Jenkins, Henry. “The War between Effects and Meanings.” Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture. New York: NYU Press, 2006. 208-221. Print.
Abstract
In a reaction to a 2002 court decision ruling that video games are not constitutionally protected, it is argued that games, and even the violence in them, can be a meaningful form of expression. There is a speculation that the fallacy of the court ruling lies in the lack of differentiation between “meanings” (interpretations) and “effects” (spontaneous reactions that cannot be examined.) The “effects model” – that games “condition” children for violence – is refuted by the argument that it relies on a (discredited) behaviorist model that excludes the element of “conscious cognitive activity,” ignores motives for learning, and dismisses the faculty of gamers to distinguish fantasy from reality. Instead, a “meanings model” that argues for the value of games as learning and problem-solving tools that allow children to experience the world from different perspectives, is advocated. It is demonstrated that video games, even violent ones, allow children to map their own goals onto “game space,” explore their environment, and make interpretations that can be applied to the real world. It is maintained that violence in video games, can be “meaningful” in that it tells a story that provides a context for gamers to think about the meaningless violence presented in the game. A belief is expressed that games, by design, allow gamers to reflect on their values because they are the ones making the choices in the game environment and exploring the consequences of those choices. The conclusion is that game literacy, and reframing the question of violence from effects to meanings, can foster a more critical viewpoint of games, and provide an environment for children to explore their heritage, ideas, and experiences.
{ 0 comments }
