Analysing eRhetoric - Sociology & eRepublik

Day 2,380, 03:30 • Published in United Kingdom United Kingdom • by Mr Woldy


Analysing Rhetoric

The following article is part one in a series aiming to explore how real life sociological/philosophical/political theories of social order are applicable, if at all, to eRepublik and the micro-societies that it consists of.

Knowledge is power. According to French sociologist and historian Michel Foucault, those who generate so called ‘knowledge’ exert a power over a society through their ability to control people’s perception of reality. This is a societal mechanism that I myself have framed much of my own research (irl) on, and over the past year or so has become increasingly evident here in the eUK.

Firstly, it is important to note that ‘knowledge’ only refers to a body of discourse or thinking, and doesn’t reflect actual fact in terms of reality, but instead is a reflection on the perception or understanding that a particular culture has of the reality they operate in.

In other words, the widespread adoption of a particular perceived reality can filter upwards through politicians and so begin to exert power. In my own opinion, the point at which knowledge as a discursive body begins to exert power in real terms is when politicians begin to act on it, though individual acts can also be influenced by this perception of reality.



Simplified real life examples can portray this - stereotypes are often formed by discursive knowledge, and throughout the 19thC (and before) imperial policy in Britain was informed by politicians acting upon those stereotypes which in reality were literary themes rather than accurate depictions of real people. Or you may consider in present day that the idea that immigration has caused people to lose their jobs has become discursive knowledge, through journalism and the media. This notion has become a perceived reality for many and so the far right has seen a surge in popularity in various places around Europe as seen in last weeks elections. As such parties like UKIP are now in a position to exert power in real terms through the European Parliament.

This is a constant process of production, legitimisation and reinforcement. And it isn't 'bad' - it is simply how societies organises knowledge and discerns 'fact'. How does this apply to eRepublik? Obviously it doesn’t have implications in ‘real terms’ though the formation of knowledge within certain groups of players does affect reality in eRepublik’s terms. For example, in the eUK NE was framed/framed itself as pro-PTO and as Serbian collaboration has begun to be seen as potentially harmful to many in the eUK, they saw acting against NE as legitimate. It was not legitimate to many in NE, who operating under a different body of knowledge considered themselves to be acting fairly.

Looking at the eUK, I have adopted NE/V as a case study, as their political leaders produce more vociferous rhetoric and in greater volume than any other political entity in Parliament. Much of the writing from V has come from a small group of leaders formerly operating under NE. The ‘knowledge’ produced by these players is (as this is a political simulation game) all political polemic, and works around a simple framework. TUP is bad. V are good. If you speak against V, you are bad, and so you must be TUP. This framework is flexible enough to encompass any scenario, and recently the eUK’s community lashed back at NE/V antagonism and united to oppose it. The rhetoric employed by V simply adapted to deal with it - TUP were behind it, and those who participated are TUP puppets.

This polarisation of good/bad has been the core of NE/V policy for years and is culminating in the current struggle against PTO. V, working under the premise of TUP & Co = Bad and V = Good often repeat the accusation of TUP letting in foreign players, who they cast as PTO’ers. This legitimises V’s letting in of Serbian players, and running them for Congress. In other words, the ‘knowledge’ V players have of TUP being evil and reliant on foreign votes legitimises V’s use of foreign votes, which has implications on eReality as V Congressmen as well as some Serbian Congressmen have been elected, and are now in a position to further their agenda of allowing in more foreign votes.

This dynamic becomes more complicated when we consider that if V has ran people who aim to perpetuate the Serb PTO, then there is actually two agenda’s operating in ‘V’ as a political entity - the anti-establishment rhetoric of Dapper and also the PTO agenda of the serbs he has ran. Although Dapper has said that not cit passes will be given out, that reflects his own current aspirations in the eUK and is something which any PTO’ers could easily ignore to further their own agenda.



So far we have, in eRepublik terms, examined the dynamic of knowledge and power regarding the ATO/PTO debate happening in the eUK. But how do we assess validity? The best way, and I shall leave this to the reader, is to go back to the rhetoric itself and assess to what extent the perceived reality generated in the discourse reflects the actual reality of the eUK. The terminology here gets confusing, as the perception forms an individual’s reality, which is what generates power - though may not reflect reality in real terms, as shown in the examples given above.

Assessing the polemic is all well and good, but it seems to me that framing it in terms of a specific questions might help our inquiry. ‘How does either side of the PTO debate justify their actions’ is an interesting topic, that illustrates what I have outlined in this article quite well. A quick look at what evidence people use (if any) when making their claims is often revealing. However, it is important to be aware of how discursive traditions can form. From what I have seen, those on the ‘TUP and everyone else’/ATO side often provide primary evidence for their claims, employing statistics and statements from V members to support their actions*. V however, often refer only to what they have claimed before, employing a body of assumptions formed within their V = Good and TUP = Bad maxim**. In other words the justification employed for allowing Serbian voters is based more on tautology then a presentation of fact and in historical terms NE/V have done very well in their establishing of a discursive body of ‘knowledge’ which frames TUP+ATO as being harmful and bad, based on already established maxims, and draws upon the idea of NE/V triumphing the underdog and righting elitist wrongs (also present in all their writing) to justify the actions of their own Congressmen.

This image has become so strong to the leaders of V, that their perceived reality leaves no room for doubt, and is reinforced by election success of V or political failures of everyone else. The strength of their belief is reflected and facilitated by the flexibility of the rhetoric. When it suits them, anyone in the eUK can be recast as a ‘TUP puppet’. This flexibility allows the image of V as national saviour to deal with cross-party opposition and widespread dislike of their policy and actions. The image can also be employed in any form of propagandistic attack (including fraudulent screenshots)***, the simplicity of the ‘us and them’ society V have built for themselves allows any scenario or event to be cast into the binary - almost nothing happens these days without blame being pointed at TUP and a corrupt government, a charge implying that ‘the people’ should flock to their saviours for proper leadership. However, it is the flexibility of their key maxim that often leads V to hypocrisy: just today a member of V had to delete an article because it pitched an idea which V decided to attack when it come from non V citizens****.



All in all, what we have seen is NE/V framing TUP and non New Eralites as corrupt elites, self serving election rigging ‘others’ whose only experience of resistance comes from NE/V. This image of the eUK has been maintained to legitimise NE/V’s political manoeuvres and rhetoric, and despite people reaching out to them it has been maintained - simply because as NE/V’s approach and policies have been built on this maxim, and any admission at any point that TUP isn’t evil and NE/V isn’t a party of heroes will erode the pillar on which NE/V has established itself. In other words, the production of this 'knowledge' on a corrupt TUP has created an avenue of power for NE/V to operate an anti-establishment party in.

A final point to consider, and it can only be speculative, is how far actual V members believe the rhetoric they spin. In some cases, the accusations against various individuals are so out there that it’s hard to believe that they believe it themselves. I’m sure you’ve all seen comments of people asking them what they are on about. The question isn’t to do with the validity of their ‘knowledge’, but why they buy into it. In my opinion, V members experience a mixture, some buy into the rhetoric so much that to them it is, in the Foucauldian sense, an absolute truth. However, what we and indeed members of V should be weary of is individuals who simply replicate the rhetoric and the maxims because they know it will increase their power and influence, and so ‘go along’ with the party and it’s hostile actions as a means of climbing to power. These are the individuals who, by implication, are perpetuating a PTO in order to further their own eCareers.

The one thing we can take from this is simply to scrutinise what people say. Observe what they reference to make their conclusions. Be objective, and make your own inquiries. An analysis such as this can be performed on any party, V has be chosen as it is a good example, and a matter of controversy.

Thanks for Reading.
Mr Woldy.






To apply for the ‘Woldy’s Young Achievers’ Scheme, simply pop your name in this thread on our external forums:
http://tinyurl.com/WoldWelcomes


* People like Ayame Crocodile have compiled catalogues of evidence with which to justify their actions. See the use of linked articles, screenshots etc.
** Many examples. Such as: this http://prntscr.com/3n08ur, and this CP working a ‘TUP agenda’. http://prntscr.com/3n05qr, This article frames the loss of London as being the fault of those who voted TUP http://prntscr.com/3n061y, and general baseless acusations here http://prntscr.com/3n06nq.
See also, this http://prntscr.com/3n079y, and this article, http://prntscr.com/3n087g for a general idea of the rhetorical tehcniques.
*** As pointed out in the comments of this article much of the screenshots employed in the article are edited, with spellings changing etc.
**** In this article, Rory states that the best way to avoid PTO is to get wiped. This is precisely the proposal made by V member BigAnt, a few days before. When this is pointed out in a comment BA has made, he deletes his article. http://prntscr.com/3n03t4


I would like to note that, presently NE is being ran by members who were disenfranchised by Dapper’s regime, and this article should not reflect negatively on them as they have the best of intentions for a New Era.

Should I ever find the time, I will examine the theory of societal-regulation in terms of the eUK… but I feel this article is already long enough. 😛