Bogost

Most of the problem I have with Bogost’s chapter on political gaming is that it does not acknowledge that it itself operates within or is affected by ideology in a very material way and that the interrogation of political issues as procedural systems is as well. He acknowledges or seems to subscribe to the various interpretations of ideology that identify the ability of ideology to distort material practice in a totalizing way and yet offers the claim that by playing games and unpacking their claims about political rhetoric, “we can gain an unusually detached perspective on the ideologies that drive” the games (75). A very clear example of how ideology operates in the article is his unabashedly liberal interpretation of Hurricane Katrina, and his also left-leaning interpretations of laissez faire political philosophy and practice and “America’s Army: Operations.” His offhanded criticism of laissez faire politics, for example, I believe, would not be possible without the Rawlsian-esque liberal ideology that succeeded such things as the Potato Famine and laissez faire politics. In his interpretation of America’s Army (which again is suffused with left-wing interpretation) the ambiguous task of interpreting ideology manifests itself when Bogost acknowledges the two main possible interpretations of the lack of realistic deaths: that the game is aimed at teens and therefore kept the gore to a minimum for rating purposes or that the Army does not perceive battles to be macabre. This task of interpretation seems to be far from removed from the influence ideology and certainly not detached. Thus, I have several questions. One, is gaining perspective on political institutions and ideologies itself driven by a specific ideology? How is interrogating political issues as procedural systems affected by the same ideologies it seeks to interrogate? Is it possible to have a detached perspective on ideologies, especially? Considering these questions, what is the value of specific claims made by video games about interrelations between political processes? How can we most effectively interpret them?