Sacred Defence and digital martyrs' claim in Iran: video games as a propaganda tool

Keywords: Sacred Defence, narrative strategies, martyrs, Iran, video games

Abstract

This article analyses how the political ritualisation of martyrs has become one of Iran's symbols of identity, promoting their remembrance and exaltation through multiple media, such as video games. Based on the concept of Sacred Defence and the importance of narrative strategies, we study the most prominent titles promoted by state institutions to disseminate their particular vision of the world and their "heroes" in the face of their enemies. To this end, we have accessed the main Iranian multimedia platforms and videoludic digital creations connected to these themes. As a preliminary result, we highlight the relevance of this format within the broad propagandistic, religious and nationalist manoeuvres promoted by the Iranian state.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

José Antonio Moya Martínez, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

Graduado en Ciencias Políticas y de la Administración por la
Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Sus principales líneas de investigación son, la problemática
internacional y geopolítica a través de los videojuegos, el empleo de los videojuegos en democracias
híbridas y regímenes autocráticos y la estrategia electoral. Entre sus principales publicaciones se
encuentran «El videojuego como campo de batalla: Estudio de caso de Rusia». ObraDigital (22), 2022; y
«Mensajes Políticos y Derechos Humanos en los Videojuegos». Communication Papers Media Literacy
& Gender Studies (21), 2021; o «Debates transmedia e identidades nacionalistas a través de videojuegos: teoría y práctica» (junto a Antonio C. Moreno Cantano). Contratexto (38), 2022.

View citations

Crossmark

Metrics

Published
2023-12-11
How to Cite
Moreno Cantano A. C. y Moya Martínez J. A. (2023). Sacred Defence and digital martyrs’ claim in Iran: video games as a propaganda tool. Historia y Comunicación Social, 28(2), 395-405. https://doi.org/10.5209/hics.86409