OK so I know this blog is meant to be for KCB201 but I figured it’s MY blog and I can post stuff on here even if it deviates from the unit content. So this isn’t a personal rant, but after a lengthy ‘discussion’ (ok lets be honest – argument) with my mother I figured it was time to address the issue of gaming, and whether online gaming in particular is actually ‘bad’ for you…
My mother, an avid media effects supporter (at least to an extent) is constantly trying to restrict the amount of gaming my brothers do. I myself am not a gamer (probably from suffering at the hands of my brothers mercilessly slaughtering me every time I make an attempt to play) but have watched this debate rage for as long as my brothers could pick up a controller or figure out that spacebar = jump/shoot on any of the old school pc games. Particularly since the beginnings of xbox live and World of Warcraft I have watched my mother slowly lose ground in her argument that “too much gaming promotes anti-social and violent behaviour”, because while these new environments might not necessarily be traditional social circles, they are most definitely engaging, active, collaborative, and many other words that can be related to what I would call “social.”
But my mother is not alone. The effect of electronic games on individuals and society is a debate that is as intense as trying to complete Halo on ‘legendary’. In my opinion to state that electronic games make, or do not make, people violent and anti-social is a misleading generalisation that ignores the grey between the black and white. However, it is our prerogative to search for an answer to the ills of humanity, and experiencing cognitive dissonance as a consequence may be unavoidable.
Electronic games, a term utilised by David Marshall (2004) to encompass all forms of new media games from arcade games to computer games, have become an integral part of contemporary society and culture. Around the world people use electronic games for all sorts of purposes, from anything as simple as a leisure activity, to an ultimate escape from the daily trials of life. But what this increasing focus on games, gaming, game players and the culture that is developing around them, may mean for the future, is yet to be seen. Ok that was not meant to be as ominous as it sounds…
To accurately present the possible influences of electronic games on behaviour, it is necessary to deal with violence separately from antisocial behaviour. There is a ‘slowly growing body of evidence’ (Sanger et al. 1997, 63) reflecting concerns that violence and antisocial behaviour are the results of using electronic games. However, a distinction between the two must be clearly made in order to interpret how electronic games impact individuals and society, as the relationship between violence and antisocial behaviour is not one of simple cause and effect.
Part of the problem with identifying potential links between gamers’ behaviours and the games they play is that there is an inherent inconsistency with the way researchers have defined violence, and that media effects research has no specific parameters that enable it to be standardised (Scott, 1995). David Gauntlett (1998) impresses that this is because media effects research initially approaches the problem of societal violence backwards, ‘by starting with the media and then trying to lasso connections from there on to social beings’. In this case, arguing over if the chicken or the egg came first is unproductive as it is obvious that violence existed long before electronic games. Anybody ever study roman history? If you said no I suggest you go watch a film like Gladiator and you might start to get the idea. I doubt that I am alone in that suggestion that what we should be doing instead is going directly to the perpetrators and channelling the question of why violence is still continuing today through them.
For productive research, with relevant conclusions, to take place, exactly what constitutes violence needs to be clearly defined and understood. Assault, indirect hostility, irritability, negativism, resentment, suspicion and verbal hostility are considered seven subscales of aggression (see Scott 1995). From this it is easier to understand why violence is difficult to quantify because everybody comprehends it differently. It follows then that media effects researchers need to construct a scale that measures the degree of violence in any given electronic game. This is supported by Tony Reichhardt (2003) who highlights the reliance of media effects researchers, like Craig Anderson and Brad Bushman, on basic correlations found between violence and electronic games. Reichhardt (2003) advises that standardising research efforts in this field will help identify potential causal relationships rather then just tenuous links. And I’ve got to say that after two years of discussing media effects at uni I am more then a little sceptical in regards to any “causal” relationships found in this sort of research. Unfortunately for media effects researchers I think they are desperately trying to hold on to a theory that would provide a neat solution to violent and anti-social behaviour in society, conveniently ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. Columbine massacre anyone?
I should also note that of course not all games are violent. John Banks (2006) emphasises the diversity in game genres, comprising of sports based games, platform adventure games, simulations and puzzle games, role playing games, strategy games and fighting or action games (including first person shooters). Banks illustrates that despite the focus in the media on violent games such as the Grand Theft Auto series, not all games, not even all the popular ones, are violent. However, with the release of games that are becoming increasingly realistic in terms of graphics and context, such as Manhunt (by Rockstar in April 2004) and the fourth in the Hitman series, Blood Money (by Eidos Interactive in May 2006), gamers’ curious fascination and enjoyment of blood, guts, gore and fatalities is probably one of the key ‘reasons’ behind those concerned with media effects.
In discussing whether electronic games make people violent, my biggest point (particularly when arguing with my mother) is that it is not simply monkey see monkey do. We’re not simply passive receivers, but interactive living beings filtering, receiving, analysing, interpreting, and then regurgitating how we perceive the world and the information in it. Gauntlett (1998) says ‘the point here is not that the content of the mass media (should) not be criticised, but rather that the mass audience themselves are not well served by studies (in media effects) which are willing to treat them as potential savages or actual fools’. And I should probably point out that neither of my brothers are fools. We have all been socially conditioned and, with the exception of the mentally unstable, we are capable of making choices that reflect our conscious. It is these choices that define who we are and what sort of behaviours we exhibit.
Something that really hit home for me was from Alan McKee (2006), one of my first ever lecturers, who proposed that media effects research is the progeny of moral panic, spawned from advancing technology and culture that threatens the golden age of past generations. I mentioned the Columbine massacre earlier – well it is events like the 1999 Columbine High School shootings, where the press broke a tape documenting Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold describing their planned shootings as reminiscent of the first person shoot game Doom, result in hastily drawn conclusions driven by the need to explain the occurrence of such tragedies. This subjectivity and emotional proclivity continues to hinder the findings of media effects researchers. To put it bluntly there is no substantial evidence to support the hypothesis that electronic games are a cause of violent behaviour. Reichhardt (2003) dryly notes that considering how many people have played the game Doom and its sequels, and with violence in the United States at a thirty-year low, the logical violence epidemic that would follow Doom directly making people violent does not exist.
So let us turn the argument on its head for a moment. Sanger (1997, 64) has suggested that ‘the violent and destructive elements in (electronic) games serve a cathartic purpose in allowing players to release stress and tension in a contained situation’. Perhaps they are a way to become liberated from the pressure in our lives… However these arguments tend to ignore the intensity level of games, and that they are everything but relaxing. Anybody watching a gamer in action can see the tension and excitement building from the time the start up credits are rolling. Not that I’m any different – trust me you don’t want to be around when I’m wielding a Nintendo Wii remote around!
Quittner (1999) describes electronic games as being ‘all about adrenaline, and the easiest way to trigger adrenaline is to make someone think they’re going to die’. Even in classic G rated games like Sonic the Hedgehog and Mario Brothers, the will to survive envelops gamers, mind and body, where any invasion of your focus means certain death and the undoing of all your hard-work up until your last save. Approaching someone high on adrenaline, and interrupting their concentration will commonly result in, at the very least, a snappy remark about how it’s all your fault that they died. This reaction and its severity will of course be determined by the individual, and the context of their game play, but I must say that I learnt quite quickly to keep away from my brothers if they were engaged in a game that required even only a minimal amount of skill.
I think that the key issue is not exposure to violence as depicted in electronic games or even with gamers’ apparent obsession with gore and fatalities. It is, instead, those subgroups and individuals, who demonstrate violent dispositions, mental instability, or abnormal characteristics that we should be actively exploring so we can work towards an unbloodied future.
References
Banks, J 2002, ‘Everybody knows that gaming makes people antisocial and violent’, Lecture in KCB102 Media and Society Public Lecture Gaming Cultures at Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove Campus, on 11 May.
Gauntlett, D 1998, Ten things wrong with the media ‘effects’ model, http://www.theory.org.uk/david/effects.htm (accessed 23 January 2006)
Marshall, P D, 2004, New Media Cultures, Hodder,
McKee, A 2006, ‘Everybody knows that the media makes us do it’, Lecture in KCB102 Media and Society Public Lecture The Effects Tradition at Queensland University of Technology Kelvin Grove Campus, on 9 March.
Quittner, J 1999, ‘Are video games really so bad?’, Time, vol 153, no 18, pp 50-59.
Reichhardt, T 2003, ‘Playing with Fire?’ Nature, vol. 424, pp 367-368.
Sanger, J., Wilson, J., Davies, B. and Whittaker, R. 1997, Young children, videos, and computer games: issues for teachers and parents, Falnor,
Scott, D 1995, ‘The effect of video games on feelings of aggression’, The Journal of Psychology, vol 129, no 2, p121.
Van Horn, R 1999, ‘Violence and video games’, Phi Delta Kappan, vol 81, no 2, pp 173-174.
APOLOGIES FOR THE REFERENCING - I've done it off the top of my head so its probably not to the tee of our QUT Harvard style...
No comments:
Post a Comment