Influence is a Powerful Thing

by John Galbraith 

I often wonder if anyone else has fond memories of parents or friends telling them "to turn of that stupid game," "do something more productive," or (I always get a kick out of this one) "those video games are worthless - you'll never get anything out of them." I can only assume that others must, or else video games would not be such a dangerous form of rebellion. "Dangerous?" "Rebellious?" Well they must be if talks of banning violent arcade games are being led by Senator John Grant and Representative Barry Silver. Of course, if video games are being talked about by our government leaders, they must not be as "stupid" as was thought. Although the tentative bills apply only to violent arcade games, I think it is safe to assume that they would set a precedent that could forever declare video games of all sorts to be an influential, not to mention viable, type of media, whether for better or worse.

The following except is a discussion taken from Next Generation Magazine 41, and I urge everyone to read the entire article if possible:

NG: Please can you explain the thinking behind your proposed Protection of Children from Violence bill?

Rep. Silver: Certainly. The bill is trying to allow our society to protect itself and its young people from the scourge of the rampant violence that permeates our society.

NG: A noble goal, I'm sure everyone would wish for less violence in our society. But how would your bill help achieve this?

[pause]

Rep. Silver: The bill would prohibit the display of graphic video violence in any public facility where children - people aged 17 or under - are allowed to congregate.

NG: OK, but how will this reduce the level of violence in society?

[pause]

Rep. Silver: There's a direct correlation between the viewing of violence and engagement in violence. This correlation is not 100%, in other words not everyone who views violence will act violently, but some will. Therefore, it is beyond dispute that because of the pervasiveness of violence in our media, it is transferring to our society, people are dying, and our communities are not as safe as they used to be.

NG: Do you have any proof of this?

Rep. Silver: What do you mean, proof?

NG: Do you have any proof that people who are exposed to fictional violence in the media actually become more likely to commit acts of real violence in the real world?

Rep. Silver: There is plenty of proof. There is hard scientific evidence to support this. There are no researchers or experts who would dispute this.

NG: Um, I don't think that this is actually the case. Can you cite any research or any experts who support your claim that your theory is, in fact, "hard scientific fact"?

[pause]

Rep. Silver: I don't have anything in front of me or in my office. But I have professors and experts who will testify when the bill reaches the committee. You must have heard of all these studies that quite clearly show that when a group of children watch a violent movie, they behave in a more violent manner afterwards than a group of children who have watched a nonviolent movie.

NG: Um, no. I've heard of lots of studies that show that when watching violent movies children become excited and their adrenaline levels rise. This then, in the short term, leads them to become more physically active and "boisterous," sure. But there's a big difference between this and proof that they, in the long term, become more violent individuals. Besides, watching a football game or WWF has exactly the same effect.

[pause]

Rep. Silver: The real harm here isn't that you get an adrenaline rush. The real harm is that gradually you get less and less of an adrenaline rush. Kids become desensitized. The real harm is that violence becomes more acceptable. The thrill that people might have one time experienced by watching violence becomes lessened with each exposure, and eventually, the only way to recapture this thrill is to engage in the real thing. And this means real violence in real life aimed against people or animals.

NG: Again, do you have any proof?

Rep. Silver: Kids who play these games grow to feel that they are experts in this kind of violence. They then seek to test their skills in the real world. There's lots of anecdotal evidence. Just recently there was the terrible case of a high-school kid who walked into a classroom with a gun and shot several of his classmates. Afterwards, he said that he had gotten the idea from a movie. There is too much of this kind of anecdotal evidence to ignore.

NG: That's a terrible story. Professor Henry Jenkins of MIT believes that news footage or documentary footage of real-world violence is a lot more damaging to kids. And taking your argument to its logical extreme, can we take it that you would support banning the Bible or outlawing Disney movies? Both contain often extreme violence ...

[pause]

Rep. Silver: Merely because there may be many types of violence that might be dangerous to children doesn't mean that we shouldn't act in specific areas. But certainly, if it's proven that exposure to nature documentaries and new footage is dangerous, then maybe we should be more cautious. But you must remember that new footage serves some public purpose, and videogames do not. Also, when a child watches new, he is just a passive observer. When he plays a videogame, he is a participant.

If we would believe Representative Silver, then video games are highly influential in our society, but on that same note, they would also serve no public purpose. The real problem, then, is that those games that are publicly seen as "influential" are not the ones that should be advertised in order to elevate video games to their own acknowledged place in media. As for whether or not video games are influential goes back to a much greater debate: Does the media influence society, or does society influence the media? If legislators would have us believe that video games influence our society, then they must be a valid media form or else our society allows itself to be ruled by "toys" and we are in much more trouble that Representative Silver would suspect. However, like the great novels and poems of the nineteenth century, and the emerging media forms of radio, the television, and the movies of the twentieth century, I would be more inclined to believe that video games reflect issues that are present in our society. Likewise as earlier media forms were critized and their creators were ostracized, so is this new media form, and so will it eventually become progressively more accepted, and as they become more prominent in the next century, and are ever more highly scrutinized, it will become more important for video games to continue to address societal values in a way that respects all the elements of our community, as well as challenges them.