Violent Media and Children
I recently picked up a copy of Parent: Wise Austin, a free publication tagged as "The Journal for Thinking Parents." It's a fun publication with slightly more alternative offerings – like cloth-diaper reviews and Montessori school ads – than typical parents publications. The feature article in the March 2009 edition is "Dining on Destruction: Does Violent Media Harm Kids?" by Sugandha Jain. I admit, there is nothing new about this discussion. Basically it boils down to asking whether or not playing at "violence, gore, and antisocial behavior" has a negative impact on kids. The article is full of all sorts of statistics – how much violence kids are exposed to, levels of aggression by age group, what percent of aggressive kids become aggressive adults. But what really struck me in the article was the requisite "dissenting opinion" section.
The argument for violent video games was twofold. First that violence is a good thing. Chris Crawford, a video game designer, said that for young boys "everything about their psychologies is oriented around establishing their identities through physical conflict." He believes that it is healthy for boys to acknowledge this violence and that "too many mothers, in particular, attempt to suppress this … and all they succeed in doing is robbing their boys of their ability to become men." So apparently if I don't like the idea of my son (no mention of my daughter) playing at killing people then I am keeping him from becoming a man? Or at least according to the game designer who I am sure must also have a Ph.D. in child psychology, right?.
My bigger issue was with the other argument for violent video games – that there is no evidence that links violent media and violent behavior. While I could dispute that argument, my main concern is that that's not really the point. For so long this whole debate has been framed as to whether or not playing violent video games will cause kids to join gangs or do a school shooting – as if those personal acts of violence are the only issue at stake. What I would rather see the debate focus on is in what ways playing at violence as children makes a person immune to systemic violence. Sure they may not pick up a gun and go on a rampage, but do they become more apathetic to others doing just that? Would we be perhaps more offended and outraged at the killing of innocents in the war in Iraq or the genocide in Darfur if we were not so accustomed to doing such things in the nursery so to speak? Individual personal violent acts are somewhat rare in "polite" society (whatever that means), but condoning systemic violence is almost expected. Could that be the real legacy of violent media?
I'm not saying that I don't struggle with this or that I think violent media should be banned. Just that I think the issue is far more complex and far-reaching than the arguments generally imply.
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
Good discussion. I agree the issues are far more complex than we know. As a mom of two boys (13,10) and a girl (8), we've wrestled with this. We've rationalized a difference between "strategy" games and "first-person shooter" games. Strategy games, although they can be violent, might be compared to chess which involves some deduction, critical thinking, etc. I can't justify first-person shooter games, where the gamer looks straight through the crosshairs. It's much more personal and disturbing to me.
Someone once wrote (I wish I could remember who) that "as games become more warlike, war becomes more of a game." I agree with the points you make here, but particularly the one that just because a video game doesn't lead to a school shooting doesn't mean it isn't doing harm.
A co-worker and I were discussing this just the other day while opening the bookstore. Both of us are Stephen King fans, and were especially drawn to his books as teenagers. And we had the shared experience of coming to the realization that we required breaks in between his various works. Both had gone through an "I'm going to read everything this guy has ever written" phase when we were 15 or 16. It didn't result in any sort of violence or permanent damage to our psyche, but we both described a sort of numbness and depression that we began to experience.
The problem (that you avoid here) that so often hinders this debate is that it becomes too black and white and certain truths get lost in the shuffle. One side argues that Marilyn Manson caused the Columbine tragedy and the other argues that Manson's music has no more effect on teenage boys than muzak. And the truth is somewhere in between.
Hey Julie!
I actually wrote a paper about this in college. I looked at violent videogames from a different perspective though.
I wrote about how violent videogames were used as a scapegoat to cover up the real problems affecting our children (bad parenting, mental issues, environmental pressures, etc.)
There have been a lot of studies showing that violent video games do not cause children to commit violence. But they do cause a rise in aggression and they also desensitize children to actual violence. Which I agree is a bigger issue.
A couple things about the story though:
First, if you notice, they start by talking about violence in video games, but when it's time to bust out the statistics they quickly switch to violence in tv and kids cartoons. They never really talk about how video games affect children.
Secondly, the mother in the story, Daphne, didn't realize what her children were playing until she heard them say "Kill him, kill him!" What kind of parenting is that???? Videogames are rated for a reason and the rating system, according to studies, works. But it only works if parents are engaged in what their children are consuming. (Check out http://www.whattheyplay.com, an amazing site about videogames for parents)
And finally, I'd be really interested to read the interview with Chris Crawford. I've seen him speak before, and the article puts his feelings a little out of context. In your article, you put this statement in quotes, “too many mothers, in particular, attempt to suppress this … and all they succeed in doing is robbing their boys of their ability to become men.” But if you notice in the story, it's not in quotes. He didn't say that directly.
He is right that boys learn through "physical conflict." That doesn't necessarily mean violence though. Studies show that boys do learn through physicality; we want to go out and jump around and roll through the mud. We do have physical tendencies as boys. And a lot of times, the heroes we look up to as children resolve things through violence (unfortunately!) Violence and physical conflict is part of our nature as men. I think what he is saying is that violent videogames are a constructive, "useful" outlet to funnel those feelings towards. I think that article puts him in the light of "violence is good", when's that not really what he is saying. If you look at his work, he has always balanced violence with moral/ physical consequence, and I think that's probably more aligned with his thoughts. The guy has a masters in physics and helped pioneer videogames; sometimes intelligent people sound not so intelligent when all you hear are soundbites!
I'll let child psychologists sum up Chris's point more succinctly:
"Experts on childhood and adolescence have long recognised the importance of violent fantasy play in overcoming anxieties, processing anger and providing outlets for aggression."
Anyways, I find the whole topic completely fascinating. But I struggle daily with what type of violence is appropriate for my children. I still won't let Ethan watch the old Star Wars movies. Luckily, my almost six year old son is still as excited about watching Barbie Thumbelina as he is watching Batman!
I like Kester's post. I agree the truth is somewhere between the extremes. I also appreciate his reference to books. Many people who decry video game violence enjoy books (and would allow their teens to read books) that contain plenty of stuff that if put on a video screen, would be really disturbing. But that stuff is playing just as vividly on the "video screen" of their mind as they read.
I'm not sure I agree with the quote about games becoming more warlike and war more gamelike, though. If you look back through history isn't there a pretty common theme of glorification (in many societies) of violence and warfare, and of children, especially young boys, playing at violence and warfare before they are actually old enough to take part in it? Is what we are seeing now with violent video games just our culture's own twisted version of an age-old thing?
Maybe via the media of TV, gaming and the internet in some ways we are uniquely, simultaneously isolated from the horror of the real thing while being overexposed to the "entertainment" aspect of violence. But wasn't ancient Rome the same or worse?
I didn't want to write too much in this post which is why I left it where I did. I agree, Kester, that the truth isn't in the extremes and, Michael, that the article is a bit of a mess (not that my post wasn't…).
And yes – this isn't limited to video games or tv. It's in books, strategy games and the like. Strategy games play just as much at slaughtering others, just at a more removed vantage point – which may even desensitize us further. I do think there is a place for exposure to violence – it happens in the world today – we shouldn't hide our head in the sand and pretend it doesn't. I am most confused though by parents who don't want their kids to know about real violence, but let them play at it.
And I agree that physical activity is the way some people learn best. But I question the assertion that acting out one's aggression is necessarily the best way to deal with it. It shouldn't be supressed, but perhaps dealt with constructively in non-aggressive ways.
I think there is a big difference between boys needing to use large muscle groups to wrestle with each other (actual physical contact – in the flesh) and violent electronic media. And yes, the issue is far more complex than presented. The most persuasive theological arguments are from the iconoclasts, imo. But please note, I am not against Orthoxody or icons… again, it is much more complex than that….
Looks like Michael came on and added the point I planned to make, so let me just echo it. After I commented, I got playing and wrestling around with my son and realized that, while a violent video game isn't the right place to act out aggression, it doesn't mean that boys don't need a way to do this. My dad put up a punching bag in the garage. Now, we learned "turn the other cheek" from a young age and were expected to practice it, we learned that violence is no kind of solution, but we also learned that the strength is not being violent isn't in the inability to be, but in the unwillingness. Wow, that's a tangent. My point is that I think boys can turn to violent video games in an attempt to find a way to problem solve and work out aggression. It isn't a good way to do it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need doing.
One last point, building on Julie and Rebecca; part of the problem of video game violence is that it is inconsequential. Again, games become warlike and war becomes a game.
I agree that basketball and other forms of backyard combat are better modes of releasing energy than are video games. If someone scores on me and talks smack, I can guard that person harder next time down the court, run faster, jump higher, and (if one were a lesser moral agent) even foul the jerk. (Not that people called me "hackmaster" for that reason.) If someone wins a video game and talks smack, what? Press the buttons harder?
Even if the article's argument were sound, its title still uses "media" as a singular noun. Unacceptable.
I'm just sayin'.
I've killed millions, if not billions, of people. Fortunately that's all been done in video games or I'd be in big trouble! I think it's very hard to claim that you can become "desensitized" to genocide by playing a game where you are "destroying" people that look like squares and rectangles, or are pictures of tanks or a plane. The brain tends not to make such sweeping generalizations.
What I think is far more "dangerous" is how society (parents, peers, etc…) socializes children into world views. If you're brought into a world view that violence is a good way to solve problems it doesn't matter how many video games you play – you're going to be violent. If you're socialized into a world view that people don't matter – you're going to be prone to desensitization.
For me, my life has been radically transformed by God. My secular, irreligious views have been completly shatered and replaced by God's grace and love. But I still love video games. And I still wipe out evil hordes of aliens and fight against tyrants that want to control the world.
Despite this, every day I grow MORE sensitized to violence in the world. God helps me to see how pain and suffering affect people. It's my world view that guides how violent (or not) I am, not just the fact that I play video games.
(for the record I'm a firm believer that kids shouldn't be playing games that are "beyond" their maturity level – but again that's an issue of parenting and socialization)
wow, thats a real bias piece there >_>
violent media only has a proven affect on children who already had a predisposition to violence.
and the only research that has said otherwise was done on impoverished black and Hispanic children from families that already had a sibling convicted of at least once for juvenile crime. So it would be pretty obvious these result would not be representative of the whole and therefore cannot used to justify an argument.
as for the gang association, that is because of subliminal marketing and overt need to assimilate
oh my gosh! im actually talking to Julie!:o
Anyways..
I AGREE! ITS KILLING THE KIDS SOCIAL LIFE NOT JUST THE PEOPLE ON THE VIDEO GAMES. ITS BAD, ITS GONNA COME OUT IN THEIR LIFE.
IT ISOLATES THEM FROM THE GLORIOUS WORLD.
bye.
ok well first my dad stopped me playing shooting games such as call of duty.
I am 14 and all my friends play it on xbox live.
I am not aggressive and i do have a life.
I am on the tennis team at my highschool and i skateboard a lot.
Does shooting games really affect ones attidtude???
I've read many articles and a lot for and against it.