CNN has a familiar article on its website, looking at those sad souls who become addicted to online games and begin to neglect their 'real' lives. The writer talks to staff from the Illinois Institute for Addiction Recovery where MMORPG fanatics are being treated. From the piece:
Other gamers live more precariously. Libby Smith, a trainer at the institute, is helping a World of Warcraft addict in his mid-20s who's dropped out of college, lost numerous jobs, lost his girlfriend, and is on the verge of homelessness. "He maintains he has no problem," says Smith. His family finally intervened and brought him to the institute.
The use of the word 'intervened' is interesting here, recalling, of course, the term 'intervention' - the forcible removal of a friend or relative from the clutches of a religious cult. CNN is not the first news sources to draw parallels between virtual world addiction and cult membership - both have similar symptoms: the withdrawal into a world that separates the victim from his/her family; an arcane new set of values and objectives; isolation and alienation... And with cultist interventions, too, the rescued parties often claim that they were perfectly happy.
Furthermore, as with many stories that look into online games and virtual worlds, lazy distinctions are drawn between the 'real' and 'virtual' worlds. "Some of the better relationships have crossed over into real life," the reporter sniffily notes, referring to the fact that in-game friendships can often extend beyond the confines of the game world. And it's only at this point that they become valid, right?
But what is real life? Seriously. From an ontological perspective, the foundations of this 'real'/'virtual' divide start to crumble pretty quickly. Philosophers from Plato to Alain Badiou have grappled with the fundaments of reality - Descartes' standpoint was to reject the reality of anything outside of his own consciousness. George Berkeley would later argue that all physical objects are, in fact, just ideas. If only it were as simple as, 'well one of them takes place on a screen with virtual people, and one takes place in the world with 'real' people'. But what is the real world, and, wait a minute, who are those people? Personally, I question the veracity of any reality system in which 15 million people voluntarily sit down four nights a week to watch Eastenders.
So no. It isn't that simple, because relationships - because life - is more complicated. "Relationships formed within the game are a key part of that draw," goes the CNN article, refering to one man's experiences within Final Fantasy XI (pictured). "While parts of the game require intense focus, less hectic periods allow him to text-chat with other players from around the world about politics, religion and other topics. Some friendships form, as do some animosities." This sounds like pretty healthy stuff to me - a vibrant interchange of ideas and experiences. Is it any 'less' real than slumping silently in front of the TV with family or friends?
And what gives friendship its value? Physicality? That's what seems to be suggested by repeated insinuations that virtual relationships are mere shadows of what's possible when the computer is switched off. "We are seeing more and more adults and adolescents struggling with real world relationships because of virtual world relationships they have created," says Eric Zehr of the Illinois Institute. But then, we're also seeing people having difficulty with relationships due to the breakdown of traditional communities, the rise of single occupant households, the birth of cubicle culture. Real-life is moving people apart quicker and surer than the virtual world ever could.
Ten million are now signed up to World of Warcraft. In South Korea, online gaming is a national pastime. There needs to be a paradigm shift in the way 'virtual' lives are viewed and assessed. Black and white definitions of 'reality' are as shoddy here as they are everywhere else.
