"Our nation is both a functioning nation and a model for a functioning nation.”
Whenever democracy and computers show up in the same sentence, I can’t help but flash back to some early Cold War simulations conducted by RAND corporation. If we bomb Moscow and then they bomb Phoenix, and so on.…. Basic zero-sum game theory, applied through the paranoid schizophrenic lens of Beautiful Mind mathematician John Nash, yielded the no-win Doomsday scenario eventually satirized in the cyber-action flick War Games.
The underlying assumption of these early computer simulations was that people and, by extrapolation, nations, behave with their own strategic interests in mind. Humans—and nations—are presumed to be fearful, self-interested, and hyper-rational. The solution of these kinds of prisoner’s dilemmas was Mutually Assured Destruction: creating nuclear arsenals big enough to ensure that everyone dies if anyone attacks.
Even Nash has subsequently admitted that this way of applying game theory was based on his own paranoid delusions. While the math works out, the logic is hopelessly polar. In short, the paranoia plus binary technology equals an insane, oversimplified, and unstable stand-off. Differences and conflict are exacerbated because the competitive game is an underlying assumption. There’s no possibility for reconciliation, compromise, or collaboration. It’s my computer against yours.
To me, the most exciting thing about a networked computing era is the opportunity to model new kinds of games. More than anything else, computers are modeling systems. They let us model the function of a typewriter, a spreadsheet, or a paste-up board, not to mention all sorts of social and fantasy interactions. The most advanced models right now are the ones we’re developing in forums, from MySpace to Second Life, Facebook to World of Warcraft. These are the places where people can experiment with alternative behaviors, life strategies, alliances, and goal sets.
Because our computers are networked rather than isolated, we no longer need to see the “other” team as on the opposite side of a discrete boundary. They are part of the same system. As a result, scenarios for cooperation more complex than “mutually assured destruction” begin to emerge.
What I’d like to see as a result of computer networking is the possibility for modeling new, as yet-to-be conceived, collaborative behaviors. Play behavior has almost always been relegated to the Dionysian side of the culture, while purpose remains with Apollo and the courts. Both of these artificially isolated aspects of society end up suffering as a result: politics ends up unsexy (leading to the salacious behavior of its repressed participants) and the arts end up unserious (leading to the equally disastrous attempts to bolster its relevancy through cruel entertainments like reality TV).
Gaming and government are actually one and the same. While we have to actually govern using the Constitution, we can’t let it become so set in stone that we lose the ability to game with it. Our nation is both a functioning nation and a model for a functioning nation. Imagine a discussion of urban planning conducted through a simulation like SimCity. Or a model for local currency developed in a community within Second Life. How about reconfiguring the Electoral College model based on a year of in-person collaborative processes practiced by groups using Meetup.com? Or consider a bottom-up editorial process for amending the Constitution itself, pairing traditional legislative processes with the mass participation offered by wikis and other collective authorship tools. Or, finally, how about engaging the next generation of citizens in all of these collaborative online processes as a way of instilling curiosity and civic practices that will surpass what currently passes for debate in the chambers of Congress?
Networked gaming applied to the democratic process can restore our ability to evolve our republic, bring our international relationships beyond the presumption of mutual enmity, and —perhaps most importantly —make participating in government fun and interesting.
About the Author
Douglas Rushkoff is the author of several seminal books on media and society, including Cyberia, Media Virus, Playing the Future, Open Source Democracy, Coercion, and, most recently, Get Back in the Box: Innovation from the Inside Out. He founded the Narrative Lab at NYU’s Interactive Telecommunications Program.
Douglas,
I'm not sure your idea works. Here's why.
Admittedly, I am not an online gamer (except for a profound addiction to the "hexagons" board game) so maybe I'm full of stuff here. But my impression of the participants assembled around venues such as "Second Life" has not been a positive one. Do these people not have a life IRL? How can anyone possibly invest such effort in constructing a fantasy world when the real world stands in such dire need of constructive input? One is driven to suspect motives of which rank escapism is one of the less ignoble.
Aside from the particulars of today's participant base, which of course could be subject to change, there are more fundamental objections.
One is that it makes a difference whether the world one participates in is seen as "real". Surely you've had episodes of lucid dreaming where you've taken the opportunity to act out fantasies not advisable within the constraints of real life. Participants in multiplayer gaming environments must unavoidably act with the knowledge that at the end of the day (or the end of a weekend binge :) they log out and are back in the only world we actually have - the world that remains when the computer is turned off.
A similar concern with a slightly different focus is that the experience of interpersonal interactions in online venues cannot replicate the quality of interaction IRL. Eye contact alone becomes a profound issue (except for those of us who live with some variety of Autistic Spectrum Disorder and don't do eye contact much anyway).
This is hardly the venue to seriously take up the criticism that the online environment has been constructed disproportionately by ASD-affected individuals and hence gives an autistic flavor to the entire online culture - but I would be remiss if I didn't at least mention it - as I now have.
Writing in 1933, Count Alfred Korzybski in his book "Science and Sanity" put forward the (profound and correct, IMO) aphorism "The word is not the thing for which it stands" aka "The map is not the territory." Let's apply his thought to this issue by saying that even the best constructed model is not the process it represents, and must always miss important features of that process at the edges of its domain.
That being said, it might be good fun to do some governance experiments online for those who enjoy such things. Something useful might even be learned. But I'd recommend applying such results to real life with much caution and the proverbial grain of salt.
Just a thought,
-Steve
P.S. A couple of comments on specific points. Aka nits to pick.
You said
"Because our computers are networked rather than isolated, we no longer need to see the “other” team as on the opposite side of a discrete boundary. They are part of the same system."
But I'd argue that the US/USSR, Israeli/Palestinian, etc. conflicts have always been part of a single system and that those at policy levels are perfectly aware of this. One need look only at the function of the "Red Manace" (aka "radical Islam" in our present period). Look at the fucction of the enemy image in the poltical life of "our" nation. Just as the legal system requires the existence of criminals, the state as presently (mis) governed requires the enemy image.
Cross the line and see the mirror image. The image of "America the Great Satan" is absolutely functional for the subgroups of Islamic/Arab society that generate terrorist/militant activities. Such things have never been disjoint system - nor have policy makers seen them as such.
And you also said:
"politics ends up unsexy (leading to the salacious behavior of its repressed participants)"
I think I know how you meant that - but really. The Monica Lewinsky's of Washington abound - why? Because politics *is* sexy - for the winners. "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac". The only people who treat politics as unsexy are the pathetically sincere nerd kids who try to play it by the rules. They will have no better luck getting elected than they do getting laid.
Now Bill Clinton is probably a counterexample that supports your viewpoint. I think he tried to play the game honestly and probably maintain a conscientious stance toward his duties - which may have left him vulnerable to temptation.
But, then again, if "politics is unsexy" means simply that one should keep one's pants zipped when there's business to be taken care of, or that one's views and votes should not shift with one's bedmates,
then perhaps politics *should* be unsexy, and temptations will just have to be resisted.
But, on the other hand, maybe somebody could set up a system in SL where the local unit of governance is the brothel and the most favored "providers" (based on commercial success)become the legislative representatives.
I think I need to go to bed before I write any more :)
-Steve