| The Death of Cyberpunk |
[April 16th, 2008, 13:46.00] |
"God is dead," said Nietzsche, "And we have killed him." It's probably not the best segue into this, but I'm going to use it regardless. Unlike God (or specifically, God as a source of moral codes), cyberpunk as a genre is not dead. Neither have we killed it. But more and more, I note that it seems to be dying a slow death brought on by postcyberpunk.
One of the core tenants of cyberpunk, I would say, is the ieas that the main characters (the protagonists in an art or literary work, or the player characters in a role playing game) are not really heroes. Even if their actions are heroic, their goals rarely are (I would argue also, that such characters are not anti-heroes, either, but are perhaps more akin to anti-villains, using heroic or villainous methods and actions to achieve self-interested goals, whichever is more appropriate to a situation). Largely, I would say this idea has remained intact even within the postcyberpunk genre, but seems to be fading, the archetype replaced by characters who have the betterment of society in mind, or at least who want to prevent the world from falling into further dystopia (if such elements are still present).
The key in my mind, however, is the role of technology. In cyberpunk, the characters have a relationship with technology that is antagonistic, or at the very least, is adversarial. Many characters doubtlessly benefit from cybernetic implants (especially the hackers who use neural interfaces to enter cyberspace), but the simple fact is that these characters are at the bottom rung of society because technology put them there. Whatever the reason for it, technology has alienated the characters from mainstream society, or at least from "straight" society, as the case is often that mainstream society is at the bottom rung as well. I'm most familiar with Shadowrun, and while I would not call it "definitive cyberpunk", it will work well enough for this. Advances in technology (among other factors) have allowed megacorporations to subvert governments and achieve unprecedented control; in some places (such as Aztlan), megacorporations are the government (as seen in the near total domination of Meso-America by Aztechnology). For whatever reason, these same advances have put the main characters in a position where they can longer operate by the rules set down by the corporations, forcing them into the shadows.
By contrast, postcyberpunk sees characters who are not antagonized by technology (necessarily), but who gloos over it because technology is so ingrained into society that it's become nearly transparent. In part, this is because of the changes we've seen in our own world. In the 1980s, computers were still an expensive thing, used primarily by companies and corporations. Digital technology was entering the mainstream, but it was still very alien to many people, and became adversarial when it began making some occupations obsolete. How long would it take before governments had the means to control everything? It fit well within the framework of 1989, when Shadowrun was first published, that technology had put megacorporations at the top of the world and allowed civilization to crash and burn. However, when the 4th edition of Shadowrun was published in 2005, the role of technology had changed; everyone had a cell phone, and a lot of people had cell phones that could almost replace personal computers for word processing and data management. Many technologies were wireless. It didn't fit into the cyberpunk mold anymore, and so the setting underwent changes. It maintained many of its old elements, but the power and role of technology was emphasized; technology was no longer the enemy of society. It was society itself.
More importantly, however, is that cyberpunk itself doesn't fit the mold of society any longer. In 1992, it was perhaps easy to imagine the inaccessibility of a corporate mainframe; you had to break inside the building itself and find a port to plug your brain into before you could touch it. But even in 2005, who didn't have a cell phone that could connect to the internet without wires? At the very least, who didn't have a home computer that could connect to the internet in some way? As our own society evolves, and as technology evolves to meet the needs of society, we see the role of technology, and our perceptions of it changing. It becomes increasingly difficult to demonize technology, because we are dependant on it for survival. And thus, has cyberpunk begun to die to make way for postcyberpunk.
At least, this is the view from the United States. Really, one need only look across the oceans to China to get a different viewpoint; a nation where people are displaced from their homes (which are sometimes demolished while they are still occupied) to make way for progress. A country, also, where access to information (controlled by filters on the internet and state-run media) is the norm. Technological progress, and in some cases, technology itself, reassumes an adversarial role relative to the people. Things that were fears in 1989 America are realities in 2008 China. Things that contributed to the creation of cyberpunk are still alive in China (and other places in the world, like Saudi Arabia), and may even be returning in an increasingly apathetic and naive United States.
So, cyberpunk is not dead. It's simply moved out of the western world and into other places. For the time being, at least. |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
phycokrusk's journal