In the fourth chapter of Rethinking Digital Anthropology, Tom Boellstoff (2012) explores the relationship between the virtual and the real in the first part. In the second part, the author studies anthropology through the cases in the virtual world “Second Life” game. In the third part, the author analyzes the theory of the first part and the case of the second part.
One of Tom Boellstoff’s most exciting ideas, he thinks “The digital not as an object of study, but as a methodological approach, founded in participant observation, investigating the virtual and its relationship to the actual(p.40)”. Many people can’t tell the difference, even the people who work in World of Warcraft. Because in World of Warcraft, many players are in the game looking for other players in the same time zone as where they live together. The discovery of this sort of thing is proof that the World of Warcraft workers is not correctly using digital anthropology to distinguish virtual from real. With such a simple but profound example, the author gives the reader an instant understanding of how digital anthropology can be applied to practical cases (Boellstoff, 2012).
Besides, Tom Boellstoff mentions one of Rosaldo’s ideas in his book “Unlike learning another language, such inquiry requires time and patience. There are no shortcuts (Rosaldo, 1989: 25).” Tom Boellstoff explains that digital anthropology requires more time, requires more effort than other research methods, if someone claims to have conducted an anthropological investigation in such a short time as a week or a month, such behavior is highly suspect (Boellstoff, 2012).
Compared with Roland Barthes’ visual analysis, we can see from the above two examples that, different from visual analysis, digital anthropology has a unique observation method, so we can think that the results obtained using this research method are more objective. For Barthes, what he pursues more is the “Punctum” in the photo, which is hugely subjective for most people and does not have universal representation. However, Roland Barthes’s visual analysis has the advantage that digital anthropology cannot achieve; that is, it requires less time and energy for researchers. Tom Boellstoff notes that the whole process of digital anthropology takes months or more, which requires researchers to devote most of their energy to this. The risk is very high. Once the investigation object does not cooperate, or the investigation clue is interrupted, the whole project is faced with the risk of being completely stopped. High risk and high investment are the disadvantages of digital anthropology. Visual analysis requires the researcher to analyze the photos in a short time. The low investment, low risk, and high convenience make this research method full of high operability.
To sum up, digital anthropology is a high-risk, high-investment, and high-return research method that is especially useful for in-depth exploration of a cultural group or community. However, digital ethnography is also highly demanding for researchers, and we can argue that this approach is extremely challenging in some ways.
Reference
Boellstoff, T. (2012). Rethinking Digital Anthropology (pp.39-60). In H.A. Horst and D. Miller (eds.) Digital Anthropology. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Rosaldo, R. 1989. Culture and Truth: The Remaking of Social Analysis. Boston: Beacon Press.
MCS Group One 