Military videogames and the future of ideological warfare
| Published date | 01 August 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1369148117704173 |
| Date | 01 August 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148117704173
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
2017, Vol. 19(3) 609 –626
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1369148117704173
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
Military videogames and the
future of ideological warfare
Marcus Schulzke
Abstract
Military videogames play an important role in violent actors’ communication strategies, and
while scholars have attempted to theorize their significance, too much attention is devoted to
characterizing games as ideological distortions that must be unmasked to reveal a more authentic
view of war. I offer an alternative perspective on these videogames and their political importance.
Relying on a conception of ideology as an inescapable constitutive part of politics, rather than
ideology as a form of deception, I highlight three salient characteristics of military videogames.
First, regardless of what strategic interests they are designed to advance, videogames’ meanings
are open to contestation and reconfiguration, making games a site of conflict in themselves.
Second, videogames grant insight into violent actors’ goals and self-conceptions. Third, because
videogames are designed as closed systems built from mutually reinforcing ontological and
epistemological assumptions, they introduce opportunities for normative critique based on
testing ideological coherence.
Keywords
culture, ideology, media, security, videogames, war
Introduction
‘Much of politics involves battles over how a campaign, a problem, or an issue should be
understood’ (Druckman, 2001: 235), which makes control over the media that are used to
shape understandings of issues and events a central political consideration. From politi-
cians reaching out to voters (Schulzke, 2012), to state military forces attempting to attract
recruits (Allen, 2011; Salter, 2011), to non-state actors challenging the narratives propa-
gated in mainstream media outlets (Galloway, 2004; Schulzke, 2014; Šisler, 2008, 2009),
videogames play an important role in efforts to construct issues in domestic and interna-
tional politics. They
have been invoked by presidents to justify foreign policy decisions, by social psychologists
and media watchdog groups to explain increases in youth violence, by senators to revivify
Department of Politics, Derwent College, University of York, York, UK
Corresponding author:
Marcus Schulzke, Department of Politics, Derwent College, University of York, D/N/134, York YO10 5DD,
UK.
Email: Marcus.Schulzke@York.ac.uk
704173BPI0010.1177/1369148117704173The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsSchulzke
research-article2017
Article
610 The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 19(3)
questions of censorship, and by the armed forces to recruit and train soldiers. (Ruggill and
McAllister, 2011: 3–4)
Videogames are particularly important when they simulate real conflicts or fictional con-
flicts involving real actors that engage in political violence, such as state military forces
and insurgent groups. Such games comment on some of the most important processes in
international politics, conveying information about what war is like, providing opportuni-
ties for violent actors to communicate with audiences, and creating new possibilities for
peace activism.
Military videogames have attracted considerable attention from scholars in politics
and international relations (Ciută, 2016; Delwiche, 2007; Mantello, 2012; Power, 2007;
Robinson, 2012b; Salter, 2011; Schulzke, 2013, 2014; Valeriano and Habel, 2016). This
literature struggles to come to terms with a new form of political communication, and in
particular, the challenge of understanding what makes videogames a unique medium
when it comes to representing conflicts. Many studies of military videogames attempt to
demonstrate that games are responsible for some type of ideological manipulation, such
as promoting military service, legitimizing war, and trivializing violence (Delwiche,
2007; Mantello, 2012; Power, 2007; Robinson, 2012b). From this perspective, video-
games appear to be a particularly potent form of propaganda that grants violent organiza-
tions greater power over audiences than they would have when using film, television, or
print media. Even when studies discuss anti-war games or those presenting non-Western
perspectives, they tend to retain this framing by describing these games as alternatives to
those laden with propaganda (Galloway, 2004; Robinson, 2012b: 516–519; Šisler, 2009).
Some research has likewise explored more critical games or efforts that players make to
subvert ideological messages, although generally while characterizing opposition as
being directed at exposing the truth behind deception (Galloway, 2004; Robinson, 2012b:
513–516, 2016).
Although previous studies of military videogames yield important findings, I contend
that they are too heavily focused on demonstrating that the ideologies embedded in games
are incorrect or harmful. This is particularly true when it comes to videogames produced
by real violent actors (such as state military forces or insurgent groups), which are my
focus in this article. These games show an intersection between violent coercive power
and the ideological weaponry, making them important from a political standpoint. I argue
that the political salience of military videogames can be best appreciated by taking a more
nuanced perspective on how games express ideology. Military videogames are not merely
repositories of dominant ideologies, nor are anti-war games and players’ resistance activi-
ties accurate characterizations of war as it really is. Rather, military videogames are
complex texts that are best analyzed with attention to the diverse understandings of war
they reveal, especially the insight they offer into violent organizations’ values and media
strategies. To demonstrate this insight, I draw heavily on theories of ideology as ‘imagi-
native maps’ that are ubiquitous, inescapable, and essential for orienting political action
(Freeden, 1996, 2006) to explore three interrelated characteristics of military videogames
that highlight different dimensions of their political significance.
First, military videogames are dynamic and amenable to contestation and reconfigura-
tion. Games vary considerably in the extent to which they are linear or open-ended, with
the latter being more malleable, yet because videogames are necessarily interactive, they
always presuppose some degree of player freedom. Although videogames may seem to be
the ideal tool for elites to spread their ideas, they challenge the top-down model of
To continue reading
Request your trial