Unsettling the Military Entertainment Complex

I like this article. It talks about how video games can actually be propaganistic tools of the powerful, in order to elicit ideological consent in order to legitimize their actions in the real world.

Video games and war: Discussing propaganda and pedagogy

While I use video games in general to introduce students to a spectrum of concepts and issues, from minstrelsy and cultural appropriation to patriarchy and ideological production, the most effective pedagogical introduction to the militarization of American society has come through discussion of war games. Given the historical moment of 2002-2004-when war was at the center of the national consciousness and where support for foreign policy merged with entertainment in a number of media-it seems prudent to provide tools toward understanding the images, ideology, and meaning of video war games. In the classroom, it is especially apparent how powerful these games can be in promoting an ethos of militarization. I use class time to allow some students to play these games, and I make other students critically analyze what happens to their peers as they play the games. As students scream at their enemies and shout racially tinged epithets that serve to perpetuate ugly stereotypes-and as all things military are adored, glorified, and revered-the classroom becomes a fishbowl where one can see how racial, gender, and national identities are created and reinforced against a backdrop of Manichean violence and Social Darwinism. [12]
Paralleling the shift in American foreign policy from containment and reaction to pre-emptive war, the video game industry has shown its patriotic support with the release of numerous war games. While commentators cite a post-September 11th climate as the basis of widespread support for the U.S. military, it is important to underscore the many ways in which the state garners support for the military. In discussing video games or the role of the military in contemporary American society, students can be led to think about the ideological implications of patriotic support. Whether talking about national holidays or military hardware on display during the Super Bowl, the classroom can be a forum for conversations about the interconnections among foreign policy, popular culture, and patriotism. Video war games reflect a powerful medium to explore the ways in which images elicit consent for the U.S. military. [13]
Games such as Desert Storm and America's Army allow their players not only to become soldiers from the safety of their own homes, but also provide exposure to the technological marvels of the U.S. military. Players pilot a Huey helicopter in Desert Storm or use an Uzi in America's Army. In effect, these games are venues for displaying the technological marvels of military hardware. But we also come away from these games with the sense that our tax dollars have been used productively and wisely to buy the technologically sophisticated military hardware on display-hardware that we, moreover, have been allowed to use. For all intents and purposes, Desert Storm and America's Army exist as virtual advertisements for the present and future glory of the U.S. Armed Forces. [14]
One of the most popular war games is Operation Desert Storm, a game that retells the story of the Gulf War. You are John Conyers, a Rambo-type white infantryman and lone wolf beset with the task of winning the war on your own. As the game progresses, three other soldiers join you (two white and one black); all four players form a small unit that battles the entire Iraqi army. This game allows players to feel as if they were "defending the country" and enables them "to get out frustrations" (Napoli, 2003). The power in this game is not solely in the ability of its players to occupy and conquer foreign lands, in the ability to transpose one's real fears into historically-based combat, or in the virtual ability "to cause mass carnage on a grand scale . . . through a carpet bombing" (Stallabras, 1993). Rather, it lies in the promotion of war as a legitimate industry whose product is national safety and security. In addition to being fun, war is also portrayed as being safe. In Conflict Desert Storm, death is presented as bloodless: you are able to heal yourself and others from virtually any wound. Moreover, the killing of Iraqi soldiers generates very little blood. While others may commend the game for its child-friendly images and the lack of graphic detail, the bloodlessness contributes to an increasing acceptance of war. Within this virtual world, you have the potential to die and kill others without having to face the graphic realities of war. [15]

Stereotypes and war

Racial stereotypes are an intrinsic part of video war games. Whether examining first-person shooters, urban-centered games, or sports games, stereotypical ideas about race abound. War games such as Desert Storm, America's Army, and Splinter Cell portray Arab-Americans as savages, uncivilized warriors, and terrorists. In a very real way, war games construct racialized meaning, thereby providing ideological sanction for America's War on Terror and its aggression in the Middle East. Accordingly, they can serve, in the classroom, as the basis for conversations about the haunting presence of stereotypes in American society. I begin class by listing a series of racial, national or gendered categories, asking students to write down the sources or bases of such stereotypes. I then have students play a series of war games, ask them to list and describe any stereotypes that may be present, and then link these stereotypes to larger ideological projects such as U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and imperialism, broadly conceived. Not only does this lead to a discussion of why many of them enjoy killing Arabs in the virtual war game world, it also allows students to understand how stereotypical portrayals of national and ethnic groups were instrumental in their decision to support specific governmental policies or actions. Video war games force students to connect ideologies and institutions, images and material reality. Although war may seem harmless on the computer screen, this very harmlessness ironically elicits consent for U.S. foreign policy. [16]
Another central component of the war genre of video games is their presentation of civilians. Civilians are almost completely absent from these games, and only opposing soldiers can be killed by video game players. In general, Conflict Desert Storm portrays Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia as countries without people. In this way, the allied war effort is shown not to hurt civilians. American foreign policy is thus portrayed as benign. As part of a pedagogy of peace, I pair these games with more critical glimpses at war, such as documentaries and articles that elucidate the social, cultural, familial, and personal impact of war. Games represent a powerful pedagogical tool in which students can be brought to think about their own imagination of war, its effects around the globe, and the effects of those views on their support for U.S. foreign policy. [17]
As Americans blame Saddam Hussain for 9-11 and forget the legacies of Vietnam, war becomes more and more viable and desirable as a means to conflict resolution. As either decontextualized virtual warfare or propaganda that paint the United States as a savior without blemishes, video games contribute to a historical myopia legitimizing colonial endeavors. Conflict Desert Storm is an attempt to rewrite history in very specific ways. For example, despite the fact that militaries from around the world, including many from Arab nations, participated in the Gulf War, the game chronicles the war as if it was a battle between American/British forces and Iraqi soldiers. The only choice for players is either to become a member the U.S. or British military. No Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or Turkey! Call to Duty and Medal of Honor, both of which allow players to return to World War II, also fall into a similar trap of erasure. In these two games, black soldiers are completely missing. Selective memory of this kind reinforces hegemonic ideas about western dominance, emphasizing white/western/non-Arab participation. White people are presented as praiseworthy fighters and heroes; blacks are simply missing in action. I like to compare these video war games with pictures and statistical tables that show all-black regiments in World War II and integrated Marine units of today. Again, the classroom becomes a powerful corrective space that inspires critical thought about virtual propaganda. [18]

Transformative knowledge and virtual reality: Teaching to transgress

Through their presentation of Arabs as uncivilized savages and terrorists, their glorification of the military, and their downplaying of the physical, environmental, and economic harm of war, video war games elicit consent for U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Antonio Gramsci's ideas are useful here. Gramsci argued that, as ruling groups attempt to consolidate power, "they must elaborate and maintain a popular system of ideas and practices, which he called 'common sense,'" ultimately garnering consent for their rule (Omi & Winant, 1994, p. 67). Video war games, in disseminating an image of war as bloodless play, consolidate an ethos of militarization under the guise of the "common sense" notion that American safety and security is of paramount importance. [19]
In Fugitive Cultures: Race, Violence, and Youth, Henry Giroux (1996) argues that, in a discourse of critical pedagogy, "images do not dissolve reality into another text: on the contrary, representations become central to revealing the structures of power at work in schools, in society, and in the larger global order" (p. 53). The power of popular culture-in this case, video war games-resides in its dominance of representation and its regulation of meanings. Our pedagogy therefore has to clarify these underlying relationships and hidden agendas. As virtual culture becomes a central source of information about the world for students, it is more important than ever that they clearly grasp the ways in which video war games construct images of race, nationality, and military prowess. As Turse (2003) observes, "We need to start analyzing the efforts of blurring the lines between war and entertainment. With more and more 'toys' that double as combat teaching tools, we are subjecting youth to a new powerful form of propaganda! This is less a matter of simple military indoctrination than near immersion in a virtual world of war where armed conflict is not the last, but the first - and indeed the only - resort. The new military-entertainment complex's games may help to produce great battlefield decision-makers, but they strike from debate the most crucial decisions young people can make in regard to the morality of a war - choosing whether or not to fight and for what cause." [20]
Cultural critics are not alone in noting the psychological and cultural impact of war games. Lieutenant Colonel David Grossman, a former Army psychologist, spoke of the way in which he used games to teach military personnel how to kill without hesitation, remorse, or fear. Because "blood, gore and emotions" are erased from such games, soldiers view life as a game and can thus be convinced to kill more readily. "We are teaching children to associate pleasure with human death and suffering. We are rewarding them for killing people. And we are teaching them to like it" (20/20, March 20, 2000). The development and utilization of video war games by the U.S. military is a testament to the pedagogical implications of war games. As games teach soldiers to kill and citizens to support murder without remorse, concerned educators must find ways to offer counter-arguments to a prevailing ethos of American hegemony, the militarization of everyday life, and the all-pervasive rhetoric of warfare. A pedagogy of peace that deconstructs the ideologies behind the images of video war games is one place to begin to find necessary counter-arguments. [21]

The entire article can be accessed at :

http://www.utpjournals.com/jour.ihtml?lp=simile/issue16/leonardfulltext.html