The Two Creative Revolutions: One Continues

We’re experiencing a creative revolution. Self-publishing technology, POD, and word processors lets one make a novel or comic alone (though hopefully one is social enough to get an editor). A lone game designer or a small crew can make a quality game with common libraries and engines. CGI allows a film like “Manborg” to be made cheaply and efficiently.

This does not mean this explosion of work is one of quality, but it is historically noteworthy. The power to get creative work out and available is accessible by a much wider audience than in the past. To judge by the wok out there, many people are willing to take advantage of this power.

Again, we may complain about a lack of quality, but we’re not lacking for quantity, even if we may wish we were.

We have a revolution in creativity-empowering tools, but that’s not the only revolution. There’s another change that’s gone on, eclipsed by the tools. This shadow revolution, this parallel change, is the idea that all of us can be authors and coders and artists.

There’s been a revolution in our narratives about ourselves.

Read more

Geek Culture: Action, Reaction, And Return

I’ve previously talked about geek evangelism – namely I missed it. It seems that the internet had given us a chance to seal ourselves off in echo chambers, and that has affected geek culture and culture in general. People we’re more “building up” than “reaching out,” and many now built walls.

The internet also guaranteed conflict. We could build an infinite amount of new communities – and find an infinite amount of things to fight about. People need people to interact with, but we’re not always equipped to deal with their differences. The internet guarantees differences between people will emerge and collide quickly – infinite space means infinite conflict.

Kind of makes you see how wall-building might even see rational at times. When someone starts a flame war over gum flavor, an echo chamber sounds like a better idea. We geeks, who like to engage with others, who use technology, probably face this even more than most.

Of course most of us don’t want conflict. Why do people end up fighting so often on the Internet? Sure, the internet ensures enough diversity that we can find new ways to fight. But honestly does anyone like this? If we’re going to go form our communities why do we have to keep fighting?

Because the internet doesn’t just give us leeway to leave and do our own thing, it ensures that the communities can produce their own opposites. These opposites are not always forming their own identity – they’re sharing one with the very people they don’t like. Those opposites return, or may even by their own existence redefine the culture

You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello

I remember the truly early days of the Internet going “big.” I remember Geocities and anyone being able to put up a page. I was active on LiveJournal. I helped out with websites. Even “back then” (Defined as the mid to late 90’s) anyone could create any kind of community they wanted.

(OK, again people that could afford it.)

I recall fan wars and battles and geek fallouts and obscure communities popping up. And why not? The tools were there.

Also if you didn’t like something, you could just leave and do something else. Surfing obscure, hyper-specific themed fandom sites was something my friends and I id on occasion, often amused or horrified at what we see. If you wanted it, and someone didn’t like it, you could just go do your thing.

(And I repeat, Harry Potter fandom, wow, nothing quite like that . . .)

It was often like a version of Conway’s “Life.” The organism of a fandom or a club or a geekdom could split off into parts if needed. A community might be eating itself, a kind of cultural autoimmune disorder, and then everyone could go their own way to hate each other on their terms.

At times they might get back together.

There were even groups that existed only in response to others. From MST3K communities that parodied fanfic (often with the permission of authors, leading to a peculiar synergy) to communities rebelling against adult fanfic, to groups that just mocked internet culture. Some sites and groups existed only because others did.

Fast forward to today.

Today it seems worse, and it’s not just people who argue Ed Elric and Roy Mustang are a couple years later. Some parts of geekdom just explode in battles as bad as any conspiracy news-link flame war – many, as noted, being gaming related and comics relating. Apparently fun is serious business.

it seems a lot of the battles seem to involve echo chambers. The fights make sense to those in the communities, but outside are a lot of people going “seriously?”

Because when you can go your own way and can do so in reaction to other things, you’ve got a conflict-producing machine. Leaving doesn’t mean the conflict ends, and people who are sick of something (or just mock it) can build their own community against something or for something.

Perhaps they return with a vengeance, or try to reform their culture, or they make it a goal to improve things. Or they can also be pretentious jerks.

The opposites don’t mean separation. Communities are often formed in response to something.   Those that created the response might be a bit surprised when the response comes back to them – but shouldn’t.

After all, people may exist in the same identity-space as others. Just because they left may not mean they’re going to share the identity with others. They might not be able to. They might have good reason not to.

I’m Leaving, I’ll Be In Touch

So when we put all the parts I discussed earlier together we see this:

  • The flaws in a geek cultures mean people want to leave or separate themselves from some parts of the culture. This is any culture, really.
  • The internet, the chosen Geek Tool (Blessed be Lovelace and Babbage), lets us go form communities and causes.
  • Despite “being separate” we often exist in the same identity-space as people we have a conflict with. We don’t truly get away – or want to.
  • Some communities and their conflicts spawn their own opposite.
  • The the internet lets us return to change things. Hell, we can’t really get away – when so much social involvement is routed through a few services like Twitter or Facebook the infinite division of the internet feels more like a cube farm.

The common social tools of the internet, plus wider awareness, mean that some people who form a community in reaction can then change the culture as a whole. They can change what they left, redefine it, or hunker down and be a kind of center point to alter the culture.

Take a look at the internet now and how it’s used in reaction to all sorts of things.  Ferguson and awareness of violence against PoC.  Gay rights issues tracked to the hour.  Corporate slip-ups.

If you’re an ass, if your community is pathological, if your company is discriminating against older geeks, people can organized against and about that issue quickly. The internet is not just about spawning communities, it’s spawning communities about something – and against something.

These communities “leave” but not totally. Not for long.

Guess where we are now?

Inevitable.  Only Forward, This Thing Doesn’t Go In Reverse

Geekdom doesn’t just spawn counter-communites. Many exist to change or redefine the culture itself, or to maintain it in a kind of activist-wall-building.  Again you see this everywhere, we’re just more wired.

It’s not really surprising. The internet let us reach out and develop but also amplified contact – and chance for conflict. Now that more and more is connected and public, there’s going to be more effort to fix it. It also means communities that left one area can come back rather loudly – they may not be able to conceive of a total separation.

This may also spawn reactions to the . . . reactions. A cultural breakdown in a community can spawn a responding community and then a response to the response. It can get a bit Inception-like as you try and figure out where this all started. Who’s battling for the soul of what?

In various parts of geekdom I’ve seen “reactions” get pretty deep. I could (and may) do entire essays on this. Just as example the “hate of the fake geek girl” BS seems to be about four reactions deep (reactions to women in geekdom, counter reaction stating they belong, minor bigoted counter reaction, larger community building reaction).

This is also important for areas of geekdom that are or have gotten insular. Their insularity, their pushing people out, is going to cause a reaction – possibly a severe one. It’s not going away. It’s going to mean people can form their own groups, communities, and all this happens in a very, very public way.

And people come back.

Lately I’ve seen several points where conventions have had unpleasant issues. These came up – yes – on the internet. Things, in the words of Ron Burgandy, Escalated Quickly.  In real time.

It won’t slow down.

If You’re Going To Ride The Horse, Have A Direction

So the truth of geekdom now is that we’re in a phase of reaction and action (again, any culture has this, I think it’s just amplified). We’re changing rapidly and facing rapid exposure of our problems. We also face a chance to rapidly address them – we have the tools and the inclination. We also can’t stop this – it will not stop.

(Indeed this is true of all culture; again, I’m a geek and we’re the ones that embrace the technology that lets us change so fast.)

So the real choice is, how are we going to handle this?

All the action and reaction mean we are moving rapidly. We might as well pick a damn direction.

I see this emerging as of late – indeed a lot of my work on Civic Geek opened my eyes to how people in our community are asking “what can we do and be?” People are directing their work and focus as geeks.  They’re asking what they should do.

Because if we have no direction, the ability to spawn endless conflict is going to continue to plague us. And if we don’t understand the walls come down fast, that our actions create their opposites, we’ll always be in battles far more than we need to be.

Closing

I started this series just exploring “what happened” and I know – geekdom too quickly developed echo-chamber communities that amplified marketing and pathological voices. The internet also produced infinite chance for conflict.

But also it seems we’re in a phase where everything is so public that some parts of geekdom (or any culture) spawn their own counterforce. At times an overwhelming counterforce.

It’s not done yet.

I do think it’s inevitable. I’ve said many a time that we geeks need to own our culture and take responsibility. Someone is going to anyway.

Because action has reaction, here in the internet, the biggest tiny room in history.

Respectfully,

– Steven Savage
http://www.musehack.com/
http://www.informotron.com/
http://www.seventhsanctum.com/

The Unbearable Straightness of Gayness

I’d like to talk about male sexuality, straightness, and gayness. I won’t be addressing female sexuality in any detail as I’m a straight cisgendered white guy. Gonna write what I know.

Anyway, ever notice how there’s something very . . . gay about aggressively straight guys?

You know what I’m talking about. Guys being manly with guys about guys doing guy things. The bros that seem to be so into bros you wonder why they aren’t deeper into bros if you know what I mean. The guys so big on guyness your gaydar melts down because there’s so much guy you wonder if you got a vowel wrong . . .

And you’re speculating someone’s closet is used for more than socks.

There’s something very gay about guys being really, aggressively straight. I call this The Tom Of Finland Phenomena, after the artist who drew very gay scenes of super-masculinity.

And I’ve got a Theory On That.

Signals And Actions

So let’s talk humans and signals. Humans are social creatures, creatures of communication, even moreso than other creatures. With words and glances and actions and tone we’re constantly communicating. We’re often not aware of it (which explains many a social faux pas), but we do it.

Sex is all about communication.  If you think about it, life and reproduction is transmission of information, so sex and communication are impossible to disentangle.  Sex involves a lot of forms of communication.

When it comes to sexuality, we need to send signals to attract a mate. What makes us desirable? What do we offer? What’s good about us? What are you doing Friday?

Sex is about communication with mates. But that’s not the only form of communication.

We also warn off rivals. We show how great we are. We show we got there first. We ward someone off with a glance or a snarky comment. We have a talk with our best friend that maybe he should back off.

So we’ve got to warn off people, be it by an aggressive display or making them realize who’s with who. There’s a “warding” aspect to sexuality.

We also bond with people over sex. Not the people we have sex with, but the people we relate to – our friends, our group, our mentors. We learn from them or teach them about finding mates (or one-night stands). We share war stories and funny tales or brag or ask where we can get that rash looked at.

Sex is about finding someone, about warding off rivals, and something we bond over.  At no point does this seem to matter if you’r gay, straight bisexual, or whatever. These are basic human traits.

For that matter “sexual preference” and “sexual identity” can be pretty damn fluid. I’m straight, but let’s talk Chris Evans for a moment.

Because Woof.
Because Woof.

But at some point straight behaviors, as noted, seems . . . kinda gay.

And when you break down the different ways people communicate, I know why.

Let’s Talk Bros Before Knows

Let’s take a look at stereotypical hyper-masculine behavior. The stuff that is so straight male that we’re thinking it’s gotten a bit gay. Or a lot of gay, no matter how many claims of “no Homo” are made.

Stereotypical hyper-masculine (and indeed toxicly masculine behavior) is aggressive. It’s posturing. It’s often angry. It’s bragging. It’s a constant kind of showing off.

(It is also, to judge by many straight women I know a turnoff if that’s all there is).

We know people like this. We’ve known them in real life, and see it in Internet Tough guys and forum-bragging. And we wonder about them because there’s just something . . .  off here.

Let’s unpack this.

These are guys bragging and showing off. Their behavior is macho posturing. They’re either warding off rivals or forming social bonds with others who act like them.

What’s not in there is mate-seeking. Oh sure they talk about it, they talk about it a lot, but there’s a lot of talk and very little long-term growth. It’s talking scores like a video game – it’s bragging.  Talk of mate-seeking is really about showing off how great you are or warding off rivals to look tough.

These are people engaging in two of the three social behaviors, but not actual mate seeking or fitness for mates.  It’s a bit hard to believe from the average macho posturer that women really want a self-centered “alpha male stud” whatever who’s managed to take the worst parts of metrosexuality and retrograde behavior to create an unholy fusion of annoyance.

Also, when you look closer at hyper-masculinism, the female is often excluded. One is to avoid femminine behavior. One is to be “a man.” In some further spheres of pick-up artistry and political extremism, women are downright degraded (by the people who want to sleep with them, whichseems weird).

An extreme posture or position inevitably leads to exclusion. Hyper-masculinity excludes the feminine.

When it’s guys being guys around guys to get the interest of guys, while excluding women and female traits, it seems pretty damn gay.  It’s so about men that it becomes kind of a mobius strip of suspected closeted behavior.

Looking A Bit Further

So in a nutshell I think that hypermasculinity seems gay as it’s all aggressive performances for other men in a way that is so exclusive of women you wonder. When you’re showig off for your bros, we wonder if that’s really where your mate-seeking behavior is directed.

I’ve also wondered if part of this is the appropriation of macho steretypes by gay culture (again, Tom of Finland). Gay people in cultures with hypermasculine elmenets could adopt them out of mockery, parody, or commentary – certainly I’ve seen that in gay culture over the decades, from the village people to macho-themed bars out here in the Bay Area. Much as history is replete with sexually ambituous mystics like the Berdache, maybe you can play Holy Fool in order to kill some Sacred Cows.

This explanation helps me finally grasp what I was getting to. Straight men who are obsessed with other men, showing off for other men, and excluding the femminine are going to give people the impression they’re kind of closeted or confused.  Maybe they are.  Even more ironic because most “hypermasculine” types I meet are homophobes, since they’re so big on being manly.

Maybe the best way to be manly, whatever that really is, is to remember women.
Respectfully,

– Steven Savage
http://www.musehack.com/
http://www.informotron.com/
http://www.seventhsanctum.com/