“This would be sweet in VR”: On the discursive newness of virtual reality

Abstract

When virtual reality (VR) entered the consumer market in 2016, it was accompanied by claims of its potential as a “revolutionary” new technology. This article examines these claims of newness by focusing on statements made by industry leaders and other professionals. The findings suggest repetitions of problematic discourse, in which colonialist language of “pioneering” expansion appears to be used to mobilize developers who are dominantly young, White, and male. I argue that recontextualizing the “newness” of VR opens opportunities to contest its depoliticized histories and to question its imagined futures. Situating VR within a much longer history of digital and non-digital technologies not only challenges the notions of newness that are foundational to industry-led VR discourse, but also offers a critical alternative.

Facing the challenges of metaverse: a systematic literature review from Social Sciences and Marketing and Communication

“…The metaverse requires social engagement for its success. The content is provided by the organizations through storytelling, the objective of which is a more complete immersive experience, for which many different technological devices will be developed that accent the senses and emotions The metaverse and VR are considered the next major breakthrough for the Internet (Harley, 2022), and so it is logical that the main disciplines to address this phenomenon are primarily in the field of Computer Science and Engineering (Table 4). The review carried out allows us to confirm that during the period 1995-2000, the first articles are published in Scopus that consider the creation of languages for virtual reality and metaverses from the field of Mathematics and Computer Science.…”

“…The metaverse is expected to be the next Internet revolution (Harley, 2022). Moreover, it is said that it will produce greater changes than those resulting from the emergence of the Internet.…”

The promise of beginnings: Unpacking ‘diversity’ at Oculus VR

“…Statements like these about the ‘unlimited potential’ and ‘power of virtual reality’ undergird expectations about the medium in the first year of consumer VR. As such, the statements are extensions of the ‘discursive newness’ of VR (Harley, 2022) within a public-facing ‘sociotechnical imaginary’ as articulated by Meta (Egliston and Carter, 2020). In this section, I narrow the focus of this public-facing imaginary to Launch Pad within the cultural and disciplinary domains of power, as outlined by Collins (2019) – that is, this section is about the vision that Launch Pad presents as a social institution, examining how its associated and/or expected practices and actions might challenge or reinforce the status quo in the tech sector.…”

“…5). Here, again, is the notion of inclusion and the possibility to be part of this ‘community’, but only if ‘we’ choose to be among its young, white ‘pioneers’ (see also, Harley, 2022 for an examination of this kind of colonialist language in VR discourse).…”

“…Recent academic work has provided a counterbalance to these claims, suggesting that the allure of VR and its promotional discourse belies a repetition of problematic social, cultural, and technological norms that discourage or oppose progressive change (Evans, 2018;Golding, 2019;Harley, 2020Harley, , 2022Irom, 2018). Through the lens of prior work, it is perhaps unsurprising that an initiative like Launch Pad might only offer tokenized inclusion, providing limited participation in the future of VR as promised by tech corporations.…”