be seen.
REFERENCES
Lakoff, G. (2008). The political mind. New York, NY: Penguin
McChesney, R. W. (2004). The problem of the media. U.s. communication politics in the 21stcentury, New York: Monthly Review Press
Westen, D. (2007). The political brain; The role of emotion in deciding the fate of the nation. New York, NY: Persius Books
Wu, T. (2003). Network neutrality, broadband discrimination. Journal on telecommunications and high technology law, 2(1), 141-176.
===============================================================================================================================================
"Narrative Transportation and Empathy"
Dan Pesta
ABSTRACT
Narrative transportation may increase empathy for the purpose of social change and awareness. The socially conscious, first-person online game SPENT (www.playspent.org) is a powerful tool in not only creating awareness of those in need, suffering from poverty and homelessness, but also in eliciting an empathic response from its participants. Interspersed with facts and figures regarding poverty and homelessness, SPENT transports players into a narrative where every decision must be weighed carefully and every dollar counts and is counted. In effect, SPENT gives participants a first-person experience unfortunately shared by more than 43 million Americans.
Keywords: narrative, empathy, narrative transportation, narrative paradigm
“Narrative Transportation and Empathy”
Narratives and stories have been told for ages in one way or another. The ways in which narratives are delivered can vary, though their purpose is clear. Narrative persuasion wishes to convey information in order for the recipient to understand, feel, learn, grow, empathize, and so on. Researchers like Jerome Bruner (1991) believe narrative is the very way we construct the reality around us. In short, narratives take on aspects of their surrounding culture and therefore inform the ways in which people organize experience and memory construction of reality (Bruner, 1991). Crucial to the acceptance of ‘narrative persuasion’ is the word: Verisimilitude. Unlike empirical truths, which may be proved using logic and scientific discoveries, narrative persuasion relies on verisimilitude, the appearance of being true and real. Of course, narrative persuasion may come to the same conclusions as logic or empirical study; however the persuasion aspect is not dependent upon truth. Rather perceived and allowed truth based on several aspects Robert Yale (2015) expounds upon in his video lecture on ‘Narrative Persuasion’. Yale (2015), further explaining the work of Walter Fisher the father of ‘Narrative Paradigm’, explains individuals rationalize the truth of a narrative based on two components: Fidelity and Coherence (2015). Fidelity, does the story feel true, and coherence, does the story fit together cohesively. When both fidelity and coherence are high, Yale (2015) says a story will pass the narrative rationality test and therefore be more likely to influence beliefs and actions (2015).
Important to the present essay is the notion of ‘Narrative Transportation’. A crucial mechanism of narrative persuasion is narrative transportation. Green and Carpenter (2011) explain transportation as a state of being which impacts cognitive, emotional and mental imagery engagement (p. 115). Transportation into story or narrative allows for participants to enter another world, either real or imagined. SPENT is a socially-conscious interactive game created for the Urban Ministries of Durham, in North Carolina. The game itself was created to raise awareness for those living in and trying to survive poverty and homelessness. The game SPENT transports participants into a world where even the most seemingly mundane decision can create a scenario where you lose your job or your apartment, simply because you do not have the resources. The first-person experience of ‘playing’ SPENT offers insight into the life millions of Americans live on a day to day basis. The present essay will explore the game SPENT through the 10 features of narrative as put forth by Jerome Bruner (1991).
SPENT starts you off with the exposition indicating you’ve lost your job, and house. You have come to a point where your savings are gone and you are down to your last $1000. You also have a child to consider. The scope of the game is one month. Can you make the correct decisions and survive the month? The days of the month are noted along the right side of the screen. As a participant of the game SPENT, your experience can last anywhere from 2 minutes to 10 minutes to either make it through the month or run out of money. The events of SPENT happen both in real time and over a month long period in gameplay which is demonstrative of ‘narrative diachronicity’, events occurring over time.
SPENT deals out many aspects of particularity, which add to the sense of dread facing millions of Americans on a daily basis. Dramatic events such as how to handle a tooth ache with minimum resources, a car accident, paying this bill vs that bill, going to work or going to see your child’s play, picking insurance or going without, where to live: rent vs. travel costs, and other such particular events create persuasion toward awareness during the narrative. The first-person aspect to SPENT informs the participant, they are the hero of the story. As the person living in this low-income reality you get a sense every decision you make impacts your and your child’s very well-being. You must place your best intentions forward if you and your child are to survive the month.
Intentional state entailment informs participants there are actions which must align with certain intentions. However, as Bruner (1991) points out intention in narrative “never fully determine the course of events” (p. 7). As one may find out when they play SPENT, your intention of making it through the month isn’t indicative of your reality of making it through the month. On another note regarding intention, the makers of the game are thorough in their intention to show you firsthand what it’s like to make decisions of this nature. So there are two sides of intentional state entailment happening here, one of the participant’s and one of the producers of the media.
Hermeneutic composability, or a series of events which can be interpreted as a story, are evident in the continual happenings which must be dealt with in the game. The subject matter of SPENT makes it difficult to not suspend disbelief, when the reality is the participant is sitting in front of a computer while perhaps someone just outside the window may be facing similar dilemmas. The participant enters into an agreement with the media-maker in order to play and get a better understanding of story.
Canonicity and breach, in this instance are understood from the get-go. Once a participant engages SPENT they are thwarted into a situation which might be considered a breach of the normal, but is a reality for so many. You have lost your job, your house and are down to your last $1000, what do you do? The gamification of social scenarios such as poverty and homelessness are not completely lacking light-hearted decisions such as smoking or going out with friends. However, the realistic effects of these decisions are felt and do not escape the perceived downward spiral of gameplay.
Anyone who’s had to make difficult choices such as those found in SPENT will immediately feel a sense of familiarity and referentiality. Even if it doesn’t come down to food or phone, rent or transportation for participants in the real world, SPENT does a fantastic job of relating difficult decisions to any participant’s life. The narrative of SPENT feels real on a visceral level, there is an inescapable sadness accompanying the play of this game. As a first-person experience, a participant need only click a few times into SPENT for the verisimilitude effect to take place and truly feel the narrative is real. While the participant is surely playing a game, the fidelity of the situations and the coherence of the predetermined choices offered will give any player a sense of reference to their own life.
The genericness of the events in SPENT place this narrative squarely in the genres of drama, non-fiction, and realism. Narratives are understood and agreed upon with regard to expectations of a given genre. SPENT is realistic, dramatic, and representational of millions of Americans living at or below the poverty level. As such, a participant’s mindset may be informed by the notion of genre. Picking between work and your child’s well-being isn’t comical, nor is losing your source of income and housing. Again, being thwarted into these scenarios may have a visceral effect on participants, which on a subconscious level is already agreed upon by way of the genericness of the game.
The narrative of SPENT supposes certain societal norms, mainly if you work hard, you will live well. This is a social norm which we are taught early in life. The notion of hard work being translated into living well is a social norm which simply isn’t the case for much of the United States population. SPENT informs us as we play, there are no guarantees work will translate to positive outcomes. Normativeness supposes a social norm which is foundational bedrock for the believability of a given narrative.
Context sensitivity and negotiability is closely related to transportation, wherein the participant of the game SPENT agrees to suspend their disbelief and step into the shoes of low-income poverty stricken populations. As SPENT is played, the reaction may be different for different people or different for the same person in different situations. It is ultimately the understanding, history and culture we enter into the SPENT narrative which will ultimately inform how we interpret this narrative (Bruner, 1991). This also may aid in the development of empathy toward ‘those in need’ and could perhaps result in giving to the Urban Ministries of Durham, as there is a place to give, share, and spread the word.
As with the rebuilding of temples on sacred ground, stories and narratives are built on the foundations of older stories. The narrative accrual in SPENT is based on the continual story of resources, scarcity, and the have’s and have nots. Within the narrative of SPENT are the cumulative effects of the very choices made throughout. The outcome changes with each decision made, as the next fork in the path is predicated on the decision a user makes prior. This effectively builds the drama, conflict, and story within the game, further adding to the sense of realism.
The gamification of social problems into a first-person experience builds not only an understanding of poverty and homelessness, but also a sense of empathy for those truly living the experience. Regarding empathy, Green and Carpenter (2011) state, “narratives can help create empathy for marginalized individuals, or help encourage understanding between members of different social or ethnic groups” (p. 114). In 2012, members of Congress were petitioned to take 10 minutes out of their day to play SPENT. While poverty and homelessness will be with us for the foreseeable future, narratives such as SPENT allow for a first-person understanding of the difficulties facing millions of Americans. It is through this narrative the creators of SPENT hope to not only raise awareness of, and collect contributions to fight poverty and homelessness. Also, to further nurture a sense of empathy for those caught in the socioeconomic situations. As one is transported into this world, it’s hard not to be impacted by this powerful media, and want to make a difference in the lives of those living SPENT in real life.
REFERENCES
Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry 18(1). Retrieved from: http://moodle2.fielding.edu/mod/folder/view.php?id=71403
Green MC, Carpenter JM (2011) Transporting into narrative worlds. Scientific Study of Literature 1(1): 113–122.
Yale, R.N. (2015). Narrative persuasion [Video File]. Retrieved from: http://www.robertyale.com/narrative-persuasion/
=====================================================================================================================================================
Living in Digital Technology
Digital technology is here to stay, and with every new device and update it becomes more inextricable to our everyday life. As we increasingly depend on these devices, the use of digital technology is changing us mentally and physically, therefore we must become conscious creators and consumers of digital technology in order to thrive in an oncoming digitized society. According to the website, www.internetlivestats.com, the number of internet users has increased tenfold from 1999 to 2013. The first billion users mark was reached in 2005, the second billion in 2010 and the third billion in 2014. While the first Internet users were tethered to their home and work computers, a comScore U.S. Mobile App Report says access via mobile devices now account for the majority of Internet access. A 2015 Pew research project states 92% of American adults have a cell phone, and 68% of these adults have a smartphone. Smartphone usage has consistently risen since their introduction into the market and global smartphone sales surpassed the sales figures for regular cell phones in early 2013 (Svensson). In his 2014 presentation given to the American Library Association, John McCullough, OCLC Product Manager for Discovery Services states, “In January 2014 the time of mobile access to the internet exceeded desktop use in the USA” (McCullough, 2014). Thus as mobile access to the Internet increases, the time spent on the Internet continues to grow at a faster rate.
While the Internet began as a communications platform and tool for government and military communications then later, to connect institutions of higher education, its popularity seemed to seek a higher purpose. The Internet history website, www.livinginternet.com, states in 1995 it was handed over from government operations to several independent civilian institutions. Shortly after, the ability to communicate and give feedback with other users was added to the mix. Social media created an entity which now more than ever, resembles what Marshall McLuhan expressed as a an electronic nervous system. This global village made up of humans interconnected by social media allowed for ‘horizontal’ dissemination of data, news, and information in real time. Thus, we see a lessening of the ‘top down’ structure of information dissemination known for centuries. Statista.com shows social media applications and sites have grown steadily to roughly 78% of all online users. One of the first social media sites, Six Degrees, was created in 1997. It enabled users to upload a profile and connect with other users. Two years later blogging sites became popular, creating a more recognizable social media we have today. Here, we begin to see the combination of online persona, self-publication, always-on and wired-in mentality, and a networked virtual-reality. Thus, the advent of social media to our existing digital media has blurred the lines between self, communication, and technology as an informational tool. Somewhere between the task-oriented Internet and creating a digital-narrative of ourselves, we lost the ability to both turn off our media and put down our tool.
Psychologist Kimberly Young (2011) believes over the last decade, the concept of addiction applied to Internet and gaming usage has grown in acceptance as a legitimate clinical disorder requiring treatment. Media theorist Douglas Rushkoff, in his speech for PSFK, insightfully suggests, “We’ve ended up in a digital universe where we keep devices strapped to ourselves, vibrating to us whenever someone tweets about us or Facebook updates… there’s an email or SMS”(2013). Thus we’ve allowed our personal time and attention to be at the whim of unmanaged digital technology, always on, ubiquitous. Unmanaged digital technology has therefore redefined what it means to be present.
Mindfulness is crucial. If we’ve already crossed the threshold of allowing ourselves to be addicted to our digital technology, along with being so easily swayed by its unmanaged interruptions into our lives, how will we fair when the technology begins to seamlessly incorporate itself into our lives and bodies? Extrapolating McLuhan’s idea of an electronic nervous system, information can be seen as another skin of our human existence. Lee Rainie (2016) already suggests Cloud Computing is the collective fifth lobe of our brain. The oncoming Internet of Things offers great advances in human and technological integration, but where there are great advances, there are great perils. Data-capture, sensors, real-time feedback, permissive monitoring, and smart-connected-networked ‘everythings’ will have the capabilities to alter humans and how we interact with ourselves, others, and our environment. The opportunity to thrive with digital technology is evident. However, one variable to remains as elusive as the meaning of life itself, and this variable is our own human nature. While only time will tell for certain the answer to many questions, more research is needed. Hence, in the meantime conscious consumption and creation of technology is imperative not only to understand the direction we’re heading as a people, but also to understand the ramifications of living within exponentially increasing developments in technology.
REFERENCES
Svensson, P. (2013, April 29. Smartphones now outsell ‘dumb’ phones. www.newshub.co.nz. Retrieved from:
http://www.newshub.co.nz/technology/smartphones-now-outsell-dumb-phones-2013042912
McCullough, J. WorldCat discovery services. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZk_Ufs2eOE
Young, K. S.; Nabuco de Abreu, C., eds. (2011). Internet addiction, A handbook and guide to evaluation and treatment. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Rushkoff, D. Present shock: when everything happens now. Retrieved from: https://vimeo.com/65904419
Rainie, L. Operating in the age of always on media. Retrieved from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/13/operating-in-the-age-of-always-on-media/
=====================================================================================================================================================