El videojuego como dispositivo de (des)empoderamientoLa noción de agencia en el liberalismo avanzado.

  1. Muriel, Daniel 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Deusto
    info

    Universidad de Deusto

    Bilbao, España

    ROR https://ror.org/00ne6sr39

Journal:
RES. Revista Española de Sociología

ISSN: 2445-0367,  1578-2824

Year of publication: 2018

Volume: 27

Issue: 3

Pages: 451-467

Type: Article

DOI: 10.22325/FES/RES.2018.19 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: RES. Revista Española de Sociología

Abstract

The aim of this article is to approach the notion of agency within Advanced Liberalism through the study of video games. The text is grounded in the findings of a research project that stems from a fundamental premise about the existence of a growing video game culture in contemporary society. From a theoretical point of view that builds on neo-Foucauldian governmentality studies, actor- network theory, and game studies, and using a qualitative methodology, the paper posits that video games help visualize, and also promote, the transformations that takes place in the notion of agency at a social, political, and ontological level: on the one hand, a shift to post-humanism, the articulation of different elements, and a mediated and prosthetic relationality; on the other hand, it is possible to observe the reproduction of the hegemonic neoliberal political rationalities while, at the same time, envisaging their aperture toward new agency forms.

Bibliographic References

  • Arsenault, D., Perron, B. (2009). In the Frame of the Magic Circle: The Circle(s) of Gameplay. En Wolf, Mark J. and Perron, Bernard (editors). The Video Game Theory Reader 2. New York: Routledge, 109-131.
  • Brookey, R. A. and Booth, P. (2006). Restricted Play. Synergy and the Limits of Interactivity in the Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King Video Game. Games and Culture, 1 (3), 214-230.
  • Calleja, G. (2011). In-Game: From Immersion to Incorporation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
  • Charles, A. (2009). Playing with one’s self: notions of subjectivity and agency in digital games. Eludamos, 3 (2): 291-284. [http://www.eludamos.org/index.php/eludamos/article/view/vol3no2-10/140], acceso 15 de marzo de 2017.
  • Consalvo, M. (2007). Cheating. Gaining Advantage in Videogames. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Crawford, G. (2012). Video Gamers. London: Routledge.
  • De Marinis, P. (2005). 16 comentarios sobre la(s) sociología(s) y la(s) comunidad(es). Papeles del CEIC, 15, 1-39, [http://www.ehu.eus/ojs/index. php/papelesCEIC/article/view/12103/11025], acceso 11 de octubre de 2016.
  • Debord, G. (1995). The Society of the Spectacle. New York: Zone Books.
  • Deleuze, G. (1990). What is a dispositif? En Armstrong, Timothy J. (editor). Michel Foucault Philosopher. New York: Routledge, 159-168.
  • Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S., Smith, P. H., Pajares Tosca, S. (2008). Understanding Video Games: The Essential Introduction. New York: Routledge.
  • Foucault, M. (2003). The Subject and Power. En Rabinow, Paul and Rose, Nikolas. The Essential Foucault. New York: The New Press, 126-144.
  • García Selgas, F. J. (2007). Sobre la fluidez social. Elementos para una cartografía. Madrid: CIS.
  • Giddings, S. (2009). Events and Collusions. A Glossary for the Microethnography of Video Game Play. Games and Culture, 4 (2), 144-157.
  • Gordon, C. (1991). Governmental Rationality: An Introduction. En Burchell, G., Gordon, C., Miller, P. The Foucault Effect. Studies in Governmentality. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1-51.
  • Haraway, D. (2004). The Haraway Reader. New York: Routledge.
  • Jenkins, H. (2006). Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers. Exploring Participatory Culture. New York: New York University Press.
  • Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Clinton, K., Weigel, M., Robison, A. J. (2005). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Chicago: MacArthur Foundation.
  • Juul, J. (2010). A Casual Revolution: Reinventing Video Games and Their Players. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Juul, J. (2013). Th e Art of Failure. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
  • Karppi, T., Sotamaa, O. (2012). Rethinking Playing Research: DJ HERO and Methodological Observations in the Mix, Simulation & Gaming, 43 (3), 413-429.
  • Kirby, A. (2009). Digimodernism. New York: Continuum. Krzywinska, T. (2007). Being a determined agent in (the) World of Warcraft: text/play/identity. En Atkins, B., Krzywinska, T. (editors). Videogame, Player, Text. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 101-119.
  • Lahti, M. (2003). “As We Become Machines: Corporealized Pleasures in Video games”. En Wolf, M., Perron, B. (editors). The Video game Theory Reader. New York: Routledge, pp. 157-70.
  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Latour, B. (1999a). Pandora’s Hope. Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  • Latour, B. (1999b). On recalling ANT. In Law, J., Hassard, J. Actor-Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell, 15-25.
  • Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Latour, B. (2008). Reensamblar lo social. Una introducción a la teoría del actor-red. Buenos Aires: Manantial.
  • Law, J. (2004). After Method. Mess in social science research. London: Routledge.
  • Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.
  • Mäyrä, F. (2012). An introduction to game studies: Games and culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  • Miller, P., Rose, N. (2008). Governing the Present. Administering Economic, Social and Personal Life. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Millington, B. (2009). Wii has never been modern: ‘active’ video games and the ‘conduct of conduct’. New Media Society, 11 (4), 621-640.
  • Mol, A. (1999). Ontological politics. A word and some questions. In Law, J., Hassard, J. ActorNetwork Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Muriel, D. (2016). Para una sociología de las mediaciones: cartografía impresionista y algunas (breves). Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 153, 111-126.
  • Preciado, B. (2002). Manifiesto contrasexual. Madrid: Opera Prima.
  • Poltronieri, F. (2015). Communicology, Apparatus, and Post-history: Vilém Flusser’s Concepts Applied to Video games and Gamification. En Fuchs, M., Fizek, S., Ruffino, P., Schrape, N. Rethinking Gamification. Lüneburg: Meson Press.
  • Rose, N. (1999). Powers of Freedom. Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Salen, K., Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Sayes, E. (2014). Actor-Network Theory and methodology: Just what does it mean to say that nonhumans have agency? Social Studies of Science, 44 (1), 134-149.
  • Shaw, A. (2014). Gaming at the Edge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Taylor, T. L. (2006). Play between Worlds: Exploring Online Game Culture. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  • Taylor, T. L. (2009). “The Assemblage of Play”, Games and Culture, vol. 4, 4: 331-339.
  • Thornham, H. (2011). Ethnographies of the Videogame. Gender, Narrative and Praxis. Surrey: Ashgate.
  • Tulloch, R. (2014). The Construction of Play: Rules, Restrictions, and the Repressive Hypothesis. Games and Culture, 9 (5), 335-350.
  • Warr, P. (2014). Interview: Warzone Survival In This War Of Mine. Rock Paper Shotgun, [https://www. rockpapershotgun.com/2014/10/25/this-warof-mine-interview/, last accessed 19/04/2016], acceso 18 de noviembre 2016.
Data source: Dialnet