Video Kids: Making Sense of Nintendo
Provenzo, Eugene F. (1991).
Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 183 pages. $9.95. ISBN 0-674-9379-0.
Eugene Provenzo's book on video games is repetitive, poorly organized, and scantily researched, but it does raise important issues. The author’s intention is to alert researchers, parents and teachers to the power of video games, and to argue that their influence is neither neutral nor trivial. These games, he asserts, are potent shapers and transmitters of cultural values, and we need to be attentive to the role they play in the experience of childhood. This does not feel like a new concern, but as long as we continue to spend $4 billion a year on home video games (Provenzo's figure for 1990) it is important that their role in culture be aired and discussed.
Video games can be powerfully compelling. Children play them with passion and intensity. Because of their strong appeal, their long-term influence becomes especially critical. Although there has been concern about these games since they first became popular in the 1970's, Provenzo claims that most research on the subject has tended to be reassuring, and to downplay negative effects. No correlation has been found, for instance, between the amount of time spent playing games and negative personality measures. Nor does it appear that involvement in video games relates to poor school performance, or to reduced participation in active sports. Game playing seems to bring families together in common activity more than any other form of recreation. It is even claimed that video games, by serving as a release, play a stabilizing role rather than an inflammatory one during periods of developmental stress.
Provenzo argues that most of this research is psychological in nature, and that little attention has in fact been paid to the social and cultural content of these games. He responds to this oversight by analyzing the ten most popular games in the industry, as measured both by sales and by customer polls. Violence, he finds, is integral in every case. The games are xenophobic, racist, and sexist. They promote individual autonomy over cooperation, and aggression over compromise. None of the games rewards initiative or independent thought; what's important is to learn the formula. Because the games are so circumscribed and inflexible in terms of plot, they seriously limit the ways in which players can define themselves.
This is even more of a problem for girls than it is for boys. The video game world is dominated by male figures and the few females that do appear tend to be nameless damsels-in-distress. Themes of female kidnapping, rescue, and submission are pervasive. As Provenzo points out, this is a double-edged sword for girls. Not only are they poorly served by the blatant stereotyping; they are also discouraged from participating in the games by the lack of positive role models, and this eliminates for them an important entryway into the world of computers. Right from the start boys have an edge in this area, and the computer world remains a male domain.
The issue of violence, Provenzo concedes, is a difficult one. He feels, with Bettelheim, that children need to discharge their aggressive feelings through symbolic play. But video games, he insists, fail to serve this function adequately, since they deny a child the ability to define and control the conditions of play. The game defines the options, and sets limits that prevent true exploration. Provenzo observes that children often respond by constructing their social reality in a way that mirrors the content of the games. He cites no hard evidence to support this, but points to the need for further research.
Games, like mythology, are a way to grapple with the meaning of life. But what, Provenzo asks, if the games we play are corrupt? 'What if, instead of ennobling the individual, as great literature does, our games debase our humanity? What if our games cheat our children in their quest for deeper meaning? What if they blind the child's vision rather than liberating her consciousness?' Provenzo asks good questions, and they deserve, as he himself points out, far more thorough investigation.
Reviewer Information