‘Violent games contribute to youth violence’ Discuss.

In a world where terrorism and war feature on the six o’clock news every day, is it fair to suggest ‘violent games’ are responsible for youth violence? I would argue that while there are many reasons why a young person might turn to violence, video games are unlikely to be the deciding factor. The glorification of crime and war through games like Assassin’s Creed or Call of Duty, while problematic in some ways, is not likely to stimulate a previously unrealised passion for hurting others in a young person and I would argue that blaming games for such issues is naïve and arguably simply a method for society to pass on blame for its problems.  For most young people, the reasoning for turning to violence is integral in their everyday lives. Studies would suggest a young person’s inclination towards using violence is entirely dependent on how they were raised, meaning if someone is exposed to violence all their lives, from their parents or siblings etc., they are far more likely to be violent themselves. Economic issues may also be a reason why they may turn to violence or crime, for if someone is raised unable to buy necessities or gain employment, they may feel they need to turn to crime in order to live. In addition, the area a person grows up in may push them towards violence, for instance if getting beaten up at school is a regular occurrence, an individual is more likely to use violence later on in life. Medical professionals would suggest that the inclination towards violence is genetic to an extent, with men typically being more violent than women and men who, through whatever genetic abnormality, end up with two Y chromosomes, rather than the regular XY of a male, are often more violent as a result. Hence, there are a variety of reasons behind why an individual may turn to violence in their youth, and I would argue that without any of these factors, the use of a violent videogame would have little to no effect on the player, suggesting violent games are not contributing to youth violence and in case, other issues are far more influential.  However, you only need to look so far as almost all the teenagers of today spouting phrases like ‘peak’ and ‘she was like…then he was like…’ to realise pop culture does heavily influence the youths of today, and seemingly without realising it, young people seem to copy the concepts they pick up. This phenomenon would suggest violent games do have some influence of the behaviour of their players, and perhaps would encourage violent behaviour. The Broken Windows Theory, popularised by police officer Detective Colin Saysell, would support this idea, claiming that seeing criminal acts, such as the robbery taking place in the popular game ‘Grand Theft Auto’, encourages people to commit similar acts. Saysell’s typical example is graffiti and the fact seeing graffiti may convince a person they’re more likely to get mugged in the area. Sociologists are highly critical of the ‘Broken Windows Theory’ which would seem to agree with the assessment that playing violent games would encourage violence in the real world, because realistically, no teenager is going to play Call of Duty and be inspired to go out, purchase a machine gun and murder civilians. For the most part, criminals do not become criminals for entertainment, and to suggest they do would be hugely short sighted and perhaps disregard the real issues that push people to be violent. Therefore, I would argue that blaming violent games for youth violence is perhaps society’s way of passing on blame. Furthermore, one could argue that allowing people to play violent games gives them a safe forum in which to express their aggression without actually hurting anybody. Giving someone a videogame where they can get the aggression and anger out of their system is arguably very similar to competitive sports like boxing and rugby, and hence it may in fact be doing quite the opposite of encouraging youth violence. The fact is violent games are popular because people find it entertaining, which suggests the thirst for violence exists whether violent games are there or not. There would be no market in producing such games if the demand wasn’t there but the reality is, people like violent games and there is an argument that for many people, a virtual reality where violence is acceptable actually discourages violence in the real world.  With that said, the growing popularity of violent games could contribute to youth violence in some ways. If an individual has an existing tendency towards violence for whatever reason, the increasing popularity of violent games may convince them that people would respect and enjoy violence in the real world, hence encouraging such behaviour. In that sence, one could argue that the popularity of violent games does contribute to youth violence, and hence the only solution would be to ban such games from the younger generations, or completely. However in a world where violence in some shape or form appears in the news every day, is it fair to suggest violent games are responsible for the youth’s increasing interest in violent behaviour? As war is a reality in various places across the globe and we live in the age where global news is constant and immediate, you cannot hide the fact violence exists and hence, removing violent games in order to hide violence from the public would be a pointless exercise.  In conclusion, I would argue that while violent games could contribute to youth violence in some cases, for the most part there are far bigger influences at work encouraging such behaviour. Childhood abuse, economic difficulties and unfortunate social circumstances are far bigger factors in causing youth violence and hence, we should be focusing on issues such as these rather than passing on the blame to video games. Violence is an unfortunate part of our reality in the modern world, and instead of attempting to hide it, we should address the causes for violence among youths head on.