The Ideology of Obedience; Helplessness as Dogma.

Day 2,280, 11:13 • Published in United Kingdom United Kingdom • by Ayame Crocodile


Preface

Before we delve into this, I want you to know that I am just saying things as I see them, you may entirely disagree and I gladly encourage that if in doing so you convert your viewpoint into a constructive counter point and comment. Once you have read the final section you will see that this is exactly what, in my mind, needs to be fostered. This game is about narratives and in attempting to break into one I will undoubtedly do so by way of another.



The Ever Popular Narrative Front

Over time eRepublik has moved from an open world-esque game with player control over the rules of the game (through the way of admins guaranteeing player written agreements and legislation), into a very rigid and military based game with player control confined to a basic predefined selection of decisions. In short metagame with any possible consequences died and the ever shrinking mechanics since have meant there really is only one good way of gaming the mechanics as far as being an individual player, military unit or political party is concerned.

Because of this there is no debate any longer about how best to deal with the general day to day mechanics. There aren't two, or more, ways of doing things anymore (so long as the intention is to achieve the optimum result). This is fine when it's in regards to running an MU or making a profit. When it comes to politics the same can't be said, Politics relies on ideology and it's logical choices, without which there is no definition between parties or individuals in terms of policies. They would logically become vapid and irrelevant.

But ePoliticians are no fools! Ever ready to adapt in order to write themselves as a need for others they pounce upon the narrative. While we interpret all things by way of narrative or as a lens through which we see the world, the political narrative is designed to impose upon us an alternate narrative to our own and to filter our viewpoint through this ideological lens.

One part viewpoint, one part fiction, one part unrelated facts and four parts propaganda the political narrative provides that most important of needs in an environment devoid of real differences such as erepublik; to create definition, appeal and loyalty against a plethora of identical policies.

The ultimate aim of course is to sell a set of policies, individuals and an agenda as something neccesary, noble and indespensable.



The Filter Lens of Denial

For a narrative to fulfill it's purpose of promoting an agenda it must by neccessity do a few things.

Firstly it must be written in such a way as not to be entirely fabricated, if it is too obviously false then there is no chance of achieving believability and ultimately maximum penetration. In order to do this disparate facts must be woven together to create a cohesive storyline.

As a logical result of this need for reliability and cohesion the second need for a narrative is that facts which counter or contradict must be either spun or white washed. Weaknesses must be cast as great strengths and the basic agenda must be told as though it were a noble cause worthy of your input and loyalty.

Next the narrative needs to have loyal proponents that are willing to both sell it and to defend it's integrity. As the narratives strength is reliant upon it's believability, any contrasting alternate narratives or unwelcome contradictory facts must be shunned and denied as soon as they appear.

And finally it must spread to every corner, without dominance the narrative is vunerable to questioning and with that the entire agenda itself comes into question.

In short a narrative is a solidified viewpoint which seeks to frame dillemas so as to reach a precribed solution that at it's best extolls any deviation as untenable and alternatives as an impossibility.



The Dominant Narratives

Understanding the aims, uses and consequences of a political narrative is only a step towards unraveling one. It's far more important that we pick apart a narrative and see it's workings, how it affects us and what the underlying aims are.

As I stated in the preface this is my viewpoint and as such I can only faithfully examine the dominant narratives that I have encountered frequently and have an impact on myself. As such we'll examine the dominant narrative of the eUK and consequentially that of Sirius too, however this narrative most likely applies in many other areas of eRepublik as well.



I won't go into the narratives of individual parties, there are just too many and they bare little affect beyond our own party politics, but instead the dominant national narrative. Which with a huge change in our foreign policy has had some very clear and obvious changes that can be used to define elements of the narrative.

The overriding narrative lately has been one of having no choice, it's become somewhat of a mantra.

Following the break up of TWO, which is for all intents and purposes the starting point out of neccesity, it has been said that the UK was given no option in where to head next. The narrative of which reads something like this:

The UK is weak and the only way to be safe is to be part of an alliance, Two alliances were clearly being formed and given the Serbia disliked the eUK (as apparently evidenced by several Serbs supporting Canada in their invasion) we were forced into curtailing our soveriegnty to whatever alliance became of the Pro Poland camp. To not do so would mean imminent doom.

For this narrative to work we must filter out and white wash prior events. For instance it could easily be said that the eUK under pressure and campaigning from individuals showed contempt to Serbia by way of MPPing their nemesis, the USA, which led to Serbian mistrust. We must also ignore any events that led to the break up of TWO which was ultimately an engineered wedge driven between Poland and Serbia.

Even without these events the narrative is questionable, in that the proposed lack of choice isn't a logical and sad consequence of events beyond our national control but instead a failure of diplomacy in keeping friendly relations with our longest ally.

Some may say that was not possible and yet there are nations which are heading towards Sirius, and voting on joining right now, who still hold good relations with Serbia and guarantees of non aggression. Had our diplomats and foreign affairs experts not blindly pushed for a painful break up we would not be at such loggerheads and could've shared the same kind of cordial relationship.

Our ascension to an alliance built almost solely as an anti Serbia bloc was not the only way to achieve national safety. There are nations all around us and over the entire eworld that have remained safe, neutral and most importantly free to decide for themselves which nations are allies and which are not. At the same time we have tied our fate and our foreign affairs policies to that of Sirius.



Now that Sirius has finally released their first article we can see more clearly the narrative of the alliance, which follows the same line that was published on two days prior by Keers.

It goes something like this: Sirius has superior organization and unity, Every nation has a fair say and All past disagreements with enemy nations are wiped clean and other nations should see the founding of Sirius as a chance for a new start.

Be under no illusion that this is a noble declaration of intent, It is merely a marketing campaign designed to attract the much needed damage to be able to stand up against Asteria as part of a 'Damagehood'. 'Sirius has superior organization' is the spinning of this inferior damage as a strength of the alliance.

Unity is a lovely phrase but it means very little alongside the declaration that every nation has equal voting rights. They are not entirely contradictory, yet logically having an equal vote is designed to give each nation a chance to seek their own goals and champion their own interests. Unity is not born of an alliance formed of disparate nations all pulling in their own direction.

Lastly if you're part of a small nation in central or western europe don't expect any word of truth in the caring but ultimately empty claim of a new start. Nothing has truly changed, the new start applies only to nations that can help the large Sirius nations (rea😛 Poland, Spain and USA) to reclaim and maintain their bonuses.

If your nation needs to be occupied in order to achieve those much sought after 10/10s then it's business as usual for you.

The narrative here is just a selling point for the same old unity of obedience to the dominant alliance members bonuses and nothing more.

I don't doubt that these same aims can be attributed to other nations and alliances but the narratives are not fully the same. I myself prefer the ugly truth to a beautiful but empty lie.



Success for some, Consequences for all

A narrative seeks to sell an agenda and with it those who support and write it, to those few the narratives success leads to their own, however there are consequences beyond the agenda itself. The narrative has implied dogmas, ideas and beliefs that are believed to be irrefutable.

One of these dogmas implied through the logic of the dominant narrative that has a huge impact on the game is that of helplessness, it's especially highlighted when put in context of the constant discussions about making congress relevant rather than a rubberstamping institution.

For example the narrative goes that the UK has no choice but to follow the desires of Sirius when it comes to foreign affairs because without Sirius we would be helpless as a nation. In following this narrative though we have to believe that congress has no logical choice but to accept proposals handed down by the MoFA and CP in regards to foreign affairs.

This of course trickles down into our own individual choices, If congress has no input then we logically have no representation or more precisely no need for representatives according to the narrative as they only need follow the prescribed answer. Which in turn implies that our vote and opinions mean nothing when it comes to politics or indeed our national direction.

Alternative viewpoints are derided by way of the dominant narrative, the narrative is not ever allowed to be the thing in question but is instead used as the unstable starting point for all dismissals of contradicting beliefs. It is, to those who believe and peddle it, irrefutable truth and from it logically we must accept the answers and consequences it brings.

This irrefutable nature fosters a political environment of stagnation, propping up the status quo and removing any notion of resistance or alternatives. Political hegemony follows in it's wake of dominance and provides concentrated power at the expense of boredom for many.

Helplessness as Dogma removes any notion that an individual has a chance for their ideas and beliefs to have a transformative impact on the game or their eNation, because after all any alternative narrative is cast into false irrelevancy. We question the rising inactivity in the eWorld and blame only the admins, yet players and the Ideology of obedience to certain narratives has been just as damaging. We cannot expect any one to want to continue playing a game where their sole input is either as a soldier fullfilling their duties or as a buearocrat passing legislation on order.

Congress is a rubber stamp, precisely because the dominant narrative neccessitates it, likewise Presidents are just another rubber stamp merely one level above congress.



The Elephant in the room

Right then, time for something positive I'd say! Nothing is hopeless if you don't want it to be. In highlighting these narratives and explaining why and how they work, I've also pointed at it's foundations.

Absurdity is dispelled when the first person points at the elephant in the room. Narratives rely on their remaining unquestioned and the filtered and forgotten facts remaining that way.

There is no precise way to combat all narratives at all times, but the only thing that can counter a narrative is another more truthful and coherent one. Even better if there are multiple competing narratives rather than a single or just a few.

A return to varied narratives and open debate is needed if we're to regain any hope of fun or meaning within the political module (and indeed in our national direction). Don't think this means we need parties to take the role of vocally occupying the opposite ground, we don't, what we need is for more individuals to take it upon themselves to voice their opinions, to campaign for them and to ultimately believe that it is a worthwhile venture, which will be met with at least constructive debate rather than outright dismissal.

You can't expect empowerment through representation or others, You must empower yourself by using the means presented to you. There is a media module just waiting to be taken advantage of and to be bent to your will, use it.