The perfect theory for a dystopian megalomaniac.

The central tenet of Stuart Hall’s Critical Cultural Studies Theory is that a BBEG despotic ruler would do well to monopolize and control the available public communication media (e.g. town criers, leaflets, noticeboards, clergy, mass mind control). 

Imagine a scenario in which your party enters a new town. The noticeboard is slathered with praises to the local militia for repelling monster attacks. Every household receives regular notice of the militia’s successes. By and large, the townsfolk support the militia, but an NPC, recognizing the party as “outsiders”, has a task. The party is to “deconstruct” (the theory’s term), the militia’s press. Then, relocate it to “The Resistance”, your campaign’s representation of a marginalized group. If the party takes the bait, they have the power to do exactly what the theory makes clear is the power of media and culture analysis: empower the marginalized and change the world.

The state the players find themselves in upon arriving to the town is walking into a “hegemony”. I think of hegemony as the way things are, the way they “should” be, or the collective, accepted interpretation of the world. In the case of these townsfolk, it's a good thing that the militia is here to keep us safe. The militia members also largely believe this story, too. Where cultural studies theory diverges from my example, is that Hall makes clear that media hegemony is not a nefarious plot. At my table, as in Tomorrow Never Dies, media control is a great vehicle for mischief. The theory does support the notion that even in a hegemonic culture, the coercion would mostly be subtle, partial, and act as a vehicle to produce consent (rather than reflecting an already existent one).

In a subsequent chapter of the adventure, after the party has successfully deconstructed, relocated, and reassembled the press, the news comes out very differently: The militia is defeating so many monsters because they have been pressing beyond the town’s prescribed borders, getting themselves into unnecessary danger, and (in the process) using up valuable medical supplies. This revelation, passed on to the townsfolk would give them a whole new framework through which to see the militia’s actions. It would become a new source of what Hall termed “discourse”. A discourse helps us make meaning of the world around us (especially the mediated world). The organization that controls the press in this world, controls the stories that can be spread, and the discourses that can be considered. The bedrock of Cultural Studies Theory is the issue not of what information is on the town crier’s lips or tacked to the noticeboard, but rather whose information is it.

A second application of this theory to tabletop roleplaying is a quest centered on talking down the opposition, or perhaps in inspiring the right leader (Aragorn, I’m looking at you) to take the stage in opposition to the BBEG (or similar). Cultural Studies recognizes that in a world where there is just one interpretation of the world out there, that’s the one people have to accept. There’s no alternative. It’s a moment captured time and again in fantasy: a loud, and previously-marginalized voice, speaks a viable alternative to the way things have been. The act of communicating transforms into an act of justice. It’s like Inspiring Leader, but in real life.

Unlike almost all of the theories I’ve yet written about, this one is perhaps most concerned with changing the world. What better connection could there be with roleplay gamers.  Not only is there repeated (and weekly if you’re lucky) world creations going on, but there is every chance you can feel what it’s like to change the world for good, to recognize oppression and to take steps to right it.  Dungeons and Dragons gives you the chance to be heroic. Perhaps it’s mere fantasy to think that feeling the desire to be heroic and good, collaborative and joyful is possible playing an rpg, then it’s available away from the table, too. Is it too much to think that by playing a game where the themes of marginalization and oppression were salient would make one more aware of those same issues away from the table? 

The final connection I see between Cultural Studies Theory and D&D is what the theory calls “the other”.  In D&D, were there an entry in the Monster Manual for “The Other”, it would probably be a scary Revenant or something. In CCT, “the other” who we are supposed to learn about, people we’re different from. This could be rolled into your game in a few ways that I can think of. First, there are temporary changes players can be put through which might offer them some empathy. Perhaps a well-timed Reduce spell cast on someone NPC or PC who insists on demeaning others for their size? Without spoilers, I think this was used to great effect by Critical Role in the second campaign. A character was living in a way where they cannot help but to be perceived as “the other”. I’ve even seen living as “the other'' used as a punishment or plot point. A solitary Druid has been transforming anyone hunting in his forest into a deer, themselves.

In sum, if we change the media, and the available discourses, we can change the world to help the marginalized.