IMPLICATED GAMING: CHOICE AND COMPLICITY IN LUDIC HOLOCAUST MEMORY

IF 1.1 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
TAMIKA GLOUFTSIS
{"title":"IMPLICATED GAMING: CHOICE AND COMPLICITY IN LUDIC HOLOCAUST MEMORY","authors":"TAMIKA GLOUFTSIS","doi":"10.1111/hith.12277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Holocaust memorial sites and institutions have begun to embrace new media and digital technologies as methods of communication, public engagement, and memorialization. Despite increasing numbers of interactive digital media projects focused on Holocaust education, there is a significant gulf between the topics addressed by digital Holocaust works and those conceptualized and studied at a higher level in scholarly Holocaust literature. Most notably, challenging questions regarding the categories of bystandership, complicity, and perpetration are largely ignored in favor of traditional victim-focused narratives. I suggest that, in their eagerness to adopt virtual reality (VR) and mixed reality (MR) technologies, digital Holocaust memory projects have neglected the significant potential of nonimmersive video games to address questions regarding bystandership and complicity. By moving away from the perceptual immersion of VR and toward the ludic and simulative arguments of video games, digitally interactive Holocaust projects may be able to lessen the risks of over-immersion and retraumatization that are antithetical to critical historical thinking and understanding. This article examines the 2013 game <i>Papers, Please</i> as an example of how video games can present sophisticated arguments about human agency, bystandership, and complicity. By placing players in a historical problem space laden with impossible moral choices, <i>Papers, Please</i> demonstrates the systemic forces that structure human behavior under extreme, violent, and authoritarian conditions. I argue that Holocaust-based ludic digital media modeled after <i>Papers, Please</i> could explore bystandership and complicity in similarly nuanced and powerful ways, potentially touching on academic Holocaust concepts such as the “choiceless choices” of “the gray zone.” Addressing these topics in ludic historical media could help to bridge the gap between popular and scholarly understandings of the Holocaust in the twenty-first century.</p>","PeriodicalId":47473,"journal":{"name":"History and Theory","volume":"61 4","pages":"134-151"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hith.12277","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History and Theory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hith.12277","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Holocaust memorial sites and institutions have begun to embrace new media and digital technologies as methods of communication, public engagement, and memorialization. Despite increasing numbers of interactive digital media projects focused on Holocaust education, there is a significant gulf between the topics addressed by digital Holocaust works and those conceptualized and studied at a higher level in scholarly Holocaust literature. Most notably, challenging questions regarding the categories of bystandership, complicity, and perpetration are largely ignored in favor of traditional victim-focused narratives. I suggest that, in their eagerness to adopt virtual reality (VR) and mixed reality (MR) technologies, digital Holocaust memory projects have neglected the significant potential of nonimmersive video games to address questions regarding bystandership and complicity. By moving away from the perceptual immersion of VR and toward the ludic and simulative arguments of video games, digitally interactive Holocaust projects may be able to lessen the risks of over-immersion and retraumatization that are antithetical to critical historical thinking and understanding. This article examines the 2013 game Papers, Please as an example of how video games can present sophisticated arguments about human agency, bystandership, and complicity. By placing players in a historical problem space laden with impossible moral choices, Papers, Please demonstrates the systemic forces that structure human behavior under extreme, violent, and authoritarian conditions. I argue that Holocaust-based ludic digital media modeled after Papers, Please could explore bystandership and complicity in similarly nuanced and powerful ways, potentially touching on academic Holocaust concepts such as the “choiceless choices” of “the gray zone.” Addressing these topics in ludic historical media could help to bridge the gap between popular and scholarly understandings of the Holocaust in the twenty-first century.

隐含游戏:大屠杀记忆中的选择和同谋
大屠杀纪念馆和机构已经开始采用新媒体和数字技术作为交流、公众参与和纪念的方法。尽管以大屠杀教育为重点的互动数字媒体项目越来越多,但数字大屠杀作品所涉及的主题与大屠杀学术文献中概念化和更高层次研究的主题之间存在着巨大差距。最值得注意的是,关于旁观者、同谋和犯罪者类别的具有挑战性的问题在很大程度上被忽视,而倾向于传统的以受害者为中心的叙述。我认为,在他们急于采用虚拟现实(VR)和混合现实(MR)技术的过程中,数字大屠杀记忆项目忽视了非沉浸式电子游戏解决旁观者和同谋问题的巨大潜力。通过从VR的感性沉浸转向电子游戏的滑稽和模拟,数字互动大屠杀项目可能能够减少过度沉浸和再创伤的风险,这与批判性的历史思考和理解是对立的。本文将以2013年的游戏《Papers, Please》为例,阐述电子游戏如何呈现关于人类代理、旁观者和共谋的复杂争论。通过将玩家置于充满不可能的道德选择的历史问题空间中,《Papers, Please》展示了在极端、暴力和专制条件下构建人类行为的系统力量。我认为,以《Papers, Please》为模型的以大屠杀为基础的滑稽数字媒体,可以以同样微妙而有力的方式探索旁观者和同谋,可能触及学术上的大屠杀概念,如“灰色地带”的“别无选择的选择”。在有趣的历史媒体中讨论这些问题有助于弥合21世纪大众和学术对大屠杀的理解之间的差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
History and Theory
History and Theory Multiple-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
9.10%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: History and Theory leads the way in exploring the nature of history. Prominent international thinkers contribute their reflections in the following areas: critical philosophy of history, speculative philosophy of history, historiography, history of historiography, historical methodology, critical theory, and time and culture. Related disciplines are also covered within the journal, including interactions between history and the natural and social sciences, the humanities, and psychology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信