Categories
All in the Mind

A Curious Exchange on Gambling

I belong to the school of thought that views happiness as a state of emotional equilibrium in which one's desires and material expectations are socially and environmentally sustainable. Should one feel unable to attain the required dose of desires in a highly competitive setting, this can indeed lead to much misery. The broad theme I'd like to develop is that the mass entertainment industry would be more aptly named the misery industry. One does not need access to official statistics to claim that the gambling, booze and video-gaming industries, all growth sectors under New Labour, are responsible for many severe cases of emotional disturbances, in which short term thrills are soon offset by long term compulsive obsessions, bankruptcy, ill-health (lack of exercise, substance abuse) and depression.

I contacted Dr Mark Griffiths, professor of Gambling Studies at Nottingham Trent University, to enquire about the nature of his research. I had read his name in a letter to the Guardian newspaper (praising government policy) and in much Internet research on the psychological effects of gaming (either gambling or video-gaming, especially of the violent first-person shooter kind). Not surprisingly, though in true academic style erring on the side caution, Dr Griffiths works were nearly always cited by those defending the industry.

On 4/6/06 2:05 pm, "Neil Gardner" <neilgardner63@f2s.com> wrote:

Dear Mr Griffin (horror of horrors I used the wrong name and inadvertently downgraded a professor to a mere esquire),

I am writing a book about the psychosocial causes of the new generation of psychiatric labels, chiefly AS, OCD, ADHD and Tourettes. Although there may be genetic markers for the emergence of the traits associated with these new categories, I would dispute that they are primarily genetic in origin, but may develop as a result of chiefly environmental and some other physiological factors.

Childhood exposure to electronic media has increased dramatically over the last 20 years, broadly speaking the same time-frame in which these new mental disorders have gained prominence in the public psyche. I am not suggesting a direct causal link between ADHD and excessive exposure to TV or violent video games, but the latter certainly affect behaviour with dramatic effects in some vulnerable and emotionally deprived individuals. More important recent economic and technological changes have led to new patterns of socialisation with greater emphasis on presentation or smarminess.

Many contend that the entertainment industry merely responds to public demand, e.g. people like gambling, so business responds by offering gambling opportunities. Call me naive, but within 10 minutes walk of my flat in Cricklewood London are 3 William Hills, 2 Paddy Powers, 1 Gaming Centre and a Bingo Hall. Prominent adverts for gambling sites appear on billboards, buses, high-profile news Websites and in my e-mail inbox. As a Java/PHP programmer and database engineer I have been contacted to work on several gambling web sites, something I have refused. So if addiction to gambling had no environmental causes, then why would advertisers spend literally millions on attracting new gullible punters?

I note on your site:

Some of our research and consultancy is conducted in conjunction with and supported by the gaming industry as well as from academic research grants. We can offer our research services to investigate any of the areas outlined above.

Very few organisations (if any) can offer the depth of psychological knowledge on gaming that we can offer. We can carry out primary and secondary research, provide consultancy expertise, and promote staff development and training through helping staff understand the customer and their working environment and through brand development by raising their awareness regarding social responsibility.

Translated into plain English, this means "We will furnish research to support conclusions that serve the PR interests of the gaming industry" or rather if your gaming magazine/website wants some pseudo-scientific evidence to deny the psychological effects of 9 year-old kids playing Halo 2 on their X-Box 4 hours a day, we'll be happy to comply. The usual techniques deployed are:

  1. Downplay the extent ofthe problem (e.g. only late teens play "Kill Your Neighbour 3")
  2. Identify other causesof the psychological side effects associated with gaming
  3. Stress the positive aspects of gaming.
  4. Stress the choice available to consumers (e.g. X Gaming Company also produces a child-friendly ping pong simulator)
  5. Ridicule all research emphasising the adverse effects of addiction gaming
  6. Deny that it is addictive.
  7. Identify other related pursuits or games which may be addictive or psychologically damaging (e.g. fruit machines or online paedophile imagery, the former caserefers to outdated technology and the latter to a taboo almost universally condemned by public opinion, but if imagery of child sex corrupts, then surely imagery of hedonistic violence would do the same)
  8. Pepper your report withpreviously erudite terms that gaming journalists can quote to arguetheir case e.g. Many first-person shooters have been found to have a 'cathartic' effect on gamers (do a quick Google for the word cathartic and you'll find it re-quoted on thousands on gaming web sites).

I would welcome evidence that British academia is not, as would appear from your Web site, for sale.

Neil Gardner

And here is Prof. Griffith's highly professional reply:

On 5/6/06 08:10 am, Mark Griffiths <Mark.Griffiths@ntu.ac.uk> wrote:

  1. My name is Griffiths not Griffin
  2. I am both a Dr and a Professor and definitely not a Mr
  3. I have spent 20 years researching problem gambling and problem computer game playing and have never downplayed potential problems (see attached CV)
  4. Your interpretation of our unit's work couldn't be more wrong.
  5. Type in my name and addiction to computer games or gambling into Google and you will find 100s of hits
  6. Your e-mail is potentially libelous and I am passing it onto our legal department

Well readers can do the Googling for themselves and then do a little discrete research into their funding. A typical comment by the media-savvy professor is his remarks reported on the BBC Website in the aftermath of a school killing by a Manhunt-obsessed teenager:

"Research has shown those aged eight years or below do in the short-term re-enact or copy what they see on the screen.

"But there's been no longitudinal research following adolescents over a longer period, looking at how gaming violence might affect their behaviour."

This basically admits excessive or under-age gaming may cause some adverse effects, but essentially downplays their gravity and passes the buck over to parents or other potential causes. By using terms "longitudinal research" the professor belittles the fears of millions of readers unaware of what he means exactly. Now consider his piece in the British Medical Journal heralding video-games as a form of anaesthetic to distract children suffering pain. This must be an exceedingly marginal benefit, as other forms of hypnosis could also be used, e.g. imagery of a soccer match would have a similar effect in a football-obsessed child. But it convenienty allows the much-quoted researcher to once again downplay the adverse effects of obsessive video-gaming, noting merely that they are "prevalent among children and adolescents in industrialised countries" but without considering the huge disparities in prevalence within the industrialised world, e.g. Compare the prevalence of video game addiction in the UK or Denmark with that in Italy or Spain.

Indeed the CV Prof. Griffiths kindly sent me says it all:

GRANTS/CONSULTANCIES AWARDED

Dec 97 (BMG)£1500Effects of violent video games
Jan 98 (Interlotto)£5000Social impact of online lotteries
Mar 99 (AELLE)£2500Lottery addiction in Europe
Aug 99 (Action 2000)£500Millennium Bug Apathy
May 02 (British Academy)£5000Online multi-player computer game playing
Oct 02 (British Academy)£5000Computer game playing and time loss
Dec 02 (Intel)£1000Online computer game playing/spatial rotation
Feb 03 (British Academy)£5000Online computer game playing/addiction
Mar 03 (Centre for Ludomania)£1500Technology and gambling
July 03 (British Academy)£5000Aggression in slot machine playing
Oct 03 (RIGT)£45000Psychology of Internet gambling
Dec 03 (Herbert Smith)£1500Internet gambling
Apr 04 (Camelot PLC)£30000International Gaming Research Unit (Core funding)
May 04 (UQAM)$2500Slot machine gambling/Interactive technologies
July 04 (RIGT)£16000Coping skills in problem gamblers
Sept 04 (888.com)£1500Transferable skills in poker
Dec 04 (Paddy Power)£8500Social responsibility in Online Gambling
Jan 05 (Wace Morgan)Gambling addiction (Case study research court reports)
Jan 05 (Claude Hornby Cox)£1500Gambling addiction (Case study research court reports)
June 05 (Norwegian Government)£2000Gambling addiction
Jul 05 (Nat Lott Commission)£10000National adolescent gambling prevalence study
Aug 05 (Ultimate Poker)£3500Online poker identities
Nov 05 (Norwegian Government)£4000Slot machie addiction in Europe
Jan 06 (RIGT)£10000GamAid/GamStop evalution
Jan 06 (ALC)£8000PlaySphere evaluation
Feb 06 (RIGT)£240000Adolescent gambling (with Tacade)

Highlighted are organisations that are either in the gaming industry or spurious regulatory and research institutions funded by the gaming industry (e.g. RIGT, Resposnibility In Gambling Trust). It may seem odd for those of us who live in the real world that Prof. Griffiths should dedicate so much time to investigating the dangers of slot machines, when other more modern technologies pose a much more imminent danger to the psyche of millions of young people today. The very fact that such individuals are heralded as experts should ring alarm bells.

For fear of stating the obvious here is my reply:

On 5/6/06 11:18 pm, "Neil Gardner" <neilgardner63@f2s.com> wrote:

Dear Dr Griffiths,

Thanks you for CV and in particular for the list of grants you have received. I am intrigued as to why you would want to seek libel action against an e-mail? In my experience a person would only seek such action if a) they fear losing credibility (and why would you if are prepared to defend your findings intellectually) b) they are being smeared by the mass media. The second option hardly applies. Why not just let your work stand on its merits and let others investigate the funding and bias of your research?

I clearly believe that certain sections of the entertainment industry are at least in part responsible for a good deal of misery and psychological problems. But I would hardly expect the industry itself to fund research that would severely restrict its operations. What would you say if our opinions on the safety of tobacco were informed by research co-sponsored by tobacco multinationals or if the safety of methylphenidate were evaluated by research funded by GSK? (and I don't even support a smoking ban - as a rule I'd regulate big business rather than private individuals)

(1) My name is Griffiths not Griffin
(2) I am both a Dr and a Professor and definitely not a Mr

Is that of any great importance?

BTW did you write a letter to Guardian a few weeks backs commending the government on its new Gambling Regulation Act with key terms such as "responsible gambling" and stressing new restrictions on fruit machines (which IMHO is an extremely marginal problem)?

You may disagree with my assessments, but please don't libel me. The very action, as any psychologist should know, is a sign of weakness.

Categories
All in the Mind

Who Needs Psychiatry?

Most human beings have undergone moments of emotional disturbance and have at times engaged in unwise and irrational behaviour due to inexperience, extreme stress or intoxication. Our unconscious may have created sensory illusions, echoes of past ordeals. Many of us have felt the need to withdraw, if only temporarily, in a world of our own. A sense of insecurity, guilt or just personal fascination can lead us to obsess with actions, issues or objects. We may even sink into a mire of introspective self-worthlessness, known to others as depression. In some of us these tendencies may prevent us from leading our lives in a way that others may consider normal or functional.

If somebody behaves in a dysfunctionally irrational way, there may be two kinds of explanations. The first, and intuitively most obvious, is that something out there, whether a recent occurrence or a distant childhood memory, has altered his or her state of mind. Alternatively the brain itself could be defective. It's not quite that simple because drugs, medicines and food can change our metabolism and alter our mood. More to the point our brains rewire in response to environmental changes, especially during our formative years, but by and large we may seek either psycho-social (also known as environmental) or neurological causes of our troubles. Neither psychology nor neurology can exist in isolation. The former deals with the software and the latter with the hardware, which unlike computer hardware, may be subject to a process of continuous adaptation known as neuroplasticity.

Some behaviours are not only subjectively dysfunctional or culturally inappropriate, but immoral and dangerous to the rest of the community, e.g. If a person became convinced that all red-haired men were evil and proceeded to murder all such individuals in his neighbourhood, it would be perfectly correct to detain the perpetrator and thus protect the wider community. Psychologists may wonder what traumatic events caused the murderer to commit these heinous acts and neurologists may wonder if his brain had an inherent defect or had been afflicted by a physiological disease.

A short definition of psychiatry would be the study of pathological behavioural patterns or according to the Free Online Dictionary, the branch of medicine that deals with the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental and emotional disorders. A psychiatrist treats an aberrant behaviour as a disease. A complex of associated behaviours is then classified as a disorder. A psychiatric diagnosis is thus nothing more than a synopsis, albeit in erudite language, of observed symptoms, indeed the word clinical often preceding labels such as depression means just involving or based on direct observation of the patient. Surprisingly few people labelled with behavioural disorders have had their clinical diagnosis confirmed by PET or fMRI brain scans, but if any abnormalities were detected only an experienced neurologist would be able to make sense of the data. Nobody receives a psychiatric diagnosis based on the results of a brain scan and yet confusingly many victims of traumatic brain injuries and epilepsy manifesting conspicuous deficiencies in parts of the cerebral cortex allegedly responsible for reasoning and socialisation lead very successful lives free of psychotic episodes.

Psychoactive drugs rightly attract a great deal of controversy, but surely if they did help alleviate the worst symptoms of emotional distress and prevent extreme antisocial behaviours, the professional category responsible for their administration would be psycho-pharmacology.

Some see psychiatrists as the last line of defence when other law enforcement and social care professionals cannot deal with extremely abusive, dangerous or self-destructive behaviour. Psychiatry differs from psychology in defining aberrant behavioural patterns as endogenous diseases, which may have environmental triggers but are nonetheless inherent to the affected individual. Many parents and other close relatives go along with the psychiatric model because it absolves them of all responsibility. Schools, social services, police, state and corporate entities all tend towards psychiatric explanations for the same basic reason.

Don't Blame the Parents

This has long been the rallying cry of the burgeoning mental health industry, myriad charities, public and private sector institutions very much in the public limelight. Whenever anti-psychiatry raises its dissenting head, its advocates are vilified and often likened with Robert D Laing, and accused often in highly emotive language, of blaming parents. This misses three essential points:

  • Parents are only part of a child's environment and thus cannot be blamed for numerous other factors such as heightened social competition, mass consumerism, peer pressure, pervasive media etc.
  • Parents may themselves be victims of childhood neglect and adult stress, with a serious sense of inferiority, social alienation or addiction to hedonistic pursuits such as gambling.
  • If we stress the psycho-social causes of personal problems rather than endogenous biological causes, parents, and other close relatives and friends, have a greater role to play in rehabilitation. Many become depressed or experience psychotic episodes precisely because they lack full integration with their family and community. Even where neglectful or abusive parents are a large part of the problem, they may, except in the most extreme cases of abuse, be part of the solution.

So let's abolish psychiatry altogether. In some cases we may find answers in neuroscience, but in most we'd better take a good look at each other and wonder what we as individuals or as a society have done wrong to make an increasing number of us go insane.

Categories
All in the Mind

Today’s Hate Hour

"Today we're dedicating our hate hour to an evil man, suffering from a chronic psychopathic sexual disorder. He deserves only contempt and should bury himself under the nearest rock. This man was caught viewing paedophiliac images on the Internet. We don't have any evidence linking him to real-life sex crimes, but are in no doubt that anyone casting their malevolent eyes on images deemed paedophiliac will sooner or later commit such a crime. It is imperative that we apply the preventive principle to avert any repetition of the Soham murders. Indeed as a precaution all teachers who have not been certified as "non-paedophliac" should be witch-hunted out of schools."

This is more or less the tone of media coverage over the Paul Reeve case. As soon as the key terms "child pornography" and "Internet" are mentioned in the same breath, we suspend critical analysis. These key words represent the ultimate evil and any measures, however draconian, should be taken to protect our children from sad depressed lonesome weirdoes glaring at pixelated renditions of underage sex. How could anyone sink to such extremes of depravity and how could anyone forgive such perverts? These are questions we are asked to address.

No doubt in the coming weeks Channel 4's hate season will feature a documentary on a purported paedophile gene, causing some chemical imbalance and remedied by a new variant of Risperidone or Zyprexa. Next we'll hear calls for early intervention. I've already seen posters depicting a teenage male baby sitter and a caption suggesting he's a paedophile. Maybe some of your neighbours are closet paedophiles. Go on, spy on your neighbours, you know just in case!

Then the omnipresence of depravity dawned on me. If child pornography is such a unique evil (and definitions please, lest the police sequestrate photographs of my three year-old daughter playing on the beach), then why not arrest the director general of Channel 5? In depressed moments late at night I have occasionally briefly switched over to this channel, now available to most TV sets in the UK. My random sample would indicate a certain obsession with documentaries on the porn industry including footage of a famous North American porn star claimed to be under 16. Next why not arrest the owners of Wanadoo Internet or the predecessors Freeserve? When I had an account with this ISP and was stupid enough to use Outlook Express with inline images enabled (I've since switched to Firefox and Thunderbird on Linux with most spam pre-filtered into my online spam folder), I was deluged with spam. First it was Prozac, then Viagra spelt in numerous creative combinations of comparable characters, then adult sites, farmyard sex and worse, which I personally find exceedingly distasteful. I tried to delete these unwanted HTML-enhanced e-mails, but often images would briefly appear on my screen. These bitmaps are actually stored in your temporary Internet cache, even if you delete them straight away. I used filters and disabled images, but eventually dumped Freeserve, frustrated that some genuine e-mails had been blocked. Many porn sites can be accessed within two clicks from many high-profile news and sports sites. Just click on any link to a gambling site and chances are it will sport a link to an adult site, which in turn will cater for all tastes, mature, hetero, homo, bi, teen and early-teen and not quite teen yet. With all the media outrage over kiddie porn you'd expect the government to clamp down on the porn industry, but that's not quite the case. In 2004 the UK government granted its friends in the entertainment business licences for the provision of adult content, a euphemism for hardcore anal, oral and multiple-orifice frollicking, on 3G phones and terrestrial digital TV.

That child sex abuse can have severe long-term psychological implications is beyond dispute. It seem a bitter irony that the same establishment promotes the bio-genetic model for personality disorders like schizophrenia rather than looking at environmental factors closer to home, despite a wealth of evidence linking child abuse in various guises with psychosis later in life. But there must be a distinction between gaining pleasure from viewing or interacting with virtual reproductions of depravity and committing such acts. I'd argue that exposure to media trivialising or desensitising us to various forms of depravity, be it sexual abuse or physical harm, does make us more likely to commit such acts in real life, but only if we are otherwise psychologically unstable and believe we can get away with it, i.e. there are no counteracting social forces. Thus it is argued that people can play first-person shooters six hours a day, but never dream of killing in real life. This begs the question as to why such games need to feature blood-soaked murder, rather than other pursuits that test your hand-eye co-ordination and strategic skills. If you like target-practice, you need not fantasise targeting a human being, you can play darts instead.

Likewise one can consume large quantities of porn, of dubious taste and realism, perfectly legally. Rape of over 16 year-olds is still, as far as I can tell, a crime in this country. I suppose rape of an under-16 year-old is a more severe crime, but rape of anyone is a crime nonetheless. Besides promoting the notion that anyone not particpating recreational sex at least twice a week is erotically deprived in need of more partners, sex toys or drugs, the media encourages everyone, especially women, to flirt proactively and be obsessed with their body image so they attract the right calibre of partners. So what happens if someone fails in the shagging race and cannot control his libido, but is exposed to perfectly legal media telling him both gang bangs and first-person shooting are positively cool. So if kiddie porn promotes child abuse, then all pornography promotes rape. And if you think all legal pornography portrays acts between consenting adults, think again! Much shows re-enactments of unrequested penetration with the victim first repelling her assailant and then revelling in it.

We are supposed to believe that someone who has not only been cautioned by Police for the crime of viewing a depravity and admitted such a caution to his employers, would overstep the mark by abusing his position as a PE teacher by actually fondling teenage students in a sexual way! Suppose Mr Reeve had been a Manhunt addict instead, would he want to kill his students? I don't think the grotesque violence portrayed in Manhunt would help stabilise any psychological weaknesses he may have had, but 99.9% of teachers would be in no doubt what constitutes immoral behaviour in a changing room and most enlightened enough to realise that nudity is not, per se, sexual. The harsh reality is that it's getting harder to recruit teachers who can deal with the level of intimidation and defiance exhibited by many students in UK secondary schools and teachers are increasingly targets of false accusations. Indeed in some cases the alleged victims, and we're talking about 14 and 15 year-old girls here, have taken the initiative on male teachers on whom they have a crush, encouraged by gossip in girly mags, peer pressure and fantasies of wealthy boyfriends.

Anyway I'm off to the police to hand myself in as a potential serial killer for having endured "The Terminator II" during a long-distance bus journey. I will then ask to be placed on the sex offenders' register for having viewed multiple-orifice copulations in Playboy at the tender age of 14. I haven't raped or killed anyone yet, but you know just in case!

Categories
All in the Mind

We Care about those who disagree

Samantha Stasy is a loyal Labour MP who genuinely cares about the physical, emotional and mental wellbeing of her constituents. Every week she holds a surgery providing local electors with a forum in which to air their grievances. "I believe it is essential to stay in touch with our electors, listen carefully and help them overcome their problems or refer them to professionals who can."

Samantha: "Hello, Mrs Contrary, I've read your e-mail, taken on board all your comments and fully sympathise with your predicament."

Mary Contrary: "Let me explain my disagreements with your government and your voting record."

Samantha: "I'd love to discuss the hard decisions that we as politicians have to take and fully respect your opinions, but I think I know where you're coming from. I joined CND as a student myself back in the 1980s, attended a few SWP meetings and went on my fair share of demos. At the time I genuinely believed in the righteousness of the cause, but with help and support over the years I've begun to see the error of my ways."

Mary Contrary: "Don't you think that voting for an invasion that has caused at least 100,000 deaths and was as any rational analyst would conclude motivated by oil is one mistake too far?"

Samantha: "I must say conspiracy theories are getting wilder these days. I voted to end a brutal dictatorship and allow the Iraqi people to benefit from the democracy we take for granted."

Mary Contrary: "What about oil?"

Samantha: "This seems to be a common theme among the antiwar brigade. Yes, we hope that the Iraqi oil industry can return to its previous levels of efficiency in line with international environmental regulations, and are putting in place an economic framework in which ordinary Iraqis can benefit from resources in their own land."

Mary Contrary: "Ms Stasy. I don't need to hear this nonsense. You know all oil proceeds pay off debts that Iraq built up in the 1980s and in practice go straight into the coffers of US and Israeli multinationals with lucrative reconstruction contracts."

Samantha pauses to take notes 'Patient may suffer from mild form of antisemitism, consider holocaust awarenesss training'.

Samantha: "The mind boggles. I'll have to check out the exact facts about which contractors are responsible for the reconstruction of Iraq, but I'd compare the current situation with post-war Germany. There we had to temporarily take over some German institutions in a process of denazification, essential in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Only last week a constituent whose grandparents perished in this genocide lamented the lack of awareness in the young population today of these unspeakable crimes against humanity."

Mary Contrary: "Don't you think it's cheap to use the Nazi holocaust to justify crimes committed by your government today? We oppose all tyrannical regimes!"

Samantha: "Oh well, that's what the pacifists said in the run-up to the Second World War. Had we listened to them, we'd enjoy none of the freedoms we take for granted today and you and I might not be talking in this surgery today!".

Mary Contrary: "Look if anyone is appeasing tyranny and genocide, it's not us! It's you guys who support the Bush Junta."

Samantha: "Mary, you seem to be getting paranoid about tyranny in this country. All we want is to work closely with our international partners, NGOs and businesses to bring about a fairer more caring society. We know it's tough and there's a lot of disinformation, conspiracy theories and hate speech on the Internet. Listen there's a group that meets locally for people like yourself who suffer from paranoid delusions. A good friend of mine, Dr Hamish Thotpol, runs the group. Members are encouraged to air their grievances and take part in constructive acts of benevolence, e.g. they organised a bus to the Make Poverty History concert in conjunction with Nokia. They also offer help and support with various therapeutic solutions to make you feel better about yourself!"

Mary Contrary: "Are you suggesting anyone who disagrees with your party line is mentally ill?"

Samantha: "No not at all, just that when we feel depressed about society and paranoid about all these hidden agendas from the likes of John Pilger, we might benefit from talking with professionals who can help us refocus our minds on the things that really matter, like our families, jobs and independent life."

Mary Contrary: "Stalinist b###h!"

Samantha: "I'm terribly sorry I couldn't help you."

Ms Stasy takes a note of Samantha's contact details and calls the local mental health monitoring unit. "Hello, one of my constituents is suffering from an acute form of Paranoid Conspiracy Theory Disorder and I feel she may benefit from a visit from a community psychiatric counsellor. I've recorded our conversation and will forward all correspondence."

"Oh, PCTD. Any hint of antisemitism" asked the friendly helpdesk assistant.

"She did mention Israel in a negative light" the Member of Parliament warned.

"Sounds ominous. And what about oil?" enquired the youthful psychiatric services support consultant, readjusting her headset in a Delhi-based call centre.

"Yes, she seems obsessed with the subject!" remarked Ms Stasy.

The call centre operator confidently uttered her well-rehearsed line "Thank you for passing on this information, Ms Stasy, we'll see what we can do to help."

Categories
All in the Mind

Is AS really on the Autistic Spectrum or are we just redefining Autism?

The overall message we get from the growing AS/Autism support industry is that we are part of the autistic spectrum and we have a psychiatric disorder, even if the language used by professionals when addressing us is much more diplomatic. I agree we have problems with socialisation and manifest behavioural traits that come under the broad umbrella now labelled as Asperger's.

I take issue with this arbitrary extension of the so-called autistic spectrum to include people with a high verbal intelligence quotient and who have very human emotions. It is kind of like saying "You were bullied at school because you're autistic but didn't know it at the time and now you've been diagnosed help is at hand". The truth is most of us were bullied at school because in a highly competitive society obsessed with coolness anyone who fails to conform to such standards is weeded out. As the saying goes "special needs are just weeds". As we are all so different, how could a label help anyone deal with us better. We are just human beings trying to navigate in today's social rat race and often choosing to opt out. I think the problems we experience are shared by a much larger percentage of the population, but to claim that such a reality represents an extension of autism is to misunderstand autism itself or rather to debase its value as a meaningful diagnosis. This term should only be used for individuals with a classic Kanner's autism developmental pattern and with associated cerebral abnormalities. Those who claim that aspies have radically different brains have misinterpreted scant data as most AS-diagnosed people have never had a PET or fMRI scan and recent studies are showing marked difference between the HFA/LFA (traditional autistic) group and the AS group and disproving earlier assumptions about the size of our amygdala (originally attributed to schizophrenics and psychopaths). The latter group manifest varying degrees of synaptic overconnectedness in the orbito-frontal cortex, but this is the most neuroplastic and evolutionarily advanced section of our brain and it is now known that it constantly rewires itself throughout adolescence and way into our twenties and even thirties. So it quite possible that millions could be manifesting AS-like traits not because we were born that way, but because our interaction with the modern environment led us to develop in a certain, with genetic factors only determining relative susceptibility. There seems to be a move to extend the autistic spectrum even further to include ADHD, Tourettes,OCD etc.. In some parts of the UK ADHD diagnosis has reached 1 in 5 children. So if we believe the psychiatric establishment, 1 in 5 kids has a neurological abnormality and will require drugs (they say medication) like ritalin (a commercialised variant of speed) or risperdal (think crack cocaine) for the rest of their lives alongside a support network, with teachers specially trained to deal with challenging behaviour..

This approach, labelling more and more people with one disorder or another, cannot be right. If something is wrong, let's look at the real causes. If we're told our problems are due to a neurological deviation, then we might believe that we need a label and all the stigma that that implies. By contrast if we conclude that society is at fault then we need to change society. Even small changes seem beyond the powers that be. Examples include reducing class sizes (i.e. replacing special needs learning support workers with real teachers and reclassifying all children as having special needs), putting limits on absurd sensory overloads in shopping centres and leisure complexes (loud music) and de-emphasising coolness. Why not? Because such changes would rock too many boats. Teamwork is the order of the day because in reality it means groupthink conformism. Many myths about AS-diagnosed people are spread by ASD evangelisers. We are supposed to lack interest in imaginative play or socialisation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The imaginative play claim comes straight from textbooks that apply to Kanner's syndrome (0.2% of the population according to NAS stats). As for socialisation, just consider why so many AS-diagnosed people get depressed, because we fail to socialise. If we didn't want to socialise, we would not care if others shunned us..

Dyspraxia and hypersensitivity to sounds are very real, but there is simply no magic dividing line between the AS-diagnosed and everyone else, they both represent continua. It may, however, be the case that dyspraxic or hypersensitive children are more likely to be ostracised and develop AS-like behavioural traits. How can one seriously imagine that the enormous lifestyle changes we have witnessed over the last two generations have not led to major psychological changes in a sizable group of adults? Some such as Richard Restak (author of the New Brain) Peter Breggin (author of numerous books on the dangers of ECT, psychiatric drugs and the ADHD fraud) have suggested that ADHD should really be called TV-syndrome. Why? Because it has been proven that excessive exposure to TV (immersion of a virtual reality not just the other side effects of cathod ray tubes) causes the brain to rewire. Remove someone from a high-tech media-obsessed multitasking information-overladen environment and place them in a more traditional slow-paced focused environment and their brains rewires. Of course we are all different, that much should be obvious to anyone who has met more than half a dozen aspies, but we are also first and foremost human beings.

Categories
All in the Mind

AS vs Autism Neuroimaging

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2004 Mar;61(3):291-8. Investigation of neuroanatomical differences between autism and Asperger syndrome.

Lotspeich LJ, Kwon H, Schumann CM, Fryer SL, Goodlin-Jones BL, Buonocore MH, Lammers CR, Amaral DG, Reiss AL.

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA.

Linda.Lotspeich@stanford.edu

CONCLUSIONS: Lack of replication between previous autism MRI studies could be due to intersite differences in MRI systems and subjects' age and IQ. Cerebral gray tissue findings suggest that ASP is on the mild end of the autism spectrum. However, exploratory assessments of brain-IQ relationships reveal differences between HFA and ASP, indicating that these conditions may be neurodevelopmentally different when patterns of multiple measures are examined. Further investigations of brain-behavior relationships are indicated to confirm these findings.

Functional connectivity in an fMRI working memory task in high-functioning autism.

Neuroimage. 2005 Feb 1;24(3):810-21. Epub 2004 Nov 24.

Koshino H, Carpenter PA, Minshew NJ, Cherkassky VL, Keller TA, Just MA.

Center for Cognitive Brain Imaging, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA; Department of Psychology, California State University, San Bernardino, CA 92407, USA.

An fMRI study was used to measure the brain activation of a group of adults with high-functioning autism compared to a Full Scale and Verbal IQ and age-matched control group during an n-back working memory task with letters. The behavioral results showed comparable performance, but the fMRI results suggested that the normal controls might use verbal codes to perform the task, while the adults with autism might use visual codes. The control group demonstrated more activation in the left than the right parietal regions, whereas the autism group showed more right lateralized activation in the prefrontal and parietal regions. The autism group also had more activation than the control group in the posterior regions including inferior temporal and occipital regions. The analysis of functional connectivity yielded similar patterns for the two groups with different hemispheric correlations. The temporal profile of the activity in the prefrontal regions was more correlated with the left parietal regions for the control group, whereas it was more correlated with the right parietal regions for the autism group.

Semin Pediatr Neurol. 2004 Sep;11(3):205-13.

Imaging data in autism: from structure to malfunction.

Acosta MT, Pearl PL.

Department of Neurology, Children's National Medical Center, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC 20010-2970, USA. macosta@cnmc.org

During the last two decades, neuroimaging studies have improved our knowledge of brain development and contributed to our understanding of disorders involving the developing brain. Differences in cerebral anatomy have been determined in autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Morphological studies by magnetic resonance imaging have provided evidence of structural differences in ASD compared with the normal population. This has enhanced our view of autism as a neurobiological disorder corresponding with different stages and events in brain development. Alterations in volume of the total brain and specifically the cerebellum, frontal lobe, and limbic system have been identified. There appears to be a pattern of increased and then decreased rate of brain growth over time. We integrate these observations with neurobehavioral findings to provide a developmental hypothesis of the pathophysiology of autism.

Dev Med Child Neurol. 2004 Nov;46(11):760-4.

Voxel-based morphometry elucidates structural neuroanatomy of high-functioning autism and Asperger syndrome.

Kwon H, Ow AW, Pedatella KE, Lotspeich LJ, Reiss AL.

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. howerk@alum.mit.edu

Efforts to examine the structural neuroanatomy of autism by using traditional methods of imaging analysis have led to variable findings, often based on methodological differences in image acquisition and analysis. A voxel-based computational method of whole-brain anatomy allows examination of small patterns of tissue differences between groups. High-resolution structural magnetic resonance images were acquired for nine males with high-functioning autism (HFA; mean age 14y [SD3y 4mo]), 11 with Asperger syndrome (ASP; mean age 13y 6mo [SD2y 5mo]), and 13 comparison (COM) participants (mean age 13y 7mo [SD 3y 1mo]). Using statistical parametric mapping, we examined contrasts of gray matter differences between the groups. Males with HFA and ASP had a pattern of decreased gray matter density in the ventromedial regions of the temporal cortex in comparison with males from an age-matched comparison group. Examining contrasts revealed that the COM group had increased gray matter density compared with the ASP or combined HFA and ASP group in the right inferior temporal gyrus, entorhinal cortex, and rostral fusiform gyrus. The ASP group had less gray matter density in the body of the cingulate gyrus in comparison with either the COM or HFA group. The findings of decreased gray matter density in ventromedial aspects of the temporal cortex in individuals with HFA and ASP lends support to theories suggesting an involvement of these areas in the pathophysiology of autism, particularly in the integration of visual stimuli and affective information.

PMID: 15540637 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Hippocampus and amygdala volumes in parents of children with autistic disorder.

Am J Psychiatry. 2004 Nov;161(11):2038-44.

Rojas DC, Smith JA, Benkers TL, Camou SL, Reite ML, Rogers SJ.

Department of Psychiatry, University of Colorado
Health Sciences Center, Box C268-68 CPH, 4200 E. 9th Ave., Denver, CO
80262, USA.

Don.Rojas@uchsc.edu

OBJECTIVE: Structural and
functional abnormalities in the medial temporal lobe, particularly
the hippocampus and amygdala, have been described in people with
autism. The authors hypothesized that parents of children with a
diagnosis of autistic disorder would show similar changes in these
structures. METHOD: Magnetic resonance imaging scans

were performed in 17 biological parents of children with a diagnosis of DSM-IV autistic disorder. The scans were compared with scans from 15 adults with autistic disorder and 17 age-matched comparison subjects with no personal or familial history of autism.

The volumes of the hippocampus, amygdala, and total
brain were measured in all participants. RESULTS: The volume of the
left hippocampus was larger in both the parents of children with
autistic disorder and the adults with autistic disorder, relative to
the comparison subjects. The hippocampus was significantly larger in
the adults with autistic disorder than in the parents of children
with autistic disorder. The left amygdala was smaller in the adults
with autistic disorder, relative to the other two groups. No
differences in total brain volume were observed between the three
groups. CONCLUSIONS:

The finding of larger hippocampal volume in autism is suggestive of abnormal early neurodevelopmental processes but is partly consistent with only one prior study and contradicts the findings of several others. The finding of larger hippocampal volume for the parental group suggests a potential genetic basis

for hippocampal abnormalities in
autism.

PMID: 15514404 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Cerebellar function in autism: functional magnetic resonance image activation during a simple motor task.
Biol Psychiatry. 2004 Aug 15;56(4):269-78.
Allen G, Muller RA, Courchesne E.

Department of Psychiatry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.

BACKGROUND: The cerebellum is one of the most consistent sites of neuroanatomic abnormality in autism, yet it is still unclear how such pathology impacts cerebellar function. In normal subjects, we previously demonstrated with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) a dissociation between cerebellar regions involved in attention and those involved in a simple motor task, with motor activation localized to the anterior cerebellum ipsilateral to the moving hand. The purpose of the present investigation was to examine activation in the cerebella of autistic patients and normal control subjects performing this motor task. METHODS: We studied eight autistic patients and eight matched normal subjects, using fMRI. An anatomic region-of-interest approach was used, allowing a detailed examination of cerebellar function. RESULTS: Autistic individuals showed significantly increased motor activation in the ipsilateral anterior cerebellar hemisphere relative to normal subjects, in addition to atypical activation in contralateral and posterior cerebellar regions. Moreover, increased activation was correlated with the degree of cerebellar structural abnormality. CONCLUSIONS: These findings strongly suggest dysfunction of the autistic cerebellum that is a reflection of cerebellar anatomic abnormality. This neurofunctional deficit might be a key contributor to the development of certain diagnostic features of autism (e.g., impaired communication and social interaction, restricted interests, and stereotyped behaviors).

Less white matter concentration in autism: 2D voxel-based morphometry.

Neuroimage. 2004 Sep;23(1):242-51.
Chung MK, Dalton KM, Alexander AL, Davidson RJ.
Department of Statistics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
mchung@stat.wisc.ed

Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder affecting behavioral and social cognition, but there is little understanding about the link between the functional deficit and its underlying neuroanatomy. We applied a 2D version of voxel-based morphometry (VBM) in differentiating the white matter concentration of the corpus callosum for the group of 16 high functioning autistic and 12 normal subjects. Using the white matter density as an index for neural connectivity, autism is shown to exhibit less white matter concentration in the region of the genu, rostrum, and splenium removing the effect of age based on the general linear model (GLM) framework. Further, it is shown that the less white matter concentration in the corpus callosum in autism is due to hypoplasia rather than atrophy.

Categories
All in the Mind

Is it Time to Rethink Media Effects?

It has become increasingly common in some academic circles to write off public controversies about children"s media as moral panics. This paper sets out to challenge the implied claim made in this argument that media do not have psychological and cultural impacts on children. This position confuses public concerns with public safety and children"s well being with right wing moralizing about children"s taste. It also reduces the scientific study of the relationship between violent entertainment and anti-social behaviour to a narrow hypothesis of direct causes rather than seeing it as diagnostic work on risk factors. This paper suggests that the fifty year long debate about youth violence would be better understood as a political struggle over the "lifestyle risks" rather than "entertainment values" which now pits media corporations against anxiously concerned parents.

Introduction: The Crisis of Childhood and the Roots of Media Effects Theory

The cultural impacts of technology are rarely foreseen at their inception warned Harold Innis (1951) inThe Bias of Communication, his prescient analysis of the important role that media have played throughout history. It was therefore important to distinguish the impact of any technology from the hopes and ideologies we projected upon them.1 For many years, state and church maintained monopolistic control over print technologies; yet in the long term cultural impact of the printing press could not be contained, for the accelerated diffusion of knowledge and scientific rationality precipitated by print ultimately weakened church and state authority, while gradually shifting the exercise of power into the commercialized arena of public journalism and opinion. Innis predicted that new communication technologies, like radio and TV, would similarly generate profound and seemingly paradoxicaldisturbances in social communication. And by undermining the very oligopoly of scientific knowledge and authority of those who currently controlled them new media often precipitated political struggles to shape their role in the modernizing world.

It is not surprising that in post-war America the introduction of television was first and foremost apprehended as the harbinger of social progress and democratization. Optimists hoped that as television diffused through America, this new medium would make cultural and scientific knowledge readily available to the coming generation. Hope was especially strong among progressive educators who believed that television"s "window unto the world" would provide the next generation with a universal access to knowledge and culture. And in many ways it did. At the vortex of a burgeoning consumer culture, television became the preferred source of entertainment and information for all sectors of the population " but especially loved by children for its up beat visual story-telling.

As the onslaught of commercialized "low brow" popular entertainments flooded the airwaves, the progressives dream of an educated citizenship dissolved into an anxious fretting about the crisis of socialization in the modern world (David Reisman, 1952). Although public controversies about socialization have been traced back to Plato"s suggestion that teaching the written word would undermine children"s memory, these debates entered the mainstream of American media during the 1950"s. Did TV provide early access to the wisdom, acting as a cultural treasury for the nation or did it produce a generation of ignorant couch potatoes? Given the crucial symbolic space that childhood occupies in western cultures, and the conflicted perspective on childrearing in America after the war, it is hardly surprising that children"s fascination with TV was viewed with both optimism and horror too, not only by social theorists, but by the public at large (Spigal 1997). The public debates about children"s mediated culture became a regularly contested zone of "social regulation" after the war, that grew ever more controversial with children"s growing enthusiasm for it.

So shortly after its introduction, children"s television became the flashpoint of a protracted political struggle over post-war values and lifestyles. At the centre of this controversy was the question of television"s impact on children. Some alarmist commentators proclaimed that a "generation gap" was dividing America, and sought easy answers to the degradation of American civic culture byblaming it all on the mass media and the rise of popular culture.(Rosenberg et al. 1954) Did not children need to be protected from exploitation in the mass mediated cultures in the same way that 19th Century advocates protected children from abuses in factories and the family? As Kirsten Drotner comments "Children and young people are prime objects of "media panics" not merely because they are often media pioneers; not merely because they challenge social and cultural power relations, nor because they symbolize ideological rifts. They are panic targets just as much because they inevitably represent experiences and emotions that are irrevocably lost to adults." (1992: 59). Television seemed to represent the unstoppable force of cultural massification that separated the lives of post-war generations from their parents.

To understand our contemporary world demanded a new way of thinking about the media"s impact on socialization argued media guru Marshall McLuhan in his profoundly confusing but prescient,Understanding Media (1961). In this Age of Anxiety McLuhan declared, the controversies over tastes and popular culture arise from the deeper disturbances created by electronic media within our social values and cultural sensibilities. Pointing out limitations in Wilbur Schramms" study of children"s use of televisionwhich found no effectsMcLuhan argued that psychologists often failed to measure the underlying processes that linked the mass media to profound traumas of our age (pg 33). In his view the debates about children"s media presaged the way children"s cultural sensibilities and values were being reconstructed in the post-literate retribalizing global village.

McLuhan clarified his most famous aphorism, the medium is the message, by explaining that theorists would fail to comprehend the changes taking place in mass society without "understanding media as environments" in which cultural dynamics contend and interact. McLuhan"s probes into media cultures suggested paradoxically, that television would both enhance and subvert the values of our literate society. This implied that the impacts of media cannot be understood independent of the social system in which they are implemented and used. Although it can be said of McLuhan that by half of what he said he meant something else, while in the other half he meant nothing at all his work made media analysis an increasingly important part of the study of socio-cultural change: writers from Postman and Toffler to Baudrillard paid tribute to McLuhan in their own prognosis for late industrial society. The study of the media"s impact is now too diverse and too contentious to summarize here. But at its centre, the debate about media saturated childhood never abated.

Against a backdrop of fifty years of public controversy concerning children"s use of violent entertainment, a group of 33 cultural studies scholars have become supporters of the video game industry in its battle against media censorship. They have dismissed the concerns of children"s advocates about media violence as just another media panic, saying there is no proof of the "effects" hypothesis. This paper examines the political and methodological issues implied in this claim that media have no psychological and cultural impact on children, suggesting that this highly politicized media controversy is proof that media have profoundly impacted not only children"s culture, but the popular discourses on and the politics of childhood.

Moral Kombat: Media Theory in the Age of Anxiety?

The introduction of television occurred at the very moment that America was in the throws of traumatic social change. The baby boom generation - the first post war TV cohort - was already regarded anxiously by the American public, preoccupied as it was, about impending moral decline, breakdown of the family, the problems of education, and rising tide of youth violence after the war. Of course war, violence and crime are issues that plague primitive and modern nations alike. All societies, must develop both legal and cultural mechanisms for control of the ever present sources of social conflict and threat of anti-social behavior. Yet there was a perplexing paradox at the heart of Americans attitudes to the use of force: As a right of self defense and guarantor of economic expansionism, Americans had long prided their military prowess, celebrating in popular culture heroic males imbued with bravado and guns.

Although crime has long been a prominent public concern in the USA throughout its history, after the second world war, rising youth crime rates placed the socialization of aggressive on the front pages. Sociologists interested in crime and antisocial behaviour in America framed violence as a generational phenomenon associated with juvenile delinquency (Becker 1961) "fearing the moral mechanisms and norms that had maintained public order in the past had been eroded in the post-war generation (Goodman 1956, Reisman 1952). As a perceived threat to law and order in our communities, aggression and crime are the lifeblood of contemporary journalism, for they manifest concretely the social forces undermining civil society ”the symptoms of a rampant sickness of an otherwise democratic culture.


The media"s growing role in the intensifying anxiety about youth delinquency and generational conflicts was itself formalized into an analysis of cultural regulation by sociologist Stanely Cohen (1972). 'Societies appear to be subject, every now and then, to periods of moral panic" he wrote. Cohen suggested that the media"s labelling of youth counter-culture movements as "deviant" was the first step in a discursive process of social control. His book drew a parallel between the hyped up media coverage of the mods and rockers and anthropological accounts of collective social phenomenon like witch hunts, inquisitions, public hangings which were also propelled into hysteria on a wave of public anxiety. His book documents a general process underlying these panics: "A condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylised and stereotypical fashion.......;the moral barricades are manned......; socially accredited experts pronounce their diagnoses and solutions; ways of coping are evolved or (more often) resorted to; the condition then disappears, submerges or deteriorates and becomes more visible.' (Cohen 1972, 9)

Panic is the quasi- social psychological term which Cohen uses to characterize the "sudden and overwhelming fear or anxiety" which seizes public discourses. The word panic itself derives from the god Pan who the Greeks imagined unleashed the powers of irrational fear. So too, argued Cohen, public anxiety fed by news reportage which was governed more by false accusations and hysteria, than a reasoned concern with impartiality, prompted a social control discourse mobilizing an strong reaction within the justice community and those sensitive to threats to the moral order. As experts were called in to explain the threat, youth cultures were interpreted as deviant, and a threat to the whole social order..

Cohen"s media analysis of the language of panic during the mods and rockers conflicts emphasized the media"s role in both the interpretation and prompting of a broader societal reaction. The journalists didn"t create these anxiety attacks of course, but Cohen believed that media were responsible for the amplification of anxiety which led to calls to control youthful opposition to the normative order. The same he said could be said for the media coverage of youth drugs, hair styles, and rock and roll. Cohen felt this process of panic amplification amounts to a hysterical over-reaction – an "irrational" response to a magnified threat of violent disruption. Cohen was concerned that the social anxieties prompted about youth culture, was actually a new form of ideological social control of working class sub-cultures.

Cohen"s theory of moral panic was therefore picked up by British Cultural Studies as one of the pillars of their theorization of subculture as resistive movements of the working class youth. The term media panic became widely used to describe the various public over-reactions to counter-culture tastes and youth pleasures – whether it be swastikas, reggae rhythms, rap lyrics, gay lifestyles, raves or playing Carmaggedon. Cultural studies scholars imagined themselves on the side of liberating youth from the oppressive censorship of their attempts to appropriate culture. In this sense they became defenders of the youth oriented sectors of the cultural industries, arguing that violence was simply a manifestation of youths rejection of bourgeois taste.

Media Affect

Because of the seeming link between endless symbolic killings, rising crime rates, and disobedient children, academics have from the beginning of the 20th century debated the contribution of popular culture to issues like delinquency and disruptive youth behaviour. But the scholarly debates about the anti-social behavior of the television generation grew load enough that they echoed through the corridors of power: increasingly scientific researchers and psychologists were drawn into the ever expanding controversy over media effects. For example, giving testimony at the Kefauver inquiry (1954), Paul Lazarsfeld claimed, there simply wasn"t sufficient scientific research to determine the impact of TV violence on children. In the angst filled days of the cold war, more and more psychologists set out to address the question in their laboratories. Prompted by repeated instances of spectacular youth violence (the Charles Manson killings for example) the study of media violence and its effects moved out of the labs as it became the central question of media effects research. (Huston et. al. 1992) Anyone interested in this topic must now confront shelves of books, studies and reports pertinent to the impact of media on children"s learning of aggressive and anti-social behavior. This literature is not only substantial, but varied in perspective and conclusions. The majority of it, as the Psychological and Pedaediatrics Society (2001) and Surgeon General"s (2000) review all conclude, although effects are small and difficult to specify, they are significant for some children in some circumstances. Yet from the 1980"s onward, others broke rank and rejected this growing concern about television"s impact on anti-social behavior. These critics argued that the evidence of televisions impact was being blown out of proportion (McGuire 1986, Freedman 1984) It is foolish therefore, to attribute to television all the social disturbances encountered in American postmodern culture to television. (Fowles 1999). Besides which, its guns that kill people and not TV, argued Todd Gitlin (1995): so if a solution is to be found to America"s high youth homicide rates, then it should be through gun control and social welfare policy, and not through censorship.

In Britain too, in the wake of the Jamie Bulger murders, the question of media violence moved to centre stage too as psychologists anxiously pointed to television to explain the seeming crisis in contemporary childhood. Children"s advocacy groups rose up and calling once again for regulation of media violence. A group of British cultural studies scholars took offence, and reinterpreted Stanley Cohen"s account of "moral panic" to attack on the very idea that media effect children. Against the threatened censorship of children"s culture, these scholars ridiculed the abreaction of those that were "panicked" by this brutal act. They also challenged the validity of the scientific evidence which "proves" media effects, and called into question the motives of those social scientists which supports the social regulation of media violence. Their objections were to both the assumptions about well-being, and normal development implied by psychology, and to the science they used to justify it. Guy Cumberbatch for example, scoffed at the underlying moralism of these child protectors who forgot their own youthful resistances, and wrongly laid the blame on the media. He equated their claims with earlier generations of censorious prudes who have sought to protect children from the evil influences of idleness, comics, or video nasties and to sanitize children"s media. (Cumberbatch, 1993). So what if children were fascinated with mature and adult themes? The importance of popular media within children"s cultural is itself evidence that media provide a discursive zone that children recognize and talk about as their own – and wherein they meet their own needs.

David Buckingham, too asserted that not only are the anxieties misplaced, but that the effects researchers have failed to respect children" genuine quest for more varied and less conventional forms of re-creation and amusement. TV is after all only story-telling, a fantasy resource which children choose willingly, and accordingly should be a matter of "taste" and not regulation. However ribald and aggressive popular cultural products are, what children watched reflected their own values, tastes and needs. Psychological theories of media effects simply failed to understand the robustness of children"s culture he argued, or acknowledge that children are active and savvy audiences who can tell the difference between fictional violence and news, play and reality -- even if their parents can"t. (Buckingham 1997). Buckingham goes on to critique both the bourgeois elite who programmed and regulated children"s television, and media effects academics who studied it, as if children were helpless victims of the media. "Ultimately, there is a denial of children"s agency at the heart of this approach; and these criticisms apply just as much to more apparently "critical" research about the effects of advertising or consumer culture as they do to research about media violence." (2001). They advised adults to lighten up a bit, preferring to grant to children"s cultural industries more autonomy to serve their child audiences free from the invasive interference of the moralizers. At least the commercial producers didn"t talk down to them in nannyish tones of bland traditionalism.

David Buckingham also noted the cultural studies opposition to the science underlying the claims about effects:

"The media effects industry is, of course, largely driven by moral and political panics about the harmful influence of media on children. Within Cultural Studies, there is a long tradition of damning this work, not just as positivist and empiricist, but also for conceiving of children (and audiences generally) as merely passive victims of the media."

He is referring to a collection of essays edited by Barker and Petley which called for an end to the panic becausethere are no "ill effects" of media violence . The evidence that childhood is in crisis, or that TV influences aggression is weak and based on mindless positivistic effects theory that fails on close examination to demonstrate that media are to blame, they claim. Youth crime rates and violence are falling, even in the USA, as the use of computer games increases. (David Gauntlet, 2002). Based on these arguments cultural studies scholars dismiss the fifty year long study of media effects as moral panic rather than a scientific theory. They argue that a cultural studies perspective can see through the media panic by recognizing the diversity of media representations, that audiences actively seek pleasure in interpreting conflict, and especially that young people possess the ability to distinguish real violence from fictional conflict.

Barker and Petley"s book dismisses the whole effects project on the grounds that psychologists are asking the wrong questions and using the wrong methods. In so doing they assert the superiority of their culturalist perspective over those deterministic psychologists, educators and sociologists that narrowly study only the media"s effects on children. The public"s fears arise from their reactionary traditional values and not fromreal effects of media. (Barker and Petley: Ill Effects 2002). Citing scientific critiques of the effects science they argue that a varied diet of popular entertainment has never been shown to be harmful to children. So the moralizing claims of the effects brigade is not only "false and misleading" but also "daft" and "mischievous". It is false because there is "no such thing as violence in the media" which can have either harmful or beneficial effects" in the first place. Mischievous because culturalist scholars believed the "alarmism" precipitated by "effects science" contributes to public censorship of children"s culture by pumping up the anxiety of parents.

Politics of Digital Panic in America

Given evidence of children"s' avid domestic use of video games and the internet for accessing violent content -- it is not surprising that the question of the new media"s impact on youth aggression added to the growing controversy over children as "consumers /audiences/users" of media (Livingstone 2002). Especially since 1992 as fighting video games like Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat and Doom first hit the market, digital media too began to feature prominently in the public battles over children"s media saturated lives. In this changing media environment, public anxieties began shifting from the TV and films to digital entertainment. Yet in America, the media producers have long opposed encroaching government regulation: rallying under the twin flags of freedom of expression and corporate responsibility they have worked hard to mollify parental concerns. Under the threat of regulation by Congress, the video game industry protected itself by putting on the mantle of self regulation: they developed an age related code similar to that for films, and a body called the ESRB which classified games according to their violent and anti-social themes.

But the regulatory pressure returned when a particularly nasty school massacre at Jonesboro, brought the issue of media violence back to the front pages: America seemed to once again be in the throws of media panic. On the screen children"s advocates were blaming, drugs, parents, families teachers and of course video games for the rise of school shootings. Perhaps not coincidentally Jonesboro was also the place where Dr. Dave Grossman author ofOn Killing (1995) and a leading critic of violent video games had retired. Grossman had been a lieutenant colonel who had built a career figuring out how to train soldiers to kill. As a retired US army officer, Grossman seems well positioned to comment on the similarity between the tactics used in the army to train soldiers and they use of violent video games among children today. The US military has long used simulation training for its soldiers because the "repetition and desensitization" of simulated killing effects kill rates (the actual percentage of soldiers that will pull the trigger in real life combat). Recently he has become a leading US advocate of restraining the American entertainment industries arguing that "the main concern is that these violent video games are providing military quality training to children". Like the training of these soldiers, Grossman believes that violent video games may have a similar effect on young people who play them a lot, not because they create models or templates for children"s behaviour, but because they help break down the psychological barriers that prevent killing: "children don"t naturally kill; they learn it from violence in the home andâ€Ã‚¦from violence as entertainment in television, movies and interactive video games". Grossman has persuaded many Americans once again that its time to do something about the "virus of violence" infecting America resulting in renewed calls to regulate video game violence just as it had film and TV.

After Littleton, Congress was prodded by the growing public outcry to hold new hearings on media violence. Grossman expressed his strong views to the committee. So too did a number of psychologists summarized the scientific evidence proving video games were harmful. The ISDA president submitted the industries view that video games did no harm to children. In the course of these hearings Jeffrey Goldstein Funk and Anderson"s all offered their expert opinions on whether video games effects on children"s behavior have been proven.

Headed to Washington to testify too, cultural studies scholar Henry Jenkins feared that the scientific debate had turned into a right wing witch hunt mobilized by a deep fear about young people which is intensifying the surveillance and monitoring of children"s behavior. Jenkins articulated for the committee the cultural studies scholars opposition to the effects research tradition, ridiculing those researchers who study media violence in laboratories by counting how many times a child hits a bobo doll. He articulated cultural studies argument that social science was not only misleading, but exaggerated maliciously to scare the trusting public into accepting more regulation of children"s media: lambasting the social science critiques he argues that their research evidence is not strong or consistent enough to sustain their attack on the media industries. Is it not far better to recognize that the roots of aggressive behavior lie with dysfunctional families, drugs and impoverished communities, more than media violence.

Jenkins rejects the simplistic media effects model arguing that rather than harm, media provide children with a rich cultural "resource" that they explore and interpret in their own way. Moreover, it is wrong to expect the imaginary worlds of children"s media to conform to parental ideas about morality and order. And in a society traumatized by rapid social change parents had been gulled into panic by the coalition of right wing moralizers and effects psychology: "Suddenly, we are finding ourselves in a national witch hunt to determine which form of popular culture is to blame for the mass murders and video games seemed like a better candidate than most" he says. Jenkins rebuffs the growing hysteria about video game violence arguing: "We are afraid of our children. We are afraid of their reactions to digital media. And we suddenly can"t avoid either". Eliminating violence from the screens will have absolutely no impact on aggressive and antisocial behavior he argued.

Welcome to the Risk Society

Afraid of our children or for them? In the 1970"s, the growing awareness of unforeseen social and environmental disruptions associated with post-industrial life generated a growing sense of crisis. Ulrich Beck"s theorization of the "risk society" made the emerging politics of anxiety into a critical sociology of modernization. Beck"s critique exposed both the complexity of the global environmental crisis and the limits of contemporary sciences to deal with the new technological risks produced by modernization. Anthony Giddens (1994) added to Beck"s critique of state and corporate mandated sciences, the obvious corollary that the market had become the paramount system for distributing both well-being and risks. Giddens' account of the politics of risk therefore highlights the problems of identity construction and life management that confront contemporary consumers. In the risk society, science is not just narrowly politicized but essential to the whole citizenry of modernizing nations for their survival. In the shadow of terrorism, tormented by global strife, plagued by a post-bubble economic recession and facing a burgeoning environmental crisis, the understanding of risk sciences have become essential to ordinary citizens pondering the complex tradeoffs they must make between the anticipated social benefits and threatened perils associated with the modern ways of life. The crisis of modernity, therefore is also witnessed in the public anxiety and confusion as consumer-citizens are required to manage their daily lives in the face of increasingly complex scientific discourses on risks and benefits of contemporary lifestyles.

In the context of this theory of a risk society, moral panics about youth violence appear to be only one of the many modernization anxieties. Anxiety pervades most aspects of youth lifestyle choice from fast food to pokemon – leaving parents hard pressed to do their best for their children in an increasingly complex world. Unfortunately, those interested in risk society are only beginning to pay attention to the role that mass media play in the politics of anxiety within risk society (Ferudi 1997). Cohen"s theory of moral panic can therefore be read as an instructive case study of the role that media play in the political dynamics of the risk society. Cohen"s account highlights the medias role in the distribution of information, in the sensitization of public opinion, in the dynamics of attribution of cause and blame, and their consequences for social control of the threat. As Cohen"s case study so clearly illustrated media do play an important role in setting the moral agenda and mobilizing the publics reactions to youthful disruption of social order. It is ironic therefore that the critics deny evidence of media effects – and in so doing ignore the journalisms role in the amplification of media panics.

Given journalisms position within the commercial media system it is hardly surprising that dramatic news stories involving sex, violence and crime feature prominently in our media. (Sorenson, S. B., Peterson Manz, J. G., Berk, R. A. (1998).2 These researchers investigated the degree to which newspaper stories about homicide correspond to actual patterns of homicide victimization" finding that "although homicide constitutes the least common form of crime, it receives the largest share of television and newspaper coverage of crime" (p. 1510). In another recent study, Maguire, B., Weatherby, G. A., & Mathers, R. A. (2002)3 suggest that "that news coverage of crime tends to be driven by the tenet, "If it bleeds, it leads" and that media coverage of news is characterized by a "herd mentality."

Close examination of the coverage of journalistic coverage of youth violence in America, indicate that the anxieties may arise from sensationalistic news values, more than it does from the balanced accounts of crime. For example Dorfman, L., Woodruff, K., Chavez, V., & Wallack, L. (1997).4undertook a content analysis of 214 hours of local television news from California. They found that for 1721 stories that violence dominated local television news coverage of youth, that over half of the stories on youth involved violence, while more than two thirds of the violence stories concerned youth. The episodic coverage of violence was five times more frequent than thematic coverage, which means that references to any links to broader social factors, or causes including media, are rare.

Although I think they wrongly blame the mischievous "effects researchers" for precipitating the media panic, these culturalist critics have raised a number of interesting questions about the role of media in the public perception of risks to children. So do these scientific discourses actually galvanize the media into a frenzy? It is hard for me to believe in the light of those content analysis of violence news that the scientific debates about media violence play much of a role in the panic coverage, other than consolidating already established opinion of the journalists.Have the journalists covered the scientific debates fairly? As Murray (2001) suggests, rather than feeding a media panic, American news reporting of the scientific findingshave consistently understated the evidence of risks. Perhaps because the media industry has something at stake, or perhaps because they apply a simplistic and non-scientific understanding of research evidence which fails to contextualize it, they often air on the side of caution when reporting science and sensationalism when reporting crime. If so perhaps the cultural studies scholars should be putting the blame for panic on the shoulders of the journalists and not the effects researchers.

So does this overblown news coverage scare parents into blaming the media? It is fair to say that many parents are troubled by their children"s use of media. Lets face it, parents have always been worried about their kids: we are raising our children in a risk society after all.Do they blame media more now than before? I doubt it. Surveys show that many parents agree that media are partly to blame for violence in society (65%): Yet, the percentage of parents that think media are the main cause is as low as 10%. So the public seems sensible in this case: they believe that media may be one of the contributing factors in the socialization of aggression, but certainly not the only one. Moreover, they have more than media to ground their anxieties: From our interviews conducted with mothers of young boys, I found their concerns about "boy culture" are based both on ideology and experience of childrearing as much as news. (Kline 2000) As parents watched their children using popular media in the nursery schools and fantasy play at home , many became convinced that TV and video games did contributed to some children"s aggression, and particularly to the problems their youngsters experienced in the playgrounds. So do kids. Recent surveys show they too believe that media are addictive, harmful to some, and that their younger siblings should not be exposed to sex and violence. (Kline 2001)

In fact, in the introduction to a later edition of his book Cohen (1987) rejected the appropriation of his study of moral panic by cultural studies to counter all concerns about violence and anti-social behaviour among youth. These scholars, he felt, were in danger of reducing his complex discussion of class conflict to matters of taste and style. It"s original intent was simply to de-legitimate the interpretation of working class youth movements as deviations from bourgeois norms and to reveal how reactionary forces mobilized around media panics in response to them. Cohen was aware that media panic mobilized all social agencies with a stake in the youth culture issues: some progressive and some less so. He noted that the public struggle over youth violence and anti-social behaviour, increasingly aligned the cultural industries with youth counter culture movements that used their products: This is what Cohen refers to as the exploitation of panic – which in his mind included both the justice system and the commercial enterprises that can profit from youth subcultures who began to assert their own interests. And Cohen was right: for nowhere is this mobilization more in evidence than in the media industries: Faced with public outcry industry representatives have increasingly intervened at the public hearings, in community enquiries, in the courts, in the legislatures and the scientific arena"s – where-ever the effects of violent media were being debated.

Disciplinary Powers: Panic Theory Goes to Court

An example is the contested St. Louis ordinance which would restrict the sale of violent video games to children.5 A similar ordinance had been successfully defeated in Minneapolis when the ISDA convinced the judge to declare that since violence has been part of children"s literature throughout history that it "would not only be quixotic, but deforming to shield children from the very graphic violence in new media like television and video games." Needless to say, the ISDA intervened again in St. Louis to prevent legislated restrictions on the sale of video games to children there. What is different in this instance, is that the ISDA have now been willingly assisted by some academic friends of the court – including prominent cultural studies scholars Henry Jenkins, Jib Fowles, Todd Gitlin, and David Buckingham – who have taken up the cudgel against a local community whose elected officials are trying to place legal restrictions on the sale of violent and horrific media products to children (to whom the industry itself claims not to be selling them).

These Amici curiae acknowledge that "the relationship between entertainment and human behavior is multi-faced and complex". But in their brief, they protest that the St. Louis County Council"s Ordinance implicitly relied on simplistic "assumption that video games containing graphic violence cause violent behavior". Their submission is intended therefore to "assist the court in understanding the media effects debate" because they fear that the courts have unwittingly succumbed to the "commonly held but mistaken beliefs about a proven causative link between violent entertainment and violent behavior to uphold a censorship law." In what follows I want to contest the cultural studies scholars completerefusal of the proof offered by the media effects scientists.

Proof

It remains unclear to what extent the Minnesota judge ruled against this so-calledcensorship ordinance on the assumption of proof of harmful effects of video games. Yet the Amici worry that the St. Louis court will believe that the "effects hypothesis" is proven on the basis of Dr. Craig Anderson"s testimony of the scientific evidence. Anderson "s review summarized both his own views, as well as the scientific opinion expressed by other psychologists and sociologists who have been researching media effects for fifty years both in the laboratory and in the field (Anderson and Bushman Murray, Paik and Comstock etc.). The OED states that a modern science is " a branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws and which includes trust worthy methods for the discovery of new truths within its own domain" OED. This definition rightly describes science as a discursive social body of knowledge which is methodologically disciplined by two specific rules of evidence. The first rule concerns empiricism: the hypotheses must be demonstrated by gathering and evaluating evidence. The second criteria is that science establishes "trustworthy methods" to ensure that evidence can be agreed upon by the community of scientists who evaluate each others findings (Schroder et al. Forthcoming). In this sense a science never proves anything. The evaluation of scientific evidence always hinges on the rejection of a "null hypothesis" represented by the proposition that there are "no effects". One never proves significant effects, but rather finds reasons to reject the no-effects proposition. A science therefore is nothing more than a self-regulating debate among scientists about the best explanation of observed events. But in a risk society, science politics is governed by what Tinsdale calls the Panglossian principle: Unless it can be categorically demonstrated that something is wrong, we will assume that all is well" which means that "the burden of proof is with those trying to prove that there is a risk" (1998:59) This imposes legal rules of evidence on scientific debate, that current practice of risk is assumed innocent until proven guilty. It may be a small point, but by overlooking this fundamental epistemological point the Amici are revealing their deep hostility the scientific method and its underlying procedures for discussing the weight of evidence.

The Amici"s submission contends that the weight of evidence has not supported the assumption of a causal relationship. They do so by citing scientific views of psychologists like Kevin Durkin, Mallory Wober, Jeffrey Goldstein, Mark Griffith and Jonathon Freedman which in their view suggest that experimental studies have not in fact proved "adverse effects" from playing video games; that the positive results are small, that the measures of aggression used are "dubious", and that ultimately the effects researchers have failed to prove that violent entertainment "causes – or is even a risk factor for actual violent behavior".

Questioning the Evidence

The Amici are right when they call into question the validity of psychological research into the relationship between media violence and aggression / anti-social behavior. Although trained as a psychologist I too find this literature both confusing and frustrating to read because of the very different ways its key constructs, "media violence" and "aggressive behavior", have been defined and operationalized. Does watching a killing mean the same thing when it is situated within a cartoon, a news story or a horror video? Does aggressive behaviors refer to hitting and fighting, to bullying verbal taunts, to feelings of hostility, or to our moral attitudes expectations and responses in social situations of power? Moreover the design of laboratory experiments with a 10 minute exposure to a violent scene or studies of undergraduates in lecture halls are particularly suspect as explorations of these complex processes.

Goldstein (1999) maintains that all these studies show is that boys enjoy playing in and watching action adventure fantasies. Since male aggression is so deeply embedded in contemporary culture, correlations are best explained by the tendency of those predisposed to aggression watching more violent TV. Unless experiments show consistently, that after watching or playing a violent programme or playing a murderous video game (the stimulus), a significant number of children jump up and kick or hit another child (the response), the researchers cannot claim there is an effect on behavior. Since many experiments in the effects literature are faulted, there is no reliable evidence to prove the causal hypothesis over and above this male fascination (Goldstein 2002).

Insofar as Goldstein is pointing out the inconsistent frameworks, dubious findings and methodological short-comings of the behavioral psychology literature on video gaming, particularly the experimental studies conducted in labs on space invaders, I can only agree with his doubts : many of the video game studies are so badly designed that one wonders why they are still being discussed. Goldstein also criticizes the research for only showing that video games at most, influence the way children talk and play: Since boys are also more likely to engage in both playful and hurtful aggression it cannot be claimed that video games cause that behavior. But can lab experiments ever find evidence that by changing the way children play media contribute indirectly to their aggressive attitudes and actions.

Yet the Amici intimate that most reviewers of the video game literature agree with Durkin, Wober and Goldstein that there is no evidence of effects in the video game research reviews. My own reading of Griffiths (1999) review is rather different than the Amici"s. Like Goldstein, he is of course scathing about the design and measurement issues plaguing the video game literature: "all the published studies on video game violence have methodological problems and that they only include possible short-term measures of aggressive consequences". Griffith is concerned about lumping together cartoon like violence and more realistic games (as in TV shows) and also between games where conflict is competitive hostility (sports or racing) as opposed to aggressive contest (fighting, shooting). There is therefore "a need for a general taxonomy of video games as it could be the case that particular games have very positive effects while other types are not so positive". I totally agree: of the 25 or so studies, at least half are out of date: experimental comparisons of playing Space Invaders for 10 minutes can provide no insight into the consequences of playing Soldier of Fortune for 10 hours a week in the course of one year. (Kline 2001)

Yet Griffith goes on to say that "one consistent finding is that the majority of the studies on very young children – as opposed to those in their teens upwards-tend to show that children do become more aggressive after either playing or watching a violent video game" when the research observes children"s "free play". Although there are too few studies to saywith confidence how much video games contribute to aggressive play and antisocial behaviours in the long run. (1999: 210) Which is why Griffith concludes his review: "the question of whether video games promote aggressiveness cannot be answered at the present because the available literature is relatively sparse and conflicting, and there are many different types of video games which probably have different effects". That is entirely reasonable given the dearth of studies. First person shooter games and those which feature extremely graphic violence (Soldier of Fortune) have not been around long enough for longitudinal research, to have properly identified the risks to very young children associated with playing them regularly over the years.

Yet Griffith has been convinced that video games can have both positive and negative consequences for children"s learning: "If care is taken in the design, and if games are put in the right context, they have the potential to be used as training aids in classrooms and therapeutic settings, and to provide skills in psychomotor coordination in simulations of real life events, for example, training recruits for the armed forces". (1999) In short he believes their effectiveness as learning environments has been demonstrated, but not precisely enough to specify the consequences of playing a particular game on different kinds of children. Pace David Grossman. Isn"t that exactly what he is saying. And is that what Anderson means when he suggests that"video games provide a complete learning environment for aggression".Maybe in another 20 years we will have the proof that video games supplement TV as environments for learning aggressive attitudes and weapons skills, but should legislation await the proof of specific harms done by specific games? In most risk controversies, we adopt the precautionary principle. Do we only ban a drug after its side effects have killed someone?

Whose Hypothesis?

Because their submission relies so heavily on Jonathon Freedman"s (2002) recent book length review of the media effects literature I will discuss it at length. Freedman argues forcefully both that the amount of research has been exaggerated and that the evidence proving effects has been overstated. His arguments are substantial, complex and methodologically cautious. In their reviews, both Freedman and Goldstein acknowledge that there is adequate evidence to say that relationship exists between preferences for violent entertainment and aggression. This relationship they say at best explains 10% of the variance of aggressive behavior. But they don"t accept that there is proof that video games do any harm. Both maintain that without experimental proof, correlations found in the literature tell us "absolutely" nothing about causal relations.

Freedman, like Goldstein is psychologist who is familiar with the enormous difficulties and expense of good psychological research. Yet I still have deep concerns about the way Freedman evaluates the weight of scientific evidence about the relationship between violent entertainment and anti-social behaviour. Having just read much of this literature, I disagree with the criteria for proof he establishes, the kinds of evidence he excludes, and the way he accounts for each studies relative contribution to understanding the relationship between violent entertainment and aggression .

Firstly Freedman assumes that there is only one kind of proof of the causal hypothesis namely that children watching more violent entertainment should be predisposed to acting aggressively. Although the question of direct stimulation or imitation of violent media did dominate the research paradigm early on, the thinking in this field abandoned behaviorism for a more complex social learning approach during the 1960"s. In fact, I can"t think of many researchers who have pursued such a simplistic version of the causal hypothesis , at least since Bandura"s bobo doll experiments. This is what I object to most in this assessment of proof: Freedman"s imposition of behaviorist criteria of a direct causal relationship between media representations and aggressive behaviors as the benchmark.

Most contemporary psychologists do not theorize aggression as a direct imitation of the programme but as a learned social behavior that becomes enacted by individuals in different situations which have implicit rules and sanctions. Psychologists know that there are many things besides media which also contribute to children"s learning about conflict and the role of aggression in social relations. Personal experience, peer relations, identification with role models, intelligence, sex roles, and parenting styles are obviously important factors in the development of social skills and aggressive dispositions. The propensity to act aggressively therefore will vary across individuals depending on their experience and circumstances, their peer relations, and communities. But many also believe that media representations of conflict and interpersonal aggression can make a contribution to the cumulative formation of those mental constructs and representations which prevent or privilege aggressive behavior. What is learned from media will depend on children"s interest in, patterns of use, identification with and interpretation of the violent narratives.

Unfortunately, Freedman ignores the actual hypotheses of investigators like Bandura, Stein and Huessman and evaluates their conclusions according to his own simplistic causal hypothesis. For example his behaviorist criteria leads him to dismiss all evidence of intervening and interacting processes involved in the medias role in the development of aggression. He is particularly derisive of the experimental Bobo doll studies because he claims that hitting one is "not a measure of real aggression". So he dismisses all studies which show watching violence can influence either their social preferences for toys, to their attitudes or play. But if watching WWF leads some boys or girls to play more aggressively, and if, peer groups that engage in aggressive play establish norms that accept bullying and teasing, then it seems reasonable to study play as an intervening variable. Freedman would say that this study provides no evidence for a direct causal relationship.

Their interest in the mechanisms of learning lead many researchers to use indirect measures of the effects of violent programming. Take for example, Bandura"s (1963) study. Is it correct to read this as a test of the causal hypothesis that media violence causes aggression , or as Bandura proposes, as a study of the mechanisms of observational learning through which children imitate adult models, whether they are on television or not. As he points out peer aggression is not that frequent; and certainly less likely in adult supervised situations like the nursery school environments these studies were conducted . It makes sense to use a measure that reflects the learning rather than the aggression. Hitting of the Bobo doll is never interpreted by Bandura as a measure of aggression per se. Rather the hitting of Bobo indicates the degree to which the child, having observed the particular pattern of modeled behavior, incorporate that behavioral construct into their play routines.

Secondly, in doing so Freedman dismisses all arguments about intervening or mitigating variables moderating psychologists expectations of universal effects of violent entertainment on all children. We know aggressive and anti-social behavior is not distributed equally in populations, differing between genders, between classes, and educational levels. Aggression and crime rates vary depending upon the family background, peer experience and community the child grows up in. It is not far fetched to think that media use interacts with these situational sociological factors such as family regulation of media use, in contributing to the learning of aggressive and anti-social behaviour in children and youth.In longitudinal field research it is especially important to control for these interaction effects because we have evidence that family background, preferences, interests and social circumstance which shape both the preferential patterns of TV viewing and potentially contribute to the media"s impact on at risk children.

Although Freedman acknowledges that naturalistic experiments and longitudinal research should provide some of the most convincing evidence of effects, his simplistic reading of their results finds they don"t. But this conclusion depends on how you add up the weight of evidence: For example, he sometimes tallies each condition in the research design asa separate test of the behavioral hypothesis, as if all research is designed to prove whether media violence directly causes aggressive behaviors in all children in all situations. Knowing that real aggression is a rare event in the nursery school, Stein and Freidrich (1973) decided to observe the gamut of aggressive behaviour including threats, taunts and playful tussling as well as hitting as indicators of the differential learning from a diet of violent, neutral and pro-social programmes. Freedman counts this classic study as two failures because the researchers failed to demonstrate a significant difference on the behavioral level between both neutral and pro-social treatments and aggressive behavior. It"s a bit more complex than that.

It does take a rather complex analysis to tease out the mechanisms involved in the children"s differential assimilation of these three media diets which is why this study is regarded as a classic. But does Stein and Freidrich"s finding that it is only once we control for aggressive predisposition and preferences for violent or anti-social media at home that we can understand the aggression, lead us to reject or refine the effects hypothesis. I certainly wouldn"t discard this "hypothesis" when so many studies reveal that TV can effect children"s learning as registered in children"s language and play. Nor is it insignificant to find that the effects of the cartoon aggression diet are only found in boys once we control for aggressive predisposition and what they watch at home as well. The reason these researcher constructed three treatments and employed multiple measures was not because they expect every one to be different, but rather to help them explore the various mechanisms of learning mediating the acquisition of social behavior including cooperation as well as conflict. As Stein and Freidrich explain, children"s intelligence and aggressive dispositions, their family backgrounds and ways of orienting to television, as well as the children"s social skills all interact with patterned media use, and its expected effects.

For example, Freedman also argues that Milavsky" et. als longitudinal study which revealed that preferences for violent programming in childhood predicted subsequent aggressive behavior can"t be included as evidence. He rejects this finding by pointing out that a preference for violent media is not the same as exposure to it. Unless you measure actual exposure (stimulus) the evidence must be doubted. So if the study provides some evidence of some other intervening factors, he considers it as lessening the weight of empirical evidence. This is like arguing that preferences for cigarettes don"t kill people only cigarettes can. Yet enjoying cigarettes is part of the process of developing a patterned use of cigarettes – an aspect and indicator of the psychological process that contributes ultimately to higher rates of cancer. There will be some people who once smoked , liked to smoke , but no longer do, who might respond to a questionnaire that they have a preference for cigarettes, but this is hardly reason to discard sound evidence of a relationship between preferences and health outcomes. Moreover, in the case of both cigarettes and violent entertainment the fact that some forms a strong preference for the activity, implying enjoyment and pleasure, might be an important difference in the pattern of use. For example the smoker who enjoys a cigarette may take deeper guilt free puffs, and the boy who plays Duke Nukem, may enjoy the sexist connotations in ways that a girl doesn"t.

Although Freedman agrees that field studies have provided the most interesting evidence concerning the effects hypothesis: Yet by ignoring explanations based on intervening variables, he has discounted much of what we know about television as a learning environment for aggression. For example, he discounts Heusmann"s (1986) finding about identification with violent heroes because it is not uniformly related to subsequent increases in aggression scores for all subjects in all nations. Not only are the findings weak and inconsistent for genders he argues, but also the results from Holland and Finland failed to produce the same increasing correlations as the American results, and only for girls.

I have some knowledge of the kinds of programs that the American kids saw, but little of the kinds of violent programmes broadcast or family practices of Holland, Finland, Poland or even Israel to watch with the same frequency and duration please let me know. It is not unreasonable to suspect that developing preferences for violent programmes with action hero characters, might be part of a patterned use of violent entertainment that can contribute to the socialization of aggressive and antisocial children, in some cases. The evidence from these longitudinal studies is modest but not vanishingly so. Given the range of circumstances children grow up in, the differences in their preferences, and the variety of mitigating factors, if what children identify with violent heroes at 6 predicts any anti-social behavior at 15 in America -- even marginally, I think it is reasonable to read it as a rejection of the null hypothesis.

And until I am confident of that their experiences were similar, I would not reject the US finding, because the European lack thereof. I suspect the results of cross national studies might now be different given the presence of American programming in the global television market. Take for example Grobel's (2000) recent finding that 13 year old boys across Europe develop strong preferences of action hero programmes. Unfortunately, because longitudinal studies are expensive we are only beginning to understand o how these various intervening variables contribute to children"s social development – both positive and negative.

Not all of the psychological accounts of media effects expect young people to commit aggressive acts immediately after watching. Media can contribute to that process both directly impacting attitudes and by interacting with other risk factors experienced within peer groups, schools, families, communities. Mitigating factors in this socialization of aggression range from family modeling and regulation to laws and public advocacy programmes. This is why most effects researchers do not expect every single child will be influenced by media violence in the same way. For example, the desensitization hypothesis implies that the more children watch, the less violence disturbs them. Habituation and desensitization may well explain why as some children grow up they become bored with violent games. Or alternatively why they seek out more aggressive fantasy experiences to overcome that boredom. Displacement theories imply that the harm to children may derive from what they give up in order to watch , such as healthy social play and reading.

Some of these hypotheses seem tangential to the behaviorist insistence that after playing games children should feel more hostile or act more violently. Yet psychologists understand that these factors constitute developmental assets which may help children cope with ever present media violence. Garbarino for example has noted that once the researcher accounts for these "developmental assets" the media"s influence becomes clearer. Among asset-rich children the rate of violence is low while among asset-poor children the rate is high. "Assets are found throughout the social ecology of the child—family, school, neighborhood, and community. The rate of demonstrating significant violence is 6% for kids with 31 to 40 assets bracket, 16% for those with 21 to 30, 35% for those with 11 to 20, and 61% for those with 0 to 10. Risk and opportunity accumulate." Which is why, he says "an accumulation-of-risk model is essential if we are to understand where televised violence fits into the learning and demonstration of aggressive behavior." Aggressive individuals or those who experience abusive, or brutal family and peer relations may develop a preference for violent entertainment, which in turn confirms templates of human relations which reinforces their understanding of conflict in their lives. Other families monitor, limit and co-view media, exerting a moderating influence over the way children use and interpret media. It all depends. Rather than the causal hypothesis, the driving force behind the psychological research enterprise is To determine what it all depends onbecause accounting for mitigating factors may help us understand why, heavy consumers of violent entertainment do not always grow up to be aggressive and anti-social.

Thirdly, and most problematically Freedman"s review exclusively deals with studies of TV violence and aggressive behavior. Dill and Dill observe that many of the problems in the video game literature arise from limited theorization of the differences between video game play and television watching. Although video game use patterns vary they are not chaotic or unpatterned. But surveys reveal that more so than television, boys are different than girls in their preferences, use and pleasures derived from game play. Boys not surprisingly prefer violent games and value elements that make games violent more. (Kline 1998)The preference for violent video game play is related to the amount of overall time spent and the preference for video gaming as a leisure activity. These heavy players are more likely to have game machines in their rooms, and to be less supervised in their game play.

These are some of the reasons we should not use Freedman "s judgment of limited effects review to the evaluate the learning from video games. Although I believe there are important similarities between these screen media, there is as Bandura (1986) speculates , also good reason to believe that the learning mechanisms invoked by video games will be stronger than with TV:

interactive nature of video games may increase the learning of game playing behaviours, including aggression, especially considering the move towards real-life action and actors in the newer generation of video games. This increasing realism might encourage greater identification with characters and more imitation of the behaviours of video game models.

Dill and Dill also note, as cultural studies scholars have insisted, that the active participation of video game play -- where players choose and then manipulate characters from first person point of view, may accentuate their identification with the characters and narrative: "Identification with the video game character may be stronger than identification with television or movie characters, in part because players choose a character and play the characters role in the video game scenario" (1998: 413). For this reason desensitization effects may be accentuated: "Empathy has been found to be low among known aggressors than non-aggressive and the degree that plots justify the aggression "if violent video games depicts victims as deserving attacks and if these video games tend to portray other humans as targets then reduced empathy is likely to be a consequence of violent video game play".

And finally, I believe that Freedman"s review has passed its best by date: Although it was published in 2002 he provides no account of empirical studies of media and aggression after 1992. It is too bad that Freedman has not kept up with the research literature when he claims that once other factors have been considered in those longitudinal studies, the variance explained by violent media preferences is negligible. ? For example, in a recent longitudinal study published inSciencethis year and undertaken in the USA, Johnson et al. (2002) report that even after controlling for other factors known to contribute to aggressiveness in young people"like childhood neglect, growing up in an unsafe neighborhood, low family income, low parental education and psychiatric disorders" there remain"significant associations between television viewing during early adolescence and subsequent aggressive acts against other persons" later in life. Their data show for example that young boys who watch more television are particularly at risk for aggressive behavior media: whereas 45% of the boys who watched television more than 3 hours per day at age 14, subsequently committed aggressive acts involving others, only 8.9%, who watched television less than an hour a day were aggressive later in life.

So too, in Daniel Anderson et al."s recent reporting of their recontact study, the two teams found " a much stronger support for content-based hypotheses "â€Ã‚¦ Viewing educational programs as preschoolers was associated with higher grades, reading more books, placing more value on achievement, greater creativity and less aggression. These associations were more consistent for boys than for girls. By contrast, the girls who were more frequent preschool viewers of violent programs had lower grades than those who were infrequent viewers." (pg vii) Using sophisticated statistical techniques the researchers found that when they controlled for an intervening variable called television focus (defined by the degree to which children talk about violence and use television themes in their play) there were strongly significant differences between correlations for viewing preferences at age five for violent programmes and aggression during their teens. Those with low television focus had negative -.12 correlations while those medium and high focus had +.24 correlations. Again evidence not of simple direct effects, but of an growing understanding of how children"s patterns of media use can influence their social behaviors.

This brings me to the crux of a perspectival paradox buried in the Amici Curiae"s submission. In their submission the Amici draw attention to both fact that media consumption is a voluntary behavior, and that playing violent games is much enjoyed by young people. This is why they see the legislation as censorship of children"s pleasure. Children are especially active audiences with interactive media, they claim, which is why their media use cannot be understood as a passive assimilation of contents: Children know that video games are simply environments for playful exploration of a sometimes difficult "adult" world. Moreover children"s play, and game play especially is a very complex learning process because it is imaginary: we can "t assume children make literal sense of the violence in their video games. They choose to watch horror films or play video games for many reasons including the potential to fantasize "empowerment" and transgression" and to experience "intensified emotions" or reinforce "ideological" understandings of the grown up world (Buckingham 2001).

All of these arguments are valid; but when the Amici go on to assert that the effects research has not acknowledged them, I must disagree. These cultural studies scholars have in the past ridiculed quantitative effects research for its positivism and failure to appreciate the complexities of children"s relationship to the media. Their underlying objections to quantitative evidence is that "effects are much more diverse and difficult to quantify than believers in the causal hypothesis generally acknowledge". Yet it is not the effects tradition which has been "driven" by a unproven "causal hypothesis" but the cultural critics who read the media effects literature through the lens of the causal hypothesis who see children as only "passive victims" of mediated entertainment.

Every media analyst is acquainted with the complexity of studying the relationships between entertainment and human behavior: So why utilize simplistic behaviorist critiques to call into question the evidence these researchers have gathered that leads them to believe that media can contribute to aggressive and anti-social behavior. This is why I find it so curious that these scholars have relied on the opinions of behavioral psychologists like Goldstein and Freedman, whose industry supported readings of the accumulated evidence are purposive. Freedman and Goldstein are reviewers with a political agenda: both are self confessed "hired guns" who are supported by industry for their reviews of the video game literature. I propose the Amici actually read this literature themselves, for I believe they will find that some of these researchers have thought deeply about how children learn while using media, and report their conclusions honestly.

Cause for Concern: Researching Determinacy in a Complex Social World

The Amici accept this interpretation but have antipathy to the use of probability statistics in the empirical sciences: "significant" they argue does not mean "important". It means simply "not likely to happen by chance." I think it is unfortunate therefore that in their rush to condemn all quantitative research that they fail to distinguish between the use of inferential statistics to prove cause s in laboratories and its use to identify risk factors in studying the effects of media in populations. of the effects literature without understanding the .

I have suggested that it is a learning model not a causal model which drives this field of research. The theories of learning proposed by both the medical and psychological associations suggest that video games can be a risk factor, if a not a cause, which in addition to and interacting with many other factors contributes to socialization (Huesmann 1997). This is why the Amici"s elision of the difference between the causal hypothesis and risk analysis is fundamentally mistaken. The causal hypothesis of the behaviorists critics, and the theories of social learning of risky behaviors employed by the psychologists are radically different conceptions of determinacy in social behaviour: In the history of science this difference is akin to those between biology and ecology in the natural sciences, between a mechanical Newtonian physics and systems quantum science. Underlying both is the rejection of Aristotelian notions of isolatable and necessary precursors of a subsequent effect, to be replaced by a multi-dimensional and probabilistic account of mutually interacting systems of dynamic relationships between variables. It is for this reason that the Surgeon General's (2000) asserts that media violence can be viewed as a risk factor in youth aggression. The report summarized the controversial evidence concerning the media's contribution to youth aggression in the following way:

"Research to date justifies sustained efforts to curb the adverse effects of media violence on youths. Although our knowledge is incomplete, it is sufficient to develop a coherent public health approach to violence prevention that builds upon what is known, even as more research is under way. Unlike earlier Federal research reports on media violence and youth (National Institute of Mental Health, 1982; U.S. Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior, 1972), this discussion takes place within a broader examination of the causes and prevention of youth violence. This context is vital. It permits media violence to be regarded as one of many complex influences on the behavior of America's children and young people. It also suggests that multilayered solutions are needed to address aggressive and violent behavior."

Risk analysis does not assume that there is one singular and overriding effect. Nor are all of the expected mechanisms related directly to media content. A growing body of research has suggested that an array of psychological mechanisms (social learning, mean world, desensitization, role modeling) are involved in the socialization of aggression. So to the indirect effects of having other kinds of activities displaced (homework, reading for pleasure, social play) and by becoming habitually linked to unhealthy lifestyle practices (eating while watching, inactive pleasures) are widely accepted.

The process of learning to be aggressive and antisocial, involves the development of attitudes and emotional responses to social situations over the course of a lifetime: In the course of daily life it is reasonable to hypothesize that both violent content influences aggressive attitudes and predisposition to aggression can contribute to the preference for violent entertainment. What matters in the long run is whether the patterned use of media contributes to their attitudes to aggressive and anti-social behavior. This is why the video game industry is often compared with the Tobacco industry for promoting a risky behavior. Murray as well as Anderson (refs.) , have suggested that the "risks" associated with violent media use approach those which link smoking to lung cancer: that would mean that 10-20% of teen anti-social behavior can be attributed to their television viewing. Freedman"s estimates are closer to 10% of the variance explained and I support his estimates. Yet remember, those are estimates for the whole population. The correlations are higher for some "at risk" populations – that is children growing up poor, in abusive homes , hanging with aggressive peers and growing up in high crime neighbourhoods.

In epidemiological science the relationship between two variables – for example watching television and obesity -- is established empirically by careful analysis of interacting risks. Since not all smokers get lung cancer, nor do all heavy consumers of violent media become instant killers, these relationships are represented statistically in terms of the probabilities of their concurrence. The statistical tools for assessment of risk are correlation, covariance and regression analysis. In epidemiological research a correlation with a risk indicates that a variable might be a risk factor. It does not matter whether the smoking cause d the cancer, or that those predisposed to cancer smoked more. Nor does it matter that medical science has not yet established exactly which of the chemicals in the smoke actually precipitates the disease process or why individuals predisposed to cancer, smoke. Yet to scientists, the assessment of risks is an important step in the developing a better understanding of the mechanisms of risk reduction. (Hill 1965) For example an analysis of the Youth Risk Behaviour Surveillance data for 2001 show that heavy viewers of TV are 7% more likely to get in a fight during the prior 30 days, than light viewers. The same survey estimates that 33 % get in fights during a year, so when used to estimate the implications of a determinant relationship for a population the size of America, a 7% of the difference implies that hundreds of thousands of children could be put at risk of bullying and teasing from television.

    % of US population under 20 = 30%

    size of youth and child population = 30% x 276 million = 82 million

    33 % of teens reported getting fights in 2001 = 27,324,000 fights in America each year.

    7% difference implies that in the order of 1,912,000 fights that might be attributed to heavy television viewing.

Risk analysis acknowledges that media use, like cigarette smoking and wearing of seat belts is a matter of lifestyle choices that become patterned in the course of development. Contributing factors can be explored by comparing the correlations between media use and aggression within specific populations such as boys and girls. If there is evidence that more boys who regularly play violent games are also more likely to be anti-social and aggressive than a comparable population of then media can be said to constitute a lifestyle risk to children in the same way that starting to smoke does. Because viewing is voluntary, does not imply it is risk free. In the face of similar evidence the cigarette companies have demanded definitive proof of a causal mechanism too, in courts where they defend their right to sell this "legal" product. Their insistence on proof of a direct causal relationships in both cases is at odds with scientific judgment of the multiple and mutually interacting risks of aggression that children encounter in the course of their lives.

Children use and interpret video games in different ways. We know that boys , far more than girls are likely to play them regularly, and also to develop stronger preferences for violent games. Moreover, their video game play will itself be sanctioned and negotiated differentially within families, within communities, and within cultures. Perhaps boys identify more with powerful characters, with situations of power and conquest, or perhaps they become habituated to or catharcized by repeated acts of killing. It all depends on a variety of psychological and social forces than can be identified statistically. So why worry about the absolute proof of a generalized causal mechanism if we have strong evidence suggesting particular children will be influenced more by playing violent video games. Acknowledging this, risk analysis suggests that we don"t need to worry about each and every child – only the ones that put themselves at risk because of their particular interest in and preference for violent video games.

The Amici suggest that since harm has not been proven, that we can expectno positive outcomes from the regulation of media. Yet risk analysis of media use has helped us focus on the many things in children"s lives which can moderate the impact of a steady diet of aggressive entertainment. The risk approach suggests that a better understanding of their distribution provides new insights into the possibility of mitigating those risks associated with heavy media consumption. This has been nicely illustrated by two recent field experiments undertaken at Stanford by Robinson and colleagues which demonstrated that reducing young children"s overall exposure to media (TV and video games) can have very positive effects on their health and aggressive behavior. Robinson points out that correlational evidence indicates that avid TV viewers, especially girls, are at risk of obesity and boys of violence. It is true that these correlations don"t tell us whether aggressive and fat children watch more TV, or whether heavy TV viewers fight and eat more and exercise less. But since we are interested in reducing obesity and anti-social behavior it is possible to test these directional relationships by reducing the risks associated with heavy TV viewing.

Applying Bandura"s social learning models, Robinson reasons that reducing children"s media exposure could lessen their identification with aggressive heroes and reduce their enactments of domination scripts in their playground interactions. In the case of obesity three media related mechanisms have been found in the literature: First that children substitute watching TV for more active play; second that in watching more TV children will be exposed to more snack and fast food advertisements; and third, that children develop a particular habit of eating while they watch. Robinson developed a schools based programme for reducing that risk through media education program. At the test school researchers found children in the media risk reduction intervention had reduced their TV viewing by about one-third. They also found that after six months the weight gain in the treatment schools was significantly lower. Moreover, based on ratings of playground aggression, frequencies of bullying and rough and tumble play were about 25 percent lower in the treatment school, than those at the control school.

Conclusion: Rethinking Panic Culture?

Peter Horsfield (1997) has pointed out, the idea of media panic, is now also "invoked by those in positions of power in society and in situations where it doesn"t apply, in order to discount and defuse legitimate challenges to their power" and interests. The Amici curiae are a group of international cultural studies scholars who as "friends of the court" believe that"efforts to address real–world violence by censoring entertainment are profoundly misguided." I highlight this point because it seems to me that the Amici"s intervention is more about the politics of free speech than it is about understanding the role played by media in the socialization of aggression. The Amici are intervening on the side of an industry which has lobbied hard for more than 10 years to resist having any kind of legislation imposed on the promotion, sale and distribution of digital entertainment, against the general drift of American popular opinion. They have put their names, and their scholarly reputations behind the ISDA"s controversial legal claim that any legislation attempting to deal with marketing and sale violent entertainment to children is tantamount to censorship. Unfortunately they never discuss why they think censorship of children"s culture by parents is wrong: And so the cultural studies attack on media effects researchers ends up being political intervention based on challenging the views, and the motives, of effects scientists.

I am not a lawyer nor am I familiar with the St. Louis ordinances exact provisions. Yet from their defense it is clear to me, that like the V-chip, the ratings legislation seeks to consolidate the parental "filtering" of all media in accordance with generally held community standards, rather like a net nanny. Ratings place restrictions on the sale of only those video games which are not intended for, and are deemed inappropriate for children of an age by the industry itself. When, the ISDA funded the rating of these games as 17+ under the ESRB did they not implicitly accept that there are social values and community standards pertaining to all media (TV and Films); that some parents have concerns about the risks associated with video games because they felt they were unsuitable for children. As the ESRB web site claims, these ratings are advisories intended to help parents make appropriate choices for their children: ""We want to make sure that parents and consumers have the tools that they need to monitor which computer and video games their children play," said Dr. Arthur Prober, President of the ESRB." When parents check the rating, the control is in their hands - right where it should be." Since the legislation does not put a ban the sale of video games outright, the legislation hardly merits being called censorship. It is not draconian in its spirit or its intent. Its intent is to help parents prevent their children"s inadvertent exposure to violent, sexual and terrifying experiences. So why is it, that in every jurisdiction that begins to enforce stronger media regulations, the media industry"s P.R. flacks intervene? In the political struggles over children"s entertainment cultural studies has become aligned with an industry which insists any ordinance controlling the children"s marketplace is a censorship law, rather than an aid to families trying to raise their children in difficult circumstances.

These politics of media censorship in America are part of a much broader struggle over what that society considers good or harmful for its children in market society, and who has what rights to communicate with them. I am aware that media panic can be used to promote zero tolerance. But I am also wary of pathologizing American parents and educators for their concern about youth violence. To some degree there is evidence that the gun panic, though not changing the constitution, has to some degree pacified the schools, where the number of weapons and frequency of fighting seems to be falling given the zero tolerance policies. Yet it is also important to remember that the political struggles over youth aggression, are complex and different, in Canada , Britain Sweden and France. In the States freedom of speech and of the press has become equated with freedom for corporations to dominant public discourse. The point I am making is simple, legal and political: the administration of ratings everywhere, including the U.S.A, is generally regarded as a legitimate and helpful mechanism for market regulation designed to maintain community standards and values. This judge in St. Louis felt that the state should play a role in cultural markets by assisting parents to be effective guardians – perhaps so that they don"t have to engage in constant surveillance of their children.

It is true that we don"t know very much about how video game violence will impact children"s culture in the long run. But certainly the optimists are wrong: like television, video games have not brought about a new age of enlightenment. The evidence seems to show, that some children who play them intensely over a long period of time may be more predisposed to aggressiveness in their play preferences and social interactions. They also give up sports and social interaction to play them. They may also less likely to be fit, to sleep less, and often do worse at school because of the time they spend playing them and not doing their homework. Perhaps we shouldn"t be panicked. But neither should we deny the possibility that they provide learning experiences to the children that play them – some that we sanction and celebrate and others that we don"t. The media effects controversy therefore, is not so much about whether there are effects, but how we evaluate them.

War and Peace in the Hallowed Halls

Cultural historians like Brian Sutton Smith have reminded us that both aggressive play and gruesome folktales have long been a facet of children"s culture. This is obvious. But does that mean nothing has changed when the video game industry has developed games which accentuate brutal retribution and justifies the use of force which can be experienced as entertainment – as fun -- by those that choose to play them. Does the longevity of conflict in life and art mean that new media have not altered the environments of story telling, the quantity and brutality of conflicts" representation, and thus contribute to what and how children learn while using them?

The cultural studies scholars have voiced their strong challenge to researchers who claim that media can influence what children learn while playing with video games. Having slogged through this research I am left wondering why cultural studies scholars have declared war on media psychology. Under the banner of media panic they have dismissed its claims, and questioned their motives. Their strongest words are directed against psychological researchers who have tried to gather evidence about what children learn. These cultural critics have public ally condemned these effects psychologists in the courts of America as both false and mischievous because they believe scientific research fans the flames of public anxiety. They advocate an end the censorship of children"s culture, granting total freedom to the media industries get on with their business of entertaining children without reference to community standards. In so doing they have exposed the fundamental disciplinary and epistemological divides that separate these two ways of thinking about media.

I have tried to point out that in respect to method, that the discourses of science are differentiated from other ways of apprehending of our world -- intuition, journalism, divine inspiration, common sense and risk panic -- all of which it is sometimes at odds. As Michele Foucault has so ably noted all sciences are social discourses of knowledge embedded in the struggles over social power in a politicized world. As Foucault concludes: "In societies like ours, the 'political economy' of truth is â€Ã‚¦centred on the form of scientific discourse and the institutions which produce it; it is subject to constant economic and political incitement. Pg. 131-132.Yet as he goes on to suggest it is " the problem does not consist in drawing the line between that in a discourse which falls under the category of scientificity or truth, and that which comes under some other category, but in seeing historically how effects of truth are produced within discourse which in themselves are neither true nor false. " pg. 118. This is because a science in our modern lexicon subsumes a self-critical discursive practice -- that is, a social body of experts or specialists who research and debate the results of their investigations. In the twentieth century the sciences emerged as a critical social enterprise whose method of inquiry and its epistemology established careful rules of evidence for argument.

During the twentieth century as our interest in researching public communication grew, the methods of studying communication diverged: on one side, stood the hermeneutic traditions of arts and humanities who interpreted texts in isolation. On the other, stood the social sciences, especially developing in North America, who emphasized the generalizable effects of mass-mediated content. Raymond Williams was worried by this ever-widening divide in post WW II communication studies between social scientific and humanities communities. Media studies especially the study of audiences, he argued, was being bifurcated by these epistemological and methodological rifts.

I believe Williams fully understood the fundamental differences underlying the theories, interests, research methods and philosophies in the divergent streams of communication studies. The humanities had evolved its critical "interpretive" approach from methods of the exegesis of texts which emphasized the insightful interpretive analysis of specific cultural artifacts, and from the detailed historical analysis of documentary evidence situated in specific socio-historical contexts. These scholars contributed "sustained and detailed analysis of actual cultural works" he argued, but "what was much more open to question was the extension of this kind of analysis and insight to matters of cultural and social generalization." The social scientists on their part, seemed to Williams to be reductionist and a-historical in the general laws, structures and impacts of communication processes they espoused. American social sciences were especially steeped in quantitative behaviorism and operationalism, all too often narrowing their empirical inquiry to questions which were easily "observable" rather than critical challenges to prevailing ideology. Each epistemological community tended to police its disciplinary boundaries more vociferously, avoiding dialogue about complementary methods, or fundamentally misunderstanding the dialectical logic at the heart of qualitative and quantitative methods.

Yet Williams worried that culturalist approach had become naively opposed to the social science method. They also stopped taking the idea of determinacy seriously. Williams himself refused to reject completely the value of the American "effects research tradition, indeed stated clearly that he found much of it "useful". His proposal of a hybrid discipline called "cultural science" was based on his hope that by entering into a dialogue there would be a healing of the epistemic fissures in communication research. He believed that it would only be through such a dialogue that this new discipline would be able to keep social structure and "determinacy" relationships in full view while acknowledging the 'agency' of audiences that chose to use and consume them.

Beneath the epistemic divide between cultural studies and psychology however, lie divergent valorizations of childhood itself. Cultural studies has documented the resourceful child who always copes with what the market offers. Concerned with the problem of well being, the psychologists documented the vulnerable child, at ever greater risk in our risk society. Both of these perspectives are important ways of thinking about the situation of the media saturated childhood. I share Williams dream of a unified cultural science, but fear that his "politics of hope" has been forgotten in the disciplinary struggle over how we should interpret the media risks in America and Europe.






References:

NIMH (1972). Television and growing up: the impact of televised violence; report to the Surgeon General, United States Public Health Service. Rockville, Md.,, National Institute of Mental Health.

Kaiser Foundation (1999). Kids and Media at the New Millennium: A Comprehensive National Analysis of Children"s Media Use, Kaiser Family Foundation. 2003.

American Academy of Pediatrics (2001). Media violence. Committee on Public Education. Pediatrics 108(5): 1222-6.

Surgeon General of the USA (2001). Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General. 2003.

(2002). Amici Curiae, Interactive Digital Software Ass'n, et al., v. St. Louis County, et al., United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. 2003.

United States Department of Justice (2002). Bureau of Justice Statistics Victim Age Trends, . 2003.

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (2002). Interactive Digital Software Ass'n, et al., v. St. Louis County, et al., . 2003.

American Psychological Association (2003). Violence on television - what do children learn? What can parents do?, . 2003.

Adlaf, E. M., A. Paglia, et al. (2002). The Mental Health and Well-Being of Ontario Students 1991-2001: Findings From the OSDUS, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. 2003.

Anderson, C. A. and K. E. Dill (2000). "Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78(4): 772-90.

Anderson, M., J. Kaufman, et al. (2001). "School-associated violent deaths in the United States, 1994-1999." Journal of the American Medical Association 286(21): 2695-2702.

Barker, M. and J. Petley, Eds. (2001). Ill effects : the media/violence debate. Communication and society. London, Routledge.

Beck, U. (1998). Politics of Risk Society. Politics of Risk Society. J. Franklin. Cambridge, Polity: 9-22.

Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York, Free Press.

Bergh, B. v. d. and J. v. d. Bulck, Eds. (2000). Children and media : multidisciplinary approaches. Leuven, Garant.

Buckingham, D. (2000). After the death of childhood : growing up in the age of electronic media. London, Polity Press.

Buckingham, D. (2000). Studying children's media cultures: A new agenda for cultural studies. Children and media : multidisciplinary approaches. B. v. d. Bergh and J. v. d. Bulck. Leuven, Garant: 49-66.

Bushman, B. J. and C. A. Anderson (2001). "Media violence and the American public. Scientific facts versus media misinformation." American Psychologist 56(6-7): 477-89.

Canada, D. o. J. (1999). Youth Justice Statistics, Department of Justice Canada. 2002.

Cohen, S. (1987). Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. Oxford, Blackwell.

Comstock, G. A., E. A. Rubinstein, et al. (1972). Television and social behavior : reports and papers ; a technical report to the Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior, National Institute of Mental Health.

Coulter, N. and C. Murray (2001). Watching the Watchers: Gender Justice and Co-regulation in the New Media Marketplace, Centre for Policy Research on Science and Technology, Simon Fraser University. 2003.

Cumberbatch, G. (2001). Video Violence: Villain or Victim?, Video Standards Council, UK. 2003.

Dalrymple, T. (2003). The guns are in Britain despite gun control. National Post: A14.

Dorfman, L., K. Woodruff, et al. (1997). "Youth and violence on local television news in California." American Journal of Public Health 87(8): 1311-1316.

Douglas, M. (1992). Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. London, Routledge.

Drotner, K. (1992). Modernity and media panics. Media Cultures: Reappraising Transnational Media. M. Skovmand and K. C. SchrÃÆÂ'¸der. London, Routledge: 42-62.

ESRB (1998). ESRB Parent's Guide, ESRB. 2003.

Freedman, J. L. (2002). Media violence and its effect on aggression : assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

Funk, J. B. (2000). Testimony regarding The Impact of Interactive Violence on Children before the United States Senate Commerce Committee. 2003.

Gerbner, G. and M. Morgan, Eds. (2002). Against the mainstream : the selected works of George Gerbner. New York, P. Lang.

Giddens, A. (1998). The Risk Society: the Context of British Politics. The Politics of Risk Society. J. Franklin. Cambridge, Polity: 23-34.

Goldstein, J. H. (1998). Why we watch : the attractions of violent entertainment. New York, Oxford University Press.

Goldstein, J. H. (2000). Effects of Electronic Games on Children. 2003.

Goldstein, J. H. (2001). Does playing violent video games cause aggressive behavior? Cultural Policy Center, University of Chicago. 2003.

Goodman, P. (1956). Growing Up Absurd. New York, Random House.

Grossman, D. and G. DeGaetano (1999). Stop teaching our kids to kill: a call to action against TV, movie & video game violence. New York, Crown Publishers.

Grunbaum, J. A., L. Kann, et al. (2002). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance — United States, 2001, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. 2003.

Horsfield, P. (1997). Moral panic or moral action? The appropriation of moral panics in the exercise of social control. 2003.

Jenkins, H. (1999). Professor Jenkins Goes to Washington. 2003.

Johnson, J. G., P. Cohen, et al. (2002). "Television viewing and aggressive behavior during adolescence and adulthood." Science 295(5564): 2468-71.

Kasperson, R. E. (1992). The social amplification of risk: progress in developing an integrative framework. Social Theories of Risk. S. Krimsky and D. Golding. Westport, Conn., Praeger: 153-178.

Kline, S. (1993). Out of the garden : toys, TV and children's culture in the age of marketing. Toronto, Garamond Press.

Kline, S. (2000). Moral Panic and Video Games Research in Childhood, A Collection of Papers. Sociology, Culture and History Conference, Odense University, Denmark, Department of Child and Youth Culture.

Kline, S. and J. Botterill (2001). Media Use Audit for BC Teens, Media Analysis Laboratory, Simon Fraser University. 2003.

Kline, S. and K. Stewart (2000). Family Life and Media Violence: A Qualitative Study of Canadian Mothers of Boys. Children and Media: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. B. v. d. Bergh and J. v. d. Bulck. Garant, Lueven: 89-110.

Lowenstein, D. (2000). Testimony of Douglas Lowenstein, President International Digital Software Association before the Senate Committee on Commerce on the Effects of Interactive Violence on Children. 2003.

Maguire, B., G. A. Weatherby, et al. (2002). "Network news coverage of school shootings." Social Science Journal 39(3): 465-70.

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media : the extensions of man. New York, McGraw-Hill.

McManus, J. and L. Dorfman (2002). "Youth violence stories focus on events, not causes." Newspaper Research Journal 23(4): 6-20.

Minow, N. N. and C. L. LaMay (1995). Abandoned in the wasteland : children, television, and the First Amendment. New York, Hill and Wang.

Murray, J. P. (1995). "Children and Television Violence." Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy 4(3): 7-14.

Murray, J. P. (2001). "TV violence and children"s brains: More reasons for advocacy and policy reform." The Child, Youth, and Family Services Advocate 24(2): 1-4.

Riesman, D., N. Glazer, et al. (1961). The Lonely Crowd. New Haven, Yale University Press.

Robinson, T. N., M. L. Wilde, et al. (2001). "Effects of reducing children's television and video game use on aggressive behavior: a randomized controlled trial." Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 155(1): 17-23.

Sorenson, S. B., J. G. Peterson Manz, et al. (1998). "News media coverage and the epidemiology of homicide." American Journal of Public Health 88(10): 1510-1514.

Spigel, L. (1998). Seducing the Innocent: Childhood and Television in Postwar America. The Children's Culture Reader. H. Jenkins. New York, New York University Press: 110-135.

Categories
All in the Mind

Denying the Effects of Violent Video Games

As a result of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act the UK government has recently given the police new powers to monitor e-mails and web sites. The pretext is to fight terrorism, political extremism and Internet paedophilia as sensationalised in the mainstream media, but the real purpose is to crack down on subversion. Tabloids spread rumours about paedophiles prowling 10 year olds in chat rooms. While such an invasion of privacy will not stop child abuse, it will curtail the free speech of all but powerful corporate and state organs.

By contrast the same media outlets not only sport high-profile advertisements for violent video games such as Tomb Raider, Quake III, Half Life, Soldier of Fortune etc. to name but a few, but hail them as cool pastimes, praise the developers as talented export-oriented entrepreneurs and review accompanying movies as works of art. Meanwhile the corporate PR machine via the computer press is busy proving such games not only appeal to young and old alike, but teach co-ordination skills and help to channel our anger in a safe virtual medium.

Genetic vs Environmental Causes

The video games lobby's chief argument is that other factors such as genetic predisposition to aggression play a much greater role than mass media violence in determining violent outcomes to conflicts. Many like to quote Adrian Rain from the University of Southern California, who has undertaken extensive research into genetic markers for violence in psychopaths. However, in a June 2001 TV debate he did not deny that social factors also play a role in determining how neurologically diverse individuals channel their innate aggressiveness. In all but the most extreme cases people are not born killers. The nature versus nurture debate could be widened to consider the other effects of pervasive media. To what extent does advertising, merchandising and corporate sponsorship encourage the masses to squander hard-earned cash on designer clothes and other superfluous consumer goods that will soon be superseded anyway? Would advertisers be wasting billions of dollars, euros or pounds to persuade us to buy more if purely genetic factors determined prodigality too? Violent media may not change our natural propensity to aggression, but they can channel our natural urges for revenge, communicate with our subconscience and justify violence as a means of conflict resolution.

Video Violence Threat is just a Media Scare

A classic tactic employed by lobbyists ever since the American free speech movement of the 1960s is to dismiss a problem as a mere mass media scare. In recent years global warming, the ill-effects of factory farming (e.g. BSE, foot and moth disease, salmonella, E-coli, overuse of antibiotics in animal husbandy weakening our immune system), the big-business-friendly corruption of most world governments, the imminent end of the oil age, the mass extinction of many large wild animal species outside zoos etc. have all been dismissed by various lobbies as media scares. Ironically they have a point. Mass circulation newspapers and popular TV channels in countries with nominal democratic institutions repeatedly launch scare campaigns, which are later revealed as either unfounded or taken out of context e.g. paedophilia is nothing new and its apparent rise may owe more to children's exposure to media and peer pressure that promote sexual promiscuity among young teens as well as early onset puberty. However, only 40 years ago the establishment ritually condemned all sexual practices out of wedlock as buggery. Everyone knows the way in which children discover their sexuality will affect an important part of their adult lives, but any attacks on media's role in teenagers is almost off-limits, so public anger is simply channelled against paedophiles, convenient scapegoats for society's ills. So intent is the government on curtailing personal liberties in the cybernetic age that is now offence to own digital paedophile imagery, as according to the government someone who would pay to view such picture may abuse children. Indeed such an assumption may have some truth in it, but without proof of sexually motivated physical contact with children, conviction under this law would like arresting Playboy subscriber for rape - offering the magazine as the sole piece of evidence. As many owners of e-mail accounts are aware without prudent spam filtering measures, one's hard drive can fill with explicit pornography, including kiddy porn, in no time simply by clicking on an HTML-enabled e-mail. By the same logic someone who pays to engage interactively in a simulation of a mass murder might want to reenact the scenario in real life against perceived enemies. Luckily most know that they would never get away with such wild fantasies, until they find themselves in a new position of power over defenceless individuals, e.g. in a war zone or in counter-insurgency operations. However, the former group don't have a multibillion dollar industry behind them yet.

Let's take a look at another analogy. If global warming is caused by a massive rise in human depredation of the earth's resources over the last century, then major multinationals stand to lose billions as we lower consumption. The best counterclaim the oil lobby can make is dismiss global warming scientists as green fascists intent on denying ordinary working people the right to drive gas guzzlers on multilane highways. Likewise if violent video games do adversely influence kids' behaviour, the entertainment industry will be held responsible for destabilising communities. In the same way as some lobbyists claim ecstasy is a relatively harmless recreational drug, they claim Quake III Arena is just fun. If you read computer magazines you've probably encountered the well-rehearsed line "I play violent video games, but I don't feel like killing someone afterwards".

That's because everyone knows murder is morally reprehensibe, but can be strategically justifed in self-defence or to fight a greater evil. Brainwashed youngsters do not consider themselves potential killers, just liberators or protagonists in an exciting adventure that bears little semblance to real life situations. Be honest! Outside the makebelieve world of Hollywood movies, how many Lara Crofts successfully fight off enemies single-handedly at gunpoint while flaunting their sexual prowess?

Re-enforcing Self-righteous War Propaganda

Video-games come in two varieties: Glorified violence and liberating force. In the first genre à la Tomb Raider, gamers play sexy or muscular role models ready to fight off evil or unwtiting rivals. In the second genre à la Wing Commander, gamers play their heroic role in the battle against murderous enemies, reinforcing mainstream war propaganda. Both forms cheapen life and stress the self-righteous may murder with impunity. Gaming is also a highly addictive lifestyle and is actively promoted by the same corporate machine that brought neoliberal governments such as New Labour to power. European age certificates are meaningless. Theoretically recommended for 15+, Tomb Raider is advertised on kids TV and played by six and seven year olds. Even children's shows on the BBC offer Play Station ® consoles as prizes. Anyone who thinks 8 to 10 year kids will play The Tweenies and Winnie The Pooh on their consoles, or be contented with Colin McCrae's Rally or Driver 2 are seriously mistaken. Besides even many racing games contain elements of violence and promote a high-consumption lifestyle with minimal effort and maximal thrills.

Meanwhile the devious youth press spreads rumours that the government plans to ban such games and thus crush a multibillion-dollar industry. Such logic is perverse. Not surprisingly the same Labour government is quietly deregulating the gambling industry, something else that may appeal to vast swathes of the public. We'll see entertainment complexes with 24-hour casinos and virtual shooting ranges. We need not worry much about the free speech of violent game developers, they can hire the best PR firms and lobbyists in the world, nor will the current government stop anything that not only earns billions but also plays a key role in conditioning millions of future adults.

The current ethos is anything that seems fun and boosts business must be good, unless officialdom deems it politically incorrect. With the right marketing the games industry could effortlessly sell virtual rape games or simulations of Israeli incursions into Palestinian territory with graphic detail of wanton butchery. Indeed such games have already been developed. With the release of Flashpoint Kosovo and Operation Desert Storm, computer games are reinforcing media-fed misconceptions. If killing Serbs is okay, it only takes a small leap of imagination to slaughter minority groups in one's own backyard. A seven-year old Tomb Raider fan could soon be saving the Western world from the yellow peril by nuking Shanghai, petrol-bombing alleged paedophiles or sinking ships carrying desperate Afghan asylum seekers. Freedom is no longer seen as the universal right to nourishment, clean water, shelter, peace, education and gainful employment, it is freedom to protect one's living standard from the marauding masses, whoever they may be.

The intellectuals behind the current neoliberal governments of Western Europe and North America know these self-evident facts only too well. Neoliberalism has a liberal attitude to corporate power and people's freedom to indulge corporate-sponsored activities, but a restrictive attitude to ideas that may challenge corporate hegemony. As a result emotive epithets like fascist or Stalinist are liberally employed to describe opponents of NATO bombing over Kosovo, as such a pacifist stance would have allegedly given Demon Milosevic a green light to execute a systematic genocide. All well-meaning individuals had to back the good guys, in this case NATO, against the forces of evil personified in the late 1990s by the mass media's caricature of Serb nationalists. In the current propaganda offensive against the perpetrators of the horrific terror attacks killing thousands in Manhattan and Washington DC, the new bad guys are Islamic suicide pilots trained on Microsoft Flight Simulator, which featured the World Trade Center.

Opium of The Masses

After a lone gunman entered a Scottish nursery school in Dunblane and shot dead 16 toddlers in April 1997, the UK government proceeded to ban handguns in marked contrast with gun laws in most American states. Handguns are designed to kill, no doubt about that, but may also serve as the ultimate defence against armed intruders, whether burglars, gangsters or police officers raiding the wrong house. However, firearms have not disappeared from British TV screens, computer simulations of gun battles are forever more realistic and criminals have encountered few obstacles in importing weapons. Despite a media frenzy the frequency of armed robberies and street shootings actually continued to rise in the first two years after the handgun ban, as have police the deployment of firearms and the shooting of unarmed citizens.

While making ordinary citizens less able to defend themselves in an increasingly atomised world, the root causes of violence have actually worsened: More violence on more TV channels at any time, more shoot-'em-up video games and a greater social and educational divide.

The last factor is usually overlooked, but Play Stations, X-Boxes Nintendo Gamecubes and Gameboys are clearly aimed at the mass market. Leading kids titles such as Buzz Lightyear, Dexter's Laboratory or Power Puff Girls are often based on cartoons with proven antisocial effects, i.e. they actively encourage teasing, bullying and attacking baddies or weirdoes, whoever they may be. As a result the main role of the police is now to contain the masses adversely effected by the wares distrubuted by the corporate machine, whose interests the police are also required to defend. As big business promotes the scourges of booze, drugs, late night discos and video violence, the forces of law and order sweep up the mess.

Sowing the Seeds Of Hatred

While we should not dismiss the disruptive effects violent video-games have on many vulnerable minds, they play a greater role in re-enforcing existing prejudices and triggering ingrained aggressive responses. They effects may in some respects be likened to addictive and hallucinogenic drugs. The big question is whether violent video-games merely reflect society's warped values or amplify the agressive side of human nature i.e. are they incidental or causal? Their effects are greatest on teenagers and young adults raised on violent media from an early age. It is the combination of passive TV violence, rampant consumerism, neighbourhood and school violence and interactive electronic violence in the absence of dependable role models that is most lethal. By contrast the effects are probably limited on adults deprived of violent electronic media in their formative years.

The gaming lobby maintains that sex and violence have always aroused intense interest. Only the medium has changed. Literary portrayals of gratuitous violence can be both gruesome and educational. Even documentaries and movies may highlight the horrors of war, persecution, slavery or gangland fighting, but may also glorify the aggression of one side or demonise the other side to justify a given political agenda. The same can equally apply to the print media, but the reader's experience is never the same as a passive viewer's or an interactive gamer's. In truth only in recent decades have most people had so much leisure time to devote to such trivial pursuits and 3 to 4 generations ago few had time to read or the means to listen to the radio. For most of human history we learned about violence the hard way in real-life situations. Knowing how and when to fight was a matter of life or death. Today street violence is greatest in unequal societies, where the poor enviously watch the opulence of the consumerist classes. What will happen when the Quake II and Doom generation join the jobless masses in a future recession? Will they seek to rebuild their local communities, stay at home addicted to their aging game consoles or reenact their fantasies on the streets?

Is Censorship the Answer?

Censorship has always benefited the ruling classes. Time and again the surest way to guarantee the cult status of many books, films or video games has been to ban them, assuming a little prior publicity. Corporate lobbies like to talk of regulation, in the full knowledge that big business can always buy its way through hundreds of loopholes. Having popularised violent video-games through multimillion dollar advertising campaigns with Tomb Raider featured on the back of cereal packets, the gaming industry, almost inextricably linked to the movie and TV business, would seek new devious means to distribute its wares if tighter controls were introduced, while the state would be delighted to apply new restrictions to clamp down on dissent e.g. video footage of real violence perpetrated by a superpower or friendly militias could be banned.

Not only is censorship both impractical and counterproductive, it is also only conceivable because our consumerist society plays on people's basest instincts, but as usual we need to attack the root causes. In the short term we may need to campaign to stop schools or libraries distributing such poisonous games, but the emphasis should be on raising awareness of the harmful effects that exposure to violent propaganda has on young kids. However, in the long run we should strive to replace the greed and mindless self-indulgence of today's consumerist society with peaceful, playful and constructive activities in a socially coherent and sharing community. Sport offers a much better outlet for our pent-up frustrations. Parents of shy kids may be better advised to enrol them in karate lessons, teaching practical self-defence and co-ordination skills, than let them undergo premature military brainwashing.