Shocking Pink ([info]fionnghuala) wrote,
@ 2008-06-09 16:43:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood: List-y

Under the Mask...
Spent most of my weekend going to an interesting day conference in Luton about videogames. The first videogame-thing I've been to since last Summer. Has got me thinking that maybe I should take some steps to include games in my project, or more accurately find one participant who self-identifies as a gamer so I can position myself in that field. Or at least with one foot or even one toe in it. There seems a lot of scope for going around saying 'This is rubbish', in the same way that at the moment I love going around saying 'The internet is rubbish'. I've been seduced a lot more by literary criticism generally, recently (I say that seamlessly assuming that videogame studies is a branch of lit crit, which is an appalling reduction, but the kind of one I like).

Anyway, here are some links to Things I Saw There That Were Cool:

The Passively Multi-player Onling Game - which looks kind of interesting and I'd like to play, but apparently slows Firefox down a lot, and my laptop is already stuggling to make sense of the world.

Chore Wars - An equally hilarious game concept, where you assign XP-amounts to chores in your life, and then compete with your workmates/housemates/etc to level.

Hide and Seek Festival - Games festival at the Southbank at the end of June. Which sounds terribly terribly cool. You have to read this page very cynically to not be attracted to it, I think. Although it was nice to see Tanya Krzywinska, who's a v cool elder screen-media researcher glaring powerully at the playful and stripey guy who presented about this, because he was From Industry. Her angsty behaviour was one of my favourite things about the day.

Wonderland - Gamer blog that includes lot of funky game-related craft stuff. Not that I would be interested in anything like that, obv.

DiGRA - The Digital Games Researcher Association, which ran a conference in Japan this year that all the cool kids went to. The site archives all the papers from their conferences and other things. Which is a lot.

Gumbaby.com - Blog of a woman doing work that might cross-cut with mine somewhere, about people leaving innapropriate messages online. Apparently these are overwhelmingly women, and relate to not understanding how the site they are on works. Or usability/design issues... but I don't really care about those.

Women in Games conference - A conference that maybe I should think about going to. It's one of those fusion academic and developer things, that you seem to get a lot of in games research and I guess is why there seems to be so much money flying about. Doesn't seem to be a niche where I could submit a paper, probably the only thing I could think to do would be something about barriers from the embodied side to women playing. But I could probably learn a lot of stuff about the relations women have to gaming and by extension computers and online stuff. Or, more accurately, I could learn a lot about how people are approaching those questions and what the popular sets of assumptions are. Which is the kind of thing I learn most days...

Ludica - Women and games research group. Something about searching for possibilities.

8-bit Flickr pool - And finally, some nice pictures.

The big question I have to ask about whether I want to do anything Game Studies, is do I want to hang around with a bunch of geeks forever, painting myself as an outsider because I can't keep up with how many games they play? And, similarly, how much crappy stuff gets written because of the sheer, ridiculous, volume of it.


(27 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]danfossydan
2008-06-10 08:22 am UTC (link)
Err... I don't think you can be an outsider in a group of geeks...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]fionnghuala
2008-06-10 12:41 pm UTC (link)
You can be if they know tons about all the games and think they're totally great and pretty unproblematic. And you have only heard of half of them let alone played them, but think there are serious problems with how they're being looked at.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]fionnghuala
2008-06-10 05:32 pm UTC (link)
Thinking more about this, I realise how much I cherish and maintain my particular level of geek-i-ness. Lots of internet researchers I know are serious geeks, who get well into the stuff they research, and are constantly focused on the latest high-tech way to do the work we do.

But I want to maintain the headspace of people who are bewildered by technology, as I'm much more interested in the experience of people who are excluded from it. And I think it's very difficult to understand people's difficulties if you're experience of technology is all swoopy and life-enhancing.

I think of myself and my writing as in the position of a translator. Standing between techies and normals and having some understanding of both.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]doctor_nemesis
2008-06-12 05:54 pm UTC (link)
People who are excluded from it, don't actually use it, and largely exclude themselves...

The skill is to learn about technology, and remember what it felt like to not understand. Most successful technology is designed to be used by people who know nothing about it!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]fionnghuala
2008-07-15 06:59 pm UTC (link)
I think it's almost impossible to keep that memory of not-knowing alive. I think tecky knowledge is transformative. As in, it transforms you into something new and stops you from being able to relate to the old ways.

And of course the problem of exclusion isn't that people exclude themselves! That would barely even count as exclusion!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2008-07-16 12:46 pm UTC (link)
What is exclusion? Who is excluded from what?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]doctor_nemesis
2008-07-16 12:54 pm UTC (link)
That was me! Keep getting logged out...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]fionnghuala
2008-07-16 01:54 pm UTC (link)
That's a big question! I suggest you start with Wikipedia: Social Exclusion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]doctor_nemesis
2008-07-24 10:10 am UTC (link)
So according to that, self exclusion is actually a part of social exclusion!

But here is an example of what I'm getting at.

There are three people, the first who knows how to use their mobile phone with a computer to transfer their contacts, but doesn't know how to use picture messaging. The second doesn't know how to use it with a computer, but does know how to use picture messaging. And a third who doesn't own a mobile phone because they don't think they have a use for it.

So who is the most excluded in that senario? Phones are prevalant, and easy to access thanks to the supermarkets. No physical force or external social predudice prevents any of them from using the features they don't know about, or from owning a phone. The real limiting factor would seem to be the desire of the individuals to actually use it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]fionnghuala
2008-07-24 12:11 pm UTC (link)
I disagree with you about that.

Most of the research I've done has been about how people are excluded from technology use, and although my future specialism will probably be 'women and technology', most of that will end up being about the mechanisms of exclusion.

The reason your example doesn't show up any 'exclusion', is because you haven't included any social factors that can lead to exclusion. You probably could find a few of these things on the Wikipedia page, but for instance things like poverty, lack of education, age, disabilities, part of the world you live, etc, etc.

To argue that these inequalities are about 'choice', or 'desire' is part of the problem of how people do become excluded. This is very like the conversation we had last night about people on benefits not being able to get into relationships with people because of the contraints of the benefit system. Sure, the person who designed that could be very well-meaning, and some of these mechanisms are in place to prevent specific problems, but that doesn't change the fact that it stops people from being able to live a normal life.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]doctor_nemesis
2008-07-25 02:44 pm UTC (link)
So no one is excluded in that example? Interesting, because I'd have said they were all excluded in their own way...

I think denying there is any choice is a reason why people remain excluded. When people campaigning for change fail to acknowledge that the people they're campaigning on behalf of must also choose to move from "the same old way" they weaken their argument enormously.

When talking about benefits, rich people have more choices than poor people. When people become dependent upon benefits, they (normally) become poor people. It's not fair, but that's it.

The benefits don't prevent them from leading the life they want. Being poor prevents them from leading the life they want. When people co-habit they do save money. On rent, on utilities, on food. That's why single people get more benefits than couples.

I happen to think it's excellent that we have benefits in this country, but I don't see them as an equalizer of monetary inequality.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]fionnghuala
2008-07-25 03:56 pm UTC (link)
I don't really know how to answer you, as essentially you're saying that sociology is not useful, and that my understanding / views about inequality are wrong.

If you like I could explain it to you, or help you understand something specific that you've read about it. But there isn't any point in us 'arguing' as such, because you don't really understand what social exclusion is.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]doctor_nemesis
2008-07-26 10:05 am UTC (link)
Rather sweeping statements about my opinions! Although I find it interesting that you think that...

Perhaps I don't understand "social exclusion" as a theory, I'm sure I don't in fact, but it's interesting to note that the opening paragraph of that Wikipedia link states that there is no clear definition of social exclusion, and it is used in different ways by different people.

What I want to know, is why interest is not a part of social exclusion?

For example, the number of women doing mathematics in a higher education is disproportionally low given the equality of access they have to the mathematics system. It's not due to lack of ability, and women tend to do better at maths than men at an undergraduate level. Lots of mathematicians have concluded that women just don't have the interest in the subject at an advanced level that men do. But more specifically, that women are not encouraged to have an interest. So when they are presented the opportunities, when they are easily within their grasp, they don't take them.

Now, that would seem like social exclusion to me. But you started out by saying:

"That would barely even count as exclusion!"

So why does it barely count?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]fionnghuala
2008-07-28 01:13 pm UTC (link)
Rather sweeping statements about my opinions! Although I find it interesting that you think that...

I think the point I'm making is that the opinion you were expressing was completely dismissing all that is interesting about 'social exclusion'.

I assume this is partly because you don't know anything about it, and you'd probably find some persuasive ideas that would change your views if you put the time in to find out about it.

What I want to know, is why interest is not a part of social exclusion?

This is a completely different kind of question than you've been asking before. If you genuinely want to know the answer to it, then I can certainly give you a bit of an explanation and point you in the right direction to find out more.

Also, this girls and maths example is much more fruitful than the one you suggested above. I'd say this is an example of social exclusion. And actually girls and maths is the topic my supervisor started out researching, and is quite close to my PhD topic, so I know a fair amount about it.

Of course it's a very complex and intractable issue, intertwined with how gender is produced and maintained. To put it simply, I'd argue that the reasons women aren't considered good at maths are the same reasons that men and women are considered to be different kind of people, and to have different life chances and kinds of lives.

A very simplistic explanation would be to say that women are told all through school that they aren't good at maths, even if they are. Girls who are good at maths are considered to be pushy, show off-y, or even for their skills to 'not count' because they've gained them through being swotty. While similar demonstration of skill in boys is encouraged and seen as evidence of true ability that should be encouraged.

Hopefully you can see how this demolishes the notion that it's a 'choice'. If all through school when a girl makes *choices* to participate in maths, maybe joining a maths club, choosing maths and science options for GCSE, or doing maths-related hobbies at home, she is discouraged, or treated like that makes her a foolish or nasty person, then when it comes to making a decision to go to university, it's not simply a 'choice' anymore.

It's even possible that she could end up doing badly in the exams and other tests of ability, through being discouraged from studying and trying hard, or sabotaged by teachers not giving her the support they would to a boy.

I've got to reiterate that this is a very simplistic explanation, that leaves out a lot of the important bits of the argument/explanation. But hopefully it gives you a sense of one set of explanations.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]doctor_nemesis
2008-11-29 06:21 pm UTC (link)
Apologies for the late reply, it's been on my to do list!

Is it dismissing all that is interesting, or all that your interested in?

The Wikipedia entry you linked to is very broad, and says the topic is very broad and ill defined. I don't think there is anything there to contradict what I've said.

I think the principle problem is we don't agree on what a "choice" is, or "interest" for that matter. Your argument doesn't demolish the idea of choice. My experience of school was such that you could replace "her" with "he" in all those statements. I realize you've given a simplistic explanation, and that's why it doesn't work.

My point about technology and interest would be in ye oldy speak "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink." If people have decided that something is "beyond them" or "not of use" then they often remain intransigent about it, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Millions of people in this country are able to afford a mobile phone, but don't want one (apparently). But since everyone is assumed to have one nowadays, there are an increasing number of situations were you are penalized for not having one, and some where it is positively vital you do!

Now someone's lack of interest may be shaped by their social network's opinions on whatever the subject is, but just stating "they have no choice" is misleading, and alienates people. It alienates people who felt they had to make tough choices to purse the course for their life they choose, and it alienates people who don't have any experience of the issue but will rationally think "well, they could have just fallen out with their family over the whole thing/insert other difficult thing of choice."

I think there is a difference between a choice and an opportunity. If you have no opportunity then your choice on the matter is reduced, possibly to nothing. But in your case of women and maths, there are many many women who have the opportunity but choose not to take it. It's "too hard", "beyond them", "not what my friends are doing", "not what my parents want", etc. It's a very hard choice to take for those people, but it's still a choice. Now I'm very interested in the social pressures that make then decide against a career in maths/science, but I wouldn't call it "no choice" for those particular ones.

I'm also equally interested in the concept that you must have a thousand hours of special training in using technology before using it. It's a complete fiction. People can't seem to differentiate between the knowledge of how say, a computer, works, and the knowledge required to use one. Or even build one. Knowing how they work helps, but isn't required, in the same way most people don't know how a car works, but they can drive it. Things go wrong with cars all the time, and people generally just put up with it until something happens which forces them to get it fixed.

I also find iPhones very interesting. I've tried one, I found it a bit of a pain to use. And yet.... Many people who would claim that things are "beyond them" are eager to get their hands on one. Why? Well that might have something to do with the massive advertising machine that makes out Apple technology is very simple and without any problems, and you are a member of the "super-cool crowd" if you get one. Which is counter to my experience and many of the reports I read. The power of (good) advertising....!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]doctor_nemesis
2008-06-12 05:54 pm UTC (link)
Hear hear!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]danfossydan
2008-06-13 08:33 am UTC (link)
I think one of the points of Geekism, is being inclusve to those around them see, rathing than Lu being particualarly a super geek!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]fionnghuala
2008-06-13 01:58 pm UTC (link)
But if geeks are predominently male, white, middle class+ and well-educated, how can that be true ?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]fionnghuala
2008-06-13 01:58 pm UTC (link)
Not to mention disproportionately from the US, and a scattering of other privileged locations?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]danfossydan
2008-06-13 01:59 pm UTC (link)
You changed working to middle class +.

Confused.

Well first you need to define Geek.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]fionnghuala
2008-06-13 02:39 pm UTC (link)
That was a typo! Soz.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]danfossydan
2008-06-13 02:04 pm UTC (link)
I think Geek and so on, is part of the set of labels that is all the "tribes" in teen culture.

Moving it on forwards to adult life is harder.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]fionnghuala
2008-06-13 02:41 pm UTC (link)
I think it is one of those 'reclaimed' kinds of words. That in the playground it is or was more of an insult, but it's become something people use to refer to themselves.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]danfossydan
2008-06-13 02:16 pm UTC (link)
I googled and searched a bit.

And I found out little.

The most intresting quote: "“For the record, I don’t really consider myself a geek.”

I’d say that’s qualification number one. Geeks always feel like outsiders. And me calling you on it in this quotey nitpicky way is qualification number two, just as you anticipated, my brother ;-).
"

http://enkerli.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/the-geek-niche-draft/

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]fionnghuala
2008-06-13 02:43 pm UTC (link)
I think that's an interesting paradox. The word 'geek' is often used to denote an outsider identity. But at the same time, it refers to a group who are extremely privileged and powerful.

Partly because they come from privileged populations, but even more so because 'the geeks day has come', techie areas of expertise that were once lower status and considered a bit of a tedious hobby, are now very high status.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]doctor_nemesis
2008-06-23 09:25 am UTC (link)
Where do these figures come from?

Are you sure it's not just that all the people you know fit those criteria?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]fionnghuala
2008-06-23 12:32 pm UTC (link)
Hehe Yes, Malc. This is a very stable research finding.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(27 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…