Animal Crossing: A Difference in Societal Perception
How would it feel to leave behind the laborious, unsupportive, and inequitable realities of capitalistic society for something more peaceful? For many, a small-town life of foraging resources and cooperating communally could be idyllic, but our highly competitive and individualistic American surroundings might actually influence us more than we think. The popular Nintendo franchise Animal Crossing offers players an opportunistic world where they can freely support their small community — or possibly exploit it. The newest addition, Animal Crossing: New Horizons, appeals to the Japanese values of family and community, but it also leaves room for players to independently rise above selling seashells and collecting fruit for a life more glorious. While Animal Crossing: New Horizons was designed as a communally-driven rejection of capitalism in Japanese society, Americans actually appreciate the game as an overdue and self-serving fulfillment of capitalistic promises, ultimately proving that the globalization of culture does not always inspire ideological transformation.
In Japan, the Animal Crossing franchise was originally envisioned to emphasize the values of community, family, and cooperation. At its core, the game is meant to give players a sense of belonging and association — both with a simulated town of villagers and with other real-life players. This aspect led to the title of Animal Crossing: New Horizons becoming a cultural phenomenon when released at the beginning of the isolating, worldwide COVID-19 lockdown. In fact, franchise creator Katsuya Eguchi first came up with the idea for Animal Crossing after having similarly “left [his] family and friends behind” and missing the opportunity to “spend time with them, talk to them, [and] play with them,” (Newton). The game was therefore created out of feelings of loneliness that inspired Eguchi to recreate the socialization that he longed for. While the game boasts a variety of shiny features from terraforming to custom furniture, it is important to remember that the most essential part of playing is simply belonging to the community itself. However, it takes a special form of communal living to give players the sense of close association that Eguchi envisioned.
When the game format of Animal Crossing was first developed, the player experience was inspired by Japanese furusato societies that notably brought villagers together through debt for the town’s common good. Animal Crossing: New Horizons was designed to emulate a similar communistic feel that binds the village’s interests. When describing the furusato, NYU professor Naomi Clark characterizes it as an idyllic “small town” with “communal living” in which residents would enjoyably “go fishing” and “catch dragonflies” in nearby mountains and waterways (Clark). In the 18th century, village residents shared collective debt used for both personal expenses and societal improvement, and residents would rarely depart due to owing the representative “head of the village” (Clark). Essentially, debt is the fundamental social relationship in the furusato — all citizens are mutually indebted to, and therefore entrenched in, the town itself. The intention of the deficit is to fund the support of the villagers rather than to burden them with expected payments. Citizens are not expected to pay back their debt, nor could they usually afford to, because it retains them as members of that society. In the end, this economic arrangement constructs a stronger sense of community than private ownership because mutual debt creates a long-lasting association between the residents.
Does this societal concept sound familiar? Animal Crossing is a fantasy about the furusato that allows players to enjoy its beautiful atmosphere and cooperative community. In Animal Crossing: New Horizons, the town spokesperson that manages debts is a raccoon named Tom Nook, and players take out a series of sizable loans from him to advance in the game. However, the game does not solely establish an economic connection with Nook; it also establishes a sense of economic interconnectedness with your fellow neighbors. Similar to the debts of societal improvement in furusato communities, when players attempt to build new infrastructure in their villages such as bridges or inclines, other residents will contribute funds as well. While they donate much smaller amounts than the player, this action still simulates the idea that societal costs tax the community as a whole — not just the player alone. Tom Nook doesn’t force villagers or the player to fund these projects within a deadline, similar to the loans he charges, so everyone simply lives their desired lives with a cooperative spirit. But how might more individualistic citizens interpret Animal Crossing’s economic systems?
Once Animal Crossing: New Horizons was released internationally, the game’s format received praise from Americans for its more capitalistic aspects different from the communal qualities Eguchi valued. Rather than assessing the game as an opportunity to engage with and construct a tight-knit community, many players appreciated the opportunity to emulate their own economic aspirations through the game’s opportunistic format. This includes the ability to easily accumulate money (labeled as “bells” in the game) as well as spend it on housing upgrades, fancy clothing, and rare furniture. Interestingly enough, this capitalistic reinforcement did not even remain within the game itself. American player Daniel Luu quickly took the opportunity to create his own website “Nookazon” through which others from around the world could buy and sell everything from their in-game flowers to their fellow animal villagers (Kent). Did Eguchi likely imagine players finding satisfaction in selling their neighbors? Probably not, but it is the monetary game mechanics which inspire sales like these that ultimately appeal to the game’s American fan base. While this capitalistic approach is certainly not limited to the United States, the specific emphasis by Americans to excel in these economic practices at the expense of their towns prompts a greater reflection into the state of our society.
Firstly, the reason that working for simulated economic success is so appealing to Americans is that the “American dream” of financial prosperity is increasingly unattainable in real life. Historically, the concept of the “American dream” has inspired citizens with the idea that working hard in our society will result in greater economic success, but this is unfortunately not a common reality. In fact, a 2017 study showed that “while 90% of the children born in 1940 ended up in higher ranks of the income distribution than their parents, only 40% of those born in 1980 have done so” (Graham). This disparity supports the idea that hard work is simply not enough to rise above the means of one’s upbringing. Rather, economic inequality and the resulting lack of opportunity largely prevent lower-class individuals from achieving financial security. Income distribution is becoming increasingly skewed towards the privileged citizens that were already born with the widely unavailable abilities to invest their money or attend a university. The increase in citizens lacking financial stability and resources has consequentially modified our own societal values and norms to become much more competitive.
As a result of financial disparity, society is ultimately becoming more individualistic with a lesser emphasis on community. When people are forced to evaluate those around them as adversaries rather than companions, we lose sight of how others benefit the population beyond ourselves. For example, in addition to American players selling their animal villagers, many also strive to create towns of solely “cute” villagers by pushing out the ones they consider “ugly” (Hernandez). When searching for desired residents, some will spend a substantial amount of in-game currency and time to visit “mystery islands,” stopping to invite sought-after animals and immediately departing from undesirables (Hernandez). These players don’t respect villagers for their specified personalities or communal drive, they expect them to meet their own personal desires and standards. Americans are ultimately blinded by what they can personally gain. In our markets, all we consider and value are the commodities that we can possess — not the social relationships that contributed to their production. This stark capitalistic egocentrism greatly contrasts Animal Crossing’s cooperative values, revealing a final disconnect in the globalization of cultural ideas between nations.
In conclusion, the difference between the American interpretation of Animal Crossing as a capitalistic venture and the intended Japanese interpretation as a communistic association shows that the globalization of culture doesn’t always inspire ideological transformation. Nintendo originally developed Animal Crossing: New Horizons to be an ode to the peaceful and communally-driven furusato, achieving wonderful success among players in need of community during the lockdown. However, while Japanese developers made Animal Crossing to resolve their desires for socialization, American citizens used the title to reenvision their capitalistic livelihoods using individualistic tendencies. In actuality, the game reinforced the seemingly unfulfilled promises of capitalism, appealing to a system that causes Americans to find value in what benefits them specifically. What Americans are missing due to this egocentric outlook is a community like the furusato that supports itself rather than deprives underprivileged citizens. In the end, this ever-prevalent divide in ideological perception demonstrates how Animal Crossing failed to push American players towards communistic thought. Globalized cultural objects don’t need to be produced with values that automatically align with foreign nations, they simply need qualities that can apply to or appease other societal systems.
While I will always recognize Tom Nook as the forgiving, communally-focused raccoon representative that he is, unfortunately, it could be a while before my fellow Americans see past his seemingly exploitive loan shark tendencies!
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Works Cited
Clark, Naomi. “Why Tom Nook Symbolizes Village Debt in 18th Century Japan.” YouTube, NYU Game Center, 26 Mar. 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgEnbXPZX4s.
Graham, Carol. “Is the American Dream Really Dead?” The Guardian, 20 June 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/jun/20/is-the-american-dream-really-dead.
Hernandez, Patricia. “Animal Crossing’s ‘Kicking out Ugly Villagers’ Phenomenon.” Polygon, 29 Apr. 2020, https://www.polygon.com/2020/4/29/21238552/animal-crossing-new-horizons-acnh-switch-ugly-villagers-trading-amiibo-moving-out.
Kent, Emma. “Animal Crossing’s Answer to Amazon Sells Everything from Fossils to Villagers.” Eurogamer.net, 16 Apr. 2020, https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-04-16-this-animal-crossing-trading-site-sells-everything-from-fossils-to-villagers.
Newton, James. “Celebrating 10 Years of Animal Crossing.” Nintendo Life, 14 Dec. 2011, https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2011/12/feature_celebrating_10_years_of_animal_crossing.
