Nothing tantalizes society's collective moral radar like explicit gore--or anything explicit for that matter. The first time Elvis gyrated his hips to rock 'n roll or movies crossed the line from musicals to visceral images of gore, violence and sex, cries of outrage echoed from kitchen to Congress. Every generation possesses its own unique scapegoat against which parents and society may lobby their grievances. The most recent of these entertainment media "black sheep" are video games.
Blaming video games for maladjusted childhood behavior has become a prevalent--almost trendy--social judgment after the shootings at Columbine. The two students involved were deeply disturbed high-school community outcasts and were heavy players of shooter games such as Doom or Quake, which have a reputation for being ultra-violent. It is understandable to suggest that video games helped make them killers. Unlike movies, or music, which may be suggestive, no other form of entertainment media possesses the same levels of player interaction as video games. With this in mind, it is not surprising that the Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence On Children would suggest, "That they may be significantly more harmful" than any other media.
But does it follow that they must invariably be so? I would suggest that the lines between the individual psyche, its genetic makeup, the habitat that nurtures it, and the catalysts that may ultimately stir it are infinitely more complex. To issue a blanket social condemnation of a form of entertainment that hundreds of thousands--no, millions of well-adjusted children, teenagers, and adults play without issue or ill effect is illogical. It is also, in its own way, dangerous as it deflects attention from the complexity of the underlying genetic, psychological, and psychosocial reasons that some individuals feed on certain media to do harm by casting attention solely on the media itself. Any form of media can be removed or controlled, but the complex issues that cause people to cause harm will remain. Vigilant caregivers owe it to their children and themselves to explore not only the media but also the individual.
Outside of the laboratories of lobby-funded studies, video games are probably no more powerful or dangerous than any other form of entertainment violence. In fact, there have been studies that have shown violent music, web sites, and movies to be more impressionable on youths than video games. What kids are doing with video games is playing, and the far majority of them know it. Playing a violent video game is no different then picking up a G.I. Joe figure and having him "kill" one of his C.O.B.R.A. nemeses. It's no different then taking a toy gun, purchasable at almost any store nowadays, and running around in the backyard shooting your little brother "dead". Take away the products of the toy empires and it is ultimately no different from picking up a stick in the backyard and killing the pirate that has attacked your ship. Playing is playing, and violent play is wired into the very nature of humankind.
Many of the laws in our country are measured against the concept of what is "reasonable"...reasonable doubt, reasonable expectations. In this vein, it may be also suggested that no reasonable individual could possibly mistake what he or she does with a toy from using an actual firearm in a real life situation. No mouse and keyboard, or controller, is a mental substitute for the weight and complexity of an actual gun to a reasonable individual. Anyone who has held a gun, reloaded one, and fired one can verify this. In real life, firing and reloading a weapon and requires a lot more knowledge and finesse then pressing "R" on the keyboard for "Reload"--and a lot more psychological stamina.
Contrary to popular social sentiment, Helen Smith, a forensic psychologist who specializes in youth violence, suggests "...Kids have been getting less violent since those [shooters] games came out. That includes gun violence and every other sort of violence that might be inspired by a video game." Since violence is inherent to the human condition, her findings might suggest that this media actually reduces the instances of violent actions by giving individuals an outlet for natural impulse that, again, no reasonably mentally healthy individual would confuse with reality.
Something interesting to note is that studies show that the majority of children who commit violent acts come from low-income communities--kids who studies also have shown take little interest in these video games. Gaming a hobby they couldn't afford even if they wanted to. At present, a Sony Playstation 3 costs $400-$500. A Microsoft Xbox 360 costs $350-$450. Even the Nintendo Wii, which has made its platform as a device for family fun, for kids and adults alike to "jump in and play," is $250 barebones. Computers are excessively pricey to set up for games--thousands of dollars to properly build a machine capable of playing today's video games--that they are not a viable option for low income families either.
In the 50's, 60's, and 70's "inappropriate" music was associated with maladjusted youths, drug users and troublemakers. In the 1980's the popular tabletop Role Playing Game, Dungeons & Dragons, became associated with Satanism, the dark arts and other various occult phenomenon. Ironically, my stepmother, a practicing Christian, was an avid player of D&D in those days without ever succumbing to the dark side. Where does the makeup of the individual factor into the social finger pointing and blanket condemnations made against one form of media or another? I would suggest that the genetic, psychological, and psychosocial composition of the individual player is the far more important half of the player-game dichotomy.
So what is the solution to this issue? Is there even one? These are not questions easily answered. Humankind has violence at its heart. Conquering, sacking, warring, committing acts of hatred, bigotry, rape, and murder--all have occurred since its conception and will continue, though struggled with, to its last days. All of these examples of violence have existed long before the advent of technology, entertainment media, and especially video games. While a psychologist could explore and pinpoint cause in each individual case, the reality is that some people are born more aggressive than others are, or with genetic issues that effect how their brain functions and addresses violence. In these cases, all that is required is a catalyst--a movie, a song, a video game, a look from someone on the bus--to feed into a pre-existing condition or inclination.
It's easy to blame something we do not completely understand in ignorance. It's human nature to fear what we cannot completely comprehend. But it is also wrong to pass the proverbial buck, for parents to avoid assuming responsibility for having failed raising their child in some capacity that added to their mental instability. This too is human nature. Who wants to admit such grievous fault? Who wants to admit that their child was born with a greater capacity to do harm than someone else's was or that they contributed to an environment that cultivated that capacity? Ultimately, studies measuring a correlation in child aggression and video games have come up on both sides of the issue, and no side has sufficiently settled the argument.
The truth is, like almost anything--experiences in life, a book, a movie, or a song... video games have the potential to be the catalyst that leads to violent acts, but the warped makeup of the individual has to be previously simmering. Society will always struggle to put the violence in our nature into some acceptable context, and it should. Nevertheless, blanket condemnations of things that overlook the complex nature of how and why certain people use them ultimately do not serve that purpose.
