Video Games: The Aged Americans’ Jihad
Here’s another piece I had to write for a class, but this time it’s a bona fide paper: 5 pages, formal voice… with sources!
Enjoy.
— — —
In Barbara Whitehead’s essay, “Parents Need Help: Restricting Access to Video Games”, she bastardizes the basic concept of a video game and, consequently, argues quite vehemently against an individual’s freedom to purchase the games they wish if they are under an arbitrarily mandated age limit, such as 18 years old (Whitehead 108). She may very well have significant power of influence, in this situation, over a large group of people: the old, the digitally disconnected, and the unintelligent. However, to any outside observer with a working knowledge of both the current state of modern media and the video game entertainment industry, her conclusions, and proposals, will seem extremely ludicrous. She’s not alone in her opinions, nor is she the first: this is the common war cry of an old, tired, and increasingly embarrassing generation.
Whitehead’s central tenet is that video games promote “fantasy rape, beheadings, and mass murder” (108), and should subsequently be government regulated, much like alcohol, cigarettes, or certain substances. Using quotes from an obscure Governor, along with brief descriptions of only the most violent video games to ever exist, she proceeds to argue that parents cannot “parent” on their own in a modern society. Operating from a belief that parents should have ultimate control over every activity their children participate in, Whitehead states that the videogame industry’s overall attitude of parent-based regulation is not sufficient, unless “it were still 1995″ (109), where she believes the parental load was considerably lighter, thanks to a non-digital age. Additionally, the fact that the industry created a self-regulating board, the ESRB, to label games in age-appropriate categories is also insufficient, because “it isn’t enforced” (109). Somewhat significantly, Whitehead seems to have a deep and underlying problem with capitalism in general, citing the videogame industry (along with others) as
As an argument, Whitehead falls short of providing a compelling case against videogames, using quotes from an obscure semi-figurehead as her entire source arsenal to defend her own personal beliefs and outlandish claims. Her structure is typical of the targeted essay found in niche publications: short, fevered, and wildly supportive of it’s point without any bipartisan insight. This is not surprising, however, as this essay was originally published in Commonweal, “a review of religion, politics, and culture” (Commonweal) read, and written, largely by Catholics. The language itself is simplistic and at a low reading level, which again is a play by Whitehead to her audience.
While the argument may have proper literary structure and a glossy coat of legibility, the effectiveness of her authorship is largely indicative of failure. In fact, changing the category of this essay from “argument” to “informative” or “cannon fodder” would not be a far stretch: Whitehead does not state, or even argue, against anything that her readers in Commonweal would disagree with. When an author caters to their targeted audience, this is typically classified as “pandering”, not “arguing”. However, to the unobservant or casual reader from another source, this so-called argument may sound logical and sound if the true facts are not inherent to the reader and the essay is taken at face value.
Fortunately, Whitehead’s blatant failures are not obscured by clouds of religion, fervent beliefs, or audience pandering to all. The essay is riddled with large holes of both logic and rationality, but there are two more overbearing than the rest: videogames’ “advocacy” of violence and other cultural problem points; and the “failure” of the ERSB and the private sector to regulate the industry (Whitehead 109).
Throughout history immemorial, any school of thought, technological advance, or progress otherwise has been consistently viewed with fear, disdain, and war mongering by many of the larger and culturally-ingrained organizations (Barker), the two most common being the Catholic Church (Robinson) and the generation outbound from this world. Not surprisingly, Whitehead straddles both categorizations comfortably, and does not perceive either of them to be debilitating to her sense of reason or logic. The attack on videogames has consistently used the violence as a key argumentative point, citing the thin correlations between videogame players and modern violence. While the majority of studies, such as PBS’ “Reality Bites: Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked”, have quantitatively proven that those individuals predisposed to violence are drawn to videogames, and not vice versa (D. Jenkins), Whitehead proceeds to take this extremely conservative concept to another level: if video games involve violence, they must logically be supporting it as well.
A statement with such a logic structure is laughable in most situations, but, for some reason, seems to be largely accepted as reasonable in the argument againstvideogames . Applying the same parameters to other industries, one finds a few interesting examples of insanity: the snow sports industry must be a fervent supporter of death and injury, since they provide the means to those ends;internet service providers are guaranteed to be in large support of digital piracy and theft, since they provide the unfettered connections to those sources; and the auto industry is widely known to be supportive of high speed chases and police evasion, since the cars they make are capable of achieving just that. This type of logic quickly falls to pieces under any sort of intelligent scrutiny.
Blaming the product for the actions of its users is a dangerous road, but not quite as dangerous as calling out both democracy and capitalism at large as the focal point of failure for what is, apparently to some, a modern plight of hedonism, violence, and amorality. The American Federal Government is responsible for it’s people, yes, but not for the regulation of everyday activities that are, for all intents and purposes, trivial. In the case of dangerous substance regulation, federal involvement is warranted, and accepted as necessary by the majority of the populace. However, media is a benign form of entertainment, one that does not require a decree of what we are worthy to absorb as humans, especially when the media in question is associated with children. This is the role of a special class of humanity, known as “parents.”
Regardless of whether it was truly necessary or not, the videogame industry decided to self-regulate, to a certain extent, and created the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB). The goal of this joint-exercise operation is not to control the actual sale of their products, but rather to inform parents or retailers of the nature of the materials themselves. According to its mandate, the ESRB
When the ESRB is viewed as a ratings system, much like the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), their success is quite obvious: every modern videogame requires a rating to be sold to the public. However, it falls to the retailers themselves as to whether the rating’s age-appropriate parameters are enforced, or the parents’ judgement. Certain retailers do vigorously prohibit the sale of video games to minors who are not of the suggested minimum age, and sometimes even with a consenting adult present (H. Jenkins).
The nature of democracy and capitalism can easily be seen in the videogame industry, as there was a public desire, and a vibrant market has grown to accommodate it, all without unnecessary regulation. To suggest that such an entertainment market requires governmental oversight is to question the fundamentals of democracy: at what point does federal regulation in a democracy become federal mandates of an entirely different type of government? As evidenced by the current market crisis, largely influenced by crushing bank failure, the private sector does not always act in its own best interests. However, the difference between a market capable of plunging an entire country into a recession and an entertainment market that caters to a younger audience are staggering.
In presenting an argument for, or against, regulations in the videogame entertainment industry, both sides need be considered, with realistic and unbiased support and evidence. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead may have failed miserably at achieving an argument worthy of praise and admiration, but she unintentionally raises an important cause for concern: will the fears and war mongering of the ever-deteriorating older generations, along with the extreme conservatives, be the undoing of a Democratic America? In waging their Aged Americans’ Jihad, will they inadvertently cause a chaotic chain of events that lead to a regulated, religious, and strictly controlled government state?
Perhaps. But that’s exactly why the majority of Americans have very little control over their government. To avoid an Apocalypse of Stupidity.
Barker, Phil. “Fear.” Beyond Intractability . Beyond Intractability. July 2003. 30 Sept. 2008 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/fear/>.
Commonweal. Commonweal. 30 Sept. 2008 <http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/>.
ESRB. 2008. Entertainment Software and Ratings Board. 30 Sept. 2008 <http://www.esrb.org/>.
Jenkins, David. “Survey: 46% of Stores Selling M-Rated Games To Minors.” Weblog post. Game Career Guide. 22 Nov. 2007. 30 Sept. 2008 <http://www.gamecareerguide.com/industry_news/16343/survey_46_of_stores_selling_.php>.
Jenkins, Henry. “Reality Bits: Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked.” PBS. PBS. 2008. 30 Sept. 2008 <http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html>.
Robinson, B.A. “Current and historical teachings of the Roman Catholic Church about other faith groups.” ReligiousTolerance.org 16 July 2007. 30 Sept. 2008 <http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc_othe1.htm>.
Whitehead, Barbara Dafoe. “Parents Need Help: Restricting Access to Video Games.” Commonweal 28 Jan. 2005. Rpt. in Elements of Argument: a Text and Reader. Ed. Annette T. Rottenberg and Donna Haisty Winchell. Ninth ed. Boston: Clemson University, 2009. 108-109.
