Lecture 3
The topic of Virtual Reality has become quite a popular one in recent years. Almost everyone that sat by her/his computer suddenly has something to say about it. Everyone likes it (as a concept – there are variations in interpretations of the notion and its practical implications) and everyone would like to know something about it, although, to be sure, it is probably the kids of “the next generation” (probably enetering the universities right now) who will be the real pioneers in this regard.
I will structure this lecture around the notion of virtual reality (as described by others, to be sure – I am an outsider here)[1] and some of its practical implications, especially when it comes to the Virtual Places. These places are important examples of construction of spaces both for and about ourselves – and in many ways, they can crucially inform our understanding of different people(s) and their construction of otherness by merely looking at the way(s) in which they construct their own virtual places. Of course, these places are in the first place for and about specific bodies.
But first a few general notes about virtual bodies. (A little bit as a form of a follow-up on the yesterday’s lecture.) I mentioned the Benetton campaign which used images of handicapped people for their advertisements. Similar experiments (but much more radical, more drastic) were made by the Russia artists from the AES group. The main intention is to shock the audience, to kick them off balance, out of their secure sheltered way(s) of thinking and perceiving. (It is actually one response to dealing with what Arthur and Marylouise Kroker describe as the strategy of “bunkering in” and “dumbing down.” How effective will it be reamins to be seen.) The underlying idea is that when people are in a way “displaced,” they have to look at things the other way. They have to find another way of comprehending (and interpreting) the data they are confronted with.
Virtual bodies are in some aspects (as cyborgs) already part of our everyday culture. People live with implants (in some cases, it is the implants that enable them to live at all), or alter their looks using plastic surgeries, or (in less radical aspects), tattoos, body piercing, or simply dying their hair. It has been suggested by some authors (like Sadie Plant) that new ways of manipulating the body could especially benefit women, but this is also something that yet remains to be seen.
I will not discuss it here, but the
issue of cyberfeminism (or feminism of the fourth wave) is closely connected to
the notion of virtuality. For the
future references, cf. authors like Claudia Springer (on virtual sex), Faith Wilding (on the consequences of cyberfeminism),
Allucquère Rosanne Stone (on desire
and technology) and VNS Matrix (on the
practice of cyberfeminism).
From hyperreality to VR
It
is quite often remarked that the construction of ethnic or cultural boundaries
is arbitrary. This arbitrariness is not open to debate. As a matter of fact,
contemporary anthropologists regard the concept of a “nation” as something similar to the concept of “race” — namely, it is a concept with which
some people do operate with, but “in reality,” it has no “objective” meaning.
This, of course, does not invalidate the fact that people do act based on their
presuppositions and preconceptions which include ideas derived from this
concept. Thus, even something that does not exist “in reality” can produce very serious and real consequences.[2]
This
positioning on either side of what some (or many) people regard as real is sometimes regarded by
contemporary theorists as something that has to do with hyperreality (for example, see Eco 1986, Baudrillard 1995).
Hyperreality is a reality constructed and artificial — but with the full
awareness of the participants in this reality.
It is a reality that exists
while at the same time negating (or even denying) other realities, but the fact
that the participants (and creators) are self-conscious of its artificiality
opens numerous possibilities for paradoxes.
Hyperreality is a place (or area, domain, field, etc.) where all the
paradoxes meet and co-exist, side by side.
The paradoxes are made obvious (apparent) through the media — and this
is something that clearly distinguishes the hyperreal
from the end of the 20th century from the surreal
or any similar concept. The media input enables people to see (and become aware
of) themselves as others. The nature of contemporary technology (Netscape,
film, TV, video, various forms of electronic art) makes this imagery extremely
widespread (especially in the “West”). It also makes all the paradoxes of the
contemporary world more apparent.[3] Hyperreality is in some accounts closely
related to virtual reality (VR)[4] or cyberspace.
(Of
course, I should add here a very pertinent criticism of Elspeth Probyn: “For no
matter how hyper a reality is, it is
in the end where we speak from and come from.”)
Both
Virtual Reality (VR) and certain concepts (especially when it comes to
boundaries, traditions, or naming) connected with Balkan politics present
interesting examples of hyperreal constructions. VR is also known as
“artificial reality,” “virtual worlds,” and is also taken to represent “a
visual form of cyberspace.”[5] It has also been defined as “a real or
simulated environment in which the perceiver experiences telepresence” (Steuer
1992; quoted in Featherstone and Burrows 1995: 5). “It is a system which
provides a realistic sense of being immersed in an environment” (Featherstone
and Burrows 1995: 5-6). According to Howard Rheingold (in Virtual Reality, 1991),
Virtual reality is the revolutionary
technology that immerses you in a computer-generated world of your own making —
a room, a city, an entire solar system, the interior of a human body. With the
aid of computer gloves, a Star Wars helmet and some super-sophisticated
software, you can now explore the uncharted territory of the human imagination
with all your senses intact.
It
is also seen as “a way for humans to visualize, manipulate and interact with
computers and extremely complex data” (quoted in Isdale 1993). It is my belief
that delineating places in the Southeastern Europe can be related to this, insofar
as it presents a way of visualizing, manipulating, and interacting with certain
highly ritualized notions (such as “nation,” “history,” “tradition,” etc.) and
extremely complex data. The trick is that these complex data are made to look
simple and straightforward. To give three examples:
1.
The Republic of Macedonia. For some quite extraordinary political
reasons (some of which look as if they have been taken from Ionesco’s “theater
of the absurd”), Macedonia is faced with very specific problems: their
neighbors claim that it doesn’t exist. Albania claims (although unofficially)
that the western part of the country (where the majority of ethnic Albanians
live) should be given huge autonomy and probably eventually should be annexed
to Albania itself. Serbia and Macedonia have some unresolved territorial
disputes, and the majority of Serbs believe that Macedonians are just “Southern
Serbs” (a term used during the Serbian occupation, between 1912 and 1941). Bulgaria claims that, while Macedonia as a
country exists, Slav Macedonians do not, and that they are, basically, just
Bulgarians who have not yet realized their “true” (that is to say, Bulgarian)
identity. More recently, Bulgarian government has determined that there is
actually a Bulgarian (and not Macedonian) ethnic minority in the northern
Albania. Finally, Greece believes that Macedonia’s close relations with Turkey[6] pose a threat to Greece. This attitude
is connected with the Greek denial of the existence of a Slav Macedonian
minority[7] in its northern province and the refusal
to grant to this minority such basic rights as the use of its own (Macedonian)
language.[8]
The Macedonian language is recognized as
a distinctive South Slavic language by all the countries in the world with the exception of its neighbors Greece and Bulgaria. Because of Greek
pressure (the northern Greek province is also called Macedonia), Macedonia was,
in April 1993, admitted to the UN (and afterwards to other world organizations)
only under a temporary (it is still in use now, in April 2000!) name: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
It is still being referred to by this temporary name (or by the acronym FYROM)
in official communications from the UN, EU, US, and other world organizations —
but this term (and being referred to by it) almost all Macedonians find very
offensive.
So, Macedonia is a new country that
perhaps exists and it is inhabited by people claimed and at the same time
denied by their neighbors. Macedonia not only provides some interesting
examples for the concept of hyperreality — it
is hyperreal itself!
2.
The Republic of Slovenia. A
sense of hyperreality exists for Slovenia as well, for it was throughout its
history:
a country so thoroughly suspended between
East and West, for so many centuries, that it actually disappeared. Or, to be
more precise, it didn’t appear at all — until the spring of 1991, that is.
Slovenia’s limbo within this East-West “twilight zone” — most recently, between
the great Orwellian blocks of the century’s second half — did nothing to lessen
the struggles fought on her soil. (Hemingway’s First World War novel A Farewell to Arms, which chronicles the
carnage of the Socha Front, never once mentions Slovenia — despite being set
almost entirely within the borders of the present-day republic.) Slovenia’s
obscurity on the global stage, the concomitant inconsequentiality of her fate,
have made the Slovenes unconsciously attuned to historical and ideological
pressure changes.
(Benson
1995: 83)
The
attunement to changes has its limits. They become most obvious in the
communication with their neighbors, on the political plane. Although most
Slovenians would consider themselves as “civilized,” this is not a view shared
by their northern neighbors, in the Republic of Austria. Thus, as Slovenian
cultural critic/ideologist/philosopher/psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek claimed in The Guardian in 1992, some European
nations tend to regard their southern border as the border between
“civilization” and “savagery.” The
southern border represents “the end of the world as we know it” — it is where
the “civilization” ends and where the “savagery” begins. This is the case with
Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia.
Of
course, no one denies that Slovenia exists
(although there seem to be some problems with the existence of ethnic Slovenians in southwestern Austria), but it is
quite interesting to see something (a country, a nation) arising out of
nowhere. Creatio ex nihilo at its
best.
3. The Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia. Another
good example of hyperreality is the present state of FR Yugoslavia, which
claims direct continuity with the (former) SFR Yugoslavia. The main problem of
the present Yugoslavia is that it is founded on a constitution that was (on 27
April 1992) voted for by the Parliament representatives of the former Yugoslavia. They had no legal
authority to vote for this Constitution, but they nevertheless did, and a
strange new entity (a federation of Serbia and Montenegro) was born (Boskovic
1997b). By creating this new entity, Serb politicians (who dominate Yugoslavia)
tried to establish a link with the mythical time of Serb history, while at the
same time preserving what many people in Belgrade now remember as “the good old
days” of communist Yugoslavia, when everyone (at least the ones who did not go
looking for work abroad) was employed, everyone had reasonable amounts of
money, and everyone had some hopes for a better life.
The
attitude of the international community towards this strange entity might be
described as hyperreal as well – all the Western European countries established
their embassies in Belgrade,[9]
but without formally recognizing this new state (which is not member of any of
the international institutions – like the UN, IMF, World Bank, etc.). So maybe
Yugoslavia exists, maybe not – it all depends on the circumstances.
VR in the Balkans
The
software and specialized equipment for the VR (including Image generators,
manipulation and control devices, Data Gloves and Head Mounted Display [HMD])
helps create an environment where almost[10] everything is possible. In the VR world,
an individual is fully immersed into a world which he/she feels and experiences as real or objective. All the senses adjust
to this. The feeling of “belonging” to a VR environment is complete. A user
adjusts herself/himself to a different rate of motions (slower than “outside”
the VR environment), since sudden moves can create a sense of nausea and great
discomfort. However, there are some problems and possible health risks.
The
CyberEdge Journal # 17 has published
a summary of the findings of a study done at the University of Edinburgh
(Department of Psychology, Edinburgh Virtual Environment Lab) on the eye strain
effects of the use of the HMD.
The basic test was to put 20 young adults
on stationary bicycle and let them cycle around a virtual rural road setting
using a HMD (...) After 10 minutes of light exercise, the subjects were
tested...
“The results were alarming: measures of
distance vision, binocular fusion and convergence displayed clear signs of
binocular stress in a significant number of the subjects. Over half of the
subjects also reported symptoms of such stress, such as blurred vision.”
(Isdale 1993)
Some
stress symptoms can also include falling on/tripping over real world objects,
simulator sickness (disorientation due to conflicting motion signals from eyes
and inner ear), eye strain, etc. (according to John Nagle in Isdale 1993). It
seems that the adjustment to the VR is not very compatible with living in (and
experiencing) the actual (or physical — a term used by Jaron Lanier [Heilbrun
1996]) reality.
I
believe that this is an important point to be taken into consideration when
discussing the matters of Southeastern European and Balkan politics. In their
own particular ways, politicians and theorists[11] from this part of Europe tend to
construct their own VR environments, creating (and re-creating) their countries
as Virtual Places. These Virtual
Places exist in both time and space, and their presence can be fully
experienced by their virtual citizens.
For
example, some of the leading Serb historians regard the 13th century
as the beginning of the Serb “statehood.” It is perfectly useless to try to
explain to them that the notions of “state,” “nation,” or “statehood” (as they
are used today) originate in the post-Renaissance Europe (from the 17th
century onwards). For most Serbs, the battle of Kosovo in 1389 is seen as the
act of defense of Europe against the Ottoman (or Muslim, Islamic, etc.) threat.
The collapse of the Serb medieval state that followed (in mid-15th century) is
seen as the ultimate price paid fo
the free (that is to say, Christian) Europe.[12] Thus, Europe owes to the Serbs its
understanding, recognition, financial assistance, etc.
In
another example of a Virtual Place positioned in time, Slav Macedonian
nationalists claim their right to a Greater Macedonia, based on the conquests
of Alexander the Great, approximately 1,000 years before Slavs even came to the Balkans. This strange construct would
include what is today the Republic of Macedonia, as well as parts of Greece,
Bulgaria, and Albania. As such, in the virtual space, it overlaps with other
Greater constructs: Greater Serbia (which should, apart from Serbia and
Montenegro, also include parts of Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania, and the
whole of Republic of Macedonia), Greater Bulgaria (Bulgaria, Macedonia, parts
of Greece and Albania), and Greater Albania (Albania, parts of Greece,
Macedonia, and Serbia). As already noted above, the very existence of some
countries (like the Republic of Macedonia) is incomprehensible for some others
(in various aspects, for Serbia or FR Yugoslavia, Greece, and Bulgaria). From
the official Greek standpoint, for example, its northern neighbor is totally
“virtual.”
While
these constructs are logically incoherent, inconsistent and mutually
incompatible, they function quite well in virtual space. They also feed each
other and are in a sense dependent on each other. The problems of (possible)
communication are solved in an elegant manner: there is no communication,
chosen representatives of “the people” usually just repeat what they are told
to say and what they always believed they should say: that their nation is the oldest, the best, and always right, and that
they have suffered the most. Thus, they should be granted all the privileges
for “their” version of these Virtual
Places. They are supposed to blend with and eventually supersede real places.
Virtual
Exits?
An
important thing to be noted here is that any or all versions of these Virtual
Places cannot be regarded as either true or false. They are all true — within
their respective historical/cultural/ethnic/traditional premises. Within a VR
reality, a Virtual environment simply exists.
As put by the Critical Art Ensemble in their VIPER Lecture: “VR’s primary value
to spectacle is not as technology at all, but as a myth.” It is put to
(practical) use only when a user pus on Data Gloves, HMD, stereo headphones and
computerized clothing (“datasuit”) and turns on her/his computer. Hence, it is
both impractical and impossible to argue with the proponents or creators of
Virtual Places — they are always right, since they are forever locked in their
own virtual environment.
In
an example that was very much actual recently (late March/ early June 1999),
the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was presented to the Western viewers as
something purely virtual (Kroker and
Kroker 1999) – it is the war that was not really a war, bombing to save the
Albanians, although occasionally NATO planes hit and kill dozens of Albanian –
but it was for their own good! The bombing was also not aimed at civilians, but
most of the civilian infrastructure has been destroyed, hospitals, residential
areas, buses and passenger trains hit – but, again, nothing personal, it was
for the good and ultimate enjoyment of the people of Serbia. It was the war to
end all Balkan wars. (It still remains to be seen whether it will succeed in
this.)
In
the Serb official discourse the bombing is a living proof that the whole world
is and always has been against the Serbs, and that is just another reason why
people should retreat to their virtual shelters, protected from any silly ideas
like “democratization,” “freedom of thought,” or “freedom of expression.” When
the survival of the nation is at stake, all its members must stand as one and
bravely face up to the wreath of the world powers. Their death would be just a
re-enactment of the heroic Battle of Kosovo of 1389, another proof that even in
death and destruction, the defeated ones tower over their oppressors. It is
only fitting that in a strange twist of fate the people who once saved
(Christian) Europe from the (Muslim) Turks should fall as victims of that very
same Europe (in reality, just Britain – along with the US).
One
of the most obvious effects of the prolonged use of VR is that a user feels a
little dizzy afterwards and moves a little slower than “normal” — adjustment to
a different environment takes some time (this is sometimes referred to as a “VR
leg”). It would be unproductive (except, perhaps, to make fun of such a person)
to ask a person who has just taken off his/her HMD to perform some strenuous
physical task, to jump or run, etc. A “fundamental loss of orientation” occurs
(as Virilio would say [1995]), a feeling of dizziness which, in case of
ex-Yugoslav nations and Serbs in particular, prevents people from making any
distinctions between the real and the imagined.
Following
this, I do not see any point in expecting that ideologists, theorists,
politicians or advocates of Virtual Places should act or behave in a manner
more in tune with what is sometimes regarded as a “proper behavior” (that is to
say, to use rational arguments, to be able to discuss points of views of other
participants in a discussion, to accept that they can sometimes be wrong,
etc.). One should always bear in mind the particular environment which they see
and feel as theirs, in which they feel comfortable, and act accordingly. One
way of coping with them would be to always include qualified psychologists and
computer experts familiar with the VR in all the negotiating teams and
intermediary missions dealing with the Southeastern Europe. I believe that this
could greatly enhance mutual understanding and probably ensure much better
communication. The other way should be quicker and more efficient, but perhaps
too abrupt and not very diplomatic: just to switch off the computer. Of course,
there is also a possibility of introducing a virus – a virus of
democratization, which has to be introduced from outside the region, since the
local populations have neither strength nor will to try it (Boskovic 1997a,
1998). But then, are the countries who condone mass killing of civilians in
order to stop mass killing of civilians morally capable of proposing it? Or is
their ultimate answer just more violence to end violence?
Taking
all of that into consideration, one might wonder about why should any of the
Balkan nations exit their Virtual Worlds – there are the things, concepts,
places, people and (most important for the national unity) enemies that they know so well, know how to deal with them and how
to feel. There are even small NGOs that can function providing a simulation of
democratization, while in effect nothing ever changes. Any change would just
plunge them into chaos – which is the last thing that global policy-makers want
in the Balkans. In the end, it seems that both peoples from this part of the
world and their well-wishers, critics and occasional bombers will agree that
some people should never leave their playing rooms, and should have their data
gloves on. At least for now.
References
Baudrillard, Jean
1995 Le
crime parfait. Paris: Gallimard.
Benson, Michael
1990
The Future
is Now. In: How the East Sees the East.
Piran: Obalne Galerije.
1997a Halb
Schuldig, ganz Opfer. Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung, 15 February, No. 39.
1997b Hyperreal
Serbia. Ctheory, Online (www.ctheory.com\e39.html) Reprinted in: Arthur and Marylouise
Kroker (eds.), Digital Delirium. Montréal: New World Perspectives.
1998 Albanci kao metafora. [Albanians as a Metaphor.]
Arkzin N.s. No. 5, pp. 26-27.
Critical Art Ensemble
1996 Posthuman Development in the Age of
Pancapitalism. In: ZKP3.2.1,
Ljubljana:
Ljubljana Digital Media Lab.
1997 The Technology of Uselessness. In: Arthur
and Marylouise Kroker (eds.),
Digital
Delirium. Montréal: New World Perspectives.
Eco, Umberto
1986 [1975] Travels
in Hyperreality. Translated by William Weaver. San Diego and New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Feathersone, Mike, and Roger Burrows
1995 Cultures
of Technological Embodiment: An Introduction. In: Mike Featherstone and Roger
Burrows (eds.), Cyberspace/Cyberbodies/Cyberpunk:
Cultures of Technological Embodiment. London: Sage.
Heilbrun, Adam
1996 [1988] Jaron Lanier: A Vintage Virtual
Reality Interview. Online.
Isdale, Jerry
1993
What is
Virtual Reality? Online.
Jones, S. (ed.)
1994 Cybersociety.
London: Sage.
1999 Fast War/Slow Motion. CTheory, Online (www.ctheory.com\e76.html).
1991 Virtual Reality. London: Mandarin.
Sterling, Bruce
1990 Cyberspace (™). Interzone 41.
Steur, J.
1991 Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence. Journal of Communications 42(4).
1993 O Espaço Crítico e as Perspectivas do Tempo
Real. Translated by Paulo Roberto Pires. São Paulo: Editora 34.
1995 Speed and Information: Cyberspace Alarm!
Translated by Patrice Riemens.
CTheory,
Online. [Originally published in Le Monde
Diplomatique, Paris,
August 1995.]
1997
Un monde
surexposé. Le Monde Diplomatique,
August. (www.monde-diplomatique.fr\1997/08\VIRILIO\8948.html)
[1] I am following here a distinction made by the wizard, visual/graphic designer Borut Vild (one of the editors of The Belgrade Circle Journal), who spoke in his 1998 lecture at the Cinema Rex in Belgrade of the three categories of people when it comes to compute graphics and design: insiders, outsiders, and the ones who have wondered into this field by accident. Unfortunately, a great majority of the people seem to belong to the third group. The whizz kids and hackers of today belong to the first one.
[2] Virilio (1997) argues that we are witnessing not the end of history, but the end of geography. VR has entered homes of millions of viewers of CBS, CNN, BBC and other major news networks with the latest NATO intervention in Yugoslavia.
[3] For the paradoxes related to space and time, see Virilio 1993.
[4] The term has been coined in 1986 by Jaron Lanier, and, despite all the objections from grammarians and “hard scientists,” held on and entered the popular usage.
[5] “Following Sterling (1990), cyberspace is best considered as a generic term which refers to a cluster of different technologies, some familiar, some only recently available, some being developed and some still fictional, all of which have in common the ability to simulate environments within which humans can interact. Other authors prefer the term computer-mediated communication (CMC) (Jones 1994) to refer to much the same set of phenomena” (Featherstone and Burrows 1995: 5). The same authors make a distinction between “Barlovian cyberspace,”“Virtual reality,” and “Gibsonian cyberspace.”
[6] Bulgaria and Turkey were the first two countries to recognize Macedonia under her constitutional name.
[7] Helsinki Watch and other NGOs put the number of Slav Macedonians in this area between 15,000 and 50,000.
[8] These issues are very much present in contemporary anthropology. A great controversy arose in 1996 when Cambridge University Press (at a very late stage and bypassing its own anthropology editorial board) refused to publish a book by Greek anthropologist Anastasia Karakasidou, dealing with the Slav Macedonian minority in northern Greece. Apparently, the publisher was afraid that this book might irate Greeks. (The book was eventually published by the University of Chicago Press.)
[9] In the aftermath of the NATO bombing, almost all of them returned (except the ones like the UK, who were most directly involved in the bombing campaign).
[10] That is to say, it has to be programmed first.
[11] I should add here that I do not regard politicians or theorists as acting by and for themselves, they come from the people, frequently have huge popular support for their actions, so it can also be said that they act in the name of people.
[12] I would like to add that both the official representatives of the Balkan nation-states and most “ordinary people” see them being “at the crossroads of the East and the West” as the main cause of their troubles — both past and present. However, many other parts of Europe were at this crossroads at some points in their history, like Russia, Finland, or Spain. This is perhaps a remnant of the belief (quite often found in some “traditional cultures”) that a specific ethnic group is located in the center of the Universe, along the axis mundi, so that anything happening to an ethnic group affects the Universe as a whole.