When the British Commander-in-Chief, Geoffrey Amherst, ordered his troops to gift blankets laced with smallpox to the “hostile” Indian tribes, he made a power play.
Michel Foucault, a prominent French philosopher in the mid-1900’s, discussed the correlation between knowledge and power as well as the connection between power and language. Foucault’s line of thought believes that as we use discourse, which he identified as systems of thoughts composed of ideas, attitudes, beliefs, and practices, that we are negotiating power (making power plays, so to speak). As power and knowledge are inter-related, the individual is constantly using language (the term knowledge can be used interchangeably here) to maneuver his or her environment and to attain control.
Taking this back to the horrific tale of the small pox – infested blankets, the Commander used his knowledge of the virus to attain power. The perception for the Indian tribe may have been a positive one initially (they are receiving gifts…it sounds like a good thing, right?) but the reality was of a darker intent.
So how does this tale relate to today’s world of viral media?
Well, let’s look at an example. Veronica Mars, a pop television series about a female private eye, was cancelled much to the dismay of its loyal fanbase back in 2007. Years passed and rumors came and went about ideas of a movie coming out. It was nearly 10 years later when a Kickstarter to fund a Veronica Mars film appeared. The original cast and crew appealed to their loyal fanbase to fund the project. They created short video clips and offered tangible rewards, such as t-shirts, early copies of the movie script, and voicemails on your personal phones recorded by none other than Kristen Bell (the beloved actress who played Veronica).
So what’s the catch?
Sure, the actors and actresses appealed to what they knew the fans would like. They appealed to their senses and emotions and their love of the show in order to get them to make monetary donations to build a product. The Kickstarter not only reached its goal of $2 million dollars but it did so in less than 10 hours. It was a record breaker for the fastest project to reach the $1 million, then $2 million mark in Kickstarter history and was the largest successful film project to date. The campaign ended on April 13, 2013 with nearly 100,000 donors raising a little over $5.7 million, well over budget to fund a film, and a quality one at that.
And it was a power play. It fed into the wants of the audience. It used knowledge of what they liked to drive success and to accomplish a goal. The question then is did the audience and donors know they were being “played”? And if so, were they just willing to be a cog in the machine since they would reap some of the benefits of the end goal?
Kickstarter is, at heart, a collaborative company bringing creative projects to life. It’s been called “the people’s NEA” by the New York Times. Should mainstream projects be allowed in environment? Where are the checks and balances? And if we do somehow manage to get what we want, does it matter?
mademoisellechelsea 
It is very interesting that you decided to mention kickstarter when juxtaposing the power of knowledge and speech, because it marks an evolution of trade. Monetary exchange that was normally met with a finished product (either physically or digitally) has instead started to encompass ideas as well. You are now funding an idea with a promise of an eventual finished product. However, with these transactions, there always comes the question of intent. Is there already a realized vision there to fund, or is the author simply fishing the waters for interest and building as they go?
One recent event to compare to the ‘Victoria Mas’ example put forth by our author, Chelsea, is the game Shenmue 3, published by Sega. The last installment of the series, Shenmue 2, was released fourteen years ago and because of poor sales (most likely because of the platform that it was originally released on), no future installments were announced. The series was practically dead in the water even though the head writer had mentioned several times that the complete story had already been completed. Despite the poor sales, the reception of the game was rather enthusiastic – being hailed as one of the most ambitious undertakings to date. This developed a cult following that demanded a trilogy, whenever they were given a platform, for over a decade. Recently at an E3 event, Shenmue 3 was announced, but only if the kickstarter of the game found success – it became gaming’s highest funded kickstarter.
But was this necessary? The demand for a third installment has been vocal for fourteen years, why leave development funding in the hands of kickstarter? Perhaps the developer was worried that a cult following wasn’t enough to ensure sales that covered their costs, or they wanted to include the players in the literal making of the gaming. On the other hand, couldn’t the intent be a bit more sinister? As Chelsea said, consumers were voluntarily making themselves cogs in a machine. They are paying full price and higher for a game that hasn’t even been produced. They’re encouraging people to buy a product that hasn’t been finished based on promises and sentimentality. Sure the game was ambitious, but that was fourteen years ago and the goalposts have changed since then
In fact, this is just broadening a racket that has been well established for years. People pre-ordering games with the incentives of first day pick up and additional merchandise. This is a ruse to get around consumers making informed decisions based on critics and reviews, and instead paying upfront because of massive marketing campaigns. Kickstarter is only taking that a step further. Who are we tell people that their enthusiasm is misguided though? If they want a product, or even an idea of a product, why not show faith with a monetary amount? You just have to hope that faith is returned with diligence from the seller, which can be a somewhat dubious proposal.
LikeLike
You present a lot of really interesting concepts here. I honestly feel a little over my head discussing power plays as I’m sure I don’t have as good a grasp on the theory as I’d like. But I was very intrigued because I’ve never really thought about kickstarter in the context of a power play before. I have never participated in one myself, but do know of several and have family and friends who have contributed in both large and small amounts.
As to participants being “played”, couldn’t you also say that the producers of movies and TV shows attempt to exploit the same assumed knowledge of likes and desires of a certain population to drive viewing and ticket sales? They may not always be as on the mark as in this case, but they seem to be using the same criteria to try to extract money from their audience, albeit at a different stage in the movie-making process.
But if Kickstarter is a power play and we are being “played”, even if we’re getting what we think we want, does that negate the positive? Does having some say in what movies you want to get made mean enough to people to be worth possibly getting “played” by the people making them?
LikeLike
Good discussion, everyone.
Chelsea, You do a nice job identifying multiple sources to connect together for your blog post. I would be curious to know what your thoughts were in response to the questions you raised. Don’t be afraid to make an argument in this format. I think you could have connected back to the small pox blankets in the end, otherwise it just kind of sits there at the beginning and an outside reader may wonder about why you start with that example (though we know it is because of the requirement to incorporate concepts from the reading). I look forward to future weeks!
LikeLike