The Virtual Altar: Commodity, Sacrifice and the Subject in the Metaverse (early research notes)

Shared as a brief presentation of emerging research for GCAS community in 2023

My objective is to delineate the emerging, virtual commercial space known as “the metaverse”. What I observed so far is that the metaverse initially appears as a space of pure potential and consequence-free enjoyment. Sacrifice is delegated out of sight, into the physical world. But upon closer examination, this virtual space is interwoven with the sacrifice of its users. 

In my research so far I draw from Metzinger and Chalmers who write about technology and virtual reality. I also utilize the work of Todd McGowan, Giorgio Agamben, Christian Fuchs and Marx.

I will share some thoughts about the metaverse and the commodity, labour and sacrifice in this space.

When I say “metaverse”, I refer to commercial virtual reality infrastructures developed by leading tech companies such as Horizon Worlds by Meta. And I see it as a new frontier of the advancement of capital - an example could be a rapid expansion of virtual land sale, reaching $2BN in the last 12 months (CMX Today, 2022). 

I started my exploration by attempting to understand what virtual means.  In technology, virtual usually means “digitally simulated”, while in philosophy, it is often understood as “potential”, and  I found this very meaningful and useful here.

Metzinger defines technological virtual reality as “the representation of possible worlds and possible selves, with the aim of making them appear ever more realistic.” (Metzinger, 2018).

And, the media rhetoric about the metaverse often captures this sense of possibility, and especially a perceived lack of constraints, with claims such as: “the metaverse is as expansive as the imagination of its creators”, or  “there will be no limit to what will be possible, and this will lead to exponential growth. “ 

I think it is not accidental that this expansive virtual space of possibility is gaining traction right now. Late capitalism struggles with resource scarcity, and we’re continuously warned: “There is no planet B!”. In this context, the metaverse emerges as this kind of an attractive alternative, limitless “B space”.

As explained by Todd McGowan (2016) we need both a sufficient distance, as well as an “unconscious awareness” of the worker’s sacrifice, in order to enjoy a commodity. 

“The labor embodied in the commodity must remain hidden, though we must also maintain an unconscious awareness of it.” (McGowan, 2016).

We can consider the metaverse as a convenient distraction from the sacrifice of capitalist production. For example, virtual land sale in the metaverse defies legal restrictions, with plots of land available that can be used in any way desired, without planning permissions. 

But everything that has a potential, virtual presence, has a corresponding physical presence on the finite Earth.  Starting from requiring energy consumption to access it, through data centers, VR hardware and technology workers developing the experience. 

This cost is seemingly removed and placed out of sight, while the metaverse remains as a space of consequence-free, unlimited enjoyment.

But closer analysis shows that the metaverse worlds are marked with the sacrifice of its users.

While in Christian tradition, the world creation occurred “ex nihilo”, the commodified digital worlds inevitably always emerge “ex laboro”. 

In an essay “Marx; or, The Universal Exposition”, Agamben quotes The Guide to the Paris Exposition of 1867:

“The public needs a grandiose concept that will strike its imagination: its spirit must halt, astonished, before the marvels of the industry. It wishes to contemplate an enchanted scene and not similar products, uniformly grouped”. (Agamben, 1993)

I think with the metaverse, we encounter such a grandiose, imaginative concept - a commodified space filled with enchanted objects, which Marx referred to as  “an essentially immaterial and abstract piece of goods, whose concrete enjoyment is impossible except through accumulation and exchange.”

So from here, we can utilize research of Fuchs to start clarifying the digital and virtual labor and explore the nature of user’s sacrifice in the metaverse.

Fuchs (2015) talks about how capital attempts to commodify disposable time “through the emergence of play labour, digital labour and prosumption.”

The cause is the imperialistic tendency of capitalism: “on one side, to create disposable time, on the other, to convert it into surplus labour.” (Marx 1857/58, 708).” (Fuchs, 2015)

He (2015) further explains the digital labor in his analysis of Facebook, which we should remember, recently turned into Meta, a company that spent $36BN so far developing commercial virtual worlds :

“The abstract status of labor and the commodity that cannot be directly experienced by the user is veiled by the pseudo-concreteness of free access to the platform, social benefits and a playful atmosphere.”

Due to a crucial, social aspect of the metaverse, a subject is never a pure consumer in this space. As further explained by Fuchs (2015): 

“Facebook (...) sells a commodity, in which users’ attention and personal data is objectified. Users produce this commodity; Facebook exploits them and thereby accumulates capital.”

For me, the crucial move of the metaverse, is taking this process to the next level, utilizing the VR headset and corresponding devices to establish a subjective sense of presence in the commodified digital world.

Metzinger explains “presence” as a complex phenomenal quality of 3 dimensions: 

• identification, 

• self-location in a temporal frame of reference

• and self-location in space. (Metzinger, 2018).

In this way, immersive, commercial virtual reality allows capital not only to create disposable time that can be commodified, but also disposable space, effectively progressively turning presence into a commodity. (Additionally, this disposable space is certainly useful for capital’s future expansion as it encounters resource scarcity on Earth.)

Behind the “veil of free access, social benefits and a playful atmosphere”,  a metaverse user emerges as a worker who is nevertheless not perceived as important in the digital age class struggle, and not considered a “true worker”. Not only do they not receive compensation for their labor, but they pay for commodities - such as the VR headset - that will then commodify their presence as laborers, providing them with “a new way to sacrifice themselves” (McGowan, 2023). 

Suddenly, we’re finding ourselves on a very political territory. We can see how this environment contributes to a division between  “wageworkers in the non-digital economy” who remain seen as “the true locus of power”, and the subjects interacting in the metaverse, which are still perceived as mere consumers who are just enjoying, and not participating in the shared struggle.