New humans and other social behaviors

In this individual project, I wanted to bring to debate various schools of thought about techno-optimism and how parallel or alternative realities are created in the new ecosystem of social exchange. The role of the Metaverse, VR, and AR as a channel for new achievements and behaviors, as well as frustrations and desires.

Traditionally, social development processes have been approached from broad positions centered above all on economic and political issues. This is how societies have been structurally measured since ancient times. However, it is necessary to approach social development from different points of view, perhaps less explored, but inversely proportional to its complexity.

To understand the evolution of the different communication and exchange channels, tools, and platforms that have been developed, it is necessary to discuss the emergence and use of the Internet as a fundamental catalyst for the participatory process and the modification of its statutes-algorithms over the years. years. The first thing would be to retrospectively map the role that this has played in perfecting the so-called “shared knowledge” process.

Taking this premise as a starting point, one could perhaps observe where we are going or where we should avoid transit. Optimistic views on the role of technology and the development of new platforms promise to bring Virtual Reality (VR) & Augmented Reality (AR) closer to the daily routine (Stuart, 2018). In this way, the appropriation and use of said advances are allowed, which also results in the generation of a direct line of thought with the participatory and collaborative practices of the users (Jenkins, 2016).

To understand it better, it would be necessary to hook the culture of participation to the evolution of the Internet itself. Web 1.0 frames the emergence of the Internet within the irruption of the Technological Revolution. How information is connected represented a paradigm shift and a break with the then established social, cultural, and business exchange processes. However, the possibility of connecting with people as a reliable and feasible ecosystem appears with the emergence of Web 2.0 and of course the consequent emergence of Social Networks, electronic commerce, the sharing economy, among others.

On the threshold in which to frame the current moment, there is no doubt that there is a chronology between Web 2.0 and Web 3.0, which connects People – Places & Things as a disruptive proposal. This interaction can sometimes happen in a digital-virtual ecosystem like VR. Although it is not exclusive to this technology, different theoretical-technological approaches lead to the coexistence of digital elements within our space-time and vice versa.

The exposure generated by social beings in virtual ecosystems, responds, among other factors of evolution, development, and access to new information technologies, to a crisis of enthusiasm caused by the recognition of political power and its rhetoric of false empowerment citizen. With the appearance of new applications such as Blogs and Social Networks, new empowerment has emerged through mass self-communication (Castells, 2013), collective intelligence (Lévy, 2004), or intelligent crowds (Rheingold, 2004).

With the appearance of new communication platforms, new discursive variants are developed according to the codes and tones of the new players. The narrative used by these players in their active role somehow conditions the decoding of messages by recipients, who, in turn, as content generators, are capable of popularizing, criticizing, or weighing these new lines of thought. This same technological evolution seems to point to two lines that are polarized with each other, and that focus on a pessimistic or optimistic debate depending on the approach taken on the emancipatory power of technology.

In this scenario, the power of algorithms has introduced a new exchange perspective called "Metaverse" where human beings can develop social and economic exchange relationships in virtual environments, in which their representativeness takes the form of an Avatar. In this way, questions are raised about the coexistence of subjects and their identity in cyberspace without physical limitations, although surely with rules to impose. Understanding by consequence that the absence of these rules represents an establishment of a status quo that weaves a new way of social representation.

In the Metaverse, many theories of social interaction converge that generate unknowns regarding the eternal search for freedoms and the break with ideals that have historically conditioned-regulated human behavior. Online communication conspires against meaningful community building (Dean, 2016). However, it could be said that the very concept of productivity is lacerated insofar as the biological activities determined by evolution itself are transferred to an ecosystem in which interaction is subject to cerebral and sensory-motor skills rather than physical-motor ones (Stuart, 2018).

To what extent will living together in the Metaverse be a platform where different kinds of freedoms are finally given a voice? Will the interests of consumers be represented, turned into avatars in this ecosystem? What will be the role of individual vs. collective freedoms in the Metaverse?

There are as many possible scenarios as answers to what it means to be free or to practice freedom. Both freedom and liberty generally take place in a safe environment. So consequently, it seems that the Metaverse continues to offer interaction alternatives to its users who decide on their role, as long as they are interested in being more active-passive or proactive-reactive. In a basic way, according to their developers, Metaverse is going to be about building platforms and experiences that deliver the sense of presence whether virtual or physical. A positive approach would be that it is not a monolithic or connected universe, so the unleashing of domain interests by corporations, which are still defining the paths in terms of behavior and technological implementation, continue to position a user-centric focus.

That said, even though it is the first frontier in social connection-interaction, it is very interesting how tech companies insist on delivering feelings and experiences to users while understanding that attention matter the most. In other words, tools that help people to feel connected. So companies are not building products anymore, they are building ecosystems. Under this paradigm, the construction of new identities supported by the new socialization practices that these technological platforms will provide will allow the creation of ties that could somehow rethink the codes of exchange within these virtual communities.

In contrast to earlier findings, however, other approaches suggest that this technological interactivity, far from guaranteeing a physical, mental and sensory exposure of oneself in different dimensions, can lacerate and condition one's freedoms and even human productivity, understanding that the migration towards techno-social ecosystems of communication, limits and reduces conventional interaction practices seen so far (Dyer-Witheford and Mikkola Kjosen 2019).

As has been said, it would be practically impossible for hyper-connectivity, persistence, and corporeality, as fundamental characteristics of the Metaverse, to have an immediate effect, be it negative or positive, in any of our daily practices. So, it would be interesting to raise the question possibility of developing creative and educational processes subordinated to these technological practices.

It would remain like this, as an introduction to a subject that at the moment generates more unknowns than solutions, to elaborate and propose structures that look towards the incorporation from the subject's competencies, and abilities, towards a productive didactic environment. With this thesis, the focus would then be on generating participatory environments that promote social development using technology as a tool and not as an objective of natural coexistence.