Reception Theory

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

I'm hoping against hope here, but: is there a reception theorist in the house? I feel that there's a fascinating amount of analysis that could be done within this environment.

I am a total neophyte in such matters and am sadly unable to do more than hold up my end of the conversation, but I'd love to hear from someone who's got the skills.

 

[Payens]

You leave me utterly confused. Without more information about yourself and the way you think I can't possibly divine what you're trying to ask.

 

[Oscot]

I've done a little Barthes in my time, which may quality as 'close enough' depending on your specific purposes. Reception theory kinda fills the hole that Barthes' theory creates, so perhaps my 1337 ski11z can serve as a sort of negative impression thereof.

 

[Konaa]

*nods along*

*tries to hide his crippling insecurity over the vastness of space*

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

You leave me utterly confused. Without more information about yourself and the way you think I can't possibly divine what you're trying to ask.

There is a branch of cultural critique called "reception theory", which focuses on the way that people read history (and indeed, fictional history) and what that reveals about their culture and attitude towards culture.

The classic example of this is Rome, and its reception in modern societies. Fascist Italy consciously saw itself as the heir to Rome, but then so did Britain, France, and arguably even America and the Third Reich. However, they all saw different facets of Rome. When Italy saw Rome they saw the magnificent past of their own people and the dream of a return to those days once more. When Britain saw it they saw paint-the-map imperialism. France saw the republican tradition. America saw xenophilia, assimilation and Christianity. The Third Reich... well, their eagle fetish and love of monumental architecture came from somewhere, after all. The only Western state I can think of that consciously avoided claiming the heritage of Rome was the USSR.

As such, a reception theorist would tell us that Rome is a mirror of ourselves: when we see it we pick out those elements that we identify with and we say to ourselves, "Yes, the Romans would have approved of us. We are truly their heirs."

(I have probably got that example horribly mangled. My apologies to any serious academics who are now wincing.)

It occurs to me that a similar thing happens with Stellaris: every sci-fi fandom is looking at it and seeing a mirror of themselves. If I knew a lot more about cultural critique then I might be able to talk knowledgeably about that. Since I don't know much about cultural critique, I have to hope that someone else does.

 

[Admiral Howe]

I'm impressed @TheBeautifulVoid , you actually brought up a topic I wasn't at least marginally aware of. That doesn't happen very often for me, so +10 points to you.

 

[Oscot]

Well, if it helps, me doing a negative impression of Barthes is that reception theory is pseudopsychological junk.
It tries to look for connections that aren't there, in memes that don't matter.

Britain didn't think it was the heir of Rome. A minority of its intelligencia tried to draw analogies because they'd spent too much time reading Gibbon and thought Rome was cool, but that was about it. Certainly it never figured into any sort of strategic planning or empire-building of the people who were actually making decisions. It was just sorta tacked on retroactively, to provide a tissue-thin covering of propagandic grandeur to a project that was really just a dung-heap of grubby day-to-day realpolitik and opportunism.

And I can repeat that assessment for all your other examples.
No-one went to plant a flag anywhere to make Augustus proud since 14 AD.

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

Tell us what you really think, Oscot <3

Seriously though, the pseudopsychological junk and tissue-thin coverings of propagandistic grandeur are the part I find intriguing. If I want to discuss hard science I'll talk to my colleagues, and if I want to discuss brutal winner-take-all power politics I'll talk to my colleagues about whose turn it is to restock the biscuits in the cupboard.

 

[Brownbeard]

Croatia - Apicius cookbook

 

[lockdown51]

I'm a theorist of reception. I'll get back to you as soon as I understand what that means.

Edit: As a Historian, I would argue that The British had more of a thing for the Greeks than Romans. After all, silent letters were added to English words to emulated the Greek language (eg. det became debt) and Britain has that whole Democracy boner helping the Greeks in their independence war vs the Ottomans. The love of Greece is so great that British nationals volunteered to fight for the Greeks. Most famously Lord Byron, who drowned in Greece.

 

[Oscot]

I suppose my point is that when you say: "As such, a reception theorist would tell us that Rome is a mirror of ourselves", no-one actually looked into that mirror during history apart from a handful of Byzaboos, whose views were totally unrepresentative of those of the rest of their society.
And I (nor anyone) should really be interested in the historical fanboying of a couple of overenthusiastic writers for Pip, Pip, Cheerio, Tea Anyone? magazine.

I have my own historical fanboying to do, thank you very much.

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

I suppose my point is that when you say: "As such, a reception theorist would tell us that Rome is a mirror of ourselves", no-one actually looked into that mirror during history apart from a handful of Byzaboos, whose views were totally unrepresentative of those of the rest of their society.
And I (nor anyone) should really be interested in the historical fanboying of a couple of overenthusiastic writers for Pip, Pip, Cheerio, Tea Anyone? magazine.

I have my own historical fanboying to do, thank you very much.

Granted.

But right now, a bunch of 40k fans, astro fans, Babylon 5 fans, Star Trek fans, Star Wars fans (and some other fandoms I've missed out) are all looking into Stellaris. What do the tools of cultural critique tell us about that?

 

[eon47]

I've never heard of reception theory, but this sounds a lot like what writers such as Edward Said do with analyzing how we represent other cultures/religions/etc. and the ways in which power structures and social forces influence that. Now that I can talk about.

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

A Said scholar? Yay! Culture and Imperialism has a permanent place on my bedside-most bookshelf. I'd be extremely curious as to your views on the matter.

 

[lockdown51]

Granted.

But right now, a bunch of 40k fans, astro fans, Babylon 5 fans, Star Trek fans, Star Wars fans (and some other fandoms I've missed out) are all looking into Stellaris. What do the tools of cultural critique tell us about that?

We see a game that will let us experience a facet of our favorite series? Or let us experience that series in a new way? For example I'm a Trekkie. I love Trek. I dress up as Riker or Picard for Halloween every year. I've played most of the new games as they came out post 1998 or so, once I was old enough to play computer games and had an allowance that enabled me to save up for and buy said games. I've played games that were good, bad, and ugly, but they all played to my love of Trek. I'm looking forward to Stellaris because it is a Paradox game about Grand Strategy, which I really enjoy. However, I also think that it is a good engine for a Trek experience and I will get to why below.

I think it isn't what Stellaris reflects about us but rather what those series reflect. No one is making a Stellaris overhaul mod of Homeworld. Granted Stellaris isn't out yet but there are Star Trek and Star Wars mods for that game. Stellaris will have the typical draw of 4x with exploration being a strong pull for most. People are curious creatures and we like to find out new things. Trek plays to that what with their new alien of the week. In Stellaris we will get to seek out new life and civilizations in each and every game. And that is exciting. The Federation in Trek is an idealized utopia where many different species come together equally. Stellaris will let us emulate this to an extent. We can work towards that in game and for me, that is great because while the real world has a ways to go to get there, I can try to live up to that ideal in game. I get to live out that fantasy because that is the sort of place I would like to live in.

Stellaris looks to be a great game, and I'm sure it will stand tall on it's own merit. However, the large amount of mods being planned by fans of different series I think isn't the draw game itself per say. It is because the game looks to be a good platform in which others can try to recreate a new experience in a fandom they really enjoy. Stellaris looks to be a good platform for Trek because it allows for Federations to be built, different aliens within the same civilization and seemingly endless exploration and discovery. Like wise, Homeworld was good platform for Trek because it allowed for truly massive ship battles, allowing for a Dominion War recreation.

So I guess I'm trying to say is that Stellaris itself isn't the pull. It's the reputation of Paradox and a general love of sci-fi/grand strategy more than the actual game. The fandoms, I think, would say a lot more about people than Stellaris ever could.

That is if I am understanding what your OP is about. As I said, I'm only a theorist of reception.

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

Thank you.

 

[Murmeldjuret]

Problem is often that there are two sides of every history. The windowdressing they cover the rhetoric in and the theories they base their decisions on. The windowdressing is often highly influenced by Rome, nostalgic romanticism, and similar concepts and is highly variable to the particular concept they want dressed. What you base your decisions on is often much more rooted in political philosophy and mathematics.

So while the USA often used roman terms during the struggle for independence (the american Cincinnatus, the Senate, the popular assembly) etc, they based their decisions on the rural elite of France (like Montesquieu). And while Fascist Italy went to every pain to dress their regime as roman as possible they actually did nothing roman. Receptionist theory is less useful than you might think to establish why things happened, but it does paint an image over how they wanted to express what they did. The windowdressing is highly influenced by what you want to express, and how you want to express it, but it is not the same as what you are doing and why you are doing it.

 

[Held der Arbeit]

Granted.

But right now, a bunch of 40k fans, astro fans, Babylon 5 fans, Star Trek fans, Star Wars fans (and some other fandoms I've missed out) are all looking into Stellaris. What do the tools of cultural critique tell us about that?

People tend to selectively highlight information that confirms with their pre-held wishes or beliefs and block out all other. It is why we can look at the same game or art piece or political agenda and see very different things. Often passionately.

This is called the Confirmation Bias (or "Ethos Divergence" in Stellaris terms) and is what makes society both beautifully diverse and hopelessly fucked up.

That said I never heard of the Reception Theory (and I majored in Psych., along with a bit of Sociology) but to me it sounds like someone else described it: The Intelligentsia of any given country looking at Rome and highlightening the similarities to their own worldview while glossing over everything else.
Then again Psychology (at least where I'm from) is hopelessly lost in its quest to become a "hard science" so we don't talk about societal theories all that much anymore. If someone called it "pseudo-psychological" at some point in the past it is likely that our entire academic sector threw everything they had gathered on it into a big bonfire on the same day, for fear of being associated with the humanities

 

[mrinku]

Har

Granted.

But right now, a bunch of 40k fans, astro fans, Babylon 5 fans, Star Trek fans, Star Wars fans (and some other fandoms I've missed out) are all looking into Stellaris. What do the tools of cultural critique tell us about that?

Hari Seldon would know...

Don't forget us old dinosaurs. I was a first generation Star Wars fan (b.1966), but before that my bread and butter was Heinlein, Asimov and Clarke. (Trek sort of missed me... too young when it first aired, I picked it up after Star Wars.) I identify with rocket tubes and competent science heroes

 

[Subbak]

So when I first read the title my mind went to the meaning of reception as a party or social engagement. I'm sure the Blorg love this side of reception theory.

(Sorry to disrupt your high-minded historiography and litterary critique discussion with Blorg jokes.)