Jenkins, H. (2006). The War between effects and meaning: Rethinking the video game debate. In D. Buckingham & R. Willett (Eds.), Digital Generations: Children, Young People, and New Media (pp 19-31). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.
The Jenkins reading begins by looking at the US government (Limbaugh and Co) and how they see games as having social and psychological effects which possess possible risk factors for consumers in that they may take part in violent or anti-social behavior. The effect of gaming is seen to emerge more or less spontaneously with little conscious effort by the consumer and with little reflexivity.
Meaning in contrast emerges through an active process of interpretation, and displays conscious engagement that can be articulated into words and thus critically examined. Via this a culture develops which can be remediated. Many different interpretations are able to occur which enable the development of new ideas and concepts on the materials.
Thus the argument presented by the US government is that gamers are in fact incapable of reflecting upon and interpreting the media they consume and thus are susceptible to spontaneous and unconscious acts of anti-social behavior as they struggle to differentiate between real & play. I agree that the viewpoint of the US government is incorrect but I do still advocate that media creators need to indicate specific consumer age groups to ensure that the media is consumed by social categories (age groups) who are able to effectively reflect on the content.
The educational significance and value of games is mentioned by Jenkins as games are now growing in importance within youth culture. This is an interesting point as it made me consider how the remediation of games from board games to the computer/console has created a new networked culture of gamers and thus gaming media should probably be assessed for it affects on the existing culture through academic studies.
THE EFFECTS MODEL
Grossman says “kids are being brutalized by over exposure to the representations of violence at an age when they can’t distinguish between representations and reality” I would questions Grossmans points on a few fronts and agree on one of them. I agree that it is sometime difficult even for adults to distinguish visually between a game image and real image of violence as games have become so realistic. However, is it gaming media, or just media in general which is highlighting violent images in the community and thus generating moral panics that is out of balance with the actual threat of violence present in society. Secondly, what does Grossman class as child? This needs to clarify to give context to the argument. Finally, I would have liked to have seen some research presented into the actual of games consumed which are deemed as violent under his assessment. I think there are plenty of what he would deem to be violent games which would fail to be popular so it can’t just be the violence which attracts consumers, and thus I would posit that only an engaging narrative attracts consumers and thus it would be hard to differentiate games from other media which contain violent imagery, except that games engage the consumer through active collective networks and requires problem solving which take the focus away from the violence to progress the narrative, rather than other passive media consumptions.
Jenkins goes on to discuss how gaming can effect education and that gamers tend to dismiss any media they encounter as fantasy to entertainment if it is not consistent with what they believe to be true to the values in the real world. Consumer will thus view gaming media through the filter of their own specific world view and thus will interpret and reflect upon the media differently. Jenkins points out that Grossman has missed some key points on the reflexivity of gamers, the context of game play, and not presenting gaming in a meaningful educational context.
THE MEANING MODEL
Gamers can be described as active problem solvers who reflect critically for newer and better solutions.
Games enable players to explore their identity from other cultural contexts and perspectives in a post-modern method where multiple identities can form a fluid evolving self. Thus much like as seen in last week’s study materials where media from different cultural contexts such as the website setup to re-connect Native Americans across several reservations with their cultural history, games are able to do the same thing.
Cultural exploration was shown in the example given by Jenkins of the game Civilization III where they were able to investigate different cultural contexts through the game, showing a great level of reflexivity in game play and thus this kind of reflexivity must also be present in violent games as they explore aspects of their self in that context.
The key point for me in this reading was made when Jenkins discusses just as classroom culture shapes how school learning occurs, the social interactions (wisdom of crowds), can be a critical factor in shaping the meanings of actions within games. As gaming is mainly a social experience as seen in the Thornham reading this would also produce interactions between different cultures s presumably these individuals would also be from varied cultural backgrounds and thus expand the world view of the participants.
When trying to put a meaning to violence Jenkins looks at how violence can be deemed to be found in movies such as Bambi, and questions how violence can be classified so broadly and thus we must develop meaningful distinctions about the representation of violence within all media. And that shielding children from violence would leave them ill equipped for the reality of the real world as we know it at the age of 18. It was seen in last week’s study materials that historically cultures pass down information and stories so that the following generations can understand from actions in the past and can reflect on them within their own cultural and generational context and make informed decisions.
Jenkins moves on to analyses an example by Wright (the designer of Sims) where Wright says games are “perhaps the only medium that allows consumers to feel guilt over the actions of fictional characters” as we are the consumer are in control of the actions of the characters in the game unlike film and TV and thus game consumers reflect on their actions and values and how these values transfer to cyberspace. Thus games like the Sims allow consumers to test out these values in a social space and debate these socially so that values can be transferred to the context of their everyday lives.
It is here where I would question the anonimity of game play as a sticking point. Some see it as a positive and some as a negative – I now see it as a negative as I don’t think we should be able to explore aspects of ourselves free of any repercussions or responsibilities in our offline lives. These lives are converging so it is not right to be identity free online.
GAMES LITERACY
Literacy within gaming media can expand the frameworks and vocabulary player bring to discussions. Thus by allowing remediation of such media, free of copyright and IP restrictions, cultures can develop, investigate and interpret new ideas about gaming media within new contexts, and thus contextualize and recontextualise violence in games thus driving an era of game driven pop cosmopolitanism which reflects on the social contexts of gaming media.
In reflection, Jenkins has presented an argument which asks society to shift its focus from the effects of games to the meaning of games so that we as collective can assess how gamers and game designers are re-thinking the consequences of game media and reflecting upon them to circumvent the moral panics developed to negatively label gaming in modern society, and in turn positively labeling gaming by popularizing gaming discourse in modern culture so it is better understood across many social contexts. I would like to see further ethnographic and statistical research into all aspects of gaming in modern society to develop these ideas more objectively.
The Jenkins reading begins by looking at the US government (Limbaugh and Co) and how they see games as having social and psychological effects which possess possible risk factors for consumers in that they may take part in violent or anti-social behavior. The effect of gaming is seen to emerge more or less spontaneously with little conscious effort by the consumer and with little reflexivity.
Meaning in contrast emerges through an active process of interpretation, and displays conscious engagement that can be articulated into words and thus critically examined. Via this a culture develops which can be remediated. Many different interpretations are able to occur which enable the development of new ideas and concepts on the materials.
Thus the argument presented by the US government is that gamers are in fact incapable of reflecting upon and interpreting the media they consume and thus are susceptible to spontaneous and unconscious acts of anti-social behavior as they struggle to differentiate between real & play. I agree that the viewpoint of the US government is incorrect but I do still advocate that media creators need to indicate specific consumer age groups to ensure that the media is consumed by social categories (age groups) who are able to effectively reflect on the content.
The educational significance and value of games is mentioned by Jenkins as games are now growing in importance within youth culture. This is an interesting point as it made me consider how the remediation of games from board games to the computer/console has created a new networked culture of gamers and thus gaming media should probably be assessed for it affects on the existing culture through academic studies.
THE EFFECTS MODEL
Grossman says “kids are being brutalized by over exposure to the representations of violence at an age when they can’t distinguish between representations and reality” I would questions Grossmans points on a few fronts and agree on one of them. I agree that it is sometime difficult even for adults to distinguish visually between a game image and real image of violence as games have become so realistic. However, is it gaming media, or just media in general which is highlighting violent images in the community and thus generating moral panics that is out of balance with the actual threat of violence present in society. Secondly, what does Grossman class as child? This needs to clarify to give context to the argument. Finally, I would have liked to have seen some research presented into the actual of games consumed which are deemed as violent under his assessment. I think there are plenty of what he would deem to be violent games which would fail to be popular so it can’t just be the violence which attracts consumers, and thus I would posit that only an engaging narrative attracts consumers and thus it would be hard to differentiate games from other media which contain violent imagery, except that games engage the consumer through active collective networks and requires problem solving which take the focus away from the violence to progress the narrative, rather than other passive media consumptions.
Jenkins goes on to discuss how gaming can effect education and that gamers tend to dismiss any media they encounter as fantasy to entertainment if it is not consistent with what they believe to be true to the values in the real world. Consumer will thus view gaming media through the filter of their own specific world view and thus will interpret and reflect upon the media differently. Jenkins points out that Grossman has missed some key points on the reflexivity of gamers, the context of game play, and not presenting gaming in a meaningful educational context.
THE MEANING MODEL
Gamers can be described as active problem solvers who reflect critically for newer and better solutions.
Games enable players to explore their identity from other cultural contexts and perspectives in a post-modern method where multiple identities can form a fluid evolving self. Thus much like as seen in last week’s study materials where media from different cultural contexts such as the website setup to re-connect Native Americans across several reservations with their cultural history, games are able to do the same thing.
Cultural exploration was shown in the example given by Jenkins of the game Civilization III where they were able to investigate different cultural contexts through the game, showing a great level of reflexivity in game play and thus this kind of reflexivity must also be present in violent games as they explore aspects of their self in that context.
The key point for me in this reading was made when Jenkins discusses just as classroom culture shapes how school learning occurs, the social interactions (wisdom of crowds), can be a critical factor in shaping the meanings of actions within games. As gaming is mainly a social experience as seen in the Thornham reading this would also produce interactions between different cultures s presumably these individuals would also be from varied cultural backgrounds and thus expand the world view of the participants.
When trying to put a meaning to violence Jenkins looks at how violence can be deemed to be found in movies such as Bambi, and questions how violence can be classified so broadly and thus we must develop meaningful distinctions about the representation of violence within all media. And that shielding children from violence would leave them ill equipped for the reality of the real world as we know it at the age of 18. It was seen in last week’s study materials that historically cultures pass down information and stories so that the following generations can understand from actions in the past and can reflect on them within their own cultural and generational context and make informed decisions.
Jenkins moves on to analyses an example by Wright (the designer of Sims) where Wright says games are “perhaps the only medium that allows consumers to feel guilt over the actions of fictional characters” as we are the consumer are in control of the actions of the characters in the game unlike film and TV and thus game consumers reflect on their actions and values and how these values transfer to cyberspace. Thus games like the Sims allow consumers to test out these values in a social space and debate these socially so that values can be transferred to the context of their everyday lives.
It is here where I would question the anonimity of game play as a sticking point. Some see it as a positive and some as a negative – I now see it as a negative as I don’t think we should be able to explore aspects of ourselves free of any repercussions or responsibilities in our offline lives. These lives are converging so it is not right to be identity free online.
GAMES LITERACY
Literacy within gaming media can expand the frameworks and vocabulary player bring to discussions. Thus by allowing remediation of such media, free of copyright and IP restrictions, cultures can develop, investigate and interpret new ideas about gaming media within new contexts, and thus contextualize and recontextualise violence in games thus driving an era of game driven pop cosmopolitanism which reflects on the social contexts of gaming media.
In reflection, Jenkins has presented an argument which asks society to shift its focus from the effects of games to the meaning of games so that we as collective can assess how gamers and game designers are re-thinking the consequences of game media and reflecting upon them to circumvent the moral panics developed to negatively label gaming in modern society, and in turn positively labeling gaming by popularizing gaming discourse in modern culture so it is better understood across many social contexts. I would like to see further ethnographic and statistical research into all aspects of gaming in modern society to develop these ideas more objectively.