In the chapter “Photoshop of Democracy,” Henry Jenkins describes an election that took place in Alphaville, a town in the game The Sims.* The election was contested and raised questions about who could participate. Basically, it forced the game players to decide together how they wanted to govern their imaginary community.
Jenkins takes the players of this game and the way they approached the conflict very seriously, arguing that games like The Sims allow people to “play with power on a microlevel, to exert control over imaginary worlds” (228). He goes on to argue that the games function like public squares, the places where we gather to discuss our own communities and to participate in self-governance. He concludes that “Alphaville-style democracy [can be seen] as a productive thought experiment, especially insofar as participants pulled back, talked about their different perspectives and experiences, and worked together to perfect the mechanisms governing their communities” (231).
What is important for Jenkins is that these imaginary spaces seem to have the potential to “model ideal . . . online democracies” (231). He warns against “writ[ing] all this off as a ‘learning experience’” (231). In other words, by suggesting that the games “model” online democracies, he is taking the idea that we might participate in online democracies very seriously. While, perhaps, at this point, those online democracies are not extending beyond the screen and into the world, it seems that he means to suggest the possibility of that happening. To underscore this, he later discusses political scientists who have studied the different ways people can participate in deliberative politics--discussing issues rather than simply casting a yes/ no vote. Overall, Jenkins argues (to be a bit reductive) that online activities have the potential to change the way we go about participating in the big questions that confront us as a nation.
On the one hand, as Jenkins himself often acknowledges, it can seem a bit silly to say that games and gamers are showing us the potential for new forms of political discussion and participation. But on the other hand, it is a really intriguing argument: by doing things we already find fun and engaging in “imaginary worlds,” we might change the ways we begin to think about the “real world.”
I like Jenkins argument for its optimism: We aren’t just playing games, we are changing the way serious discourse happens in the country! But I also really like the way Jenkins uses the idea of ‘modeling’ as an argumentative strategy. This concept provides a bridge for his argument that helps explain the connection that might exist between fiction, fantasy, and fun, and their apparent opposites--hard news, reality, and the serious business of life. While you might be critical of the actual connection being made, it seems like a useful concept to at least consider when discussing how the activities we engage in our leisure time might actually shape our entire world outlook.
*Henry Jenkins. Convergence Culture (New York: New York University Press), 2006.
