Category Archives: Society

Aside

Though floods are considered natural disasters, most of the damage they cause is related to human activity. Like earthquakes, floods rarely posed many risks to people before human civilization developed. This makes them an excellent indicator of large-scale social problems- … Continue reading

Aside

author’s note: this was the first question on my midterm for History of Socialism & Communism.  I think it answered the question, but may not be a suitable introduction to Marx’s thought for its length. Explaining the philosophy of Karl … Continue reading

Aside

It’s easy to claim that the economic crisis did a better job deconstructing the ideology of privatization than the work of any economist. After all, we saw the damage done, we understand that regulation is necessary, that markets can’t always … Continue reading

Resurgent Hegemony

Near-future video games and the construction of ideology

Author’s note: I was inspired to write this after a conversation with a few friends of mine in which they discussed Blackwater and other PMCs in an identical manner to the video game Army of Two. I also feel that critical theory needs to be applied to video games, as they are just as much a part of our culture as films and TV shows.

Disclaimer: I love shooters too.

In the third-person shooter Army of Two, two mercenaries working for a private military company uncover and stop a plot by their company to privatize and take over the US military. After this, what do they decide to do? They found their own PMC. The game manages to point out the dangers of mercenary armies while simultaneously glamorizing them, an example of what Robert Pfaller calls “interpassivity.” The game performs the player’s outrage at the crimes of mercenary work for them, allowing the player to continue participating without any critical engagement. Though games like these are lauded as morally complex and realistic, they still gloss over the structural problems surrounding privatization and military contractors.

Perhaps no person has done as much for the military-industrial complex as Tom Clancy. The popularization of high-tech military strategy and tactics owes a great debt to the prolific author. His work typically features a small team of highly experienced specialists applying a technocratic solution to a military problem- an unsurprisingly great recipe for a shooter. Consequently, over 40 video games have been based on his work or carry his name in some form. In particular, the Rainbow Six series of games has laid the groundwork for incredibly popular games such as Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, which feature small squads fighting in decisive parts of huge conflicts.

Invariably, the challengers to western liberal democracy in these games are linked in some way with the past and have scarcely plausible motivations. Modern Warfare 2 has “ultranationalists” seizing control of Russia and invading the West through a campaign of both conventional warfare and terrorism. Their motivations are neither clearly explained nor believable, but I’m not sure this is merely the result of bad writing. It captures Mark Fisher’s “‘capitalist realism’: the widespread sense that not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now impossible even to imagine a coherent alternative to it.” When we have reached, as Francis Fukuyama famously proclaimed, the “end of history,” how could a challenger to it be anything but implausible?

Needless to say, the defeat of these foes has nothing to do with ordinary people (other than that their Security And Freedom Are Completely Assured) and completely marginalizes countries in the periphery (which do nothing but produce terrorists, it seems). Though it’s ostensibly some neologism for NATO (or NATO itself) that Fights The Good Fight against Those Dastardly Foes, it’s plain that the US is running the show. Despite the claims of video game magazines that these near-future games are morally challenging, their overall plots lack any sort of the critical engagement that is a necessary condition for truly examining war and society.

As America’s empire has declined, these games, depicting America reclaiming its rightful place as protector through war, have drastically risen in popularity. Of course, semi-nationalist video games depicting a heroic America have been around for decades, but games like Modern Warfare 2 and Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon are of a different breed. As video games have become more advanced in the last decade, they have become less self-aware. Older video games, if for no other reason than graphical limitations, were far more cognizant of the limits of their medium. With contemporary games, lots of the buzz surrounding them focuses on their gritty realism- they are more direct in reinforcing ideology because they are perceived to be more in step with the real world. These video games create an insidious form of praxis by making the player an active participant; a dialectic between the game’s ideology and the player’s actions ensues. When paired with hegemonic ideology, the results, though not yet fully realized, are undoubtedly startling.

A rather long-winded response

A response to a question I received on Tumblr, which was “Isn’t there an argument that advertising is a higher form of art?”

This is a very interesting question! In order to answer it properly, I have to draw on my background as a former art student and my current interest in philosophy and political economy. Having taken three semesters of art history but no formal aesthetics or media studies classes, I must piece together an answer from my basic familiarity with contemporary art and understanding of postmodernism and critical theory. Let me say from the outset that both “high” and “low” art have a lot to tell us about society. Continue reading

Deconstructing Neoliberalism, part I

note: This is the first in a series of posts, the idea for which I mentioned here. I am certain Sach’s arguments have been addressed by writers and thinkers far better than myself. However, I am writing this to deepen my own understanding of ideas to which I am relatively new. I hope it will also allow me to more readily address the points of mainstream economists.

The book jacket gives us the first indication of Sachs’ direction, and a very clear picture of the framework he’s using.

“Ultimately, The End of Poverty leaves readers with an understanding, not just of how grave the problem of poverty is but how solvable it is- and why making the necessary effort is a matter of both moral obligation and strategic self-interest of the rich countries.”

Sachs here is trying to sell his agenda to both the humanists and the capitalists alike, and judging by his stature and influence, he has been incredibly successful. He has received accolades for his pragmatism, though his desire to reconcile capitalist imperatives with moral ones smacks of utopian idealism. Žižek noted the hypocrisy of the modern capitalists: they accuse communists of being too utopian, while their ideals- universal healthcare, voting rights, decent living standards (all within a capitalist system of accumulation)- are every bit as utopian as those of Marx and Engels. Sachs’ focus, however, is on the “strategic self-interest,” of rich countries, indicating the plans he has for them.

Continue reading

Aside

The pitfall of many amateur historians is to try and identify a “golden age” in the past, one that has supposedly universal or simply superior values and qualities to the present. To recognize the folly of this inquiry is merely … Continue reading