07-26-2005
06-26-2004
Simon Penny's reasoning in "Representation, Enaction, and the Ethics of Simulation" may be summarized as follows. Repetitive tasks and active training develop subconscious reflexes and intuitions. This is so even in simulated environments, as evidenced by the fact that such environments are being used for psychological treatment and for various types of military combat training. We let our children play violent computer games, which are a type of simulation. Thus we are making our children develop subconscious intuitions, training them to kill people. We are clearing the ground for more Columbine disasters. While I do agree with Penny's conclusion that theories of visual representation are inadequate to describe participatory media, I do not agree with how he reaches it, nor am I convinced by the theoretical underpinnings of his claims. In this riposte I will first look at a few methodological issues regarding Penny's argumentation and theory, after which I will present my views on the matter of violence in computer games.
As some sort of disclaimer, Penny presents his goal as both academic and activist in the first sentence of his essay. In my view, this is a contradiction. An academic text can be activist, but only when the matter requires activism, when extensive research shows that something is far from how it should be, and a wake-up call is required. However, to consciously choose activism beforehand reveals a presupposition that excludes the possibility of doing academic research. Moreover, it is important to ask oneself what sort of activism one is advocating. As I will argue below, supporting the claim that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold murdered 13 and wounded 23 in the Columbine High School in Littleton before killing themselves because they played too much Doom, may well have an effect that is opposed to one's intentions. Conservative forces and industrial lobbies can hijack such a claim and use it to justify liberal gun laws and failing socio-cultural policies. In essence, the wrong question is posed. When we see that Eric and Dylan played Doom, we should not ask ourselves why the game made them kill, because then we start from the presupposition that it did. Rather, we should ask ourselves which social, cultural, and psychological factors led them to create a customized version of the game with two shooters, extra weapons, unlimited ammunition and victims who could not fight back. Why were they unable to curb their desires and fantasies? Why could they not distinguish between the unreal and the real? Furthermore, if they had written out their fantasies or made drawings, these documents would have been seen as preparation and correctly identified as secondary to the act, not as its cause. No critic would have pleaded to abolish writing about violence. Computer games are new however, and therefore an easy scapegoat. At one point Penny states "The question is: what exactly is the user being trained to do?", but he fails to answer it. As opposed to Grossman and Penny, I do not believe that games like Doom or Counterstrike teach me to kill. They train my hand-eye coordination, tactical insight (these are what I am rewarded for), perhaps even my handling a weapon to a certain extent, but that is something entirely different from looking someone in the eye, in real life, and pulling the trigger.
For his theoretical foundation, Penny refers to Foucault,
Bourdieu and Mauss, who observe the fact that repetitive training is
used to create subconscious automatisms that make us "better" citizens.
While I agree with the authors' claims in question, I must wonder why
they were chosen to appear in this discussion. With all due respect,
discussing the psychological effects of computer games without
consulting the specialized literature is like discussing the aesthetic
qualities of
Ulysses
without looking into literary theory. In "The Effects of Violent
Video Games on Aggression: A Meta-Analysis," John Sherry (2001)
1
offers three theories - social learning, arousal, and priming -
which seem to indicate that playing violent computer games results in
aggressive behaviors. Social learning theory claims that violent
behaviors witnessed in media are copied in real life; the arousal
argument claims that people become aroused more easily in a violent
context when having already been exposed to violence; and priming refers
to the activation and strengthening of violence-related associations.
Penny's claims should probably be situated within the theory of priming.
Our associative layout gradually adapts itself to the act of killing.
What Penny fails to notice, however, is the very strong catharsis
counterargument, which states that computer games allow players to
discharge their aggressive feelings, and negotiate their arousals and
anxieties, in a safe environment. As in sports, players can act out
aggression that is not allowed in the real world within a rule-governed
setting, and feel relieved afterwards.
One of the primary targets of Penny's activism is the American
military lobby, which has attempted to hold onto the privileged position
it enjoyed during the cold war.
2
I believe that Penny's is a worthy cause, but one that does not
justify the implicit claim that everything that comes from, or is used
by, the military must be evil. The fact that
The Sims
and
Doom
are used for modeling terrorist organizations and combat
situations does not prove that the technology is wrong.
3
Arguably, storytelling was also invented to recount the feats of
past heroes and kings - often of a violent nature - but I believe we all
agree that storytelling is not wrong. The claim that there is a strong
link between the military and information technology is a well-trodden
path. Military research brought us the computer and the Internet.
4
Computer games, however, are an exception to the rule. In
contrast to what the title suggests,
Spacewar, generally recognized as the first computer game,
5
was coded by Steve Russell at MIT in 1961. It was a typical
product of Science Fiction zealotry and hacker culture and was meant as
pure entertainment, not military simulation.
.
Penny correctly notes that the U.S. military has invested
heavily in simulation training systems, and that therefore virtual
training must transfer to real world experience successfully. What he
fails to do is make a distinction between elements that are transferred
and elements that are not. While he calls for a critical attitude
towards computer games, he seems to believe that we uncritically
introject integral virtual experiences. When acting in a simulation, we
acquire skills. We will become better players and our reaction time,
tactical insight and self-control may improve. Some of these skills will
be transferred to the real world and there they can be used for better
or for worse. However, I really do not see how killing a monster in
Doom
will make it any easier for me to kill another person. Moral
judgment cannot be transferred between worlds like basic skills.
6
Compare it to reading a book: you learn new words, meanings,
ideas, but you do not necessarily accept or imitate the actions of the
protagonist. You may be inclined to, but you do not. Some time ago,
someone told me that he was playing
Grand Theft Auto, a game which basically consists of stealing cars, crashing
cars, and committing crimes. One day he was reading a discussion on the
Internet and accidentally clicked on a link to a website with an image
of a (real) wrecked car. He said he had felt his stomach turn, which he
found strange since he had been sweeping (virtual) pedestrians off the
footpath only the night before. Game players are very aware of the
virtual nature of their actions. They may willfully suspend disbelief,
but they do this very consciously.
Moreover, I do not agree with Penny that enacting virtual violence is more dangerous for the player than just witnessing it. I believe that the player is constantly aware that she can start again, save or pull the plug. Whereas on television, non-fiction adopts more and more of the formal characteristics of fiction, possibly contributing to some people's confusion as to what is real, in participatory media there is no "non-fiction." Imagine a news item on a plane crash that allowed you to save the plane. Making a news item participatory would automatically result in its not being real. Virtuality has a paradoxical relation to reality. On the one hand, it is more real than fiction in that it allows the player to participate. On the other hand, it is much easier to distinguish virtuality from reality because it is presented to you directly. You can probe a virtual object to see if it is real. It is presented, not represented in words or images.
When I was little, my friends and I used to build camps and play
soldier almost daily (hi Davy, Deborah, Jan, Catherine and the others).
We all had our sword, gun, or spaceship depending on the setting of the
day. Our play could not be more embodied (we actually fought with the
weapons - carefully - but we fought). However, we were very aware that
what we did was not real. My message in this riposte is that I believe
we should not be afraid of our children playing computer games, not even
violent ones. What we should ask ourselves is: why do they prefer
violent, strongly competitive games to others? One explanation could be
the following. When children play games they imitate the world of
grownups as preparation and training: girls imitate their mother, boys
their father. As such they respond to an image of what they will have to
become when they are older. This image is instilled by society, not
through fiction, but through news, stories, experiences in different
settings, and so forth. However, as our society becomes more and more
concerned with competition, performance, and perfection, the image that
our children receive is a tough one, and their preference for games will
be similar. The choice of games depends on the society we live in, not
the other way around. It is probably no coincidence that violent
computer games are less successful in Japan than in the U.S., the last
country with superpower ambitions and the largest military in the world.
7
If we want to create a less aggressive society, we should start
by making it more relaxed and accepting. Restricting computer games
would be like shooting the messenger.
8
