Battling dragons, conquering demons?
Dave Gerardi -- Gifts and Dec, 11/1/2002 12:00:00 AM
The book is Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super Heroes and Make-Believe Violence. In it, Gerard Jones makes a case for violent play as a method for children to develop coping skills. PLAYTHINGS Senior Editor Dave Gerardi speaks with the author and finds a contrary position with The Lion & Lamb Project's Daphne White.
Do children need fantasy and make-believe violence?
GJ: There are two basic functions to play. One is to rehearse for what we know will be, such as kids playing house. But another is to pretend to be the thing we never will be: to be bigger and stronger than we are, to be that bad guy or that monster or a hero who saves the world. It's a way of feeling stronger, calmer in the face of our own smallness and inadequacies. It's a way of compensating for all the limitations that life puts on people, especially kids. We forget sometimes how small and dependent kids are and how frustrated they can be by their own inability to get things done. For a little kid, walking is hard, opening a door is hard. Play is an important way of keeping our optimism up by pretending to be more powerful than we are. One of the things kids have to deal with is their own impulsiveness and aggression and the way angers and fears can seize them. If you can pretend to be the victim or the bad guy, it's a way of taking control over those fears. It's a way to explode anxiety and become more relaxed.
DW: I have spoken to many researchers about the 'catharsis' argument, and they have told me repeatedly that there is no research evidence to support this theory, especially as it regards children. It's like an urban legend—it makes intuitive sense to a lot of people, but there is no empirical evidence to show that it's true. The reason children keep engaging in pretend violence play is because there is so much entertainment violence for them to work out—there are many more violent toys and violent TV shows now than when we were kids. If a parent gives a child a toy gun, they are sending their child a message that violence is entertaining, that to pretend to shoot someone is 'fun.'
GJ: A typical experiment will have subjects play an action video game for 15 to 20 minutes, stop it abruptly, and then immediately ask questions to test their emotional state. Imagine having two people play a fierce game of tennis, setting off a buzzer right between strokes while the game's tied, and then questioning them about their feelings before they can even get off the court. Obviously they'd be pumped up on adrenaline, frustrated at the cessation of the match, and still physically 'on alert' for their opponent's next hit. We'd get similar results even in a non-conflictive sport: imagine stopping a swimmer racing against the clock in the middle of a lap. From that we could conclude that athletics raise tensions instead of lowering them. Fortunately we have the wisdom not to view athletics through such bad research. Can a video game sometimes increase tension and anger? Of course it can. So can tennis if you have a lousy game or your partner or opponent is unpleasant. But the general effect of play is to calm people down over the course of daily events, which is why people keep returning to it.
Adults know the difference between fantasy and reality while kids don't. How does this come to bear on the issue?
GJ: One psychologist told me one of our functions in life as grown-ups is to help kids learn the difference. A way to do that is to let them explore fantasy and remind them of what reality is. I'm afraid it's often adults who can't tell the difference. When we see a kid with a stick in his hand and we see a future killer with a gun, we're the ones having trouble making that distinction. The kid knows very well that he's just a little person with a stick, but when we start to put that message of anxiety there that this is something scary that really blurs the message. Why is it scary to grown-ups to pretend to do something that you never intend to do in reality? Cognitively, kids can't get the kinds of rational discussion that adults try to engage in—that's where play comes in. Play is how they learn. Take a kid who watches Power Rangers. If a 4-year-old tries to imitate those characters and kicks his friend, he's instantly reminded that the rules of fantasy and reality are different. Suddenly he's got a sore foot, a crying friend, parents swooping down, an end to the play date. Reality is a perfect antidote to fantasy and vice versa.
DW: Kids are very impressionable. Until the age of about 8, children can't distinguish between fantasy and reality. That is why when a mother puts a Halloween mask on, her young child might get scared and confused. Kids do need to work out good guys versus bad guys. Whether they use a stick or finger as a gun, it goes back to being a stick or finger at the end of play. But when you, as a parent, buy a plastic gun, you're saying it's okay to pretend to act out with a gun. Plus, the gun is always there as a visual reminder for violent play—unlike the stick, which can be transformed into a magic wand or a walking stick the next time a child sees it. Every toy is educational. A toy gun is just as educational as blocks. The difference is what does the toy teach?
What do violent video games such as Quake provide for kids, if anything?
GJ: It's an extension of play. There's an age in which it doesn't feel quite dignified to run around pretending to shoot each other. It's also intellectually challenging in that kids get tired of that free form fantasy where they realize everyone's just making it up as they go. They need some restrictions and some rules. It's the same urge that has turned childhood play into things like chess.
DW: Children live in a very imaginative world, a fantasy world. Anything is possible in a fantasy world, and we want to encourage imaginative play. But as parents, what kind of world do we want children to imagine? A world where the definition of 'good guys' is "those who beat up the bad guys?" Why don't we offer our children some other kinds of fantasies? Why not imagine being an astronaut traveling to other planets? Or a doctor finding the cure to cancer? That's just as valid a fantasy as being a superhero and beating up bad guys.
Does there need to be a balance? Would you say that a child that only plays with non-violent toys and a child that only plays with violent toys are each missing something?
GJ: I think so. Life is about balance. But if a kid simply shows no interest in violent play, I wouldn't suggest the parents leave him in that situation. Maybe the kid just finds it anxiety provoking. Maybe there are other ways in helping that kid contact his anxieties and build up confidence. Kids should be allowed to explore their curiosities. If they become too obsessive about something in particular, then maybe there's an issue there. A kid who only wants to do violent fantasy is really angry about something. It's about looking at the kids' reactions. If it's fun and playful and the kid comes out of it looking good and feeling relaxed, then there's probably something positive going on.
DW: We all have an in-born level of aggression. Do we want to feed it or minimize it in our children? Why do we need to over-stimulate that part of the imagination (with violent toys)? Is that the kind of culture we really want to live in? Parents can instead encourage kids to imagine themselves more as explorers or firefighters. Being a hero does not mean being violent.
We would love your feedback!
-
Time To Shine!
Feb 1, 2008 -
Violence is not child's play
Feb 1, 2001 -
From work shop to toy shop
Feb 1, 2003
VIEW ALL GALLERIES
