Littleton Debate Sounds Familiar

The tragedy last month in Littleton, Colo., is still on the minds of Americans, polls show, no doubt reinforced by last week’s school shootings in Georgia. Events such as these could bring widespread censorship to the Internet, at least in the U.S., and also, possibly, restraints on video and computer games.

Vice President Al Gore called a news conference shortly after the Colorado killings to announce support for parental controls on children’s use of the Internet. The Federal Communications Commission is reportedly mulling over a rule that would require Internet service providers to offer free filtering software to their customers. There has also been new attention directed at violent video and computer games.

The American tendency to blame possible but speculative influences on the perpetrators of horrendous crimes has become a familiar pattern.

First, the potential negative influences are identified by minute examination of the criminal’s life history. Second, factors that are already considered problematic or repulsive are given special emphasis. Third, the prevalence of these influences is assigned to the neglect or mendacity of a particular political persuasion, such as when former House Speaker Newt Gingrich blamed the shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado on “liberals.” Fourth, defenders of the scapegoated influence point out that millions of people are exposed to the same influence but do not become criminals. Finally, the spike in public attention and concern reaches a point where politicians feel they must do something.

Needless to say, this is a spectacularly unsophisticated and almost rube-like way to address a problem and, in the case of school violence, there may not even be a problem because schools are far safer places, statistically, than streets or even homes. And when the remedy contemplated is some form of censorship, this threatens to shape the experience of everyone in society even though the crime was committed by only a handful of people.

A concession that seemed curiously missing in all the talk after the Columbine High tragedy is that the problem with violence in our society--including “virtual” violence--is almost exclusively a problem of males, especially young men and boys. Girls tend not to enjoy violent video games; girls don’t usually access Web sites dedicated to ethnic or racial hatred; girls almost never shoot up a school or anywhere else.

So if we are to focus on the problem of violence, we need to address only half of the population, not the entire population, as probable or potential sources of violence. Then we have to admit that most boys and men are not violent, even those who play violent video games or who own guns or who enjoy violent action movies.

What makes some males violent? We’re not sure, but some experts believe it is a transition from fantasy to action that is rooted in shame, anger, fear and a lack of connection to others. Author William Pollack, in his best-selling book “Real Boys,” writes: “I do not believe that a boy who feels truly connected and loved and who has safe settings where he can express his emotions will be motivated to violence by exposure to violence in the media.”

Pollack recommends ways for parents to encourage their boys to share their feelings and for parents to avoid the common practice of encouraging stoicism, toughness and “manly” qualities in boys at a young age.

Christina Hoff Sommers, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, is writing a book called “The War Against Boys,” and she disagrees with Pollack. “There is no evidence,” she said, “that being able to express your emotions leads to mental health.” She calls Pollack’s diagnosis the “clinical fallacy,” an attempt to “pathologize all boys.” She says, “What Pollack wants to do is to make boys more like girls.”

Sommers instead recommends rigorous training in character and ethics. “To get to the heart of the problem, you have to go to ethics in the schools-- there’s been a move away from teaching right and wrong, both in the schools and in the home,” she says. “Boys need this more than girls,” she adds.

What is the role of computer games or the Internet?

Pollack and Sommers agree that violent video games or violence in the media can desensitize some boys to violence.

The key to violence is anger and shame, combined with lack of character and ethical development. Computers may actually feed this if a boy, who is angry, shamed and withdrawn into a fantasy world of revenge, is allowed to spend hours alone on a computer with a virtual means of enhancing his revenge fantasy, such as playing a “first-person shooter” simulation game of murder and mayhem. The Internet may contribute to this too if the boy is seeking sites that reinforce his anger instead of challenging or diverting it into something more productive.

There are some, like Sommers, who think we should err on the side of caution and either pass “reasonable” legislation or, as she put it, “shame” the computer game makers into pulling violent video games from stores. That attitude usually extends to Internet filtering software, too. Others think the attraction of males to action and violence is so overwhelming that it’s impossible to regulate or control, and that we’d do better to concentrate on the tiny number of boys and men who veer into violent or pathological behavior. Still others point out that the major problem is the availability of guns, which can make violence much more lethal to its victims.

In general, we need a far more sophisticated discussion about the link between simulated violence and real violence. We also need to be cautious about the blunt instrument of government censorship--something that affects everyone--when the actual source of vexation is a small population of boys and men whose real problems are not principally exposure to violent games or the Internet.

Gary Chapman is director of the 21st Century Project at the University of Texas at Austin. He can be reached at gary.chapman@mail.utexas.edu.