Chapters 2, 3, and 4 of Bogost’s book discuss how video games are sometimes used in politics and how they could be used more effectively in the future. He begins chapter 2 with a discussion of Hurricane Katrina and how the government and the public responded to it. The issues of insufficient advance planning and poor post-hurricane response were seen as proof of the unreliable nature of the American government. Problems were present at every level of government and investigations later concluded that most stemmed from the “passivity” of the individuals in those positions. The reports did not attempt to address methods for overcoming this “passivity” and in a sense imply that it is not possible to do so. Bogost further questions whether “any individual federal leaders, any infrastructure, any response plans could overcome the underlying values we muster when producing them.” (70) In other words, without a changing the “construction material of our consciences” even the best planning and organization will not work.
Bogost next explains through the example of the Irish potato famine how “philosophies can act as logics for political thought and action.” (72) This shows how governments can/have chosen to ignore “moral obligations” to further political agendas. He moves on to define ideology as “hidden procedural systems that drive social, political, or cultural behavior.” (72) He contends that “videogames are particularly useful tools for visualizing the logics that make up a worldview.” (74) By playing these video games we can gain insight into the ways “political structures operate, or how they fail to operate, or how they could or should operate.”(75) He uses America’s Army as an example of how persuasive games not only give us insight into political ideologies, but can serve to influence others to agree and abide by those ideologies. This also shows how complex political systems are and the difficulty of presenting a complete picture of these systems in video games.
Another use of games is presented through the discussion of Antiwargame. This game serves not to explain how the system works, but how it does not work. It forces players to “make and enact decisions that might not otherwise seem logical or obvious.” (84) It makes connections between “political domains that are not explicitly construed as related.”(84) Through this we can see the underlying motivation for the political/military action. The example of “Election Simulators” use procedural rhetoric to present the claim that “elections are won by electioneering” (91) and that “public policy is irrelevant.” (92)
In Chapter 3, Bogost explains how “frames” or “contexts” can be used as “ways to repackage positions so that they carry more political currency.” (100) Videogames can serve as a medium for expressions of verbal metaphors in tangible/literal ways. The example of Tax Invaders is used to demonstrate this idea. The metaphor of taxation as theft is presented in the game’s opening text and players are encouraged to protect/save the USA. This idea is then presented in a literal form as players shoot down the tax hikes. The player is literally enacting language common in political situations. “As an example of procedural systems, the videogame is the only medium of mass appeal across many ages, demographics, and social and ethnic backgrounds that relies on conceptual frameworks- rule based interactions- as its core mode of signification.” (120)
In Chapter 4, he discusses how current uses of technology are missing the use of procedural rhetoric and that they would benefit greatly from its use. He states that “if policy issues are complex systems that recombine and interrelate with one another according to smaller rules of interaction, then videogames afford a new perspective on political issues, since they are especially effective at representing complex systems.” (143) He contends that videogames provide a medium that would appeal to a wide audience and would be useful as a tool to engage and inform voters regarding political issues. Through procedural rhetoric, voters are allowed a greater understanding of political systems and how the politician’s goals and ideals could work within that system.
By focusing on an understanding of the system and the factors that one must consider when making choices regarding political situations, voters are allowed to reflect on the choices they would make and the impact those choices would have on society. Of course, as a part of a political campaign, it can serve as a persuasive tool to sway a player toward a particular point of view.
Discussion Questions:
1. Would the use of political videogames in the ways Bogost promotes change the strategies used to win elections?
2. Would the focus shifting back to public policy and away from “electioneering,” thereby creating an informed voter population, change the structure of modern politics?
3. Would it allow the goals of the population to be more accurately represented by the elected politicians due to a more careful examination of political platforms?
No comments:
Post a Comment