| Conflict and violence seem to be staples of media, so it’s no surprise that media critics would keep playing the media violence card. Besides, it makes intuitive sense, doesn’t it? That viewing violence would lead to people acting violently?
The truth is that every new form of media has been demonized by an older generation – who want to protect their young – as being harmful. In the ’50s it was Elvis and comic books. Now it’s Eminem and video games.
In his book Savage Pastimes: A Cultural History of Violent Entertainment, City University of New York professor Harold Schechter suggests that the myth of media violence is built on two assumptions: that our society and our culture are more violent today than in the past.
Schechter believes, and I agree, that those assumptions are false. Western society has been enjoying a steady decrease in violence and criminal activity, especially in the past 20 years. And public executions – arguably more harmful than comics, television or video games – were entertainment in some cultures as recently as the 1930s.
That didn’t stop the American Psychological Association from releasing a statement in August in which they called for video game developers to cut back on violence in their titles, claiming that youth who are exposed to violence in video games have an increase in aggressive thoughts and behaviours.
The APA recommendations, based on a recent survey of research into media violence, may have indicated that children who view violence demonstrate an immediate behavioural change. But a separate study by a University of Illinois researcher concluded that there is no permanent effect on behaviour. The implication here is that although kids might get riled up after playing a video game or watching Power Rangers, that experience is not going to ruin their life.
Why? Because we are not simply behaviour-aping creatures. The danger in trying to reduce complicated issues like media violence is that nuances can get missed.
For example, in looking more closely at the APA’s statement, they don’t suggest that the problem is the portrayal of violence, but the portrayal of decontextualized violence. "Showing violent acts without consequences teaches youth that violence is an effective means of resolving conflict. Whereas, seeing pain and suffering as a consequence can inhibit aggressive behaviour," psychologist Elizabeth Carll, co-chair of the APA Committee on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media, said in a statement.
So the APA is not suggesting that violence in video games is causing an increase in real crime and violence. They are suggesting that portraying violence without also portraying the consequences of that violence can be psychologically harmful. It’s a fine but critical distinction.
Let me use film examples to illustrate the difference.
In Mr. and Mrs. Smith, the characters portrayed by Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are confronted by armies of enemies, stroll through hurricanes of bullets, and not only emerge victorious, but looking as though they just had manicures.
The Kill Bill films, on the other hand, do not glamourize violence. Director Quentin Tarantino created those movies so that the audience had to absorb the full impact of the violence. There are scenes in those films that are hard to watch because the blood, welts and bruises are all too real.
Far from being the cause of real crime and violence, it may be that violent video games (among other forms of action entertainment) are actually good for you.
In his book Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super Heroes, and Make-Believe Violence, Gerard Jones proposes that the misrepresentation of video games as harmful is, in part, a result of adults who want to believe there is a causal relationship between media violence and actual violence. Parents and critics see what they want to see, ignoring contradictory evidence.
Writes Jones: "What our kids are doing with their video games is playing, and they know it."
One of the functions of play is to help us gain control over what frightens us, which explains why the public’s appetite for violent entertainment actually peaks when the culture is concerned about violence in real life (Jones cites the post-Vietnam period and the early ’80s, when inner-city violence peaked), and fades when that fear abates.
This is one reason why violent entertainment is associated with dropping crime and violence, not the opposite. Playing violent video games, or watching violent movies, can desensitize, and that is exactly the point. By desensitizing ourselves to media violence, we alleviate our anxieties and tensions about real violence.
We all use play and fantasy as a way to acquire experience, to learn how to solve complex problems, to gain a sense of empowerment. This is especially true of children, who have very little control over their environment, and adolescents, who are dealing with traumatic physical and emotional changes. Play and fantasy allow for the cathartic release of feelings, and permit children to learn how to deal with their emotions, anxieties and frustrations.
Play fighting gives children the chance to practice being aggressive without endangering themselves or having to be in actual conflict. It teaches boundaries, so that when children find themselves in a real-world situation, they know how to behave. Play, in all its forms, teaches empowerment, which is why many children, when faced with myriad entertainment options, tend to choose violent and aggressive media and play violent games.
Why do children like to play with guns? Jones suggests that it isn’t really the gun that the child wants, but the power and control that guns represent. They do not share adults’ anxieties about guns, and by forcing those fears onto children we do more harm than a toy gun or a video game would. When adults impose their real-life anxieties on the fantasy worlds of children, it interferes with the function of the child’s imagination.
The thing about video games is that you don’t watch them, you play them. Children have an active role in video games, which boosts their sense of control over the fantasy environments they’re immersed in and provides a measure of control they can bring back to their own, real, lives.
Dr. Helen Smith, a forensic psychologist quoted by Jones, states that, "Not one young person in my experience has ever been made violent by media influence. Young people who are already inclined to be violent do feel that violent media speaks to them. A few do get dangerous ideas from it. But more of them find it to be a way to deal with their rage."
What will ensure that violent media helps, and not hinders, is the influence of active and engaging adult role models who can ask questions and provide support, who can establish a context, without being judgmental. It’s as Dr. Spock’s advice: "Feed ’em, love ’em and leave ’em alone." |
Copyright ©2006 FFWD. All rights reserved.