Thanks to Sasha Barab, designer of the educational virtual world Quest Atlantis, this link to a news item about virtual gifts. Says the AP:
"You don't wrap these presents in a box. You can't wear them, play with them or show them off, at least not in the real world. Even so, virtual gifts -- computer-generated items given and displayed online -- are quickly becoming must-haves. And increasingly, people are willing to pay cold, hard, real-life cash to purchase them for friends, family and co-workers."
The ruthless commercialization of what's supposed to be a religious holiday continues. The same force that puts holly and mistletoe in the aisles earlier every year - now November 1 - pushes pointless gift exchange into virtuality. Of course it does. That's the way of economic development. That's why we don't have to protect the strip mall from the trees, but we do have to protect the trees from the strip mall. We have to protect humans from immiserating themselves; this machine does not stop by itself. It certainly does not stop at the virtual membrane - unless we help.
I guess the whole "it's the thought that counts" needs to be debunked soon or people will start selling other people's thoughts so we can be given something of completely no personal or sentimental value. Not that an electronic rose or e-card isn't already worthless in all senses to me.
Posted by: DOUG | Dec 05, 2007 at 12:43
"supposed to be a religious holiday"? Says whom? I walk into any almost store in America and I see almost zero evidence of the supposed religious nature of the holiday. I see no evidence whatsoever of it in the Xmas parties I attend each year, etc. Who gets to say what it's "supposed" to be?
The culture at large does, I think, and the culture says it's not a religious holiday any more, just like the culture at one point decided that the key thing about December 25th was no longer the births of Ishtar and Mithra, or the celebration of Saturn with feasting, gift-giving, and so on. (The gift-giving tradition predates the idea that a Christian deity was born on the 25th.)
Beyond all that though, you're misunderstanding the nature of gift-giving if you view it as pointless. It's a way for people to tangibly express that they're thinking about someone else. In this as in so many other ways, there is no difference between "virtual" gifts and physical gifts.
Gift-giving is also part of every native culture you'll find, I believe, and is hardly some evil force grafted onto our social DNA by corporate overlords or whatnot. (No question that it's encouraged by said corporate overlords of course.)
--matt
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | Dec 05, 2007 at 12:43
An electronic rose or an e-card lacks value to you because it's not happening in a context you value. In a context you do value, a virtual gift can be quite welcome.
For instance: Earlier this week someone in Achaea gave a gift of 15,000 credits to someone else (that cost her US $3500.00) The recipient was predictably thrilled, because the recipient values the context (Achaea) in which the credits are given quite highly.
A more approachable analogy is golf. Barring the resale potential, if you gave me a set of golf clubs once used by Arnold Palmer I'd thank you (because that's what you do when someone gives you a gift) but would find the actual golf clubs completely useless and worthless as a gift. I don't golf, I'm not interested in golf or Arnold Palmer, and they are not well-balanced instruments for smacking intruders over the head with.
On the other hand, I imagine that if I was a huge golf fan I might be extremely excited to be given those Arnold Palmer golf clubs, even if I had no plans to use them in play. Why? Because I value the context the clubs exist within.
--matt
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | Dec 05, 2007 at 12:58
That seems to be pretty much common sense Matt, but it was good to read - thanks :)
Posted by: Matt Nolin | Dec 05, 2007 at 17:17
afaik, the true meaning and value of a gift is exactely how much it costs YOU to renounce it and to give it away. It's a moral gesture, and repeating it becomes an attitude.The attitude to prey less to $ and to valuate more the solidarity and compassion ; at least once a year.
Simulating a hand-kiss in diplomacy means only obedience to diplomacy's rules, not respect to that Lady .
Mat, you're not giving gifts because of social conventions, do you ? And i hope you're not doing the math of how much the receiver would valuate your gift ? I hope you don't collect the " worthless " gifts and gift them to others ?
Also , think to this : the religion have a long history of managing human's ethic, morale, behavior ; much longer than the consummerism.
Posted by: Amarilla | Dec 05, 2007 at 17:52
The context of the holidays also changed. The early christians deliberately wrapped a new context onto the pagan holidays of the early germans to help with the conversation (was probably the julfest or yule). Do you believe the hebrews decorated trees and had fertility symbols like easter-eggs and rabbits?
Santa Clause is also mixture of some pre-christian beliefs with some christian context with the coca-cola label on it. There is no way I ever perceive this as a religious holiday.
As a german, I am virtually sitting on the place where this amalgam was created. So I never really had the feeling that these holidays totally covered their pagan roots — this may be different on other parts of the world where the christian context might be somewhat stronger.
So if someone wants to digitalise it to make some bucks from it, I do not see the difference from before.
Posted by: BadMisterFrosty | Dec 05, 2007 at 17:56
"... We have to protect humans from immiserating themselves; this machine does not stop by itself. It certainly does not stop at the virtual membrane - unless we help. "
It sounds like asking your husband " how was your day today " when actually you don't care very much; like doing the religious rituals - as is doing the sign of a cross when passing near a church , and the alikes - without actually having belief in that religion's morale percepts ; like telling " i love you " to anybody and to everybody . Like having " friends " online , peoples you've never met and you'll never meet or interact with in any significant way.
Wait...but that's the essential nature of Virtuality . It's not for real.
Posted by: Amarilla | Dec 05, 2007 at 18:06
It IS common sense. There's nothing sneaky or clever about creating value for virtual items any more than there is about creating value for physical ones.
My point was that looking at them as if they're fundamentally different things from the perspective of someone receiving a gift misunderstands the nature of a "virtual" gift (which is no less real as a -gift- than a physical gift is).
--matt
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | Dec 05, 2007 at 18:07
BadMisterFrosty , the prevalence is not of what religion or ideology is trying to promote / endorse a certain human-to-human attitude ; the prevalence is of what exactely is the desired attitude : do we want to have friends who cares about us ? Or do we want to have " politically correct friends " ? If you keep your backyard clean and your body healthy , i really don't care that much if you're doing it because you're a good citizen or because a deity told you to do so.
You could prove me with tons of papers that you've paid the health care and city taxes , you could go every day to your local church , to me that means nothing : im more interested in how you actually behave ; i wanna see the results of the social/religious rituals you're performing.
I wanna see you gifting a $1 bill to a homeless on September 12th , and i hope that's not any significant religious or political special day .
Posted by: Amarilla | Dec 05, 2007 at 18:22
"Matt Mihaly says:
It IS common sense. There's nothing sneaky or clever about creating value for virtual items any more than there is about creating value for physical ones."
Like : convincing a guy that your '87 SUB worth $1 million , and persuading him to pay you that money for a crap car....
Peoples wanna make money to buy happiness , and yet they become so unhappy and ruin their-and others- lives working so hard to earn that money...
Matt, do you really believe that persuading peoples to believe that a virtual item made from a keystroke worth real hard earned cash , is : " creating value " ?
Posted by: Amarilla | Dec 05, 2007 at 18:38
I'm kind of shocked at the whole discussion of "the reason for the season" stuff, especially being posted by Ted.
I would have thought the key takeaway here is that people are really living their lives in VWs. They're so connected to people they only know virtually that they are truly giving of themselves for others. This blurring of the worlds is the noteworthy thing in TN terms, isn't it?
Or put this way:
People really living in VWs > commercialization of Xmas...
Posted by: Tripp | Dec 05, 2007 at 19:25
For some of us Christmas is a religious holiday, as well as being a cultural one. For others it's mainly cultural. No big story there.
I think the heart of Ted's post was actually at the very end: We have to protect humans from immiserating themselves; this machine does not stop by itself. It certainly does not stop at the virtual membrane - unless we help.
I suspect Ted's intent here is really about the "magic circle" and how we shouldn't pollute it with our filthy lucre -- that ostensible gifts catapulted into a virtual world somehow impoverish the giver, the receiver, and the world itself.
If I have that right I'm unmoved; I think this is somewhere beyond tilting at windmills. There is no 'virtual membrane' that needs protecting. Virtual worlds are imaginative, fantastic (in the best sense) extensions of this one -- not sacred spaces that must be separated from the rest of our lives.
Last summer my daughter and her husband "worked" (mining copper and selling it in WoW) for about a week and gave my younger son a bunch of valuable currency in Blizzard's big MMOG (NB: I can't mention the name of the game or the type of currency, apparently, or this post gets kicked back as spam!) for his birthday. It was a great gift and it was entirely virtual. No holidays pillaged, no magic circles broken. Just a cool gift from a sister to a brother.
May we all be able to give such gifts this season, whatever your theological, cultural, or ludogical bent.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Dec 05, 2007 at 20:34
Well said, Matt and Mike. I recently leveled up engineering in that game-which-must-not-be-named, but my toon wasn't interested in the new Flying Machine (even though he made one along the way). What to do, what to do? Held onto it for a bit and then, lo and behold, a L60+ prodigal toon who happened to be an engineer returned to the guild (and transferred from an old server to do so). I gift-wrapped that machine and sent it over for a nice surprise. Sometimes things just turn out right, and that made me feel damned good.
It's true that the reciprocity that is found in all societies is vulnerable to being colonized by the juggernaut that is (material) consumption for consumption's sake, and if that were all you had said Ted, I would have agreed (reading it again, maybe that's what you tried to say?). But like most here I can't buy the leap to suggesting that all such exchange is pointless and therefore unwelcome in virtual worlds.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Dec 05, 2007 at 21:55
"I suspect Ted's intent here is really about the "magic circle" and how we shouldn't pollute it with our filthy lucre -- that ostensible gifts catapulted into a virtual world somehow impoverish the giver, the receiver, and the world itself."
"If I have that right I'm unmoved; I think this is somewhere beyond tilting at windmills. There is no 'virtual membrane' that needs protecting. Virtual worlds are imaginative, fantastic (in the best sense) extensions of this one -- not sacred spaces that must be separated from the rest of our lives."
In your opinion, it's not such a biggie to sell X-Mas- tree candies for $ 100/piece to a 5 y/o kid;
"..not sacred spaces that must be separated from the rest of our lives."
Woah; you wanna kill the 12 y/o " cowboy ", " sheriff " or " indian " for real ?!
"...But like most here I can't buy the leap to suggesting that all such exchange is pointless and therefore unwelcome in virtual worlds."
He was saying : " it's not pointless , but undesirable ". The " therefore " belongs to you.
Posted by: Amarilla | Dec 05, 2007 at 23:27
Amarilla you've misunderstood and mischaracterized my comments as well as those made by Thomas, and put words in my mouth that do not follow from what I wrote.
Please do not do that. It does not add to any discussion.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Dec 05, 2007 at 23:42
I'll echo what Mike said Amarilla. If you want to have a discussion, argue based on what I've said please.
Say, this article, entitled, "Buy a virtual gift and fight malaria" caught my eye on Techcrunch just now.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/05/buy-a-virtual-gift-and-fight-malaria/
--matt
P.S. You're right, Mike. There's clearly room for as many different interpretations of what a holiday means as there are people on Earth. My apologies if I seemed to imply that religious folk were not welcome to view the holiday in whatever light they choose.
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | Dec 06, 2007 at 00:10
I had an interesting conversation with a friend recently about the commercialization of Christmas. I have been, for many years, saddened by how a holiday about peace, love and joy has been commandeered by Cabbage Patch kids, jewelry and electronics. But while discussing how disgusted we were by "all this crass commercialism," he said something interesting:
"Yeah. In our consumer culture, why can't we have some time that's less about consumption."
Which caused me to have a revelation: in America, the most important thing *is* our consumption, our money, our spending. By assigning a rather significant percentage of it to a time of year that represents, for many of us, a religious event, we are, essentially, offering our commercial selves up as a sacrifice to our religious selves. In deference to God, we buy small appliances and go further into debt, thus proving our love.
When I made that point to my buddy, he looked at me funny and said, "I can never tell when you're being serious about this crap."
My reply: "Neither can I."
Posted by: Andy Havens | Dec 06, 2007 at 18:05
If there weren't RMTer's (consumers), against whom would the RPer's (self-righteous) crusade? God rest ye merry gentleman, indeed, for heavy lies the Roleplayer's Burden.
Oh, Christmas Tree, who hews your would?
Posted by: Jeff Cole | Dec 06, 2007 at 20:30
I got no problem with consumption, Jeff. I'm in marketing and have been selling stuff in one way or another my entire career. My issue is about linking selfish, often psychologically burdened purchasing behaviors to a holiday that has, for some of us, deep spiritual meaning.
It'd be like if someone honored your parents anniversary by showing porn at their celebratory party. I got nothin' against teh pron, but that ain't the time or place.
I'm not sure how any of this, though, has anything to do with RMT...
Posted by: Andy Havens | Dec 06, 2007 at 20:38
/cheer Andy -- You gave me reason to give one of my favorite quotes from the eminent anthropologist Marshall Sahlins. It's from Tribesmen (1968) (and please forgive the irreverance -- it's meant to be more a statement about humanity than the divine):
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Dec 06, 2007 at 20:56
So, an OP on "ruthless consumerism" "not stop[ping] at the virtual membrane" does not even imply RMT? Even considering that the article linked in the OP mentions virtual gifts in only expressly commercial spaces? Mea culpa, then.
Please explain your pr0n analogy, because I don't understand it. It seems to me the analogy is you letting the fact that I showed pr0n at my parents' anniversary somehow diminish your enjoyment of your parents' pr0nless anniversary.
Don't buy the hype.
Posted by: Jeff Cole | Dec 06, 2007 at 21:22
Jeff: I didn't see any RMT evidence in the original post, nor was my reply meant to have anything to do with the subject. My take on "ruthless consumerism not stopping at the virtual membrane" was that Ted meant that said ruthless consumption is now fully available in virtual spaces. I guess we can assume that RMT is one kind of consumer behavior, so that my fall into the description with everything else... but I didn't think it was specific to RMT. If anything, it would lump all virtual consumption in with RMT, thus making it all, in relation to holiday shopping, ruthless, regardless of type.
As to my analogy... Yes. It is possible to celebrate a consumer-free holiday. But it would involve shutting out almost the entire culture during the time between Thanksgiving and New Years. It would also mean, in many cases, having to strain or sever relationships with people who are still enthralled by the sparkling pot of retail glee.
I got nothing against Christmas presents. Nor holiday TV specials, carols, stories, decorations, etc. It's when these things have been given, by many, primacy over the underlying meaning that I get a bit cranky.
Posted by: Andy Havens | Dec 07, 2007 at 18:10
Andy, I didn't imply that Ted's post was specific to RMT. Certainly, RMT is a included in any ruthless consumerism crossing the virtual membrane. None of the spaces mentioned in the linked article make any pretension of a magic circle. However, I meant only to link RMT/RP (as regularly debated here) to retail/religious (in this thread) points of view as debated here.
If your spirituality is so rigid as to require you shut out the entire culture and strain or sever relationships in order to walk the path, then I guess "crank on."
I am blessed to find and vest my holiday spirit in my family and friends rather than strangers. Ditto w/r/t gaming. That's all I was trying to say.
Posted by: Jeff Cole | Dec 07, 2007 at 21:28
Jeff: You're putting words in my mouth, I think. I didn't say I needed to shut out the culture in order to walk the path; just that a cultural emphasis on what I think are shallow, possibly harmful aspects of a holiday makes me cranky/sad.
I live in the culture, very much; you have to in marketing. And I see that it can have a harmful effect on some aspects of spirituality. I do care about strangers, because some of them are my son's classmates, my future friends, my coworkers, and, in the end, people. So I guess spirituality is less rigid than yours, as it encompasses a concern for those beyond my immediate circle.
Which is, I think, getting back to Ted's point. Do we see the positive aspects of gaming as being so close to those of RL that every distinct pleasure in them... every difference that we seek and celebrate and maybe even use for escape ends up being subsumed by non-virtual realities?
For example, does the power that money, of a necessity, brings in the real world need to translate to primacy in virtual spaces? There is, for some, an equalizing nature (see previous post on "freedom") to virtual worlds, in that some of the economic constraints are removed or less important. By bringing certain kinds of commercial interests into a gaming/VW sphere, does that lessen the appeal, the distinction, the escape, the fun? If my virtual experience can be impacted by your non-virtual economic interests, does that "taint" one of the things that makes virtuality virtual?
Posted by: Andy Havens | Dec 08, 2007 at 10:25
" By bringing certain kinds of commercial interests into a gaming/VW sphere, does that lessen the appeal, the distinction, the escape, the fun? If my virtual experience can be impacted by your non-virtual economic interests, does that "taint" one of the things that makes virtuality virtual?"
Yes , and more : all these contradicts and corrupts and destroys the very essence and spirit of game : the play. The fee we may pay in order to rent a playground have nothing to do with the play itself.The bets we're making have nothing to do with how we play the game. Or , at least, it shouldn't. That's why it's called " Exploatation of...".
Posted by: Amarilla | Dec 09, 2007 at 07:17
But this is one of the most seductive but pernicious misunderstandings in our area of interest. It's not about a contrast between the "essence of play" and the intrusion of the outside world. Every social domain has the same tension -- between participating as an end in and of itself, and participating only as a means toward other ends.
This is not to say that games (as human artifacts) and play (as a disposition) aren't distinctive in certain ways. It is only to say that our regular retreat to an idealized and exceptionalist position of games and play as sui generis blinds us to what is truly powerful about them. It is just as much what they share with many other aspects of our experience that makes them important.
After all, when we move to treat the intrusion of market exchange into gamespace as a problem, why don't we just as often object to lots of other narrowly strategic "exploitations" that do not involve money per se? There are lots of ways in which players are not just playing the game for its own sake, but instead treating it (and others within it) instrumentally. This isn't cause for similar concern? I'm not saying it should be, but if we want to raise an objection about certain activities in games as somehow "off-limits", then we had better do our homework about exactly to what we are objecting, and an appeal to a romanticized notion of "play" is utterly unconvincing.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Dec 09, 2007 at 11:07
when you bring the money IN a game , it becomes gambling. when you bring the money IN a holiday...
well yes, there are many causes for many concens in many fields and humans' activities; some peoples believe certain things should be kept separate, some not. Christmas is not about money and it should stay this way. Playing games is not about money and it should stay this way. But feel free to gift your mom a pron DVD , online , if that's your choice. Or a virtual " anything " , so you could not be accused of...indifference.
Posted by: Amarilla | Dec 09, 2007 at 13:10
@Thomas: "...an appeal to a romanticized notion of "play" is utterly unconvincing."
I agree. It's the old question of "how many pieces of a ship can you replace before it's a new ship, and not simply a repaired version of the original."
Although the designer of a game may not have thought, "People will sit around playing this in their underwear," it's certainly possible people will do so. Whether or not semi-clad play has an effect on the ideal of the game-state is up-for-grabs, depending on your view of the qualitative and quantitative changes implied (and the style and fit of the underwear, of course).
Posted by: Andy Havens | Dec 09, 2007 at 17:51
"After all, when we move to treat the intrusion of market exchange into gamespace as a problem, why don't we just as often object to lots of other narrowly strategic "exploitations" that do not involve money per se? "
Because there always are priorities, because now are the Christmas Holidays , because we have to start from somewhere, afterall.
I don't have any problem with a convict feeling free in his prison's cell; the human brain is an amazing machine and a chemistry lab.
But building prisons for that purpose , or hooking peoples into cells to make them feel free...it's like spending the Christmas online , using emoticons instead of hugs and buying virtual gifts....like doing serious stuff playing a game. Happy Christmas Holidays.
Posted by: Amarilla | Dec 09, 2007 at 19:38
There is an ethic behind Christmas that is being buried in consumerism, and that's the problem. When the celebrations of Ishtar, Mithra and Saturn were supplanted by the birth of Christ, how did the world change? Was it for the better? When the celebration of the birth of Christ is supplanted by consumerism, do we gain?
I tend to believe that celebrations of the birth of Christ are celebrations of the ethic that He promulgated. I tend to believe that burying those celebrations with consumerism oppose that very ethic.
I suspect that Ed's comments are similarly rooted, and having Christmas gifts appear in ever more contexts is not exactly contributing to the ethic of the celebration.
Posted by: John Buehler | Dec 20, 2007 at 13:00