Quetzal's Blog Post:
Video games have undergone serious criticism from many scholars,
politicians, and angry parents for their violence and sometimes graphic
content. The controversy starts when one asks the question: “Who is to
blame for the violence in our youth?”. For some scholars, politicians,
and parents their response is that it is the unregulated and unchecked
violence that is found in video games that is to blame for tragedies such
as the Littleton shootings. However, I feel that video games are not to
blame. In Professor Jenkins Goes to Washington, Professor Jenkins gives
an elaborate and strong defense for why video games are not to blame for
violent incidents such as the Littleton shootings. Rather than pointing
the finger at a video game with graphic violence such as Grand Theft Auto
or Call of Duty, Jenkins claims that it is society and their perceptions
of popular culture by adults and parents that is more at fault for
violence among youth. Though I agree with Jenkins claims, I also feel
that video game companies have done the most they can do to protect
children from playing games that can be too mature for them.
It is no secret that video games contain blood, violence, weapons, and
shooting. Some of the most popular games contain very graphic violence
and brutality. In Grand Theft Auto there is basically no limits to what
the player can do. The player can steal cars, fight pedestrians, and even
pick-up prostitutes. So how can we allow these games fall into the hands
of children? First of all, video games such as Grand Theft Auto have a
ESRB rating of “M”. This “M” stands for “Mature” which means that only
audiences of 18 years of old and above are allowed to purchase this game.
The ESRB stands for the Entertainment Software Rating Board and they are
responsible for rating video games on the basis of their content and what
type of audience should play these games. The ESRB have other ratings
that suggest what age groups the video game is appropriate for. For
example, video games rated “E” are intended for all audiences regardless
of age and video games rated “T” are video games intended for teenagers
of age 12 to 18 years old. I find it ridiculous that politicians and
interest groups against video games can place any kind of blame on video
games. Video games are a form of media and entertainment. Movies, CD’s,
and even pornographic films are all sold openly on the market and all
have content that could be too mature for children and teenagers.
However, all of these forms of media have been regulated with ratings
that clearly indicate to the consumer what kind of audiences should buy
and use them. It is obvious that there are still children and teenagers
playing video games that they should not play but that does not mean
video games are to blame. Parents are responsible for their children. If
a child breaks a window, steals merchandise from a store, or even murders
a person the parents are still responsible. It is the parents duty and
responsibility to raise their children into law-abiding and successful
citizens.
In Professor Jenkins Goes to Washington, Jenkins states that the “moral
panic” of parents towards video games and other forms of media is due to
adult’s fear of adolescents, adult’s fear of technology, and
misunderstanding of the largely visible youth culture itself. All three
of these claims are connected to parents and adults. It is them who I
feel have lacked taking responsibility for violence among youth. One can
argue that if children are surrounded by violence at an early age that
they will grow up with violent behavior. The environment a child is
raised in will obviously affect the way their personality is shaped. It
is the parents and adults duty to create an environment where children
can learn to grow into mentally healthy and valuable members of society.
However, adults have lacked showing understanding for new forms of media
such as video games. Instead of adults and parents making an effort to
learn about video games and talking to their children about the
difference between fantasy and reality they decide to ignore their
children. Parents refuse to take the blame themselves; no parent wants to
admit they are bad parents. But if parents took the time to understand
why their children dress the way they do, eat certain foods, listen to a
certain genre of music, watch particular TV shows, or associate with
their group of friends then maybe they would understand why they play
certain video games. If parents did this they would have confidence that
their child is controlling the video game and not the other way around.
Video games are a new form of media. A new form of entertainment in this
revolutionary generation. Ever generation have their own forms of
entertainment, whether it be playing with marbles or playing a
first-person shooter game such as Call of Duty. It is up to our
generation to express our beliefs about video games and it is up to
adults to listen to us. Like Jenkins stated at the end of his e-mail:
“Listen to our children. Don’t fear them.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that parents, children and video games could share some blame for the violence or any other negative influence video games have on children. It is definitely true that parents are responsible for their children, I agree, but there is just so much parents can do. For example, if I child strongly does not want to go to a dentist appointment but his or her parents want him or her to go, it is very likely that the child will just sit in the car whining. I do not think that the parents can or will physically drag the child out of the car into the dentist's office. In short, parents cannot force the child to do anything. There is just so much a parent can do.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, a child should also be responsible for his or her actions. Usually, when a child develops interest in video games, he or she can make the conscious decision of knowing what "M" "T" and "E" ratings for video games stand for. Children should also be aware of which ones they are prohibited from playing. Parents can help limit the video game's bad influence by refusing to buy a video game not suitable for a child, but what if the child is elsewhere playing video games out of parental control. Once again, there is just so much parents can do. It is up to the child to do the right thing.
Fortunately, many child do the right thing and do not engage in bad behavior, so Jenkins is right in saying that we could listen to our children and not fear them. Many do make right choices about their video game exposure, but there are a few who don't and become bad adults later in life. Also, I believe, that if a video game is too bad of an influence on society, even for adults, then that video game should not be made. Video games should be responsible for what they distribute.
Overall, I believe that we cannot just point our finger at one person and put the blame on one person. Parents, children, and video game designers could all help ensure that video games do not negatively influence society.
It's interesting that both of you bring up ESRB ratings, since those ratings were themselves part of larger debates about freedom of speech, censorship, and whether or not games count as works of "art" or forms of expression protected under the First Amendment. Movies went through a similar process, and one has to keep in mind that our ideas of what is "socially acceptable" are very much a product of our time. Seventy or eighty years ago, film censors forbade the showing of nudity, sex, and interracial marriage, and direct references to things like abortion. In the fifties, Lucy and Desi were married on "I Love Lucy" but still slept in separate twin beds! Perhaps what we consider shocking now will seem quaint to future generations.
ReplyDeleteMeaning in any artistic and expressive medium is the product of three constituents: there is the work itself, those associated with it (creators, players, critics etc) and the larger society they all exist within. The meanings of games are established in between these three categories, and considering only one or two of these aspects is looking at an incomplete picture. Violence is one possible meaning that could be inferred from a video game, but who determines what is violent? Clearly, the actions and images in the video game, the personal interpretations and experiences of the player, and larger societal definitions and conceptualizations of violence all play a role in determining what is violent. As Alenda mentioned, what is considered "sexual" in media has changed considerably over the past century due to societal changes. And clearly, definitions of concepts like "violence" or "sexuality" is relative to a person's experiences and background. Personally, my dad rarely let me watch Disney movies because he found them too dark and violent in their portrayal of certain stories, though many would argue that Disney is more about joy and "fairy tale endings."
ReplyDeleteThe internet has become a dangerous tool for younger children, as without proper filters a child has access to basically any subject matter in the world. With an unfiltered internet line and a copy of a parent's credit card, a child has nearly limitless access to all forms of media, including but not limited to depictions of violence and sexuality. Parents need to 1.) prevent this sort of access by keeping credit cards secure as well as filtering internet for their children (or monitor them during usage when they are young, especially at first) and 2.) talk to their children extensively to give them the background understanding of society and it's perceptions of subjects like violence and sex that these children need to form their own perceptions of what is good and wholesome and what is bad and unnecessary. It is, undoubtedly, a tough job for parents to accomplish these tasks, but no one said parenting was easy. Still, it is a parent's responsibility to educate their children as to what are the right choices to make, in games and in every other part of life.
In response to the Anthony's post, I highly doubt that children actually stay away from video games just because the rating is outside their age group. Most of the time the "cool, fun, popular" games are the ones rated T and M. If children are blocked from those games it is the parents who keep the child from buying the game since the purchaser must be 18 years or older. Kids want what the latest thing on the market is portraying and especially since so many kids are getting games such as GTA, it drives other kids to want them also.
ReplyDeleteAs for your claim to parents not being able to force their kids to do anything like get out of the car, that is a very poor showing of parenting. As the adult the parent should have never let their kid become to spoiled to the point of being able to completely control the parents and get their way over something as big as going to a scheduled dentist appointment. I highly doubt that happens on mass scale and I have never heard of anything like that happening with anyone I know.
Many video games today are very violent there is no dispute over that. However, these are just games in the end and if the parents have raised the kid in a decent enough environment and sat them down from early ages to teach them about BASIC rights and wrongs, no child will interpret video game violence as the real thing and spur them to reenact it in real life. In the end people need to realize that video games are something that is done for fun, an activity to relax with and enjoy, not a breeding ground for high school shootings. If a child goes and shoots up a school and it is found out that the child was playing games like Counter Strike or GTA, I highly doubt the motive that spurred the child to shoot up the school was playing the video games. If someone is going to commit mass murders, they clearly have something much more wrong with them and playing a simple video game that millions of people play every day had nothing to do with it.