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.