Cookie policy: This site uses cookies to simplify and improve your usage and experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information on how we use and manage cookies please take a look at our privacy and cookie policies. Your privacy is important to us and our policy is to neither share or sell your personal information to any external organisation or party; nor to use behavioural analysis for advertising to you.

Navel-gazing in another universe

Anthropology gets in the way of this wander through the new virtual wonderland, finds Grant McCracken

In Coming of Age in Second Life, Tom Boellstorff argues that virtuality is an ancient human practice. Many media have given us leave of the here and now: cave paintings, Jane Austen novels, Howard Nemerov poems.

We are pretty good at saying how these things accomplish their transportation. The task for Boellstorff is to tell us what difference new media make. What happens when virtuality is individuals interacting in a machine space that exists online? I think Boellstorff fails us here. It's not his fault entirely. He is an anthropologist.

There is much to admire in this book. Boellstorff writes clearly, even gracefully. He is thoughtful, genuinely curious and quick-eyed. Where many of his colleagues insist on making a mystery of things that are straightforward (so to neglect mysteries real and pressing), Boellstorff is a likeable, generous, accessible voice.

But his anthropology makes for two problems. The first is that anthropology has largely neglected the study of its own culture. Most of the meanings of Second Life have been smuggled in from this culture. Thus when the Second Life inhabitant presents herself as an elf, a chipmunk or a flaming goddess, she is using cultural categories and understandings from "away".

It is easy enough to say: "Oh, but we all know what an elf, a chipmunk or a goddess is," but this is precisely where the anthropologist is supposed to be scrupulous (as we may expect a philosopher to be scrupulous about claims to knowledge or judgment). Boellstorff takes these and other importations at their face value, and as a result much of what ought to be the object of study disappears from view.

If anthropology isn't about its own culture - or increasingly, any culture - that's because it is increasingly about itself. This is Boellstorff's second problem. Anthropology is now an inquisition, ferreting out epistemological, moral and political error.

But Second Life is a florid place. Strange and wonderful things are to be found everywhere. The data are voluptuous, the opportunities for study extraordinary. And I can't help wondering whether this anthropologist was the one to send. Boellstorff is abstemious when what we want is a glutton.

Still, he is not quite as precious as his colleagues. This book, once it gets down to it, does truly offer a detailed and deeply interesting investigation of Second Life.

The best moments come when Boellstorff is puzzling out inhabitants puzzling out the meanings and new rules of social discourse. But here, too, there may be a little too much puzzling. Sometimes the reader thinks, "Pray, just get on with it."

Boellstorff never takes a step without casting a concept before him. This has the effect of actually making Second Life banal and his anthropology an apparent failure of the imagination or the nerve. It might have been better to follow the anthropological convention of entering a new world suspending, for the first moments, one's anthropology.

That Boellstorff is prepared to take up this topic at all tells us that anthropology is restless in its slumber, that it may be preparing for bigger things. But it also suggests that, in the short term, it must remain the captive of its self-absorption. Anthropology might have a second life, but I think it's clear we can't get there from here.

Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human

By Tom Boellstorff

Princeton University Press

328pp, £17.95

ISBN 9780691135281

Published 30 May 2008

Readers' comments (2)

  • Having studied the book of Tom Boellstorff (2008) in some detail, one is somewhat perplexed at the scientific basis of some of Grant McCracken’s comments in reviewing the book.

    McCracken has positive things to say about the book with which I concur. That said, some of his criticisms seem extraneous to the conceptual framework of what Boellstorff wanted to achieve.

    While I am critical of certain aspects of Boellstorff work, for example the summary definition of "techne", I appreciated the work as a whole. The success of the book, for me, is that it is accessible to non-academics, while suggesting openings for further scientific research in Virtual Worlds. Few and far are books of this calibre dealing with Virtual Worlds.

    To go back to Grant McCracken attempt at appraising Boellstorff work, one wonders how he conceives “science” in the 21st century?

    If criticism, it be, Boellstorff is not an ivory towered academic. He has the courage to be modest in recognising that modern science must also be self-critical and contextualised. This includes being concerned with "ferreting out epistemological, moral and political errors" (to quote McCracken). Science is part of society and not floating above it, and anthropology is certainly no exception.

    Boellstorff does not cling at all cost to the archaic notion that it is possible to "suspend ones anthropology in the first moments", to cite McCracken, in some ivory towered way. Boellstorff tackles the issues accepting that the scientist is a human being with inevitable limits that needs to examined as an integral part of an honest scientific process. For McCracken to claim in his peremptory way that this is necessarily "self absorption" (or "navel gazing") is to misunderstand the advances of modern science in the last 30 years.

    In conclusion, one wonders if McCracken simply wishes to impose his view personal view of anthropology on a colleague when reviewing this book. Proof in itself that it is not possible, or at least immensely difficult for McCracken, to "suspend one's personal preconceptions" when attempting to be scientific.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Thanks so much for this review of my book! I can't say that I agree with either your diagnosis of anthropology, or with your two quibbles - I think we're actually in agreement more than you admit. But I'm nevertheless honored by the attention to my work, and am sure we'll someday find an opportunity to discuss these topics further - in some actual or virtual space!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Print
  • Share
  • Save
  • Print
  • Share
  • Save
Jobs