It is interesting, really, just how
relevant a video game can be to a 50 year old reflection on our society and culture. One would think that Portal and One-Dimensional
Man are wholly unrelated, but when reading Marcuse it is hard not to see a
pattern which almost perfectly coincides with the story of Portal. It is this pattern
that leads me to think that Portal
is, in fact, able to “represent the contemporary world in the theatre;” there
is a truth, or a set of truths perhaps, represented here. Portal
as a whole can be seen as a metaphor for our world; the characters and their
interactions detail our culture and its interaction with individuals in a
manner similar to Marcuse’s ideas.
Before we can see the whole picture,
we must consider each piece and what it represents. Let’s start with the obvious: the world in
which Portal is set. The entire game takes place in Aperture
Science, a huge underground facility run by, GLaDOS, the quirky AI. Naturally, this represents the world,
specifically today’s world. If Aperture
is the world, then what does that say about GLaDOS, master of the entire
facility? She can be seen to represent Western
Culture, our culture, which is presently running the world in a way similar to
GLaDOS running Aperture Labs. The only
remaining piece is the player, Chell, the silent protagonist. Chell’s role is to be the vessel from which
you interpret the world. In other
worlds, she represents you, dear reader.
Not you in the sense of everyone that reads this, or every human, but
you as an individual. Her perception of
the world and her interactions with GLaDOS outline an individual’s perception
of the world and interaction with our culture in a way similar to Marcuse’s ideas,
albeit more elegant.
Not only do these pieces accurately
depict their real-world counterparts, but their interactions occur in much the
same way that Marcuse describes. In the
beginning, you wake up in this world; you don’t understand how you got here, you
don’t even understand where here is, but there is a ruling entity telling you
what’s what. For lack of any better
solution, you believe everything this entity says, but not without hesitation. This is the position Chell finds herself in
at the beginning of Portal, this is
the position you find yourself in as a child.
As Marcuse says, “Just as
people know or feel that advertisements and political platforms must not be
necessarily true or right, and yet hear and read them and even let themselves
be guided by them, so they accept the traditional values and make them part of
their mental equipment.” (Chapter 3) GLaDOS feeds you truths and lies, but
you don’t have sufficient information to come to your own conclusions. So you hesitantly accept her version of
reality as reality. This hesitation can
be seen as a realization of the distinction between reality and culture,
between the truth and what GLaDOS says.
In spite of this we let ourselves be guided by her words. Faced with insufficient information to develop
our own paradigm, we temporarily accept the first to present itself.
As
our lives continue we accumulate data, we learn. This data inevitably comes from two sources:
our own perception, and what others tell us.
As Portal’s story continues we
accumulate data from the same two sources: what we conclude, and what GLaDOS
tells us. This data can be, and
frequently is, contradictory. GLaDOS
tells us there is cake at the end, but we may see that the cake is a lie. Traditionally, Western culture tells us there
is heaven at the end, but we may see that this is a lie. These lies serve the same purpose: the
manipulation of individuals for some overarching goal, the proverbial carrot
that lures the horse. That goal, both in
Portal and in life, is to use the
individual as a worker. GLaDOS uses
Chell to her own ends, milking her for whatever she can provide, and providing
nothing but empty promises in return. “Society takes care of the need for liberation
by satisfying the needs which make servitude palatable and perhaps even
unnoticeable.” (Chapter 2) In
other words, a horse pulls a cart because of the promise of the carrot and the
threat of the stick. Chell solves
puzzles because of the promise of cake, and the threat of death. Our carrot is money, happiness, or eternal
life, and our stick is the threat of imprisonment, social ostracism, or even
death.
We
can see such striking similarities between GLaDOS and our society because each
has the same purpose: progress, and in order to actualize that purpose there
needs to be a workforce. As Marcuse
says, “The government of advanced and advancing industrial societies can
maintain and secure itself only when it succeeds in mobilizing, organizing, and
exploiting the technical, scientific, and mechanical productivity available to
industrial civilization. And this productivity mobilizes society as a whole,
above and beyond any particular individual or group interests.” (Chapter 1) Essentially Marcuse is saying that this type
of servitude is necessary to the existence of industrial governments, which in
turn are necessary to our culture.
Furthermore, GLaDOS needs various test subjects to continue her
scientific exploration.
Where
Portal differs from Marcuse (as far
as we’ve read), however, is that it takes these ideas one step further. At the end of the game, Chell is successful
in defeating GLaDOS. Metaphorically, a
person or group of people have successfully overthrown or removed our culture’s
influence. As that catchy song is
playing in the credits, we are left with a serious question: where does this
leave us? With GLaDOS gone there is no
more science being done; with our culture gone there is no more progress being made. Our toils no longer contribute to something
greater than ourselves; essentially, our lives lose a little bit of meaning. Is our freedom worth this price? Is our servitude worth this progress? As a whole, is humanity more than the sum of
its parts? Portal and One-Dimensional
Man both clearly reflect the nature of our lives, our culture, and the
relation between the two, but only Portal
seems to ask these questions. Marcuse
presents the truth, as well as his opinion.
Portal presents us with the
truth of our situation, of our lives, and asks us to make a conclusion. Just as we each needed to form an opinion
about GLaDOS, we need to form an opinion about her destruction. Interestingly, despite everything GLaDOS has
done, despite everything our culture has done, I still feel the overwhelming
need to contribute. GLaDOS’s song at the
end says it perfectly: “You just keep on
trying till you run out of cake. And the
science gets done. And you make a neat
gun. For the people who are still alive.”
1 comment:
1st paragraph: so Portal represents the world. But does it respond to it, or challenge it, engaging in what Marcuse calls "The Great Refusal"? The 2nd paragraph is reasonable but unspecific; in some ways, it seems like filler, though it might lead us in good directions.
Re: your third paragraph, which I liked a lot. At one point Marcuse argues that nobody (or at least most people) never fully ascent to official rhetoric - we mock or question those in power, whether in government or business. And yet their rhetoric works, because there is no "outside" to the system. We both believe and don't believe at the same time. This is a good insight into both Portal and Marcuse (and maybe into the rhetoric of video games in general).
The paragraph about the cake is pretty good too. I like the directions that you're taking, but I'd like you to make a more precise version of the argument through details of the game. It's harder to quote a game than it is to quote a text - believe me, I understand that - but if you revise, you would want to work with the script of the game and/or screenshots and/or short video clips. Ideally, I'd hope for you to be able to write both about the actual language of the game (written or spoken) as well as the gameplay.
The last two paragraphs remain good - and remain dangerously general, at least where Portal is concerned. While I'm not 100% sure, I think you are misreading the end of *Portal*, where we see another GLaDOS being taken off of a rack, basically, implying that GLaDOS, too, was part of a larger experiment. But regardless of which one of us is right about the ending, I think that *your* ending is both very smart and incomplete. Are you arguing that Portal is a satire of techno-scientific progress? Are you arguing that at some level you still by into progress at the end? Analyzing this reaction seems like potentially the real work of the essay - the heart of a revision, rather than an afterthought at the end of a draft.
Post a Comment