introduction // issues regarding terminology and framework // beyond text

As it exists currently, most of the theory surrounding global issues is inept at understanding the impact digital technology has had on the way we function as a global society. The very lexicon used in the study of global issues, more popularly referred to as international relations, inherently privileges the actions of states over those of non-state actors. Similarly, the way global issues theory understands cultural identity, identity construction, and traditional cross-cultural interaction takes disproportionately little account of major shifts and advances in digital communications. In particular, metaverses provocatively challenge traditional ideas of state boundaries, nationalism, and global identity, re-contextualizing such concepts in a way that is as complex as it is exciting.

It must be recognized that a new framework is necessary to understand the changes that are evoked by a technological development as poignant as the virtual world. Since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the sovereignty of nations has been the most basic concept of IR theory. In the past century, this view has expanded to incorporate a myriad of other actors that take part in global issues, ranging from international organizations to large corporations to global peace movements. At its most basic level, how we understand what type of 'actor' Second Life is of immediate contention; it has its own citizens, own economy, and own cultural norms, three major characteristics we use to categorize traditional nation states. Conversely, it contains no apparent central government. With this said, boundaries, both technological and ethical, are put in place by Second Life's parent corporation, Linden Lab, that affect how the world is constructed in terms of physicality and morality. Similarly, Linden Lab is a for-profit entity, making it more akin to a multi-national corporation (MNC) than governmental organization. We can further envision Second Life as a purely cultural phenomenon, facilitating the exchange of cultural artifices and ideas, despite its resemblance to both state and non-state actors.

This is an essential quandary for understanding Second Life and its place within global issues theory. We must accept that Second Life, both conceptually and practically, is stepped in multiplicity, claiming a variety of definitions we understand readily while embracing none wholeheartedly. While this postmodern definition poses a marked challenge to a field that is entrenched in inelastic conceptions of global relations, claiming an acceptance of multiple definitions is inherent to understanding the aforementioned questions, none of which leave us with clean or concise answers.