The Subjectivity Construction of Digital Gamer in Symbolic Interactionism

LI Junxin

Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication ›› 2024, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (7) : 95-113.

PDF(1631 KB)
PDF(1631 KB)
Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication ›› 2024, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (7) : 95-113.
Research Articles

The Subjectivity Construction of Digital Gamer in Symbolic Interactionism

Author information +
History +

Abstract

Digital game is an open symbolic field and playing digital game is a creative signifying practice. By focusing on the self-presentation and emotional narrative of gamer who is the main action subject of meaning construction in the game world and through semiotic analysis and semi-structured interviews, it is suggested that the gamer trend to establish the “transitional self” by avatar identification and objectification as well as construct the interactive subjectivity of “social self ” by interactive action and meaning sharing. Furthermore, they can shape collective identity and “cultural self ”by community symbol co-creation and interaction rituals and form a “right-subjectivity” to resist digital capitalism in the real-time or indirect symbolic struggle and feedback. By using and creating symbols, gamers not only promote the development of the game world, but also construct and evolve their self-concepts, social relations, and group identity.

Key words

digital gamer / subjectivity / self / symbolic interactionism

Cite this article

Download Citations
LI Junxin. The Subjectivity Construction of Digital Gamer in Symbolic Interactionism[J]. Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication. 2024, 46(7): 95-113

References

[1]
查尔斯·库利(1902/2015). 《人类本性与社会秩序》(包凡一,王湲译). 北京: 华夏出版社.
[2]
丹尼斯·麦奎尔, 斯文·温德尔(1981/1987). 《大众传播模式论》(祝建华,武伟译). 上海: 上海译文出版社.
[3]
衡书鹏, 周宗奎, 孙丽君(2017). 视频游戏中的化身认同. 《心理科学进展》,(9),1565-1578.
[4]
何威, 曹书乐(2018). 从“电子海洛因”到“中国创造”:《人民日报》游戏报道(1981-2017)的话语变迁. 《国际新闻界》,(5),57-81.
[5]
胡荣(1989). 符号互动论的方法论意义. 《社会学研究》,(1),95-101.
[6]
黄旦, 李洁(2006). 消失的登陆点——社会心理学视野下的符号互动论与传播研究. 《新闻与传播研究》,(3),14-19+93.
[7]
姜宇辉(2022). 庞大宇宙中的小小梦魇——暗黑生态与电子游戏的噩梦诗学. 《文艺理论研究》,(3),56-67.
[8]
凯瑟琳·海勒(1999/2017). 《我们何以成为后人类:文学、信息科学和控制论中的虚拟身体》(刘宇清译). 北京: 北京大学出版社.
[9]
兰德尔·柯林斯(2004/2009). 《互动仪式链》(林聚任,王鹏,宋丽君译). 北京: 商务印书馆.
[10]
蓝江(2019). 数码身体、拟-生命与游戏生态学——游戏中的玩家-角色辩证法. 《探索与争鸣》,(4),75-83+158.
[11]
蓝江(2021). 宁芙化身体与异托邦:电子游戏世代的存在哲学. 《文艺研究》,(8),92-102.
[12]
罗伯特·威利(1994/2011). 《符号自我》(文一茗译). 成都: 四川教育出版社.
[13]
马尔库斯·弗里德里(2003/2006). 《在线游戏互动性理论》(陈宗斌译). 北京: 清华大学出版社.
[14]
米歇尔·马费索利, 许轶冰(2012). 部落游牧性. 《江南大学学报(人文社会科学版)》,(2),40-44.
[15]
乔治·米德(1934/2018). 《心灵、自我与社会》(赵月瑟译). 上海: 上海译文出版社.
[16]
唐纳德·温尼科特(1971/2019). 《游戏与现实》(卢林,汤海鹏译). 北京: 北京大学医学出版社.
[17]
腾讯科技(2015). 中国移动社群生态报告.检索于 https://tech.qq.com/a/20150806/008060.htm#p=15.
[18]
维克多·特纳(1967/2012). 《象征之林——恩登布人仪式散论》(赵玉燕,欧阳敏登译). 北京: 商务印书馆.
[19]
吴素萍(2008). 网络游戏中女性意识缺失的反思. 《浙江社会科学》,(4),72-77.
[20]
约翰·费斯克(1989/2001). 《解读大众文化》(杨全强译). 南京: 南京大学出版社.
[21]
张一兵(2019). 交互主体性:从关系本体论到关系认识论——《世界交互主体的存在结构》解读. 《武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,(6),41-48.
[22]
赵万里, 徐敬怡(2007). 符号互动论视野下的科学社会研究. 《自然辩证法通讯》,(6),47-53+111.
[23]
Balkin J. (2004). Virtual liberty: Freedom to design and freedom to play in virtual worlds. Virginia Law Review, 90(8), 2043-2098.
[24]
Blumer H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism:Perspective and method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
[25]
Calleja G. (2007). Digital game involvement: A conceptual model. Games and Culture, 2(3), 236-260.
This article proposes a conceptual model for understanding game involvement and immersion on a variety of experiential dimensions corresponding to six broad categories of game features. The article ends with a proposal to replace the metaphor of immersion with one of incorporation. This reconceptualization seeks to replace the unidirectional plunge of player into game space implied by the term immersion with one of simultaneous assimilation of the digital environment and presence to others within it.
[26]
Cohen J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication and Society, 4(3), 245-264.
[27]
Cover R. (2004). New media theory: Electronic games, democracy, and reconfiguring the author-audience relationship. Social Semiotics, 14(2), 173-191.
[28]
Crawford G. (2012). Video gamers. London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge.
[29]
Dovey J., & Kennedy H. W. (2006). Game cultures: Computer games as new media. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
[30]
Eichner S. (2014). Agency and media reception: Experiencing video games, Film, and television. Berlin, DE: Springer VS.
[31]
Fischer P., Kastenmüller A., & Greitemeyer T. (2010). Media violence and the self: The impact of personalized gaming characters in aggressive video games on aggressive behavior. Journal of experimental social psychology, 46(1), 192-195.
[32]
Hall S. (1992). The question of cultural identity. In Hall, S., Held, D., & McGrew. T.(Eds.), Modernity and its future (pp.275-277). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
[33]
Hussain Z., & Griffiths M. D. (2008). Gender swapping and socializing in cyberspace: An exploratory study. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(1), 47-53.
[34]
King D. L., Delfabbro P. H., & Griffiths M. D. (2013). Video game addiction. Principles of addiction: comprehensive addictive behaviors and disorders, (1), 819-827.
[35]
Klimmt C., Hefner D.,& Vorderer P. (2009). The video game experience as “true” identification: A theory of enjoyable alterations of players’ self-perception. Communication theory, 19(4), 351-373.
[36]
MacKinnon R. C. (1995). Searching for the leviathan in usenet. In Jones, S.G. (Ed.), Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community (pp.112-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
[37]
Maffesoli M. (1996). The time of the tribes: The decline of individualism in mass society. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
[38]
Murray J. H. (1997). Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[39]
Park R. E. (1955). Human nature and collective behavior. In Hughes, E.(Ed.), Society: Collective behavior, News and opinion, Sociology and modern society (pp.13-21). New York, NY: The Free Press.
[40]
Schroeder R. (2011). Being there together:Social interaction in virtual environments. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
[41]
Scriven P. (2018). The phenomenology of the “other” in computer game worlds. Games and culture, 13(2), 193-210.
[42]
Sheese B., & Graziano W. (2005). Deciding to defect: The effects of video-game violence on cooperative behavior. Psychological science, 16(5), 354-357.
This experiment examined the effect of video-game violence on cooperative decision making. Participants (N= 48) were randomly assigned to play either a violent or a nonviolent version of the video game Doom in dyads. Following the video-game task, participants were separated and given an opportunity to choose to cooperate with their partner for mutual gain, withdraw from the interaction, or exploit their partner for their own benefit. Participants in the violent condition were significantly more likely to choose to exploit their partners than participants in the nonviolent condition. These findings suggest that playing violent video games may undermine prosocial motivation and promote exploitive behavior in social interactions.
[43]
Sobchack V. C. (2004). Carnal thoughts:Embodiment and moving image culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
[44]
Tajfel H., & Turner J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin,W. G.,& Worchel, S.(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp.33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
[45]
Thrasher F. M. (1927). The gang: A study of 1,313 gangs in chicago. IL: The University of Chicago Press.
[46]
Turkay S., & Kinzer C. K. (2014). The effects of avatar: Based customization on player identification. International journal of gaming and computer-mediated simulations, 6(1), 1-25.
[47]
Turner V. W. (1982). From ritual to theatre: The human seriousness of play. New York, NY: Performing Arts Journal Publications.
[48]
Waskul D.D.,& Lust M. (2004). Role-playing and playing roles: The person, player, and persona in fantasy role-playing. Symbolic interaction, 27(3), 333-356.
In fantasy role‐playing games, participants collectively create and play fantasy personas in an imaginary universe by using a vast system of rules that function as guidelines for make‐believe action and interaction. Consequently, role‐playing games obligate participants to occupy a liminal role located in the boundaries of persona, player, and person. This study, based on approximately ninety hours of participant observation and forty interviews with thirty role‐players, explores how role‐players actively negotiate these symbolic boundaries: how role‐players carve out distinct spheres of meaning between themselves, their fantasy personas, and status as players of these games. It also illustrates how these distinctions fail. Boundaries erupt and role‐players prove unable to compartmentalize themselves so discretely. Through the lens of these games, we can examine simplified and exaggerated dynamics and entertain the possibility that we are all players located at the liminal margins between the people we believe ourselves to be and the personas we perform in situated social encounters.

Footnotes

1. MOBA(Multiplayer Online Battle Arena),游戏术语,亦即多人在线战术竞技游戏。在MOBA类游戏中,玩家通常被分为两队,通过控制角色化身进行队内合作和队外竞争对抗。MOBA类游戏较为考验玩家的手动操作能力及其与队友之间的配合能力。

2. “带妹”,指男性和女性一起玩游戏并在游戏中保护女性、帮助其提升游戏排名的一种行为,带有一定的搭讪目的。

Funding

Chongqing Social Science Planning Doctoral project “Digital Game Players’ Subjectivity Paradox and its Coping Strategies”(2022BS033)
the 73rd batch of China Postdoctoral Science Foundation project “Game Media Use and Digital Alienation Prevention of Contemporary Youth from the perspective of Semiotics”(2023M730424)
PDF(1631 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/