I run my own remote studios. I have been working with colleagues online for over a decade, building remote communities for years, running remote practice studios for post-graduate students and training teachers in remote practice for studios over the past couple of years (I just won a national teaching award for these!), and will begin running open remote artist studios soon.
Actually, it is difficult to even find a person who HASN’T done remote work these days. But for a few years I have been teaching others how to do remote practice. The key benefit I have found about running remote artist studios is that if you can make it work there, you can make it work in a local studio. Indeed, the inverse is not true: what works locally doesn’t automatically work online. Why? Because you can’t lean on proximity bias. You have to overtly design the environment and actions to reach your aims. It is the test of making it work for a non-norm context that makes it better for all contexts.
Since I’m always keen to share things I discover (it helps me understand it more too), I planned on releasing more info. I presented at GDC last year (on a different topic), and did intend to pitch a talk on running remote studios for this year’s GDC. But I was busy while the call went out, and since I had just moved interstate I wasn’t sure if I could get the funding or funds to go.
What prompted this quick post were the recent discussions on Twitter about group work and students (in games), and coming up with alternative methods. So I’ll share notes about an approach I’ve developed to in my remote studios: co-collaboration.
THE NEED FOR CO-COLLABORATION
The need for a co-collaborative approach came out of my international lab Forward Slash Story (which is about developing the artist, not the project), my undergraduate and post-graduate studio teaching (addressing negative experiences in student collaboration), my running of department curriculum development days (facilitating awareness, integration and feedback quickly), and my training of faculty in remote practice (addressing the constraints of the institutional infrastructure and facilitating a cultural shift). Out of these experiences grew the following needs:
Need 1: Put the focus on the process and people, not the project
All the labs I have mentored at are project-based. Teams bring in a project and they’re given guidance with assigned and rotating mentors to help progress the project. These labs are great. But I wanted something that also focused on the person, so the lab could affect all their projects more. All projects are intimately connected with the people that make them, but the focus has historically been on the object, not the artist. This can create a warped view of what creative practice is. So the F/S lab was introduced to be about creatives coming together, irrespective of what project they’re working on. The lab enabled me to develop activities that facilitate a quick connection between creatives in ways that will then influence their own projects (and lives).
Need 2: Giving students a positive experience of collaboration, which includes seeing the benefits in their project
In studios designed for project-based learning, instructors can choose the student teams for them, give the students information to help them choose, and some also teach the interpersonal skills needed to bond, inspire, and produce. In my remote context, I have very limited live (synchronous) and email (asynchronous) time with the students. I have a 1 hr meeting with everyone each week. That is it. Everything else happens between our sessions.
These are also interdisciplinary studios were I’m overseeing albums, games, documentaries, installations, films, animations, product design, for post-graduate creatives. So I need to have systems that keep the projects going. Even though the students are creative post-graduates, and many have done collaborations before, there are still ones that do not have experience with teams.
So the issue becomes: is it more important they work with each on the same projects, or that they understand what collaboration is and how it can benefit their project? We often think the only way to get students to understanding collaboration is to force them into working with each other. And no matter how much design you put in to assist this process (especially emphasising how to collaborate above asset deliveries), with limited time it is inevitable that not all students will be able to participate equally. After seeing some students not enjoying the process because of bullying or other overt or subtle blocking behaviours, I decided it was more important to give students a sense of control over the creative process. That the experience and benefits of collaboration are more important than going straight into a full collaboration scenario.
Need 3: Scaffolding the experience of collaboration, and making it adaptable to suit a variety of disciplines, experiences, and project stages
Along with wanting to scaffold learning collaboration, I also had other external issues related to training faculty in remote studio practice. The training is part of an early push towards an institutional-level remote-friendly work culture. But the infrastructure and proficiency isn’t there yet. So rather than mandate faculty to immediately implement interdisciplinary cross-campus projects in all the studios, I wanted to find a way for the learning and infrastructure to catch-up and grow with the teachers.
This is where co-collaboration came in. It is a way for students, faculty, and individual creatives to engage in interdisciplinary, distributed collaborations without forcing shared projects.
WHAT IS CO-COLLABORATION?
Co-collaboration is when people collaborate together at strategic points during the development of their own projects.
The key difference with other approaches I have found so far is this: participatory design and co-creation is predominately (or exclusively) about collaborations on a shared project. Usually the difference between co-creation and participatory design and creative teams in general, is that they are about including people who aren’t usually involved, such as the “users” or “stakeholders”.
While co-collaboration can definitely utilise the insights of participatory design and co-creation, the emphasis is on the reciprocally beneficial activities between people who are working on different projects.
This can include students working on their own projects, artists working on their own projects in a fixed-term studio, and individuals or teams in production studios with parallel projects operating.
I haven’t been able to find writings about this approach specifically as yet. And I have oscillated between calling it co-collaboration and parallel collaboration. But the former seems to work more, and a colleague recently volunteered it as a term. If you’re familiar with writings on this — shoot them through!
HOW DO I ENACT CO-COLLABORATION?
In the meantime, I’ll share how I co-collaboration. You already know WHY I introduced it. I find it an elegant solution to multiple problems. I have implemented it in different ways:
Begin with co-collaboration and then people choose their teams based on their interactions during co-collaborative activities;
Co-collaboration continues throughout the studio duration, with some also collaborating with others on their project outside the studio (with creatives they already know and/or new ones).
If your aim to is scaffold (stagger) learning collaboration, then begin with co-collaboration and build to full collaborative projects. I find it works to help people get a feel for it, see the benefits, rehearse/practice how it is done, and get to know potential collaborators. One of the issues with forced collaborations is how people are brought together. Education institutions aren’t necessarily curators of creatives, and temporary studios are curated but this is executed by others. Co-collaboration allows the artist to keep doing what they’re doing and benefit from what collaboration can bring in a controlled manner.
Co-collaboration is facilitated is during many stages of a studio process: ideation, research, externalisations, feedback, reflections. Here is an example of a pivotal point:
I find co-collaborative ideation to be an immensely helpful process. This is because it enables best practices in ideation, and gives the artists immediate and reciprocal benefits to their project. Since it is at the beginning of a project as well, it introduces the benefits of collaboration first up (a positive first experience) and they get to know each other.
On this point, you could also do a bonding activity that pairs or groups people with an activity that benefits their projects (not just meeting each other). But for me, with an online studio it would be counter productive. I need everyone to get to know each other asynchronously and then synchronously as a group for various reasons.
So back to ideation. Let’s quickly qualify the supposed best practices I threw out there. I’m referring to factors such as ideation is about divergent, not convergent thinking; this includes a quantity of ideas to get beyond the probable; as well as having helpful constraints; that you want inputs that are both specific (related to your project) and general (related to world & general inspiration); that biosociation helps enact these; contributions from diverse (interdisciplinary and non-creative) people; that you need time to incubate; and importantly here you want a combination of individual and group contributions for brainstorming (because going straight to group brainstorming enables the stifling of voices and consensus).
With these principles in mind, I give the artists a range of activities (and they can share their own) to choose from. They then go into pairs (or any small group size you deem works for your context), and conduct the activity in any of the following manner:
Same ideation activity, on own projects, done in parallel and then share what you got and give feedback to each other.
Same ideation activity, on each others’ projects. You can both do project X and discuss, and then both do project Y and discuss. Or you can do each others’ projects at the same time. So I do your project and you do mine, then we discuss.
Different ideation activities, using the variables above.
In all of these, even though they’re working on different projects, they’re being inspired by what the other is doing. The different projects are another form of biosociation.
I have just plonked down some quick thoughts on how I use co-collaboration and why. I didn’t go into detail here about how I make this work remotely, or give citations for everything, as that isn’t the emphasis. But let me know if you’d like me to elaborate, and let me know if you do this or will do this! I’d love to share notes!
“Soul in the Search” is a shared reflection on your recent browser history!
[Expectation management note: this one isn’t funny! I’m getting a feel for the vulnerability format first. :)]
Gosh. Well here we go! First up, why do this?
I created this system to answer a few needs. One lesson I have learnt regarding design, is that broad-spectrum or multi-function solutions are the most effective. It takes longer to figure out how all of them can be satisfied, but honouring the complexity of a situation facilitates resonance. What are the needs?
I want to reveal more about the challenges I face; but I often find social media to be inappropriate. For instance, I recover from obstacles and upsets pretty quickly. It may be minutes, or hours. But I process them pretty quickly. This is a capacity I have developed over time. I have seen this described as “Positive Intelligence” — which refers to “the percentage of time your mind is serving you as opposed to sabotaging you”. It makes it weird for me when advice keeps coming in, as if I’m in the same place. So I want something that shares glimpses of the processing, so the emphasis is on how one faces challenges rather than what the challenge is.
I want to share more about the wonderful things I read, watch, listen to, and play. It would be too time consuming to share everything, but I want to find a way to do this that gives an insight into how I’m experiencing the work. Once again, in social media I retweet and share a lot of wonderful things other people have posted, but not always what I have discovered. There are a few reasons for this. The research I undertake is often drawn on by colleagues who do not return the gesture. For instance, I have seen many PhDs or academic articles, or industry articles and so on, that are citing a collection of items from my work but rarely cite me. There isn’t a good system for recognising the work that goes into someone’s bibliography, but for me it comes down to balancing the influence by at least quoting the person. And if there is some nincompoop out there who thinks “how can she know the sources are from her?”: it is obvious. I have an eclectic mix, and they often don’t have hardly any other references. I’ll confess something here. I noticed this was happening over a decade ago with my blog, when a few crossmedia/transmedia books came out. I started posted red herrings to catch them out for myself, and I did. If you think this means I don’t want to share what I discover, then you’re not familiar with my work. I cite so many people in my work. It is more important to me that I recognise the work others have done, than to come across as being a sole expert. I want to honour the work of others, even if they’re not “popular”. And who is popular is often a male. The routine erasure of marginalised folk renders the sharing of ideas a maintenance game. The other issue I find is that I want to hold off until I’ve formulated my ideas. I think “oh I’ll wait until I can explain how x, y, and z form together”. This takes too long.
I want to share a mix of my inner and outer life. I don’t want to just write about what I’m thinking. I want to share what I’m discovering out in the world, and how the world is impacting me.
I want to share and reflect on the progress on my projects. But I don’t want to have to do substantial posts. While the process of sharing and reflecting is beneficial, if I do it in the form of a longer post then it takes too long.
I want to share a range of things I’m exploring. I don’t want to just post about one thing, but many. The combination of all our interests and activities are what is more truthful and alluring I think.
I want to share what is feeding me at the moment, not just what everyone else is sharing. Since I’m in the habit of sharing what others have posted, this misleads what is actually happening. I don’t just take inspiration from what is happening out in the world, I am driving internally to seek things. It is important to share the things that are driving us personally, rather than perpetuate a loop of other.
I know the power of reflection, and shared reflections that are designed to give value to others. They help ground insights, and encourage a culture of growth.
I need a dynamic that gets me sharing on a regular basis, but in a way that maintains the complexity of all of ourselves.
I want to encourage sharing of my vulnerabilities, the things I don’t usually share for various reasons. This is to get continue my deliberate practice of revealing parts that I have hidden. It is such a relief when they’re out in the open, and I want a system to facilitates that.
There are other reasons I can’t remember right now. I’ll update as I think of them.
So my solution to these issues is to come up with the “Soul in the Search”. Using my recent browser history as a constraint, I’ll share a sampling of what I’ve been looking at and why. There is no way to include everything I have looked at, and so there will be a selection process. But both you and I can tell when the overall shares maintain a conventional public self. I’ll aim to do this weekly (for 3 months), each Sunday, so I don’t make it a long post and I get to release the things I’ve found and done!
So here goes!!!! 8o
Soul in the Search – Sun 20th Jun, 2019:
Society for Artistic Research: Henk Borgdorff– I was researching Borgdorff because I’m dealing with the frustrating situation of a department that doesn’t respect or understand creative practice as research. I knew there would be a pushback as soon as I left the overseeing committee, as they didn’t bother to replace me with another artistic researcher. It is so frustrating dealing with people who don’t listen when you tell them about the short and medium-term effects of their actions. They think it is magic or foolish projection, as opposed to DESIGN. I remember seeing this great approach to explaining it in an article I cannot recall right now. It had a table. Across the columns were the headers (wording from memory): “The Problem You’re Addressing, The Action You’re Taking, The Intended Effects of The Action, The Actual Effects of the Action.” In other words, you think you’re doing THIS, but you’re actually doing THAT. Anyway, with the problem I’m facing right now regarding the pushback against creative practice at the postgrad level: Borgdorff’s popular definition of “artistic research” is a good one that honours the interests of both practice and research. In particular, this criteria stuck out to me: “Art practice qualifies as research [when it] begins with questions that are pertinent to the research context and the art world.” Now a qualifier for me is that the project doesn’t begin with a shared question. A project can have spark from any number of origin points (research or practice-inspired). But what brings them together is a question(s) that is pertinent to both worlds. This resonates with what I do. The thing that takes time if the project began in practice, is choosing what research field/theory to use as the question. I’m interdisciplinary both in practice and research, and so the range of possible angles is numerous. It takes me a while to choose which avenue to take.
I Ching – Wikipedia– This was the end of process to answer a personal question I had about dealing with some work inquiries that were coming in. I spent the last six months of last year saying yes to every (paid) job that came my way. I was very busy, but I loved being so open and positive to what the world was offering me. The big con of that was the less time I had to work on my two (own) studio projects: my book & my boardgame. So when new (unpaid) inquiries started coming in for the new year, I would vet them and decide whether to go ahead with them or not. I chose not to, but I wasn’t happy with my reasoning. It is easier for me to block or push away, as this is a habit I’ve developed (it has served me well in the past). But I didn’t feel it was working anymore. So I posted in twitter, and I got some feedback in a closed group I’m in. Both sources were helpful, but because I wasn’t able to provide all the information the advice was based on a small snippet of detail. I needed to go inside myself to find the real answer. So I tried a Rune. That worked somewhat, but didn’t really cut it. The the following day I felt drawn to the I Ching. Now THAT ended up being exactly what I needed. I figured out what I need to do, which I’ll share with you: I needed to widen the strategies I use to deal with problematic clients. I wrote down guidelines for these. This was great. I’ll make a note here for those unfamiliar or biased against oracle tools. I grew up with these around me all the time. I tried to figure out how they were working. The thing I came to in primary school was this: they are tools to access your inner guidance. They don’t give you the answers. They’re oblique on purpose. Instead, they can sometimes be like a group of mates offering ideas. It may not be the ideas they’re offering that work, but what further idea you come up with in response. Divinity tools do many things, but this is one of the most powerful I find. A reflecting mirror to my wise unconscious. On top of this I also realised the I Ching system may be the answer to the game design problem I have been dealing with! I’m trying to get a sweet spot of design where improvised storytelling can have a feedback loop that doesn’t quash openness and play, and also doesn’t go the other extreme of just being arbitrary/chance. I have been exploring the Fate Dice system, after a colleague recommended it in my last run of DIYSPY playtests. But then with the I Ching, I realised I could transpose the variables from the dice to the choices the player makes through the game. These combine to produce an outcome. This is most likely too oblique here, but I’m talking about using the I Ching system of combining dashes and dots to form a hexagon symbol (an outcome) — just like the way the Fate Dice operate with their ++s and –s. I was looking at the wikipedia page for a quick look at the calculations. Then I thought about another oracle tool I have. That one is about choosing a personally resonant symbol. I am thinking of combining the two.
Ep 43 – Infirmary– I finally got around to listening to the podcast about an immersive experience by Triage Live Art Collective I went to in November. I loved the experience. It wasn’t a worldview shift for me, because I have been interrogating death for a while (in particular after my mum died). I previously wrote a pre-mortem/soul review for taking advantage of the insights when we gain when I fully comprehend we’re going to die. But I still totally loved the experience. It was beautiful and so well crafted. One of the best I have been to in many years. I also loved the podcast, which gave a first-person insight into the immersive experience. This is all part of my research into projects and commentary around creative works that facilitate transformation.
Ep 25 – “The Secrets of Writing” from 24 Industry Professionals for Star Wars, Marvel, Netflix, etc – I am settled in my new home in Melb. I am very happy here, and have set up a writing-friendly home. Every morning I get up and do a shared online meditation in a closed facebook group, then I have brekky and ride to the gym to do a class, and then I return to do writing. After that I get to client work. I love this morning system. I had some days where I didn’t get straight into my writing, and so to get me into the zone I love listening to podcasts by writers for writers. I have just recently come across this podcast series, and loved this episode. Lots of juicy advice that had me nodding along.
Playing toward partially pre-established outcomes – Story Games – I was researching what players and designers have come up with to deal with the design problem of facilitating emergent storytelling whilst also having outcomes, and came across this forum. I don’t recall seeing this before, and spent hours reading through the discussions. Some really helpful threads in there.
4 Key Stages Of Healing After Narcissistic Abuse | Melanie Tonia Evans– I have been following Evans for a few years now, every since I realised I had just left a relationship with a partner who had malignant narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). The real mind fuck was when I realised almost all my long term relationships were with partners who had this personality disorder. People who are unfamiliar with it, don’t understand how one can know if their partner has it. People who have lived with them intimately, know. The biggest thing I have done through that process of discovery was spend time working on myself. I definitely researched everything there was about the disorder (after researching every other one before getting to this one). If my partner had not told me that he was (incorrectly) bi-polar, I never would have gone down the route of investigating psychological health. Up until then I naively thought that people were pretty much what they said they were. That people could lie sometimes, but not all the time. And that nasty people are recognisably cruel, and charming and clever people are just as they present. So long story short, for the last few years I have been working on myself. I started off researching NPD, and then focused on myself. I also developed the ability to identify a person with NPD (and over time, sociopaths, and also people that are just stubbornly jerks). I recently shared in a closed group a link to Evans’ book, as I wanted to share the wonderful gifts she has given me. In my short post, I also boasted that I could identify a person with NPD from afar. This ended up attracting criticism from two people (one I have a past with, and another a stranger). Their criticism was that I was engaging in “armchair diagnosis” and that it isn’t possible to be able identify someone with NPD. The thing that concerned me about that situation was the harm that it would do to the women-identifying people in the group who need to be able to recognise this if it is happening. The suggestions were to get the partner to a therapist, but that will never happen with someone with NPD. You of course go to a therapist yourself, but getting the partner involved in another thing. I think part of the problem is people are presuming a lot about what you’re doing with this “armchair diagnosis”. I don’t tell other people (EDIT: I did post about Trump being a malignant NPD when he ran his campaign). I would like to warn others! I know the pain they will go through with them. I don’t wish it on anyone. But I have been warned myself, and didn’t listen. I think part of the issue when you’re attracted to someone with NPD, is that we don’t care if they’ve got a disorder because we’re tough and can deal with anything and we’re special. We also completely underestimate what is happening and what will happen. It gets progressively worse, to killing you if you don’t get out. So I’m currently thinking about what a better warning than “he is dangerous” may be — it has to do with the need to get to their true self (as that is the great gift you can gain from coming through the NPD abuse experience). When I recognise a colleague fitting the traits, I still have meetings with them. I still interact in social media. But I don’t take on any direct collaborations. So it isn’t as if recognising the traits means you then defame them. Anyway, to get back to this particular blog post. I realised with Evans’ recent posts how recognising a narcissist doesn’t actually help you in the end. At the beginning it is necessary crutch, because it enables you to see their games and not be taken in by them. But over time, you develop the ability to not be affected by them. This is because you have a strong sense of yourself. I am not completely at the point where I am immune to pathological behaviours, but I am certainly down the road. As Evans talks about, you have know who you are and live your life. You have to be your true self to be immune to their manipulations. My surviving (indeed thriving) has been one reason why I have been searching my soul. So in the future I won’t mention the identification traits to general readers. It is a complex issue that can do more harm than good for all sides of the story. Instead, I’ll skip that and continue sharing the emphasis on the inner work. Here are some of things I have observed in myself, that mean NPDs (and any abusive relationships) rarely work on me anymore:
(1) Before I used to think that “being in love/staying in love” was the most important thing. More important than my own happiness. I thought I would become happy if I learnt what love had to show me. I guess I associated love with pain. Now I’m fine with walking away from what seems like a “great love” if it doesn’t feel right.
(2) Now it doesn’t matter if the other person doesn’t see the harm they’re doing. I don’t need them to agree or see, I trust my own responses and feelings.
(3) I am also not interested in trying to change them, to make them understand. If they don’t see the harm, I walk.
(4) I notice red flags or anomalies for what they are. In the past I would come up with justifications for them (they’re insecure, they’re naive, I don’t understand them, etc), now they go in the “behaviours to be understood” box. I don’t smooth them over for them, or deny they exist. They’re open questions to be resolved with further information.
Well, this has taken a bit too long to be a weekly thing! So I’ll stop now and must go shorter next week. But you get the idea!
I wonder what your response to this is — to what I’ve linked to, my narrations, or the “soul in the search” system? And if you feel like doing your own, go for it!!! Let me know, and also share any system tweaks too!
This is the full speech of my talk on the relationship between the creative works we make and the world we live in.
Some quick background:
I was invited to give a talk at the Sweden Games Conference this year (2018). I felt relief when I saw the topic of the conference: “Politics & Games: Reflections on Power, Play, & Changing Perspectives”. It meant I could talk about anything. I mean, we all can anyway. But I knew there would be a (potentially) more welcoming audience.
What I share in this talk is a viewpoint I’ve been coming to for a while now. Specifically, the concepts started with my talk at ANZCA in July last year (2017) with my talk “Comparing World Recentering Practices in Australia and the USA”. In that talk I was trying to reconcile my intuition about my attraction to pervasive media practices as compared to immersion as transportation. Another key development of the worldview concept was in June this year (2018), with my blog post “The Two Markets: Finding Your Kin”. Then I stumbled on a book and all the concepts fell into place.
So here is the speech. I include both game and non-game examples. In my last talk for GDC, I gave mainly game examples only. While that was helpful, some people didn’t see how the concepts are transdisciplinary. So this time I included a range of examples.
There will be some small differences with the video, as I couldn’t always read the text on my screen (ha!) and of course I improvised. I took out a few slides to fit the time, which aren’t here either. A couple I want to highlight are 1) more descriptions on the theory and how it works; 2) the role of dystopia and how it has a limited role in facilitating change. But all this will be developed further with the academic paper I’m writing on this, and of course for my book. So let me know your thoughts – whatever they are – as that will help with my further writing on this topic!
So here is the video of the talk, and the original speech. The video includes a Q&A, in which I do the really weird thing of not letting people know that my book includes tips on how to then action these insights! I have been touring my concepts and not wanting to tease people with the book when it may be a while before it releases. But I forgot I’m now closer to releasing it. My talks and workshops are all from the book. Indeed, “Worldbuilding our World” is at present the working title. And the art is from the book, by my wonderful collaborator Marigold Bartlett.
[content warning – mention of some hate crimes, but I avoid going into detail, and I refer obliquely to projects but don‘t name or show them.]
Hello everybody! I’m going to get straight into what I want to share with you. I want to take advantage of my time in this talk, and my time on Earth, I want to use my time wisely (which to me also means enjoying it)! So straight up: I decided in my teens that it was through creative projects that I wanted to change the world. I did consider law for a bit, but it was creative practice that was my calling and my choice. So when I look at worldbuilding techniques, it isn’t to see how I can create an immersive world to transport you to for a few hours. No, it is to see if there is a glimpse into how new worlds are made.
This is one of my ongoing life clipboard questions. Do you have life clipboards? It is virtual clipboard of questions that I have about life. Some of them take hours or weeks to answer, but most of them take years. Here are some of the current questions I’ve been looking at in my life:
1) Why is it I don’t find many AAA, double AA and Hollywood studios appealing to work in, despite the great talent and resources? 2) How can I help others understand why I turn down working with some great clients and companies? 3) Do you really have to make one kind of project for a mass market? 4) What other ways can the core essence of a creative project be understood? (Transmedia) 5) Do I, and others, do harm with the projects we create? 6) Can creative projects really change the world? 7) Can I, can you, change the world, now? All of these questions have the same answer. It’s a broad spectrum solution or insight, that works for me. I am sharing it here today, in case any of these thoughts help you with your own questions (some of which may be the same). And in order to do this, I need to go back to a book that was published in 1966.
The book was written through a collaboration of American-Austrian’s Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann. The images here are of Peter Berger, who has spoken about his long-term curiosity with ‘what makes people tick’ (same here!). In a documentary, he talks about an early memory he has of being given a toy train. But he didn’t switch on the electricity to see it turn around the tracks. Instead, he lay on his belly and talked to the imaginary people on the train. The book I’m going to talk about today is the result of this curiosity. People have gone up to Berger that after reading the book and tell him how they see the world differently, and he said he understood because he too saw the world differently once the ideas became clear to him. So let me share with you what it is about (and some of you will know it anyway).
The book is “The Social Construction of Reality”, and it is considered one of the top influential sociology books of all time. When it was published in 1966, world events included the death of civil rights activist Vernon Dahmer in Mississippi, and a Ku Klux Klan member is unsuccessfully tried for his murder 4 times; Indira Ghandi is elected the first and to-date only female Prime Minister of India; and the first Winnie the Pooh feature film is released. In the academic context, Berger (I will refer to Berger as the shorthand for Berger & Luckmann from now on, and I have changed the pronouns in quotes,and I use the American spelling from the book – FYI). Berger’s book contributed to what is called “the sociology of knowledge”. Previously, all questions of the nature of reality were discussed through the theories of philosophers and scientists for instance. What Berger’s book argued was that we need to look all forms of knowledge not just knowledge from “great thinkers”. We all construct knowledge they argued, and so we should look at what passes as “common-sense knowledge”. How is it that we construct our reality?
Firstly, let’s define the amazing notion of “reality” really quickly. To Berger, “reality is a quality appertaining to phenomena that we recognize as having a being independent of our own volition” “we can’t wish it away”. It’s reality.
So how is reality socially constructed? And is it possible for us to discuss this AFTER the big party last night? We will find out! First…
Reality is co-constructed — we all create our human environment, with everything we say and do. Berger calls them our externalisations.
As creatives, externalization is a term to describe any activity that gets our ideas out of our head. It is a music score, a sketch, a storyboard, a diagram, a script. This process is essential to not just understand what the project is through the act of creation, but to communicate it to others. Indeed, a creation is an act of communication. Communication with the self, and communication with others. But externalization also includes any time we talk, any time we write, we write a law, we write a course, we write code, any time we make sound, we make a gesture, we externalise our inner world. These externalisations are our human activities. They’re what we do in the world.
Over time, our activities become habits. When we repeat them often enough, they become a pattern (a schema in our mind). That is, rather than remembering every little step and every possible action we could do in each moment, we end up remembering only what we’ve been repeating. We don’t remember the different ways we could do something, we remember the way we end up doing something repeatedly. And then that becomes automatic. A musician, for instance, develops muscle memory with their guitar. And we always greet someone when we meet but we often don’t actually listen to what we’re actually saying to each other. This brings us the important psychological benefits of habits – they narrow choice so we don‘t have to expend as much cognitive effort, we are freed from the burden of ‘all those decisions’. Our activities become routines, we create a stable environment in which we do a minimum of decision-making. Our actions become automatic, unconscious, and we forget we had choices.
These habits, over time, become institutions. Now, you may be thinking, like I did, of an institution, like a building. How can a habit become a building?
But for our sociologists, an “institution” describes the types of actions performed by types of people. Employers issue work duties, and employees execute them. There is the institution of marriage where you have celebrants who conduct a wedding ceremony for instance, institution of law, of education, and the family. Institutions aren’t created instantaneously, remember the habits – it needs to happen over time. Interestingly, institutions are about “controlling human conduct by setting up predefined patterns of conduct, which channel it in one direction as against the many other directions that would theoretically be possible”. Institutions define what control is exerted, by whom, how, and with whom.
The transmission of institutions also happens through parents. They tell their children stories, they read storybooks about the institution of marriage (that girls and boys want to marry, and there are social rules around who can marry who). As Berger explains, “since the child had no part in shaping (this reality), it confronts them as a given reality.” Indeed, “all institutions appear in the same way, as given, unalterable and self-evident.” An institution doesn’t occur unless it is passed on through a generation, otherwise it has failed.
In our parents stories, in the everyday comments to each other, in our films, in our games a reality takes shape, and is presented to us “as undeniable facts. The institutions are there, external to us, persistent in their reality, whether we like it or not”. It takes on an objective nature because it is persistent and echoed everywhere. And we forget we have a choice, we forget we made it. So we have our externalisations that share our inner world, we develop habits, these unconscious habits become institutions, and we‘re surrounded by them.
What happens over time is what is called “Reification” – this is, we think that what we create is something generated by anything but our ourselves, and certainly not generated by the everyday. Over the generations, we forget why certain social order was put into place, and then we forget we put it into place ourselves. “Human meanings,” Berger explains, “ are no longer understood as world-producing but as being products of the ‘nature of things’.” Our roles too can become reified. A role, such as being a husband, wife, girlfriend, boyfriend, employee, and manager, can be “apprehended as an inevitable fate, for which the individual can disclaim responsibility.” This is when we say “I have no choice in the matter, I have to act this way because of my position”. I have to fire those people for being uncivil, because that is my role and that is the logic of the economic institution. Indeed, you can assume a total identification with your social assigned type and see it as something outside of your control. You are a boss, you are a geek, you are meant to be hot.
So, if successful, all these processes contribute to us thinking that there are these kinds of people that can do these kinds of things. We internalise the rules and make them our own. Let’s take this famous moment in sporting history: Kathrine Switzer is running the 1967 Boston Marathon. As Switzer recounts in her memoir: this photo is the moment when the race official Jock Semple came running up behind her yelling “Get the hell out of my race and give me those numbers!” And tried to rip of Switzer’s race numbers. It was then her boyfriend Thomas Miller gave Jock a cross-body blow to push him away from Kathrine and let her run. You see, for 70 years, this had been a male-only marathon. But when Switzer and her trainer were entering the competition, they looked through the rulebook and found no rules about gender. The marathon had been male-only for 70 years because everyone, male and female-identifying, had successfully internalised the institution of sport, of men being the only ones physically capable of running marathons. They had internalised the rules around who can do what. So the idea of putting a rule in there didn’t need to happen. When the race official saw Kathrine challenging that social order, he exerted his own social control by attempting to rip of Switzer’s race numbers. But last year, Switzer ran the Boston marathon again, 50 years after this historic first run, and with the same race numbers: 261.
All this effort, over time, contributes to the social construction of reality. And this is where it gets really interesting. Berger talks about realities and universes somewhat interchangeably and talks about how these (and other) processes construct not just one reality, but many realities.
Here are four key realities or universes. I’ll be using these terms interchangeably. Now Berger doesn’t actually mention four. He discusses the paramount reality or universe, and talks about reality maintenance and reality metamorphosis. The fourth human activity of creation is implied but I’ll be offering some further thoughts on how this one operates.
Paramount reality is the product of everything we’ve been talking about. Berger explains that “Among the multiple realities there is one that presents itself as the reality par excellence. This is the reality of everyday life. It’s privileged position entitles it to the designation of paramount reality. […] It is impossible to ignore, difficult even to weaken in its imperative presence. Consequently, it forces me to be attentive to it in the fullest way. […]”.
They continue, explaining how the reality of everyday life is taken for granted as reality. It does not require additional verification. It is simply there, as self-evident.” “Everybody knows” it is real. The paramount universe is where the majority of all our creative projects are made from. Our creative projects are an externalization of what we know. Berger calls the paramount reality a naive one, in the sense that we can operate in it unconsciously. There is the belief there is one universe, and so we create for it. This is why we have creatives claiming that their work is neutral or apolitical. They have internalised all the types, all the roles, all the rules about how paramount reality works and assume it as self-evident, as objective. These kinds of projects are produced because the paramount universe is part of the everyday of the creators, part of the every day of the studios.
But not everyone who creates works for the paramount universe agrees with all aspects of the paramount universe. I have consulted on these kinds of project, and I have many colleagues around the world who do actively challenge many parts of paramount reality — such as the typified roles of males and females, and marriage, and hierarchical views of race, ability, gender, and sexuality — they actively challenge these things and even live “unconventional” personal lives themselves, but they create works that operate quite nicely in the paramount universe. What does this mean?
Now, Berger does talk about how we can have enclaves of variance in our universe. We can integrate differences into the paramount universe easily if they don’t affect your routines. If you still get up, go to work, kiss your partner goodbye, visit family, and so on, then the differences are unproblematic. If your habits remain the same, your routines continue, then then paramount reality can remain unchallenged.
So, can creative projects that have a paramount reality stance, do good? Can’t we just have fun, why do we have to say something? The problem is, we’re always saying something. If we haven’t thought about the impact of our work, then we’re producing creative projects that take an uncritical stance, they present reality “as if it is”. When they’re done unconsciously, automatically, then we’re using the short-hand of agreed types, roles, and rules: let’s play with our ability to exert social control by being horrible to people, let’s remind them that there is a right way to be and anything else deserves consequences; let’s treat land as something to be taken and mined, to produce and make without ritual and care. It is so easy to create in this reality because it is automatic. We believe we’re just using what makes something funny and fun because it is human nature.
Comedian Cameron Esposito has commented about colleagues who have difficulty telling jokes (in the manner we would describe as paramount reality). Cameron mimics their concern “How can I tell jokes? How can I tell jokes without all these words? I need them.‘ And I’ll just say, “If they’re any particular word that you need to use to do this job, I am a better stand up comic than you.” Indeed, it is the reality we create when we don’t realise we can create our reality. Works set in the paramount universe don’t exhibit qualities of a reality-transforming work. Like a roller coaster ride, we end up where we began. All works are always saying something, and works that echo the paramount universe present a world someone else has written, despite what it says in the credits. Can you just make works for the fun of it, without trying to do something though? Yes, and I’ll talk about that soon.
For now, I want to note that many of my colleagues create works, films, reality TV shows, TV shows, books, plays, and games, they create all these for the paramount reality because of income. They know on some level they’re telling a lie, but they believe the only way to make money is to make content for the paramount reality. It is the question of whether we can make money from anything but the status quo. It is true that many of our institutions, our systems are set-up for this. But remember the inevitably illusion, paramount reality is not the only reality. There are other realities, and markets. Because these realities are also markets.
We spoke earlier about how we internalize paramount reality. If we believe it is inevitable most of the time, then our socialization is successful. But, Berger explains, there is “always the haunting presence of metamorphoses […] the competing definitions of reality”. Berger talks about other universes that increase in their sophistication from the naive mode. And I find this sophistication is in part because they involve an awareness of our role in co-creating our reality, and techniques to action this. We’re taught how to craft games, but not how to shape the world. But as creatives, we can make projects that question and seek to transform paramount reality.
The Matrix was about the choice to wake up from the illusion we’re told is real, or choosing to see that it is constructed. It is a tale we see in creative projects throughout time in many forms. People can’t engage in changing paramount reality if they don’t first realise that reality is constructed.
Rod Sterling’s The Twilight Zone sought to show the surreal nature of reality, questioning reality, and embedding within it tales of hope, along with his production processes like likewise challenged conventional structures. It was through TV, through fiction, that Sterling believed more could be said.
Another approach is to also bear witness to how paramount reality affects us, in different ways. James Baldwin’s essays, first published in The New Yorker in 1962, and then as a book in 1963. In the first essay, Baldwin’s addresses his 14-year-old nephew on the one hundredth anniversary of emancipation. [READ out pages 26-27]
“Every effort made by the child’s elders to prepare him for a fate from which they cannot protect him causes him secretly, in terror, to begin to await, without knowing that he is doing so, his mysterious and inexorable punishment. He must be ‘good’ not only in order to please is parents and not only to avoid being punished by them; behind their authority stands another, nameless and impersonal, infinitely harder to please, and bottomlessly cruel. And this filters into the child’s consciousness through his parents’ tone of voice as he is being exhorted, punished, or loved; in the sudden, uncontrollable note of fear heard in this mother’s or his father’s voice when he has strayed beyond some particular boundary. He does not know what the boundary is, and he can get not explanation of it, which is frightening enough, but the fear he hears in the voices of his elders is more frightening still. The fear that I heard in my father’s voice, for example, when he realized that I really believed I could do anything a white boy could do, and had every intention of proving it, was not at all like the fear I heard when one of us was ill or had fallen down the stairs or strayed too far from the house. It was another fear, a fear that the child, in challenging the white world’s assumptions, was putting himself in the path of destruction.”
More recently, Jordan Peele’s feature film documents the horror of race relations, and topped the box office with a black lead. Perhaps the rules about what is profitable aren’t true after all? No perhaps. There is more than one reality. Interestingly, it has been announced that Jordan is hosting the next Twilight Zone reboot.
In music, Gil Scott Heron’s 1970 spoken-word jazz track “The Revolution will not be Televised” reminds us that change is in our hands: the lyrics include “The Revolution will put you in the driver’s seat […] The Revolution will be live”. “Ain’t Gonna Let Nobody Turn Me ‘Round“ is an African American spiritual song, with the lyrics on keeping on walkin’, keepin’ on talking, marching into freedom land. Midnight Oil’s song “Beds are Burning” is a call to act “how can you sleep while your beds are burning?”. In the documentary just released called “1984: Midnight Oil”, old footage of Peter Garrett, the lead singer, is addressing school kids. He says “I don’t think politics means you’re old enough to vote. […] I think politics means the understanding that you can change the way society affects you.” Beyoncé’s “Formation” is a powerful collection of scenes and moves of empowerment, with the lyrics “I dream it, I work hard, I grind ’til I own it“. It is a capitalist dream, but it is form of power. Childish Gambino’s “This is America” takes aim straight at racism throughout time and at present in America. And Amanda Palmer’s recent music video “Mr Weinstein will see you now” includes the end sentiment of taking over writing the story in the face of others trying to deny the truth of your own reality. “I’m writing this”.
We see it in the comedy of Bill Hicks and now Hannah Gadsby. Gadsby makes it clear there is a personal cost to producing content for a paramount universe. Gadsby had to be willing to give it all away to take on her reality. What Gadsby discovered was that there is a market for different realities. It does require using different narrative and interaction structures though. Most of our rules of creative practice are rules that work for the status quo, not for those wanting to transform. For all the talk in games about having agency, most games do not encourage you to have agency in your own world. But let’s look at ones that do.
An early example is Chris Crawford’s “Balance of Power” (which he made using his severance for a company he was just laid off from). It is set in the Cold War, and is a criticism of the structures that support war, power, and the use of nuclear power. Crawford said Bob Dylan’s song “Blowin‘ in the wind” was an influence on making this game promoting peace.
Gonzalo Frasca’s game September 12th puts you in the position of killing terrorists, only to find killing does not actually reduce the number of terrorists, it increases them. The New York Times described September 12th as “An Op-Ed composed not of words but of actions”.
MolleIndustria’s games are all designed for culture jamming. A popular example is “Unmanned”, a critique of drone warfare and masculinity.
The 2013 “Papers, please“ game gives us moral decisions as an immigration officer around supporting our own family and being humane to others – it is in some ways documenting the tensions of working in paramount reality for the sake of an income. It was a critical and commercial success, and within 3 years of release (back in 2016) it had sold over 1.8 million units and won numerous awards. A short film has just been released too.
“Here’s Your Fuckin’ Papers” switches the perspective to the person trying to cross the border, and highlights the difficulties one faces with changing bureaucracies. Proceeds of the game were going to organisations assisting in immigration and passports. That game was made at GaymerX’s GXDev…
Indeed jams often operate to facilitate games for reality transformation. The Resist Jam that has tons of resistance games made by creatives from around the world. Including one that sets Papers, Please in current Canada. These are all released on sites like itch.io, which don’t gate-keep, don’t use social control.
Anna Anthropy’s Dys4ia is an autobiographical game that actually opened up the personal game area, and is described by Nick Fortugno (the designer of Diner Dash) as “the most powerful translation of the experience of gender reassignment in any medium — ever.” This game was available for free for a while, then paid, and now it free again. Anna has…
Night in the Woods is an adventure game, that through the storyline of allegorical characters who experience mental health issues (from the developers’ personal experiences). It is available on desktop, tablet, mobile, playstation, xbox, and switch. It has won numerous awards and has been listed as one of the top games in 2017. It has critical and commercial success. In Berger’s book, therapy is listed as one of the social control mechanisms used to get people to return to reality. We will all be familiar with historical cases of terrible uses of therapy, and some current. But thankfully there are therapists that don’t try to make you something different, and the developers comment on how important it is to find the right therapist.
Tiltfactor’s Buffalo is a party game for adults and families (2–8 players ages 14 and up). Your aim is to collect as many cards as possible by quickly name dropping a response to the blue and orange prompt cards. What you won’t see in any of the game descriptions on the box or at the online stores, is what the game is actually designed to do. It is a game that subtly reveals our unconscious biases. It was developed with funding by the National Science Foundation for this purpose. Intentionally, the game is using what the designers call “stealth” – it isn’t telling people what it is about and simply allowing players to come to realisations themselves while they play. It is in this sense a emergent dialectical rather than scripted dialectical.
I want to highlight here the market for these kinds of projects, and many of these works have ongoing resonance for years. They are stand-out hits both critically and commercially. There are some works that are not sold, they are released free. The artists garner income from other sources. Wild successes are due to them being a well-written and designed experience, that also has a message or transforming affect. There is great skill involved with this approach. Some are known for their message and some operate with stealth. One point I want to highlight here too, is the player or audience desire for these types of experiences. I see some serious games aimed at people who aren’t interested in changing. A racist person isn’t interested in picking up a game about racial discrimination. That is why some projects are about being a great entertainment or art piece in themselves too and operate with stealth. But an under-utilised market is people interested in self-transformation. Rather than aiming your creative works at people you want to change, instead, you’re creating works for people who consciously want to change something about themselves. Some of us don‘t need a wizard to come knocking at our door before we want to step up and be a better person. That is the market I’m aiming for, and one that relates to our last reality category. But before we go there, we need to briefly look at the pushback to reality transformation.
Universe Maintenance occurs when there are problems with the paramount universe. It occurs when socialization from one generation to the next hasn’t been successful. Why can’t two women marry mum? It also happens when there are conflicting universes, and each of these universes have ways to maintain their own realities. There becomes enough of an alternative. There are different methods used to get us back to “paramount reality” which is considered the best reality.
The passing on through generations doesn’t always work because each new generation doesn’t have access to memories of the activities first-hand. The types and actions and rules become “realities divorced from their original relevance”. Everything becomes hearsay. Legitimization is about explaining and justifying why things happen. They need to be consistent and comprehensive if they are to carry any conviction for the next generation. The institution of celebrity, of fame, has successfully passed down through more than one generation, and has transformed to keep being relevant. You get famous, you get a husband or wife, you have kids, you keep being in the public eye and you can afford assistants and nannies. You can have a family, and be famous, and run your own company. Fame gives you independence. All humans desire to have a family and be known and live the good life, and some of us are better at it than others. Only the most selfish and cut-throat win. It’s just the way it is.
Every generation has justifications for war throughout all mass artforms — film, TV, novels, games. It has to keep being repeated over and over again why we do this.
Our reality TV shows about Border Security (I see you have this on Swedish TV), Police, SWAT, etc – all of these aim to legitimise paramount reality, the rules, the types, and the social consequences of deviating.
An important aspect of the language universe maintenance is about returning to a reality, a reality that is framed as being paramount, as logical, as better. It is not about moving forward or transforming what we know, it is about returning to what was known before. The claim is that the discomfort anyone feels is not because of paramount reality, it is because we have deviated from paramount reality.
There are games that seek to exert overt social control through showing the consequences of deviating from paramount reality. These games involve mass murder, rape, and other crimes against humanity. I have chosen not to show them here. Because their existence, their words, have power.
Unfortunately, there is the belief that hearing out people’s thoughts has no power. I think people believe that power rests with law makers? But as Berger has shown, it is in everyday conversations that reality transformation occurs. So when journalists claim to be objective in their reporting, they’re forgetting that words are not benign, they’re incantations.
We all have a role in reality construction, whether we are aware of it or not. I have actually worked on an App that was for Universe Maintenance. It is a Pick Up Artist comedy series. It was funded by Screen Australia, and received an Australian Directors’ Guild award. I mention this project because, 8 years ago, I consulted on it. At the time, I thought my colleagues were naive about their understanding of women, but it wasn’t until I saw more of the content and posts from them that I realised the entrenched worldview they were coming from. Some of you may be working on such projects, and I hope you are hearing that there are alternatives. The last one I will mention here is Universe Creation.
So Universe Creation. The difference here is that rather than aiming your creations towards maintaining or changing existing realities, your focus shifts to co-creating completely new social realities. In order to do this, your focus involves looking deeply at yourself. You look into the melting pot and face yourself. Let me explain this further.
Years ago, I was developing an interactive comedy about the meaning of death. It was after my mum’s sudden passing from a brain aneurysm, and I was channeling my grief into a creative project. I was working on the dialogue and having such a hard time getting it right. I wanted it to have the same wit and insight as a lot of Sorkin’s dialogue from West Wing has. Now, dialogue is hard anyway. But the problem was being exacerbated by something else. I wanted my characters to give witty come-backs that get the crux of the matter. And I couldn’t, I couldn’t because I hadn’t been living it. I was not practiced in speaking my mind, let alone speaking my mind with eloquence. Some may be thinking “that is what writer’s do, they make it up”. Sure, there are things we make up – settings, characters, objects, plots. But everything comes from somewhere. If you’re writing characters you don’t know about, then you’re either drawing on cliche or yourself. This is why we have so many ”strong women” characters that don’t quite ring true. They’re not being written from a point of personal experience with strength. I wanted to write dialogue that represents how I experience being witty and true. Funnily enough, it was at that point when I decided that I was going to be more forthright in my everyday interactions. So I could make better projects. If you’re going to create something new, then you need to be new. Your creative project can only stretch the imagination as far as you have personally stretched your inner world.
I’m going to give a brand example here. Hesta is a superannuation company in Australia. Their aim is to “make real differences to the lives of our members and also women in Australia”. Women have less superannuation than men but they live longer. The things I wish to highlight is that this value, this goal of the company is only possible because of the work the company has been doing internally with their own culture. There are many brands out there that ring the woke bell, but don’t live it in the everyday. The things you create in the world are a reflection of how you live in the world. Your everyday.
The Wachowski’s created a world where polyamorous lifestyles, and roles and types, and our sense of time and space are all part of a fully realised new reality. None of this could have been conceived or created without the Wachowski’s doing the internal work. These projects are externalisations of an internal reality.
The same with Rebecca Sugar’s Steven Universe is producing characters and plots that make new types and roles normal.
John Lennon’s Imagine – asks us to image the world we want, and to feel it. More recently, this music video was just released, and features the lyrics “I’m not a boy, I’m not a girl, I’m fractal”. It depicts an environment with lots of people enjoying their own fractal identity, a celebration of just being.
Journey is a world where the journey of your life is in doing the internal work and then turning to reach back and help others on that journey. It was a commercial and critical success.
David O’Rielly’s “Everything”. You can begin as a bear, and can move your consciousness, your POV to that of a horse, a flower, to a star. It is narrated with edited recordings of philosopher Alan Watts. Polygon described it as “the most true-to-my-life game I’ve ever played”, and The Washington Post described it as a “rare game that may push you to want to lead a better life”.
Mister Rogers’ Neighbourhood had the same affect on people. The TV series had people lining up around streets to meet Fred. The doco on the series premiered at the 2018 Sundance Film Festival. It received acclaim from critics and audiences and has (at the time of writing this) grossed over $22 million, making it the highest-grossing biographical documentary of all time.
There is also another biopic coming out almost to year from this day. The film is based on the true story of the friendship between Fred Rogers and journalist Tom Junod. Tom is a jaded Esquire magazine writer who is reluctantly assigned to profile Rogers. But his “whole world changes when coming in contact with Fred Rogers”, he is so moved by Rogers’ kindness and empathy that he overcomes his skepticism and has a renewed look on life.
An important moment from the original series was when Mister Rogers invited Officer Clemmons to join him in cooling in the pool. This is in the context of segregation happening at the time of this episode, where African Americans were not allowed to swim in the same pool as white Americans. Universe Creation can be these simple moments. This is where you can just create something that is fun or just is, but it is the result of internal work. You can just make, you can just be, when you choose to create the way you want to be.
The studio Tru Luv, headed by ex-lead AI programmer for 3 Assassin’s Creed games and Child of Light, Brie Code, is described by Slate as a “studio devoted to a radically different framework built on care and connectivity”. It was an experiment by the creators, Brie & Eve Thomas, and Petra, that reached 500,000 downloads in 6 weeks. In this experience, you spend time in bed, tending to your plants, reading tarot. It is a new everyday. An everyday that has been externalised from the everyday of the developers. Brie created this from her inner work.
These are the kinds of realities that are out there, that we’re making. What if we had these as Netflix categories or PlayStation categories? You could choose your reality. How cool would that be?
So, we come back to our questions…
1) Because they predominately make “paramount” and “maintenance” reality projects.
2) See above.
3) No. There are many markets.
4) In transmedia, we often talk about the essence of the property. The reality stance of a property is another element I take into consideration. It doesn’t have the be the same. You can have projects that move from paramount to metamorphosis. But when they move from metamorphosis to paramount there will be a bigger clunk, at least in myself.