Videogames, Persuasion and the War on Terror: Escaping or Embedding the Military—Entertainment Complex?
| Date | 01 October 2012 |
| Published date | 01 October 2012 |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00923.x |
| Author | Nick Robinson |
| Subject Matter | Original Article |
Videogames, Persuasion and the War on Terror:
Escaping or Embedding the
Military–Entertainment Complex?post_923 504..522
Nick Robinson
University of Leeds
This article presents a call for political scientists to look seriously at videogames. Beginning with a demonstration of
their growing importance, the article then sets out the existing game-related literature which demonstrates their
persuasive potential. The importance of games for political studies is illustrated through an in-depth discussion of the
link between videogames and the militarisation of politics and society: exploration of the role of the military–
entertainment complex, felt in particular through the militarisation of the content of games,suggests that this complex
is influencing the militarisation of society.Finally, the article explores some of the ways in which such militarisation
is being challenged through the use of games for political activism, centred on protests within game spaces and the
development of ‘critical’ games.While the ar ticle as a whole concludes that the forces that serve to legitimate the
military–entertainment complex are considerably greater than those which challenge it, and that the potential of games
for activism is at present relatively limited, this does not mean that they are not worthy of study. Games retain
considerable scope for both learning (with games offering vital potential to embed real social critique in players) and
as potential sources for political activism, which is only likely to grow in the future.
Keywords: videogames; military–entertainment complex; power; activism; video games
Video games have the power to make arguments,to persuade, to express ideas.But they do not
do so inevitably. As we evolve our relationship with video games, one of the most important
steps we can take is to learn to play them critically, to suss out the meaning they carry, both
on and under the surface. ...We need to play video games in order to understand the possibility
spaces their rules create, and then to explore those possibility spaces and accept, challenge,or
reject them in our daily lives (Bogost, 2008, p. 137).
This article argues that Ian Bogost’s call for videogames to be treated seriously is vital.1
According to Bogost, games matter because they are uniquely persuasive, allowing the
player an almost unprecedented capacity to explore and question the rules that underpin
politics and society as a whole; yet they have hitherto been largely ignored by political
scientists (the honourable exception to this is the work from within international relations
and critical security studies on the chang ing nature of war – in particular on net-centric war
and war as simulation – some of which specifically relates to videogames;see, for example,
Baudrillard, 1995; Der Derian, 1998; 2009; Gray, 2005;Virilio and Lotringer, 1997). Such
neglect is curious, given both that the global videogame industry is the world’s fastest-
growing entertainment industry, with combined hardware and software sales of $7 billion
in 1994, rising to $42 billion in 2007 and projected to grow to $87 billion by 2012
(Markoff, 1994; PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2008; 2010), and that games have increasingly
been demonised by media and social commentators and the political establishment as the
embodiment of deteriorating public health and declining social and cultural standards.2
bs_bs_banner
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00923.x
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2012 VOL 60, 504–522
© 2012The Author.Political Studies © 2012 Political Studies Association
Gaming is an industry whose scale and cultural reach, and the implications thereof, we
cannot continue to ignore.
Indeed, accompanying this growth in videogames as a social, economic and cultural
phenomenon has been the growth of games-related academic scholarship from a variety of
disciplines, raising genuinely interesting issues for political science. This evolving literature
has led to a lively debate over the ‘disciplinary home’ for videogame studies, with some
calling for continued disciplinary plurality (e.g.Wolf and Perron, 2003), while others have
called for game studies to develop as a specific discipline (e.g.Aarseth, 2001; see Bogost,
2006b, pp. 49–54 for a critique). However, political science has not yet systematically
engaged with videogames; if this continues, the scope for the discipline to make a lasting
contribution may well be constrained, as the study of games becomes dominated by a
narrow sub-field which shapes the perception both of what issues we should study and of
how we should study them. In order to demonstrate the importance of the study of
videogames for political science,the ar ticle specifically analyses the link between games and
the militarisation of politics and society.
The article begins with a brief review of the theory developed as to the persuasive
potential of games. Bogost’s work is particularly important here, with its claim that the
interactive nature of games allows them to use processes (procedural rules) that can be used
to make arguments about the nature of social and political life, and so challenge the
preconceptions of the player.While not all games do this, those which do so include rules
that can either restrict or enable behaviour,so allowing for the exploration of the rules that
underpin society as a whole and enabling games to be instrumental to social critique and
reflective learning. The persuasive potential of games does not,however,always necessitate
social critique; the article argues that games can also be used to reaffirm dominant positions.
The discussion then shows the ways in which games have been important in embedding
support for militarisation through the operation of the so-called ‘military–entertainment
complex’, which has seen close collaboration between the militar y and videogames indus-
try, the widespread development of military games and the spread of the military into the
production of commercial games.While the major ity of military games are produced by
Western developers for consumption by a Western audience, there are also a number of
military games produced by Middle Eastern developers which look at conflict from a
non-Western perspective. I argue that persuasion works through all these games to encour-
age players to support militarisation, both tacitly and explicitly.
Analysis of the ‘military–entertainment complex’ has largely focused on mainstream,
Western-produced videogames. In contrast,the final section of the article demonstrates the
ways in which games are also being used to challenge the Western-led militarisation of
society. Reflecting on the role of games as both sites and forms of protest, it discusses the
impact of activism within game spaces, subversion of games for protest (‘mods’) and the
production of games, particularly within the Middle East, which offer an alternative
perspective, albeit one which, in drawing on the format of military games, may reinforce
persuasion in favour of indigenous militarisation. Taken together, the persuasive effects of
these alternative game spaces work to encourage players to challenge the Western-led
military–entertainment complex.While the use of the power of games to persuade has thus
far been limited, for a number of reasons discussed here, the article concludes that the
VIDEOGAMES, PERSUASION AND WAR 505
© 2012The Author.Political Studies © 2012 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2012, 60(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial