The Merits of Mad Men?

While the snow may have canceled our class discussion today I still find myself thinking about incorporating play into the teaching of history. Last week we focused on video games, a subject which I have little connection to but the discussion got me thinking once more about this mystical middle ground where the user is provided enough enjoyment to want to participate while the creators still get to include enough content to make an activity educational. It is becoming increasingly apparent to me that this is a very fine line indeed and it is easy to stray to either side of it, risking either player boredom or historic irrelevance. The idea that it is very easy for the historical context of a game to simply become the wallpaper to more immediate issues of epic quests and bloody battles is a frightening reality that I believe many of us have not wanted to admit to ourselves. Or at least, that I did not want to admit to myself. Moving historic play beyond my Aztecs vs. Spaniards chess set seems a much more challenging goal than I had initially thought.

Though it isn't strictly related to play but rather broader concepts of leisure and entertainment, I think the incorporation of TV shows and film in education bring up many similar issues. What got me thinking about this was a recent article that discussed the creation of a new course at Northwestern University entitled Consumerism and Social Change in Mad Men America, 1960 - 1965. As a part of the course syllabus, students are required to watch the first season of HBO's hit TV series Mad Men. For those who are unfamiliar with the show, it centres around the professional and private life of Donald Draper, a New York City ad man working on Wall Street in the early 60s. The show quite cleverly uses this story to depict how regular people experienced the cultural shift of the early 60s, addressing topics such as gender inequality, consumerism, civil rights and national politics with often gritty realism. I am obviously a fan of the show and therefore not the most neutral person to decide the show's educational merit but I was intrigued at its inclusion on an academic syllabus.

Here is a promo for those of you unfamiliar with the show:


First off, I think it is brilliant marketing. It seems very possible that Northwestern could already have had a course on social change in the 60s but I imagine that the inclusion of the name of the hit TV show in the title would have perked considerable interest. According to the article, there are sixteen students in the class but I wonder if this has more to do with Northwestern being a smaller school rather than an indicator of a lack of interest. Of course I cannot be sure of this. Schools that wonder why certain classes have low enrollment numbers should possibly consider refreshing course titles. Yes, Canada from Confederation to the First World War will continue to bring in Canadian historians but such a drab title gives little indication of the engaging topics such a course might explore.Anyways, I rant.

Moving on, I certainly would argue that including a thoughtful and well-researched TV show provides students with a certain entertainment factor but it also would allow them to think critically about the media they consume. The show is only a part of the syllabus and through other readings and class discussions students would have a far better concept of how the show fits into the larger historic context of that period. What historic events does the show emphasize? What does it brush over? One criticism course creator and assistant professor Michael Allen has of the show is that it doesn't fully address the complexities of race. As of season three, the only recurring non-white characters on the show are the nanny, Carla and the elevator operator at the ad agency. Such an exclusion is perhaps reflective of the period from the perspectives of the show's main characters and could serve as a point for discussion of racial divides and perceptions of the other during that period.

While I definitely see the value of incorporating and dissecting intelligent programs such as Mad Men in an academic setting, I have hesitations about their value outside of such a setting. Without being trained and encouraged to think critically about TV series such as Mad Men, the show's historic content could easily be lost as mere wallpaper to the sex and character dynamics that are a huge part of the show's appeal. That being said, I believe students who take courses like Allen's are far better prepared to critique the popular media and its version of history. This is a practical skill that I believe many professors, focused narrowly on the academic realm, dismiss, but for the majority of undergrads who will not go on to academia, the ability to think critically about historic content in entertainment is truly valuable.

Perhaps I am trying too hard to justify my interest in this TV show, but I can't help but feeling that there is some value to incorporating popular entertainment into an academic setting. Who knows? Perhaps classes in the future will play our contemporary video games such as civilizations in order to dissect our understandings of the past. We engage in leisure and play for the fundamental reason that it is enjoyable. As I have made clear in past posts, I believe that tapping into elements of popular culture's resonance has the potential to engage members of the public in the study of history in a meaningful way but that this must be done conscientiously and remain grounded in education.

"Sally has died from dysentry"

My parents were against video games. Fortunately neither my brother nor I were all too interested in them either but reading the articles for this week's class on the subject of game-centred play and my classmates blog posts, I am impressed with how much of an impact these games have had.

I don't know how the one cd-rom game that my brother and I did play got past my parent's guard, but it certainly more closely resembled an acid trip than a history lesson. Created by New York artist Rodney Greenblat in 1992, players in the game have to fight the evil Mediogre, CEO of BLANDO corporation, a company hell bent on turning children everywhere into brainwashed zombies (okay so maybe I can see where my leftist parents were going with this...). The "good guys included Titan Rose, "a super-strong weight-lifting hulk who loves to read and write beautiful poetry", a slam-dancing bungee-jumping incontinent sheep named Stinkabod Lamé, a four-armed, scottish-accented techno whiz named Yendor Talbneerg, and their leader, the exiled princess Anne Dilly Whim who has horns growing out of your head. Just to prove that I couldn't make up this kind of weirdness here is a clip of one especially absurd part of the game. Don't say you weren't warned:
...Yup, that was my childhood folks. I don't think you could get any further away from historical content if you tried.

Anyways, over at my more normal friends' houses they were playing a game with significantly more historic content. And I bet you can guess which one. Oh yes folks, I am referring to perhaps the first historic video game ever (Professor MacDougall?), The Oregon Trail. I hadn't realized it but apparently the game was first developed in the early 70s! While early versions were rather crude, the game reached its peak just as we were first jabbing our sticky little fingers at keyboards in the late 80s and early 90s. The game was aimed at teaching schoolkids about the often harsh conditions the pioneers faced by letting them assume the role of a wagon leader, leading a group of settlers from Missouri to Oregon in the mid-19th century by means of Conestoga wagons. I only played the game a few times and enjoyed it though my party always seemed to die of dysentery. I suppose the game did teach me a little about the hardships the pioneers faced, but being a kid, my friends and I enjoyed intentionally sabotaging our party and seeing how quickly and gruesomely they would die (don't pretend like you never did this). This guy sums up the various ways of playing The Oregon Trail, and I think keeping these tendencies in mind is important when developing any interactive game:




Newer games are of course more sophisticated and by immersing a player fully in an environment they become invested in the outcome. I see a lot of potential for video games enhancing historic skills and knowledge in this regard but from our readings this weeks it seems as though there are many obstacles to creating a game that is both educational and fun. Though the path to this goal is not clear, our generation and onwards have been brought up in an environment where video games are an important part of entertainment and it is vital for historians to figure out a way to capitalize on these audiences.

Have you played any video games that you felt really taught you something about history? Do you think it's possible to get past the shoot-em up culture that currently characterizes the genre?