Violence. It surrounds us. It is all over the media. It is so common in our society today that violence has become the norm rather than the exception. Perhaps one out of every ten people in the United States have experienced or witnessed a violent crime. Psychology Today states that homicide is the 5^th most common cause of death in the United States in all age brackets between 1 and 44 years. Violence to one’s self, in the form of suicide, is ranked second only to death by accidental causes. As violence is a behavior, it is common to lay the blame for violence to a psychological abnormality. Unfortunately, that is not the cut and dried case.

The potential for violence exists in all of us. It is part of our biology. Especially in males. Men are far more predisposed to violence than women, and this has been the case since the dawn of time. We were violent to hunt for food, protect ourselves and our families and to maintain order in society. As we can see, violence is still required today to do much the same thing.

Everywhere, we see the potential for violence. In how the police keep the peace, in how the military defends politics and diplomacy across the globe. In how one group seizes property, or food, or people against their will through the use of violence.

While we are predisposed to violence as a species, let us not forget that we haven’t brought ourselves to the point of extinction yet. This is because for all of our violent tendencies, society has developed a moral structure. Whether it’s because of a common belief in a spiritual concept, a religion, or just some inner moral compass, society has evolved with laws. These laws guide us through what is right and what is wrong. Such an evolution has brought some structure to societies, and has maintained some control over humanity’s violent aspects.

While yes, psychology is part of the equation of violence, there are other determining factors that make a person more predisposed to violence. For instance, it has often been discussed that environment, and external influence play a large part in violent behavior. A person who grows up in a violent environment, or around violent people may be more apt to be violent themselves. This can be seen across the United States where people grow up, and live in rough neighborhoods. Young impressionable people tend to go with the flow in order to be accepted by the elder violent natured individuals in their society. Observing aggressive behavior makes children learn new aggressive behaviors, for we tend to imitate the specific behaviors that we see, and start to believe that it is OK to do the same (Bandura 1973).

Influences in that environment could be a constant state of war such as we see in developing countries. It could be gang members who recruit younger people through coercion, or exposure to violence. It could be any number of hate groups who are able to influence people, imparting to them at a young age that one race or another is inferior, or to blame for something. In doing so, such groups are able to convince people that an ethnic group is deserving violence. So it can successfully be debated that environment, and external influence, are definitely keys to violent behavior.

There are others who argue that it is only biology that is the defining factor regarding violent behavior. In an article for Medical News Today, the author writes that the Hypothalamus, the ventrolateral part of the ventromedial hypothalamus, and the Lateral Septum areas of the brain are specifically to blame for violent behavior. Biology can be a factor to understand violent behavior in relation to build-up of electrical impulses that finally get released in a physical expression. But it surely does not help to explain exactly why these impulses get built-up.

In my opinion, I believe it is a combination of factors. I am United States Air Force veteran who has deployed to numerous locations where violence is common, and then spent time as a contractor there. From my exposure to these other cultures, I can say that I believe that environment plays a large part in violent behavior along with external influence. The more people are fed the idea that violence is acceptable, the more they are inclined to exhibit violent behavior.

It is true though that biology is really the tie that binds all of us into a predisposition for violence. Studies have shown that any person placed under enough negative mental stress will react violently to the situation they are in. In effect the Fight or Flight response is triggered. This is because regardless of environment, influence, or predisposition, we are all human and are all hardwired in the same way. Violence is a product of the Fight or Flight response. When presented with a given situation imbued with enough negative mental stress, we will either fight or run. Factors such as environment and influence will either mitigate or exacerbate our response.

To make matters worse, the ingestion of certain drugs such as amphetamines can produce states where the individual is more prone to be violent. The same can be said for alcohol, which is notorious for lowering impulse control. If the condition is chronic, then the individual will become violent over and over again. Again this is a matter of an external influence.

Now having said that, there are certain people who argue that psychology is the only defining factor. According many health professionals, mental illness is widely considered the principal cause for violent behavior.

People with psychotic tendencies who have no real sense of right or wrong are certainly more predisposed to violence. This is especially so in Paranoid Schizophrenics, where people come to believe they are being persecuted. They may then attack the person they believe is persecuting them. The same can be said of people who are sexually deviant. Often they will perform violent acts against other people to satisfy a psychological need. However, there is a standing argument that sexual deviance is a product of both environment, and the individual being a victim of sexual violence themselves. Therefore, potentially, sexual deviance is a result of environment and negative external influence.

The trend of violence in today’s society has reached epidemic proportions. In violent riots, people may act out violently because people around him or her are acting violently. It is perceived as normal to do so in such situations in which peer pressure, an external influence, lowers an individual’s self-control, thus allowing for violent behavior.

A child with a history of parental abuse kills small animals for the sheer enjoyment of doing so. The child has experienced violent behavior and is looking for an outlet to express his or her own violent tendencies. Once the child knows he or she has an outlet, they will continue to find ways to express their violent tendencies. The concern here is that as this person gets older, the need for release will need to be satisfied to a greater degree. Much in the way a drug addict needs larger and larger doses to maintain a high.

A soldier acts out violently on numerous occasions. He has a string of prior violent actions before joining the Army. Because of his violent tendencies, he is more accepted as a soldier. In such a situation, where violence is considered the norm, a person with a predisposition to violence could function for years before anyone caught on that they were actually emotionally disturbed.

A man with an automatic rifle walks in to a church and opens fire, killing dozens of people. Perhaps he has a deep seated hatred for an ethnic group. Or perhaps he has an issue with the religion being preached in the church. What is disturbing is that he has convinced himself over time that his actions are acceptable. He has decided that it is right to render violence to other people.

We see so much violence now that we have become jaded to it. Oversaturation of the topic by the media has made us numb to the violence in our society. We have in fact come to expect it. This is because the media knows that bad news sells better than good news. This is another example of external influence.

It is therefore my opinion that yes psychology does play a part. So does environment and external influence. When these three factors are combined with the fact that we are by nature, and biology violent creatures, the predisposition for violence increases exponentially. A word of caution however in stereotyping people who, based on these factors, are predisposed to violent behavior. We are all capable of violence. It merely depends on the situation we find ourselves in at a given moment in time.

References

• Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

·       Fields. R. Douglas. 2016. “The Science of Violence,” Psychology Today.

• https://psychweb.chbs.jmu.edu/Graysojh/pdfs/Volume101-ChildrenWhoAbuseAnimals.pdf
• https://www.traversebaycac.org/2018/06/15/animal-abuse-child-abuse-link/

The conference was sponsored by the Fethullah Gülen Chair at Catholic University in Leuven (gulenchair.com) and Dialogue Platform in Brussels – one of countless think-tanks around the world established by Turkish Muslims inspired by Gülen. Speakers and participants came from 75 different countries. Most were Muslims, but there were a few secularists, Roman Catholics, and Protestants (like me).
Gunnar Staalset, Bishop Emeritus of Norway and Honorary President of Religions for Peace, was among the opening speakers. He stressed the common challenges of interpretation facing Christians and Muslims, and urged conference participants to forge a counter-narrative to “violent extremism.” As examples of elements in such a counter-narrative, Staalset highlighted the Turkish ideal of hoshgoru—usually translated as “tolerance,” and an important theme in the writings of Gülen, and the recent Marrakesh Declaration on the Rights of Religious Minorities in Muslim Majority Nations.
The morning’s keynoter, Professor Rik Coolsaet of Ghent University, contested Staalset’s emphasis on narrative, a bit. His point was that all “violent extremism” is local and contextual. We must acknowledge and address the material and economic drivers of violence in diverse contexts, he argued.    

This tension between theory and practice, theology and social structure, narrative and material reality stretched throughout the two-day event—and of course played out personally in whether or not I accepted my invitation to Molenbeek. A session on “working with Muslim women to counter violent extremism” focused on Moroccan and Egyptian cases, with Prof. Maryam Aid Ahmad of Ibn Tufayl University in Morocco and Prof. Hoda Mahmoud Darwish of Zagazik University in Egypt as presenters.

My own talk highlighted “engaged empathy” and peacebuilding within and across Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions, notably in practices of teshuva, metanoia, and tawba—all usually translated as “repentance” (it was Lent, after all) and in the work of individuals such as Rabbi Jonathan Sacks in the UK, Leymah Gbowee in Liberia, and Gülen.
Some of the remarkable diversity within Islam—always a bit surprising to Americans bombarded with monolithic stereotypes of the faith, was evident. The subtopic for the conference was “Mujahada (Jihad) and Muslims’ Responsibility,” and multiple presentations from Asian, Middle Eastern, African, and European scholars differentiated the greater jihad of struggle to obey God and against the ego from the “lesser” jihad of defensive warfare. There was unequivocal condemnation of terror attacks as contrary to Islam. But Professor Muhammad Ibrahim al-Saidi of Umm al-Qura University in Saudi Arabia turned the subtopic on its head, so to speak, by offering a “presentation” that quoted largely without comment or context passages from Torah and the Gospels that overtly recommend bloodshed and even genocide. As Catholic scholar of Islam Scott Alexander put it on Facebook:

“I finally know how Muslims feel in the face of Islamophobic proof texting of their sacred texts. I finally know how it feels to have my own sacred scriptures ripped from their textual and interpretative context, frequently misquoted, … and glibly associated with the very real atrocities committed in the name of my faith.”
Professor al-Saidi did end with a passage nodding toward the peace witness in Christianity, but his point was unmistakable: the problem of religious violence is hardly unique to Muslims.
~
Inspired and encouraged by my fellow speakers, I went to Molenbeek. No jihadi jumped me. In fact, I had a lovely lunch at a Thai restaurant in the central plaza of the municipality with Manzoor, who is the first female Pakistani elected official in Brussels, and Erdem Koç—a former resident of Molenbeek who is now working for Dialogue Platform. We discussed Manzoor’s experiences with racism, and her vision to organize a “Neighbors Day” for the municipality. We then we visited the nearby “service restaurant,” which Americans would recognize as a soup kitchen.
As we walked to the mayor’s office, a group of schoolchildren walked past, holding hands and singing. I snapped a picture.
“Yes, that’s Molenbeek,” Manzoor affirmed.

Over coffee, Mayor Schepmans described a little of Molenbeek’s history and context for me. As a former Midwesterner, it sounded awfully familiar. As Turks, Senegalese, and Moroccans moved into the neighborhood for work, beginning in the 1970s, native Belgians moved out. Industries followed. Jobs dried up. Religion replaced ethnic origin as a source of identity. Mosques blossomed, but crime also grew.
I tried to suggest that similar dynamics, with similar easy associations divorced from actual causes and effects, once marked immigration in America. The church has been a refuge and way-station for Norwegian Lutherans and Italian Catholics, among many others, on the way to becoming Americans. Now mosques might be playing similar roles in Europe. But Schepmans worried that “there is no European identity.” She may be right. Time will tell. And as people search for identity as strangers in strange lands, narratives will no doubt matter. The stories we tell each other can reflect both our worst fears and projections, and the better angels of our nature, as Abraham Lincoln first put it.   

On my last night in Brussels, I shared dinner and caught up with Sevgi Akarcesme, former Editor-in-Chief of Today’s Zaman in Turkey, and now a “journalist-in-exile.” The week before, the government seized her newspaper with a blast of teargas and a phalanx of riot police. It was an effort to silence dissent. I was glad she was safe. But her fragile status as a peacebuilder on the “front lines” gave me pause. Overall, the conference was heartening: I renewed friendships, gained some new friends and insights, and had reinforced my conviction that the vast majority of people of faith – especially Muslims – around the globe want to draw from the deep wells of our spiritual traditions to foster peace. But as I walked past the Belgian militia with assault rifles in the airport; and as I read the stories about the rise of right-wing nationalists across Europe; and as I learned that Donald Trump had won more Republican primaries in the U.S., it became crystal clear to me: what happens in Molenbeek will matter in Milwaukee.
~
Five days after my departure from Brussels, I watched the news with horror as three bombs killed 35 and wounded hundreds in simultaneous terrorist attacks at the Brussels Airport and a metro station. I tweeted my new friends Shazia and Erdem (who works in security at the airport) and was relieved to hear that they were both unharmed.
But we all felt the collective moral injury. The challenge terrorism poses is the temptation to react to evil by mirroring the fear, ignorance, and hatred that stokes it. Our great traditions counsel patience for a reason. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s teacher, Howard Thurman famously said: “The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
Those of us gathered at our conference on “Countering Violent Extremism” share a commitment to the long and patient struggle on a nonviolent path toward greater justice and peace. We don’t draw the attention that a few criminals can attract. But faith is on our side. Hope is on our side. Numbers are on our side. So even as we continue to grieve for those lost to terrorism and warfare around the planet, we still witness springtime come with all of its fragrant and colorful glory across the northern hemisphere, including in Milwaukee and in Molenbeek. And I am reminded of the inspiring vision of Fethullah Gülen, of a spiritual and social “springtime [that] will rise on the foundations of love, compassion, mercy, dialogue, acceptance of others, mutual respect, justice and rights…. No matter what happens, the world will come to this path sooner or later. Nobody can prevent this” (Toward a Global Civilization of Love and Tolerance, p. 232).

Such sceneries are very common now in many houses and internet cafes. Children and youth are spending most of their times playing computer games. While parents favor computers as necessities of modern age and as assistants for their children’s homework, children mostly consider them as toy boxes. They initially start with innocent intentions, but in time they lose their original purpose. “Uncontrolled use of computers,” the common problem of many parents, is also a matter very difficult to solve for the experts.

How do computer games affect the children’s subconscious and their future lives? Do games with positive effects have an appealing presentation?

Computer games can be grouped under two categories. First are the games that help developing talents, understanding the life experiments and ethical values by using an entertaining method; Second are the games that do not contribute anything to the child’s imagination and thinking abilities and inciting violent and immoral behavior. For the game to positively affect the child’s intellectual, physical and spiritual development depends upon both the content and the duration of the game. This period of playing time should neither be too short, nor too long. To be able to obtain a proper balance in this matter, we should first equip the child with an education of using the time wisely. Children wasting their time for useless activities, can also be insensitive to effective use of time when they grow up. Concisely, children must acquire the consciousness of valuing time. Wasted time in front of computers cause children and youth to get passive. This increases the stress experienced by the children. Especially in active boys, this inactiveness causes an energy accumulation which negatively affects the child’s behaviors. The use of excessive energy by ways of different sports is very useful for the physical and mental development and raising of a social conscious. Moreover, spending time in front of computers, deprives children and youth from cultural activities like playing group games, studying together and engaging with a sports activity.

Many of us complain that our children cannot express themselves properly and are not clear at communicating with their environment. When we ask a question to our child, either we get a very brief or a routine answer. Times elapsed aimlessly in front of computers have a significant effect on this.

We see that violence increase in each level of any new computer game. The game producers consider every type of method as permissible just to be able to attract children to the screen. Scenes which are not suitable for the age form the subconscious of a child. Children who have been exposed to several violent scenes are mostly inclined to aggression, anxiety and panic and they are generally furious and quick-tempered and consider violence as an ordinary matter. Reactions of children who watch violent films and play fierce and crimson computer games change in time and start applying more and more force to people and children around them. They tend to hit and kick others even after a slight disagreement. Being affected from destructive violent scenes, children reveal problems like over anxiety, sleep disturbances and behavioral disorders. Since the causes and effects of behaviors affected by the five senses are not questioned so much in pre-school children, abnormalities mentioned earlier can be seen more on them. We can give these as example: “A three year old child who watched violent films, applied what he watched on TV and stabbed and killed his little brother with a knife. Another child who thought himself to be a pokemon (a cartoon character), threw himself from the seventh floor with the intention of flying. And another child in France who could not win any computer games became epileptic because of having too frequent and excessive anger fits due to the unsuccessful playing sessions.” Unfortunately we often hear such news. In order to illuminate the subconscious of our children with beauties, favors, affection, and altruism, we should offer them alternative useful and educational games.

Harmful games also prevent children to learn their own culture, thus cause a cultural corrosion. Such games take our children to a world of weird clothes and hairstyles, weapons being the accessories. In this virtual world, no values exist except for “might is right.” Furthermore, in most of these games Islam is shown as a boogeyman and Muslims are shown as terrorists deserved to be killed. Children who are seized by the computer games become alienated to their environment. Having difficulty to make friends around them, children become enslaved by the computer and isolate themselves from the society. The only friend of the child is the computer, and in spite of elapsing the time, child still feels great loneliness inside. Hence, parents should provide suitable activities for their children and reasonably arrange the time spent for computer games.

Many bad characters shown on computer games also have perverse effects upon the child’s personal development. It is definite that messages given by these games like being strong and unchallengeable, inconsideration of other people’s lives, killing for the sake of living, disdaining ethical values, despising other people’s feelings, disrespecting the person addressed, categorizing the people, negatively affect the child’s personal development. Such games also impose unfavorable impacts upon learning abilities and awareness of the child. Scenes that are rapidly changing on computer screen distract the child greatly, make him confused and disturb his mind. This triggers a difficulty in concentrating when learning. Besides, excessive light changes may cause epileptic fits for some children.

Conclusively, computer games inspire children that the life is only a game and lead children to think too much about the characters in the game and mentally and physically to be with them all the time. Children playing too much computer games, carry the same concepts in the game to their relations with their family and friends, cause the child to confuse between the reality and imagination and eventually, the time spent together decreases and unsocial behaviors settle in the child’s personality.

Surely, we cannot underestimate the beneficial sides of the computer which is a must in modern age. But the ideal is to benefit from the positive services of the computer and to ensure a protection against its harmful usage. The playing time which is essential for the child’s healthy growth, should be distributed fairly between virtual games and real group games. For this, we must prefer games;

• in which they can play an active role,

• that are suggested by specialists and other experts,

• which can provide national awareness and cultural identity,

• which support comprehension and intelligence of the child,

• which contribute to virtues like sharing, team spirit, caring for others, honesty, and diligence,

• which instigate curiosity and make learning fun,

• which include parents into the game,

• which infuse consciousness of performing duties and responsibility,

• which help developing imagination, thinking ability, exploring and inventing capability.

If eyes, ears and other organs that are bestowed upon us by the All-Compassionate Creator are engaged with only entertaining computer games, then they are being used out of their innate purposes. Therefore, the vital responsibility of parents is to be very careful for guiding their children to use their sight, hearing, feeling, judging faculties in the right direction and to prepare an environment that provides the child a rich learning background and to bloom his mental abilities.

The ways Christians and Muslims relate to each other in the 21st century will have a profound impact on both communities and the world. Clearly, global interdependence requires more than tolerance in the midst of diversity. Economic, ecological, and military dangers underscore the need for mutual understanding and cooperation across religious and cultural boundaries. Unfortunately, the large majority of Christians and Muslims tend to view the other through the lens of misinformation and stereotypes. This problem is made worse by the media’s tendency to focus on the most violent and sensational events.

Knowing very little about Islam, most Christians in the U.S. shape their views in response to stories about terrorists blowing up the World Trade Center, a zealot’s call for Holy War, hostage takers, or the sharp rhetoric of Louis Farrakhan. While these images are rooted in the behavior of small groups of Muslims, they are hardly representative of the more than one billion Muslims, the overwhelming majority of whom are horrified by violent extremism. Consider the following facts:

– Minister Farrakhan’s supporters represent less than 20% of the African-American Muslim community. Some Muslims consider this movement to be another religion. The large majority are following traditional Islamic teachings out of camera range.

– The largest Islamic country is not in the Middle East. It is Indonesia with more than 160 million Muslims. There are more than 100 million Muslims in each of the following countries: India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. China has over 30 million Muslims, more than any Middle Eastern country except Egypt.

Why should Western Christians base their images of Islam on the behavior of extremist elements rather than the hundreds of millions of people who are not behaving violently?

Turn the image around and the problem comes into focus. Imagine that you are a Muslim living in Tunisia. You know very little about Christianity. But, you see and hear strange stories on the TV and radio: David Koresh and the Branch Davidians in Waco, TX; the scandals of Jim and Tammy Bakker; bombings by the IRA in Ireland; more than 20,000 documented cases of rape or murder of Bosnian Muslim women and children; or, a recent media frenzy over the group known as Heaven’s Gate. If your image of Christianity were shaped largely by media attention to these violent and sensational stories, how accurate would it be?

In addition to pragmatic needs for cooperation, the Bible challenges Christians to examine relationships with others: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (Exodus 20:16); Love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 19:19); and If it is possible, so far as it depends on you live peaceably with everyone (Romans 12:18).

How is it possible to avoid bearing false witness against or to love one’s neighbor, or to live together in peace if we know so little about our neighbor? Even worse, how is it possible to live in faithfulness to these biblical imperatives when much of what we think we know is incorrect?

Most Christians and Muslims have similar views on God’s revelatory activity through Prophets. The Bible and the Qur’an convey similar things about angels and devils, the last judgment, heaven and hell. They also differ at crucial points, most notably the understandings about God’s activity in and through Jesus. The differences are real and profound.

For Christians, the similarities and differences with Muslims have important consequences for mission and witness, as well as for dialogue and cooperation on common concerns. However one approaches these concerns, the prospects for constructive encounter is linked directly to a better and more accurate understanding. Now, perhaps more than ever, people of faith and goodwill need to make concerted efforts toward such understanding. The road is not blocked, and there are ways to move forward.

A good place to begin is with study programs in churches and intentional dialogues with local Muslims. Such efforts can help to correct stereotypes and begin to put a human face on others with whom we share this increasingly fragile planet.

In this issue, we address the effect of rapid technological development on our society. One of the most recent and unexpected examples is the phenomenal spread of the Internet. We are becoming even more of a global village than we were in the 1960s, when Marshall McLuhan first coined the term. From the comfort of our living room or office, we can click a button and read foreign newspapers and magazines, study languages, and learn about other cultures.

But such access has its disadvantages: sexually explicit Web sites, chat rooms where people are not what they seen, and violent and ultra-violent video games that can be downloaded. Thus, a still hotly debated issue concerning the entertainment industry now includes the Internet.

With all the talk in Washington about censoring or somehow controlling the Internet’s content, one wonders if one day we will have an equivalent of Breen’s Code, one of the few successful attempts to force Hollywood to produce ‘socially acceptable’ entertainment. Demands for such codes are growing, as more people become fed up with rap and gangsta rap music, ultra-violent video games, the use of sex to sell everything, and programs ridiculing traditional social and moral values.

As our world becomes smaller, we must deal with people who are not like us. To do this to everyone’s benefit, we need to understand other people’s worldviews, religions, histories, cultures, role models, and so on. As Islam is the fastest growing religion in America today, we offer an Islamic perspective on several core Christian beliefs.

Such technological progress has given us increased opportunities for arm-chair travelling. No longer do we have to spend years travelling, as did Ibn Battuta and Marco Polo. We can simply turn on the Travel Channel or the Internet and find whatever we want. But many people are actually travelling, whether as migrants or refugees, with the intention of settling somewhere else. As pointed out in our book review, such a phenomenon simultaneously represents a cultural homogenization and a cultural heterogenization.

Technological developments also have proliferated in science. Humanity has landed on the moon, sent unmanned probes to study other planets and asteroids, and continues to add to our knowledge of our own planet and its inhabitants. This has all been accomplished in the name of objective and value-free science.

But, as one of our authors reminds us, science is as not as ‘objective’ as it seems, for scientists are human. For example, when asked to explain why he had not considered the possibility that God could use evolution to create diverse life forms, Darwin replied that he had problems reconciling suffering with a merciful God. And so we learned that the scientists are subject to human weaknesses, just like the rest of us. This article explains what the scientific process is, how it works, and how it can be applied to religious beliefs.

Also included are three articles for the spiritual edification of our readers.

The winner of our writing contest will be announced in the next issue.

We hope that you enjoy this issue and, as always, look forward to your comments.

Electronic and video games are one of the most important branches of technology entertainment. During the last several decades, interactive video games have emerged as one of the most popular forms of entertainment, particularly among adolescents. Video game content is extremely varied. In addition to their entertainment value, reflected in their enormous popularity, video game proponents point to their constructive uses in education, medicine, and other fields.

However, some observers find certain game-playing trends disturbing. For example, newer generations of video games often feature graphic depictions of violence. This has intensified public concern of potential harmful effects.

Video Game Violence

Video games first appeared during the 1970s. In the last 3 decades, they have gone from bouncing a little white ball from side to side on a screen to virtual reality games in which one is a character in the game itself. Newly emerging on-line games enable a person to play and compete with many others in cyberspace. The majority of games developed with this evolving technology are entertaining, engaging, and appropriate for children.

One segment of the market, however, features violence as a theme. Its depiction of violence has evolved from early shooting games blasting mostly spaceships out of the sky to gory violence, where characters literally tear each other apart with all the realistic details accompanying the act. Many of these games often require the use of increasing levels and intensities of violence to advance through the levels. Thus, violence is used as a problem-solving technique.

Toys and Children

Toys are commonly associated with children. Technology has produced many electronic toys, more specifically, computer and video games. Since there is no extensive body of research on the effects of video game violence, some people state that it does not harm children. The same argument was used to defend television violence for more than 3 decades.

Others assert, theoretically, that video violence actually may benefit children, because it gives them an outlet for aggression. This “catharsis” hypothesis was advanced in the earliest days of the television violence debate, and even compared to the violent elements in literature and art. After many years of research, however, it was abandoned. In Shakespeare the violence is offstage; we see the effects and learn the evil of violence without seeing the act. Classic mystery dramas focus on crime solving, not crime commission; the chief weapon against the villain is intellect, not brute force; and a hero is selected for his or her strength of character, not his or her physical power to dominate. Today’s video game “heroes” often show a violent response as the only effective-and frequently first-response to any conflict.

Is There Any Impact?

There are a few reasons why the games are violent. One is economics: violent games really bring in the quarters for an arcade. Many modern games are designed to let a player fight for a certain amount of time, then compulsively buy more coins to continue. Another reason is that they let you do something that, in real life, is impossible, which is the whole idea of virtual reality and simulation anyway. If you want to unwind after a tough day at work, you cannot take your AK-47 and destroy McDonald’s. However, you can go to an arcade, sit down at an X-Men console, fight a few hundred bad guys and then leave thinking about your game instead of your worries.

Games are just that-games. But when applying these concepts to children, the picture changes, for young children are in immediate danger of copying antisocial behavior. Values are formed very early, and antisocial programming negatively impacts one’s respect for authority, for others, and for self. Given this, parents are asking what effect video violence has on their most frequent players: children 8 to 14 years old and younger.

Research is beginning to give us a picture of what these effects might be. Due to the recent arrival of ultra-violent video games, few studies are available. Research done by the Mediascope Nonprofit Organization shows that heavy exposure to entertainment violence negatively affects children.

Research done by the Media Analysis Laboratory in Simon Fraser University shows that 95 percent of teens surveyed had access to either a video game machine or a home computer, and a similar proportion (90 percent) said they owned at least some video games. The majority said that playing computer games produced a pleasant, exciting, challenging, and interesting experience. Many also felt gaming to be involving (77 percent) and sometimes frustrating (63 percent). Boys and girls experienced games differently, with boys more likely to associate positive emotions with play (e.g., pleasing, exciting, and involving) and girls more likely to associate negative emotions with play (e.g., frustrating, boring, and stressful).

Jeanne B. Funk and her colleagues surveyed the video game habits of more than 900 teenagers, primarily fourth through eighth graders. They found that almost half of the favorite games chosen were of the fantasy violence or human violence type. Girls more often chose games with fantasy violence; boys preferred games with human violence.

A 1998 study examined thirty-three popular video games, and found that almost in 80 percent of them, kids preferred to have violence or aggression as part of the play. Almost half of this violence was directed toward other characters. Twenty-one percent of the games had violence toward women.

There seems to be an imitative effect of playing and observing video game violence, especially among young children. For example, researchers found that in a group of 5 to 7 year olds, children imitated during free play what they had just been exposed to on video games. Children playing active but nonviolent games reflected that in their play, while children playing games with violent themes showed more aggression. The followings facts are taken from Screen Smarts:A Family Guide to Media Literacy by Gloria DeGaetano and Kathleen Bander:

Violent video games send the following messages:

• Problems can be resolved quickly and with little personal investment.

• The best way to solve a problem is to eliminate its source.

• Problems are basically black or white, right or wrong.

• It is acceptable to immerse oneself in the video game’s rule-driven reality without questioning the rules.

• It is better to use instinctual, rather than thoughtful, responsible behaviors to react to problems.

• Personal imagination is not an important problem-solving skill.

In contrast, playing maze games, puzzles, and simulation or treasure hunt video games teaches children that:

• Problems are solved through patience, personal initiative, perseverance, tolerance, and flexibility.

• Gathering information requires work, and information must be analyzed carefully so that informed decisions can be made.

• Problem definition and solving require the use of complex skills.

• A solution in one instance might not be suitable in another one.

• It is important to use such critical and creative mental skills as planning actions, organizing information, predicting outcomes, experimenting with trial solutions, evaluating ideas, and analyzing solutions and their consequences.

• Use imagination and thinking abilities to cocreate, with the game’s writer, inventive situations.

• Use personally-generated, thoughtful responses to solve problems.

In Time magazine’s cyberguide, video games were classified according to their educational value and violence. The authors write that the most child-appropriate hardware is that which encourages them to think and formulate ideas. Games like Carmen San Diego and Where in the USA? make learning fun. Even though the battles are bloody, children learn fast with strategy games like Age of Empires and Warcraft, because looking ahead, plotting strategy, and husbanding resources are the only ways to win.

In any computer hardware store, you also will find a lot of so-called splatter games. Unfortunately, there is a huge diversity in choice for such games. Games like Doom and Quake put guns in the hands of players and reward them for blasting everything that moves. Residential Evil is nothing less than blowing off a zombie’s head and hacking off its limbs. Home computer games can be even more disturbing: I once saw a 14-year-old kid playing a game in which the winning creature actually urinates over its victim’s body.

Rating Systems and Other Alternatives

With the progress of technology and consequently video games, society began to express concern about growing violence. Funk et al’s report stated that in late 1993, video game and software manufacturers began discussing a rating system. Two eventually emerged: the video game system sponsored by the Interactive Digital Software Association (including Nintendo and Sega) and a set of age-based categories developed by Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) (formerly the Interactive Digital Software Ratings Board). They developed joint content-based guidelines for video games through the Recreational Software Advisory Council (RSAC).

The ESRB initially proposed four rating categories: Universal (appropriate for all ages), Teen (13 and older), Mature (17 and older), and Adults Only. The board then responded to the concerns of professionals, including the first author, that the categories were too broad at the lower age levels by adding an Early Childhood (ages 3 and older) category. The ESRB also changed Universal to K-A (Kids to Adult, suitable for 6 and older), and added content descriptors that give a general indication of the level of violence, sexual themes, and crude language.

Although such ranking and debating appears to be designed to stop producing violent games, their main purpose should be to let parents know exactly what they are buying. Parents usually purchase the software and decide what games their children will play. Many video games are toxic and inappropriate for children. The best antidote is to teach children to find such games repugnant.

It also is crucial to teach them nonaggressive problem solving techniques through discussions with adults about the consequences of using violence to solve problems. While living in Japan, I noticed that Japan has almost as much entertainment violence as the United States. However, Japanese society is far less violent. The key may be that Japanese films, television programs, and society as a whole tend to show the consequences of violent acts, whereas their American counterparts do not. Finally, trying to keep children from seeing violence in the home, community, and media is the most effective method of ensuring that they grow up mentally normal.

Conclusion

This article points out how much our lives revolve around computerization. Computers dominate the lives of adults, children, and adolescents. At the same time, American youth have become increasingly involved in extremely violent crime, both as victims and offenders. Every aspect of our society, starting with parents, schools, and organizations to the mass media, the entertainment and software industries, and the federal government should be involved in controlling, rating and, if necessary, prohibiting interactive violent video and computer games. Not to sound too cliché, but it is our children who will have to adapt, live, and survive in this automated world. The “game medium” may be an obstacle in achieving their survival.

References

• DeGaetano, Gloria and Kathleen Bander. Screen Smarts: A Family Guide to Media Literacy. Boston: Honghton, 1996. (Taken from: Media Awareness Network. March 1999 ).
• Funk, Jeanne B., et. al. “Rating Electronic Games” Youth & Society (March 1999). (Taken from: Masterfile Premier. 24 May 1999 <http://gw11.epnet. com/st.asp?key=ehbeuwg&site= ehost>).
• Qnittner, Joshua. “Are Video Games Really So Bad?” Time (10 May 1999): 50-59.
• “The Social Effects of Electronic Interactive Games: An Annotated
• Bibliography.” Oct. 1998. (Taken from: Medioscope Network 25 May 1999 <http://www.mediaecope.org/vidbib.htm#Excerpts>.
• “Video Game Culture: Leisure and Play Preferences of B.C. Teens.” (Oct. 1998). Simon Fraser University. (Taken from: Media Awareness Network. 25 May 1999. http://www. media-awareness.ca/eng/issues/violence/resource/reports vgames.htm).