The Virtue of Violence

I was watching an episode of the X-Files last night called "First Person Shooter." It was co-written by cyberpunk writers William Gibson and Tom Maddox and was about a killer video game. Naturally, it pays lip service to that tired old debate about media violence. As Scully says, "Mulder, what purpose does this game serve except to add to a culture of violence in a country that's already out of control ? . . . You think that taking up weapons and creating gratuitous virtual mayhem has any redeeming value whatsoever? That the testosterone frenzy that it creates stops when the game does?"

This issue is omnipresent in American culture and not limited to video games. Decades ago the government complained about comic books warping the minds of impressionable children. Then there was the "video nasty" issue in cinema. The music industry wasn't immune either: witness the PMRC insanity. Video games are just the latest form of media to get this inevitable treatment. First there was the Mortal Kombat hysteria and then the "Columbine massacre linked to Doom" witch hunt and now the ESRB's restriction of Manhunt 2 and Hillary Clinton's crusade against games. (I find it odd that it's always the liberals who are opposed to "offensive" content in media: Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore, Joe Lieberman, Herb Kohl. The self-righteous conservatives aren't saying peep. You'd expect it to be the other way around). What I find interesting is that all this sturm und drang serves to obfuscate two assumptions that underlie the anti-violence argument: violence is bad and exposure to non-violent media will alleviate violent tendencies.

These assumptions are absurd. Humanity is a naturally violent species. That's why we're dominant; we fought and clawed our way to the top. It's part of our d.n.a. A case in point: the Virginia Tech slayings of April 2007. After Cho Seung-hui went on his killing spree there was an immediate—and expected—attempt to blame his actions on him being steeped in violent media like the Columbine killers. Ah, but there was a snag—Cho didn't watch violent movies or play video games. His need for violence was innate. To think that removing violent ideas and imagery from our culture will result in breeding violence out of the human species is disingenuous. Does anyone really believe that if Cho had only played games full of fuzzy bunnies and cute little kittens he wouldn't have done what he did? I don't think so.

The truth of the matter is that American culture is predicated upon violence. The Puritans were driven out of England because of their little habit of persecuting people, a habit displayed spectacularly in Salem. Then there were the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, showing that we get what we want by violence (Iraq, anyone?). Both capitalism and democracy, the hallmarks of American society, are inherently violent. They both hinge on competition where one company or candidate sets out to destroy another. This is neither good nor bad: it's just the way it is. Recourse to violence is the way we do business. It is our coping mechanism. Consider what happened after the terrorist attacks of September 11. Did people stop and say "Oh, those poor terrorists!" or "I accept it"? No—people were all revved up to go kick some terrorist ass. As Toby Keith put it, "We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way" There's a truth in that.

Of course, this will-to-violence isn't unique to American culture but is part of the human condition. So is scapegoating, the ancient process whereby people alleviate their guilt and fear by projecting them onto something else and then banishing it. By getting rid of the scapegoat you get rid of those aspects of yourself with which you do not or cannot deal. It's a powerful drive, but one that is ultimately self-destructive. Look how well it worked out for Hitler . . .

So who's to blame for this culture of violence? No one. That's the kicker. Because of our primal need to assign blame, to ascribe meaning to the meaningless, we are deeply frustrated when there is no one to blame. All that we can do is try to prevent such extreme outbursts of violence by giving our violent tendencies a safe outlet such as playing violent games. Like Mulder responds, "I mean, maybe the game provides an outlet for certain impulses, that it fills a void in our genetic makeup that the more civilizing effects of society fail to provide for us." By acting on our frustrations and aggressions in a virtual environment we are less likely to take violent action in the real world. We must be aware though that there are some people who are so damaged that virtual violence cannot satisfy them. Playing Gears of War won't make up for being raped by a pedophile priest. But that doesn't mean we should take away the potential means of helping these people cope with their rage.