- | 8:00 am
An anthropologist explains why we need a universal language when talking about the metaverse
Norms set in the next few years are likely to structure the metaverse for decades. But first we all need common conceptual ground.
![](https://1661362760.rsc.cdn77.org/wp-content/uploads/download-9.jpg)
Quick, define the word āmetaverse.ā
Coined in 1992Ā by science-fiction author Neal Stephenson, the relatively obscure termĀ exploded in popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly after Facebook rebranded as Meta in October 2021. There are now myriad articles on the metaverse, andĀ thousands of companies have invested in its development. Citigroup has estimated that by 2030, the metaverseĀ could be a $13 trillion market, with 5 billion users.
From climate change to global connection and disability access to pandemic response, the metaverse has incredible potential. Gatherings in virtual worlds have considerably lower carbon footprints than in-person gatherings. People spread all over the globe can gather together in virtual spaces. The metaverse can allow disabled peopleĀ new forms of social participation through virtual entrepreneurship. And during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the metaverse not onlyĀ provided people with ways to connectĀ but also served as a place where, for instance, those sharing a small apartment could be alone.
No lessĀ monumental dangers exist as well, from surveillance and exploitation to disinformation and discrimination.
But discussing these benefits and threats remains difficult because of confusion about what āmetaverseā actually means. As aĀ professor of anthropology who has been researching the metaverse for almost 20 years, I know this confusion matters. The metaverse is at a virtual crossroads. Norms and standards set in the next few years are likely to structure the metaverse for decades. But without a common conceptual ground, people cannot even debate these norms and standards.
Unable to distinguish innovation from hype, people can do little more than talk past one another. This leaves powerful companies like Meta to literally set the terms for their own commercial interests. For example, Nick Clegg, former deputy prime minister of the U.K. and now president of global affairs at Meta, attempted to control the narrative with the May 2022 essay, āMaking the Metaverse.ā
CATEGORICAL PROTOTYPES
Most attempted definitions for metaverse include a bewildering laundry list of technologies and principles, but always included are virtual worldsā places online where real people interact in real time. Thousands of virtual worlds already exist, some gaming oriented, likeĀ FortniteĀ andĀ Roblox, others more open-ended, likeĀ MinecraftĀ andĀ Animal Crossing: New Horizons.
![](https://images.fastcompany.net/image/upload/w_596,c_limit,q_auto:best,f_auto/wp-cms/uploads/2022/06/USA-Today.png)
Beyond virtual worlds, the list of metaverse technologies typically includes avatars, nonplayer characters and bots; virtual reality; cryptocurrency, blockchain, and non-fungible tokens; social networks from Facebook and Twitter to Discord and Slack; and mobile devices like phones and augmented reality interfaces. Often included as well are principles like interoperabilityāthe idea that identities, friendship networks, and digital items like avatar clothesĀ should be capable of moving between virtual worlds.
The problem is that humans donāt categorize by laundry lists. Instead, decades of research in cognitive science have shown thatĀ most categories are āradial,ā with a central prototype. One could define ābirdā in terms of a laundry list of traits: has wings, flies, and so on. But the prototypical bird for North Americans looks something like a sparrow. Hummingbirds and ducks are further from this prototype. Further still are flamingos and penguins. Yet all are birds, radiating out from the socially specific prototype. Someone living near the Antarctic might place penguins closer to the center.
Human creations are usually radial categories as well. If asked to draw a chair, few people would draw a dentist chair or beanbag chair.
The metaverse is a human creation, and the most important step to defining it is to realize itās a radial category. Virtual worlds are prototypical for the metaverse. Other elements of the laundry list radiate outward and wonāt appear in all cases. And whatās involved will be socially specific. It will look different in Alaska than it will in Addis Ababa, or when at work versus at a family gathering.
WHOSE IDEA OF ESSENTIAL?
This matters because one of the most insidious rhetorical moves currently underway is to assert that some optional aspect of the metaverse is prototypical. For instance, many pundits define the metaverse asĀ based on blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies. But many existing virtual worlds use means other than blockchain for confirming ownership of digital assets. Many use national currencies like the U.S. dollar, or metaverse currencies pegged to a national currency.
Another such rhetorical move appears when Clegg uses anĀ image of a buildingĀ with a foundation and two floors to argue not only that interoperability will be part of āthe foundations of the buildingā but that itās āthe common theme across these floors.ā
![](https://images.fastcompany.net/image/upload/w_596,c_limit,q_auto:best,f_auto/wp-cms/uploads/2022/06/Wordle.png)
But Cleggās warning that āwithout a significant degree of interoperability baked into each floor, the metaverse will become fragmentedā ignores how interoperability isnāt prototypical for the metaverse. In many cases, fragmentation is desirable. I might not want the same identity in two different virtual worlds, or on Facebook and an online game.
This raises the question of why Metaāand many punditsāare fixated on interoperability. Left unsaid in Cleggās essay is the āfoundationā of Metaās profit model: tracking users across the metaverse toĀ target advertising and potentially sell digital goodsĀ with maximum effectiveness. Recognizing āmetaverseā as a radial category reveals that Cleggās claim about interoperability isnāt a statement of fact. Itās an attempt to render MetaāsĀ surveillance capitalismĀ prototypical, the foundation of the metaverse. It doesnāt have to be.
LOCKING IN DEFINITIONS
This example illustrates how defining the metaverse isnāt an empty intellectual exercise. Itās the conceptual work that will fundamentally shape design, policy, profit, community, and the digital future.
Cleggās essay concludes optimistically that ātime is on our sideā because many metaverse technologies wonāt be fully realized for a decade or more. ButĀ as the VR pioneer Jaron Lanier has noted, when definitions about digital technology get locked in they become difficult to dislodge. They become digital common sense.
Also, read what will the metaverse actually look like in 5 years? This studio may have cracked it here.
![](https://images.fastcompany.net/image/upload/w_596,c_limit,q_auto:best,f_auto/wp-cms/uploads/2022/06/Letter-Boxed.png)
With regard to the definitions that will be the true foundation of the metaverse, time is emphatically not on our side. I believe that now is the time to debate how the metaverse will be definedābecause these definitions are very likely to become our digital realities.
Read more related tech articles in our tech section here.