Brad
Bushman depicts media violence as one of the possible risk factors for violence
among youth. When people are exposed to violent media, they become less
impacted by it, to the point that it becomes normalized and increases violent
behavior. Bushman argues that youth who are socially rejected due to aggressive
behavior oftentimes find recluse in violent video games, which in turn can
increase aggression, creating a “downward spiral” for the individual who is
shunned by their peers. Bushman’s
depictions of youth demonstrate the adult centered perspective that invalidates
the agency that youth have and views them as “youth as dependents”, who are
also a danger to society.
The notion that youth should be
restrained from playing violent video games is reminiscent of
“youth-as-dependents” due to the underlying assumption that youth are unable to
make the right decisions for themselves.
According to this study, an adult, especially the parents, must be in
charge of limiting the violence that youth are exposed too. If they are unable to identify the violent
media, Bushman and his colleagues suggest that there be better training for
parents and a clearer rating system, like when the US surgeon general issued a
warning on tobacco in 1964. The responsibility of the parent and the surgeon
general is reminiscent of Parens Patriae, in which the nation holds the right
to care for the child if the parent is unable to fulfill their parental duties.
In this case, if the parents are unable to distinguish between the appropriate
content for the children and the violent video games, then it is suggested that
the government put in labels to help the parents make the right choice for
their kids. The parental role of the government is continued in the recent tax
reform bill, proposed by the House Ways and Means Committee, which ban violent video game makers from receiving their
R&D Tax Credit. The fact that it is only violent video game makers and not
other types of violent media demonstrates that this move is strictly based on
the idea that violent video games corrupt youth. Since parental guidance has
not kept violent video games away from under-aged youth, the tax reform bill
would punish these companies to deter them from producing violent video games.
There are also indications of youth
as dangerous within Bushman’s study. Bushman mentions the violent shooting
sprees that have been plaguing the media, specifically, the Columbine shootings
in which the shooters mentioned that their actions would soon become well-known
films. The notion that youth are shooting people to reach some sort of recognition
by society implies that youth lack the ability to rationalize their thoughts
and are instead led by their emotions. The warning that aggressive youth who are
rejected from society tend to gather with other aggressive youth, making them
more aggressive, and therefore more dangerous clearly shows the persistent
adult-centered fear of the super-predators that threaten society’s order. The efforts to restrict media violence, specifically video games, among youth demonstrates the continued belief that youth must be taken care of so that they do not lose their morality.
Bushman, Brad
J., Margaret Hall, and Robert Randal. Youth Violence What We Need to Know:
Media Violence and Youth Violence. National Science Foundation, 2013.
Print.
Peckham, Matt.
"Inane Tax Reform Bill Provision Would Sting Makers of “Violent Video
Games”." Time. 27 Feb. 2014. Web. 2 Mar. 2014.
I agree with Maria’s argument that the relationship between youth and video games is reminiscent of the depiction of ‘youth as dependents’. For years video games have been a central issue in youths’ lives as they comprise a significant portion of leisure activity. According to Bushman violent video games induce aggressive thoughts and angry feelings that he believes will in turn, lead to more serious social issues. As similar to the situation in the 1830s, adults believe that such youth are prone to crude influences and thus must be prevented from such danger. Bushman advocates greater parental involvement; he believes that parents must be educated in such matters to properly guide their children. Even though the intent of such perspectives is to simply prevent juvenile crime, the underlying notion is the belief that youth are capable of dangerous, heinous acts. There is a fusion of perspectives viewing youth both as dependents and as superpredators. We must reflect back to how youth classifications are thus never linear, and tend to overlap and resurface as recurring themes. Because of the fear that youth will see video game characters as role models, the adult-centered perspective has become fixed with the judgment that youth are incapable of making rational decisions.
ReplyDeleteMaria did a good job summarizing the articles and making connections with the lecture material. It was useful how Maria tied in the reoccurring concepts of 'youth as dependents' and 'youth as a dangerous class' with this reading. I find the shift from targeting parents to targeting companies in an attempt to stop youth being exposed to violent video games an interesting concept that implies that parents are unable to control youth, and is reminiscent of the doctrine of parens patriae.
ReplyDeleteBushman's argument that Maria concisely summarized blaming video games for desensitizing youth to violence reminded me of Beccaria's argument against corporal punishment; he claimed it desensitized society to violence and encouraged more violent crime. The argument that aggressive behavior leads to social exclusion and psychological harm is an interesting new element to this concept of being exposed to violence.
Maria does a good job analyzing Bushman's article about Media and Youth violence. I agree with the associations that she makes about the article with what we have learned in lecture. When Bushman describes how parents should be regulating what type of content/video game should be allowed for their children strengthens the argument for youth as dependents. When there is an age limitation on a video game, it is then the parents' decision to whether or not they feel that the game would be appropriate for their child. I also really liked Maria's analyses about how the article is partly adult centered. Though Bushman examples several studies, it does seem largely adult centered. He stresses the importance of parental supervision when it comes to age limits on video games, but then notes that youth are attracted to restricted items. In addition, when Bushman mentions that rejected children are more likely to fall into a "downward spiral" when interacting with violent video games seems like a biased assumption backed by only few studies.
ReplyDeleteBushman's perspective is definitely one that is adult-centered. It assumes the pliancy of youth minds, that young people cannot decipher the virtual from the real. However, the link between violent video games and violent acts in real life may be more blurred than he assumes. For example, it is possible that inherently aggressive youth both prefer to play violent games and commit violent acts in real life. How they developed a tendency for violence is another story, but that innate inclination towards violence is a confounding factor that may cause both the preference for violent games and acts of violence in reality. In that case, violent video games would not be the cause of violent acts in real life. More concrete examination needs to be done before we blame video games simply because spree shooters played them.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing to note about video games is that the aggression may not come directly from the violence itself. The competitive nature of gaming may cause stress and frustration for players who cannot match their peers in skill. It just so happens that the most competitive games include violence, but that does not mean that violence leads to real life aggression. There is a whole other aspect of video games that researchers have not studied as deeply.
Maria brings up valid points about the lack of youth agency found in Bushman’s study on the effects of violent media. However, to invalidate all Bushman’s findings because there are adult-centered components can be problematic; while he does fail to take into account youth choice and rationalization abilities, he does bring up interesting points about how violent media affects its viewers – and in the case of video games, its participants – psychologically. I believe that violent media is bound to affect viewers in some shape or form, whether in a miniscule or large degree. This doesn’t mean that everyone who plays violent video games will grow up to a be a mass murderer, but to say that violent media has no effect whatsoever seems a little too simplistic. What’s important to note is that these affects are not limited to youth – adults are affected as well. Even though representing youth as dependents can be a slippery slope, to a degree, parents are responsible for taking care of what youth are exposed to, so things like violent video games ratings can be useful.
ReplyDeleteThis post brought up a recurring theme we’ve discussed in lecture; all of this legal and media representations of youth don’t disappear with time. Sometimes they just diminish, or shift slightly from their original perspective. The “youth as dependents” viewpoint first appeared in the late 1800’s with the Ex Parte Crouse ruling, and as pointed out by the author, that perspective is still here in the present day. In fact, it resonates with the “youth as a social idea” media representation in the sense that youth are to be protected from corruption. In addition, I concur with many of Maria’s other points, such as that the study by Bushman is heavily adult centered, and as such, needs to be examined with a grain of salt. I also liked how Maria pointed out one a major flaw in the media that the Males article discussed, which was how the media tends to single out the extremely rare situations and focus all their attention on that. The Columbine incident was such an example, and as a result, a picture of youth as irrational and emotionally charged is painted over society.
ReplyDeleteReading through Bushman’s article there is this underlying idea that bad behavior is learned; thus, the reason violent video games are corruptive is because they expose children to violent behavior. This notion that violent video games corrupt youth is reminiscent to Rousseau's philosophy people are born inherently innocent but society corrupts them. In this sense because bad behaviour is learned it is necessary to protect children from that which will corrupt them. However, these assumptions that youth are becoming corrupted due to playing violent video games is inherently adult centered. It neglects to consider, as the teenagers in the PBS video stated, video games have become a space where youth can channel their angers and frustrations. Furthermore, when the state labels video games with codes such as G,PG,PG-13, R, it diminishes youths individuality and individual mental growth. By imposing these age categories it negates the maturity process is a fluid process not one predetermined by age, as Stanley Hall assumes.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with Maria in regards to Bushman's "youth-as-dependants" perspective toward juveniles. Bushman tends to focus on one of the least important causal factors of youth violence in society. His approach is no different from the "war on drugs" concept, which only pushed the drug issue under the surface of society rather than effectively tackling it directly. It is clear that the youth uses drugs regardless of drugs' legal status. In a very similar case, I am certain that the ban of violent media, specifically of violent video games, will not help society to experience less youth-related crimes. Instead, it will only provoke the youth to push the limits and engage in the prohibited video games regardless of any intact legal bans. Bushman fails to acknowledge the fact that adolescents have both the means and ability to acquire prohibited contents. For instance, pornographic material is supposed to be sold and viewed by people of age 18 or older, but the reality of the situation is that children under this age still access sexual contents on the internet easier than ever. With that said, I believe other problems that are more crucial in nature such as gang violence, poverty, lack of education and gun-control are more noteworthy of attention.
ReplyDeleteThis post accurately defines, describes and analyzes the interpretation of youth-as-dependents and youth-as-a-dangerous-class as they appear in Brad Bushman’s study on the effects of media violence on youth. In addition to these two perspectives, I would argue that Bushman’s analysis also includes a portrayal of youth-as-objects-of-saving-and-study. Different from youth-as-objects-of-saving-and-study, the youth-as-dependents view casts youth as incapable of making their own decisions, without emphasizing the need to aid the youth, and rescues them from themselves and the world around them. When we turn to the view of youth-as-a-dangerous-class, we see a construction of youth as for the most part, invariably, inherently dangerous. However, I believe that these perspectives, alone, cannot fully characterize Bushman’s study, and the study of the effect of media violence on youth as a whole. The intense effort to study of the effect of violent media especially in the form of video games, and the perceived need to protect youth from being corrupted by these dangers resembles the idea that youth are objects of saving and study. Although the study also points to the danger in youth, the blame is not placed on the youth, but rather the influencing factor that is driving them to commit violent acts.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that there cannot by one answer to the question of, "do video games make youth violent?". I think that this answer will vary on the person and what role the video game playing plays in their life. Some kids play video games for a few hours a week when they need/ want a break from school work. I feel that if these kids who do not play for countless hours have enough social interactions in their life, then they will not be "corrupted" by the games they are playing. I think the youth that may end up having issues with this are those who feel like an outcast and are neglected at home, in edition to school. I feel like these kids are the ones who have the possibility of becoming too wrapped up in the ways of the games.
ReplyDeleteI think that there needs to be more consistency in the legal disciplining of youth. I do not think it makes sense to allow kids to be able to purchase a video game that has an adult rating if the same child cannot go to see an R rated movie alone.
I find Bushman's study to be very interesting. I feel like it is important to see if there is a correlation between youth violence and what the media is putting out there for them to access.
Maria did a good job making connections between the video and the articles and concepts. However, I feel that there should have been some discussion on how youth utilize video games. Growing up with all brothers, I know that many of them use video games, many times violent, as a way to bond with their friends. As in the video, one girl uses violent video games to release herself from the stress. I think these are perfectly viable reasons to play violent video games. The difference, however, I noticed was that while the youth interviewed were able to articulate the reasons for playing violent games, many of mass shooters used violent video games to escape. They played games in seclusion and rarely interacted with anyone. I think this is what parents have to watch for and how youth can be seen as dependent because while youth can be seen as dangerous from the recent rampage shootings, they are dependent on their parents to watch over them and integrate them into social norms.
ReplyDeleteHi Maria, I really like your point about how the policing of video games by the surgeon general exemplify a Youth-as-Dependents framework. Laws regulating video game manufacturing and ratings reflect the federal and state government's desire to protect children's welfare. Perhaps the issue with the media effects study and the framework of Youth-as-Dependents is the grouping of youth as a monolith of immorality, and not having fully matured moral development. Thank you for connecting the reading to lecture. As a person who has never played video games (besides mario kart when I was younger), I normally take the side of the adult-centered perspective in which I believed that video games have an extremely negative effect on children. Your analysis of the frameworks that create this perspective, however, make me wonder if it is a misunderstanding between youth-centered and adult-centered perspectives in which media is perceived differently.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting how you connected Bushman’s study to ‘youth-as-dependents’. I think you can also say that his studies consist of youth-as-objects-of-saving-and-study as well. Bushman depicts that exposure to violent media increases aggressive thoughts. In this case, youth that consume violent media are seen as objects of saving and study because they believe their aggressive thoughts are considered “normal” behavior. As a result, Bushman reinforces the idea of saving them by having parents regulate how much violent media their child consumes. I agree with your idea that it is reminiscent of parens patriae as well. Bushman emphasizes that the parents do have an obligation to fulfill their parental duties, in this case, regulating the amount of violent media their child consumes. However, in parens patriae, the state also plays a parenting role in the event that the parents fail to care for their youth. In Bushman’s study, he does not put this responsibility on the parent and the state. Instead, he puts the responsibility on the parent and the producers of violent media.
ReplyDeleteIn her essay, Maria argues that Bushman’s adult-centered perspective of youth is allusive to the legal representations of youth as “youth-as-dependents” and “youth-as-dangerous-class” in regards to violence in video games and media. The relationship between youth and violence is depicted negatively in the media, which is indicative that society is always trying to find a source of blame for events that happen. In particular, video games have been criticized for their violence because it is believed that they make youth more aggressive; however, this is not always the case since there are youth who do not even associate the violence as being real, as we saw in the video interviews during lecture. The shift of responsibility from parents to video game companies show that society is desperately trying to stop the assumed catalyst for youth violence. The representations of youth as “youth-as-dependents” and “youth-as-dangerous-class” definitely become linked when considering the way media as a whole depicts youth conflict as a means of corruption; youth are seen as a threat to society due to the playing of violent video games, and they are not believed to be capable of making moral decisions.
ReplyDelete-Marlow McCurdy
I think the author of the article did a good job at summarizing many of the points that Brad Bushman made in her article. An important connection I think the author made in her piece is her portrayal of Brad Bushman’s article as a persistent adult centered perspective that encompasses youth as uprising super predators and that are in danger, dangerous, and need of being supervised and taken care of. I also liked her point on parents having to overlook what their children see as far as media and when parents cant distinguish, government should be able to jump in and point out to parents, if their children should or shouldn’t watch certain movies or play a specific game according to their age. I also feel that the author of this piece may have not highlighted the point that there are many other factors that spark violence among youth; Bushman’s article explicitly mentions the need to study more in depth the type of youth or individuals that are affected by the violent video games, whether they are more likely to behave aggressively after playing a video game, and whether they are likely to play these games alone.
ReplyDeleteOverall, the author did a great job of summarizing Bushman’s article. The author is able to explain Bushman’s idea that exposure to violent forms of media makes youth detach and experience negative feelings such as aggression. That in return can lead youth to commit violent actions. The author is able to relate Bushman’s work to youth as a dangerous class. Furthermore, it was great that the author brought in a recent article that lets us know where the conversation stands in relation to videogames. It illustrates how the government is still taking on this role of parens patriae, and youth are viewed as “dependents.” Moreover, I do not believe the writer was trying to discredited Bushman’s work. On the contrary I believe the author understands that Bushman is trying to establish a relationship between violent forms of media and violence in our society. However, it seems that for the author the emphasis is more on the shootings themselves, and if there are other factors that could be contributing to them. Ultimately, a pattern I see is that every time youth are being discussed by adults they are being labeled under the same categories such as youth as dependents and youth as a dangerous class. Regardless of the time period, they are constant at play.
ReplyDeleteThis essay makes some important points about Brad Bushman's study and what he derived from it. It is certainly interesting that this study is specifically about video games when violent entertainment and various types of violent media are so prevalent, especially in the united states. Video games are strongly associated with youth, while movies, or TV are not as strongly associated with youth. It seems to assert youth as having diminished capacity as well, for the focus on video games in a way suggests the preconception that those who play (youth) them are vulnerable and easily swayed by the fictional violence encountered.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Maria that the way that Bushman suggests we deal with youth and their playing violent video games goes along with the idea that they are not capable of handling such depictions of violence. It suggests that the not fully devolved youth shouldn't be playing violent games because it leads them to commit aggressive acts because they come to believe that such behavior is normal. Also it is mentioned that although not the case for everyone for a few select individuals it can lead to incidents of mass shooting such as occurred at Columbine. The issue of clear governmental ratings for video games on the basis of violence goes along with parens patriae because the government is taking over for the parents in deeming what is appropriate for youths and what is not because it is assuming that the parents themselves are not capable of determining this on their own.
ReplyDeleteEven though some individuals might say, "It's only a game," violent video games have an effect on young. I agree with Maria's argument that violent video games have an effect on the developmental process youth are going through. Maria did a great job of supporting her stance with the use of articles, readings, and class lectures to give the full background and proof that is currently out there on this subject. This stance connects youth almost as in need of saving, as well as dependents because they are being looked at as if there is nothing the youth can do to protect themselves from being influenced by the violent video games. Her summary of the Bushman article was very astute and provided excellent support for her argument. The way in which Bushman goes deeper in his study of whether youth will be more aggressive after playing a video game is the most convincing part on the article as well as in Maria's paper. Overall this is a good response to a relevant question many parents and youth are facing right now in the United States.
ReplyDeleteMaria brought up many fine points from Bushman’s article, but to me the most powerful was the focus on video games as the most dangerous media influence. Why is the film industry not as responsible, if they produce violent movies year after year? Blockbuster action movies are often full of shootouts and the Saw franchise revolved around torture and murder. It seems to me that video games are just the easiest scapegoat adults and analysts can find. The alternative is to recognize that many people were bad parents and didn’t pay attention to their children. It’s easier to blame a game than to admit that they didn’t interact with their child enough to know something was wrong. Bushman believes that a better training system would help parents, but each game gives a description of its mature content on the back cover. Furthermore many store clerks explain to parents that the video game has mature content. The existing advisory system is adequate; some parents just choose to ignore it anyway.
ReplyDeleteIn this essay the author does a good job of analyzing Bushman's article "Media Violence and Youth Violence". For example, the author clearly states that "Brad Bushman depicts media violence as one of the possible risk factors for violence among youth". Additionally, she accurately notes that Bushman is claiming that by desensitizing youth to violence, video games can lead to increased violence and aggression. Another strength of this essay is the author's ability to deduct the connections between the doctrine of "parens patriae" and "youth-as-dependents", and the notion that it is up to the courts to decide if violent video games should or should not be sold to youths without parental consent. Her claim that the youth are being depicted as a dangerous class is also worth noting. I say this because when Bushman brings up the school shooting perpetrators, he is implying that youth are already violent and this totally discredits and undermines the fact that most youth who do play violent video games very seldom lash out in this manner. However, I feel the author could have elaborated on the fact that the courts have ruled in favor of restricting certain things to minors, such as adult magazines, but for some reason they do not see a problem with violent video games even though research clearly shows a correlation between video game use and violent/aggressive behavior. What makes this even more striking is that the correlation depicted by the research is of similar levels to that of smoking causing lung cancer. One has to question why it is okay for youths to play violent video games but yet are not allowed other freedoms such as purchasing adult magazines.
ReplyDeleteVideo games are criticized for making youth more violent and or normalize their view on violence. However we should recall from the Males reading that the media and adults are usual suspects of exaggerating facts and even false blame. While some youth may be affected by the graphic visuals and stories played out on video games not all youth are affected or think the same. Fortunately their are youth who can understand that video games are not real and that problems can't be solved through violent video game play. Placing the responsibility on parents to ensure safeguard of youth highlights the principle of youth as dependents and also youth as a dangerous class because they are susceptible. Instead of placing video game restriction better not to introduce them in the first place. If youth are not exposed to violent video games or media they can find other sources of violence such as their homes or neighborhoods and the blame can be placed on the people. The cycle of saving the kids from bad influence will continue unless adults check themselves.
ReplyDeleteMaria does a great job of explaining how the media study that supposedly is geared towards helping the youth to protect them from potential violence that they witness through media could also imply that youth is dangerous and thus must be restrained. In today's media-saturated society, video games are common throughout all ages, from teenager boys to 40 year old women who play video games or computer games to pass time. To single out violent game as a factor that contributed to heinous school shooting incidents may be a stretching the scope of the study as well as the mere correlation that exists between potential for violence and exposure to violent video games. If the logic flows that exposure to violence in video games or virtual world may lead to potential violent crimes committed, then it should also lead that such violent games should be banned as a whole to the entire society. Adults, as much as youth, could be affected by the violence in media.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate Maria's clear points through her blog. Yes, I agree with her stance that Bushman uses a "youth as dangerous" and "youth as dependents". Further more I think one could also argue that he brings a "youth as object of study and saving". They not only need to be saved by their parents but by the government through labels and tax reform bill. The fear and propaganda of youth who play violent video games committing crimes was reminiscent of one of our earlier readings by Males in which youth was reported to commit three times as more murders as adults. This was a report,which did not necessarily reflect the truth but rather focused on exposing youth as dangerous. It leaves me with these questions: How much of the portrayal of youth crimes linked to violent video games is a media tactic to reinforce youth as dangerous? And how do violent video games affects adults?
ReplyDeleteMaria does a great job at explaining the different dynamics to this study such as the reoccuring themes and lack of youth voice present. I think that overall Bushman really fails to summarize or make his case because he is relying to heavily on statistical evidence instead of the ideas behind decision making and aggression. He assumes that because the test statistics show a correlation between aggression and media violence that automatically media violence is to blame, which is a completely unfair conclusion. He doesn't seem to integrate the different facets of youth life into his study which would show that compared to media violence, youth are faced with home situations and school situations that are most times more reoccurring than video games or tv shows. He essentially blames parents for not tightly controlling what their children watch and play when the blame isn't solely media. It is true that media does depict violence in certain lights (glamorizes violence), but the statistics show a small amount of school shootings and murders committed by youth than those committed by adults. One of the themes Maria left out that I think is very present is the idea that youth are in need of saving and study because in a sense, adults are trying to "save" their children from exposure to violence because of an overwhelming paranoia/fear that they will become delinquents or criminals in their adolescence and adulthood.
Delete