Violent Games Are Not The Enemy
Are zero-tolerance practices making the “problem” worse? Is there even a problem here?
Violent toys and games are the enemy of all gentle mothers and child-care companies afraid of them. It seems like anybody in the business of children has policies against water pistols, toy guns and of course more dangerous things like paint guns and bb guns. As an au pair, all three of my host families were against their kids playing computer games or watching films with guns or warfare with the children. At some point in all of my positions in the childcare industry, a parent or a teacher has insisted that children, especially boys, shouldn’t be drawing guns (or penises as well, but that’s a different topic).
I would like to argue a case for the drawing of guns, the playing with toy guns and make-believe violence in video games and movies… When they are carefully observed by a conscientious parent or caregiver.
Most children react violently at some point.
That action could be anything from yelling their hate in a string of kid insults “Well, you are just a hairy, stupid egg head!” to hitting someone or pushing someone over because they tried to get in front of the line. Or perhaps they really love to play cops and robbers and chase each other around armed with finger pistols and gobs of spit as they “kill the bad guys”. Other more artful children draw pictures of airplanes dropping bombs on people. If almost every child reacts this way, since the dawn of time, then I would argue that the rise in video games is not causing this epidemic.
In fact, the rise in violent video games is so not the cause of the epidemic, that all violent crimes are down.
Something else must be happening here.
One of the main reasons parents and teachers list against violent expression - is the growing rate of violence in the world. I would definitely argue that this is actually an increase in the reporting of violence, and our ability to hear this news. When news travelled by plane, we would perhaps hear about big shootings in high schools eventually. But by the time the news arrived, it would be small note in a side column “things that happened a month ago all the way over there”. When news travelled by boat we wouldn’t hear about much at all. Now there is an instant mass report across many different news channels, twitter feeds, facebook status updates and blogs as soon as anything happens.
If violence isn’t growing, is there a problem at all?
Evidence suggests that hearing about these real violent events, encourages a culture of violence among teenagers. A depressed teen who is being bullied and labeled in school for liking guns, decides to commit suicide in a violent killing spree “to teach them all a lesson.” This spreads like wildfire to other teens who are in the same situation. Some consider it and let it pass. Others will copy cat. “There are about 200 to 400 suicide attempts among youths for every completed suicide”. It is seen almost as a rite of passage for a suffering teenager. Their prefrontal cortex is on fire with the hormones of youth and seeing a peer commit such an act makes the decision seem like a good idea. (It’s not).
But what if your kid likes a bit of violence? Won’t their exposure to the media then drive them to actually hurt people or themselves? If not now, then in the future? A recent study has shown that violent video games have no effect on prosocial behaviour. Another study shows that violent media actually diminished reactive aggression - that is to say, the test subjects didn’t feel a need to respond aggressively after watching violent media. Human culture is built around stories. We are made to be able to differentiate between truth and story. Right around the age of two we discover that what you’re feeling might not be what I’m feeling and therefore you could be lying and not telling the truth. Or telling a story. Über-violence should be ruled out for toddlers.
It’s the reporting of true events that are damaging, not the stories, games and art.
Stories help us to learn
There is a wonderful TED talk by Ali Carr-Chellman about engaging boys in learning with gaming. One of her main points is how zero tolerance to violence means boys who are curious about violence or interested in general destruction cannot express their interests. It causes them to not want to pursue learning certain paths because they’re not allowed to learn what they like. They are dropping out of schools, and being put in special education classes because they don’t learn like girls do, and they just want to study what they like.
Let me share a few examples from my experience.
In my after-school care group, there was one particular seven year old boy who was very active, loud, and (very rarely) would hit one of the leaders or one of the children. He was a bit disruptive sometimes, but he just didn’t like being told what to do and when to do it. We were told to put him in time outs to calm down - He would go there willingly, but he would throw a fit once he was there to get it all out of his system. He was also the kid that wanted to bring guns to play with. He also wanted to draw pictures of guns. And I would never stop him, even though I’m sure I would have gotten told off if anyone knew. He was proud of his drawings, he was very imaginative and playful - making shooting noises, slamming his fist on the table in excitement and having a good safe time. He wasn’t hurting anyone. He wasn’t disrupting anyone. He was developing his drawing skills. He was being creative and productive. And he didn’t feel the need, in that moment, to yell mean things at other innocents.
One six year old boy that I’ve had the pleasure of caring for, had a bit of a penchant for violence. He was well known for being a bit rough sometimes, and definitely into war and guns. But, interestingly, not general acts of violence. He never had expressed a desire to hurt someone, at least not in my presence. Sometimes he reacted physically, but more out of frustration because he was an active child. The funny thing is, when he was engaged in reading a book about World War II, playing an innocent game of minecraft, (experimenting with TNT and what it can do) or drawing a picture of a man holding a gun - he is happy, and understands that he wouldn’t do it in real life. He’s expressing himself in a safe environment.
To contrast these examples of “boys will be boys” - I was a “violent” little girl. And teenager. By violent, I mean that I used to smack people when they made a joke about me, or hit my sister if she did something that wasn’t allowed. I didn’t watch violent movies, or play violent video games. I was smacked by my parents. I won’t go into an anti-smacking debate, but children learn by stories and example. I think this form of discipline is considered old fashioned now, (though unfortunately still prevalent in some sub-cultures) but it makes my point - real violence and pretend violence have different outcomes.
Of course, I would not let these young boys anywhere near a paintball gun, bb gun or real gun. Of course I would not let them play Grand Theft Auto or Battlefield, or watch Pulp fiction or Clockwork Orange or partake in any age inappropriate violent expression. But I think only good can come of learning about the atrocities of the world wars or how terrible modern day pirates are in a book from the library. I think if I can get an active child who is interested in destruction to explode things in minecraft rather than smash a christmas ornament with a hammer under a bed in the bedroom most furtherest away from where I was sitting… I think we’ve taught them something, wouldn’t you agree?
