More on fantasy, violence and football

Let me recommend a visit to Christopher's blog, to read his excellent post on pornea and the sin of Sodom.

In the comments section below my post on fantasy, Keri has caught me out.  I had written:

Keri, from a pacifist perspective, fantasy is problematic when it encourages us to see others as opportunities for us to exercise our power over them.

And she responded:

Interesting. The problem for me is that I can't imagine why the above applies to video games, but not to sports. What are competitive sports if not physical power struggles that have been made socially acceptable? Aren't both teams or players in these sports attempting to exercise power over their opposition by proving themselves superior in skill or strength? For that matter, aren't many competitive sports literally violent, to the point where athletes often suffer injuries?

By that logic, I can't see why pacifists wouldn't also consider it unhealthy to find "emotional gratification" in sports; I don't see how athletes are any less guilty of taking pleasure in exercising power over others than gamers are. (I should think they'd be more so, actually, because their power struggles involve real people, not virtual ones.) If you're going to imply that the use of power struggles for entertainment and gratification is inherently negative, that has implications for sports as well; if you allow that there are contexts (such as sporting events) in which power struggles can be exciting and empowering and healthy, I don't see why gaming can't be one of those contexts.

Hmmm.  To be clear, my original post was not meant to be about all video games, just one particular type: shooting games where one's fantasy opponents end up dead.  There are no sports of which I know where the goal is literally to kill your opponent, but of course, the language of "killing" and "destroying" is widespread in virtually all athletic competitions.

I'm a fairly competitive person when it comes to my running and working out.  I always get my best workouts in when I'm running with buddies; they push me to do what I could not do alone.  I want to keep up with them -- or beat them -- when we are on the track or in the hills.   When I run quarter-mile repeats on the track, I like running with guys just a bit faster than me -- because my desperate desire to keep up with them forces me to run faster than I ever could if I were there by myself.  (For 400 meters, the difference for me is about 5-7 seconds between running with others and running alone).  Competition feels good to me, even when I, as usual, don't finish first.

But I think there's a world of difference between healthy competition and a desire to humiliate.  When I race my friend Mark down the front stretch of the track at Arcadia High School, I'm not thinking "I'm going to kick his ass!"  I'm thinking "Damnit, I'm going to keep up with you if it kills me!"  Of course I love beating him (which happens one time in five, mind you), but after every hard interval together, we touch fists and say "Good job, brother."   I don't want to dominate or humiliate him; our competition is a friendly rivalry.  Deep friendship -- even love -- can comfortably co-exist with a real desire to defeat the very person one loves in a game or athletic competition.  (If you grew up in my family playing croquet, dominoes, bridge, or table tennis, you'd know that in a heartbeat.)  I don't see how that correlates to killing fantasy characters in a video game.  To me, there's a colossal distinction between competing at ping-pong or in a foot race and shooting at someone, in reality or fantasy!  Victory in the former doesn't involve real or imagined lethal injury to one's opponent; victory in the latter does.

But how then do I defend my love of college football?  Here's where I sense my own hypocrisy.  I adore the college game, and as any regular reader of my blog knows, am a huge fan of the Cal Golden Bears.  Football is a literally violent sport, where injuries are real and commonplace.  I don't play the sport, but I love to watch it.  And yes, when watching it, I do get stimulated.  I do cheer when a defender on my team sacks the opposing quarterback.  When I'm calm, I don't want anyone on either side to get hurt, but when caught up in a sea of blue and gold fans, I am quite capable of standing and cheering when one of "our guys" knocks one of "them" out of the game with a particularly impressive hit.  Keri is right that that's no better than delighting in the violence of video games.

I still think shooting games are uniquely problematic.  But hell, I think American football (at all levels) is problematic for a pacifist.  I know how many players get hurt, I know how corrupt the college system is, I know that it often brings out momentary ugliness in me when I watch it.   As a pro-feminist man, I'm keenly aware of the connection between football and sexual violence against women.   And I see that at the least, the successful playing of the video game requires skill; viewing a football game from the stands requires none.  (Well, almost none: with experience, you learn to identify holding penalties very quickly, and that's not something that's easy to do.)  I suppose I've been guilty of condemning something that I don't care about (gaming), while ignoring something equally troublesome (college football) that I do.

I'm virulently anti-porn because I'm viscerally aware of the damage it can do.  I stay away from it because I honor its destructive power.  I gave up that shooting game a few years ago because I felt myself becoming addicted to it.  I still see both obsessions as essentially alike, if only because on a psychological and physiological level, my reactions to both are so similar and so clearly unhealthy.  But with my love of football, I've yet to see the really negative consequences for me, even as I recognize that there are immense negative consequences for others who play and view that most violent of American pastimes.   I know I would never want my kids playing tackle football; I've seen too many catastrophic injuries to accept that.  But I'm still willing to watch other father's sons play, and get hurt, all for my enjoyment and the "honor" it brings to my alma mater. 

I think Keri's right, and I've fallen short of the mark here.

Comments

[djw]

I'd suggest you consider the possibility that the problem isn't with your engoyment of football but with your dismissal of video games. When you say

I don't want to dominate or humiliate him; our competition is a friendly rivalry. Deep friendship -- even love -- can comfortably co-exist with a real desire to defeat the very person one loves in a game or athletic competition. (If you grew up in my family playing croquet, dominoes, bridge, or table tennis, you'd know that in a heartbeat.) I don't see how that correlates to killing fantasy characters in a video game.

It seems, with respect, a bit obtuse. The correlation, of course, is when you compete directly against your friends in a video game. This can be a competitive bonding experience of the sort you discuss. I've seen it; I've experienced it to some degree. I also find some of the more extreme violence in some video games troubling, but that issue is orthogonal to the question of whether it can be the sort of positive competitive bonding agent you discuss.

We all tend to generalize from our own experience. I guess since a few of my friends who are exceedingly mild-mannered and have never raised a fist in anger have played violent video games all their lives, I'm skeptical about a strong, generalized connection of the sort you see. It's not a fantasy world for them, it's a contest of skill. They'll reject a violent video game for a (relatively) non-violent one if the quality of gameplay is better.

[Hugo]

Here, DJW, is where I do have to plead my ignorance. I don't know much about video games, and was until recently convinced that it was an inherently solitary activity. I don't doubt that the bonding you describe is genuine. The athlete in me still wants to make sure that teens get their cardio-vascular exercise, but I am learning not to be so dismissive of video games.

On the other hand, I cannot believe that shooting games of the arcade variety have no impact on the inner emotional terrain of those who play them regularly.

[djw]

The games I used to play were home games, played on some precursor of the modern X-box (I never paid any attention to the hardware, they all belonged to my roommates). In the racing and sneak-around-and-try to shoot-people games, the TV gets divided up into 4 screens, one for each player's POV. Modern technology allows for the syncing up of multiple TVs; a friend of mine hosts parties for 16 this way, where 16 people are all playing at the same time. It's much more fertile ground for social bonding than, for example, the other things you do with TVs. Many-perhaps most-arcade games have multiplayer modes, or at least they used to.

Agreed on exercise. I'm skeptical enough on the concerns about violence to think that this is a much more serious concern.

[MK]

In yesterday's violent fantasy post, you said this:

Porn offers the viewer the fantasy of consequence-free sex; the games offer the player consequence-free violenc.

I think it's the existence of consequences in sports that differentiate them from violent video games. There are rules and officials and penalties and players' respect for each other that prevent the match from devolving into chaos. The fact that you are playing with real people inherently limits the extent of the violence. And I should note that violence if it happens is generally accidental, not intentional. Perhaps this is a distinction of degree, and not in essence, but it is a distinction nonetheless.

For what it's worth, I prefer the sports where the rules that do exist place stricter boundaries on the injuries that can occur (basketball, soccer, tennis) and have a great distaste for those in which beating one another up goes without saying (boxing, hockey).

[Thea DeGroot]

The church I grew up in did not consider itself pacifist, but they did try to draw a distinction between sports. My Christian high school did not have football; we had soccer. Basketball was the big deal sport. Homecoming happened during the basketball season.

There have been studies that showed watching violence on television caused more aggressive behavior in young children. Young children have fewer layers of socialization to counteract violent images. Old folks have more. But I would say that there are still affects even in older folks. Pacifists talk about building pacifist instincts so that when confronted by a difficult situation your instinct is to choose a non-violent/non-aggressive path. Instincts are built over the long haul. It comes through choosing peace in many, many situations. I think our entertainment is included in this effort.

I don’t think we are so simply wired that an experience with violent entertainment will immediately result in a violent action. But anyone who has trained their body, for music or sports, or other coordination skills will tell you that instinct is built through repetition. If someone is constantly feeding themselves through violent entertainment, when faced with a difficult situation what will their instinct be? A gamer may just instinctively reach for a joy-stick to zap their attacker.

[Thea DeGroot]

I'm going to break the cardinal rule in humour and try that last line again:

A gamer may very well INSTINCTIVELY . . . reach for a joy-stick to zap their attacker :-)

[Rachel]

I'm a huge football fan (I root wildly for the Green Bay Packers, and have been fortunate enough to attend three games at Lambeau over the last few years) so I'm fascinated by your notion that American football is necessarily problematic for pacifists.

It's my sense that the men who play the game love it, and I'm not sure it's fair to argue that they shouldn't engage in the sport they've chosen. To be sure, some young men are injured before their careers can properly begin; others may play for problematic reasons (the scholarship is the only way to get through school, e.g.). But on the whole I don't feel that I understand the players' mindset well enough to judge whether or not playing football is good for them.

But the football-fan mindset is familiar to me, so that's the one I want to speak to. Allow me to suggest that there's a difference between cheering when a skillful play is executed well (even if that play is a tackle or a sack), and cheering when an opposing team member is injured. The former is healthy; the latter is disgusting.

Is football a violent game? Absolutely. Playing it involves risk, and the men who do it know that. To my mind, it's okay and even good to get caught up in the joy of watching the sport...as long as we don't allow our immersion in the competition to blunt our humanity to the point where we forget that these are human beings, who deserve our silence and our compassion if they're injured on the field.

[Christopher Bernard]

have you read Bonhoeffer's Ethics? just think you would enjoy it.

[Hugo]

Rachel, I've struggled around that issue of "rooting for injuries" for years.

True, ugly story about me: it was 1990, as I recall, and I was at the Cal-USC game at the Coliseum (which ended in a tie, the last tie game in Cal Golden Bear history). After an SC score, "Traveler", the SC mascot (a horse) threw his rider, leaving the rider stunned and bleeding. HALF THE CAL SECTION INSTINCTIVELY CHEERED -- ME AMONG THEM -- when we saw the rider go down. Once we saw he was hurt (he left on a stretcher, but his hand was raised in the Trojan salute), we quieted down and were more somber. But honestly, maybe I'm just a particularly sinful man, but it's sometimes hard for me to get the blood lust out of my system. It's gotten easier to watch football as I've gotten older, I'm happy to say.

Chris, do I love Bonhoeffer! Son, I was readin' him 'fore youse was born! "Christ calls a man, He bids him come and die" and all that.

[*Christopher]

Hugo,

Great thoughts...we've been discussing some of this at bls' blog, The Topmost Apple on a slightly more tongue-in-cheek mode.

[BritGirlSF]

Slightly off topic, but I share one of Hugo's concerns. I don't play video games, but I am a huge hockey fan, and I'm aware that there is a major conflict between my feminism and my dislike of the culture that surrounds hockey. Hockey culture has a lot in common with football culture, and suffers from the same problems with sexual assault. During the current collective bargaining conflict, many players returned to Europe to play there. Within a few months 2 were arrested in Sweden for rape. My first thought was to wonder how many times they had done the same thing in the US or Canada and just not been arrested (kudos to the Swedes on this one, they have better rape laws than we do). There is also a pervasive culture of sexual harrassment at hockey games, so pervasive that I won't go to games without a male escort. How does one reconcile one's political and personal beliefs with a sport that one loves but that is surrounded by a toxic subculture? Should I feel guilty for contributing financially to the continuation of this subculture through ticket sales, buying jerseys etc?
I'd love to hear more thoughts from Hugo about this (or from any other feminists on the board, or even women in general - I know we have at least 2 Texans here so I know they know football).

[mythago]

I don't know much about video games

Often in error, never in doubt, eh? ;)

[Joe Perez]

You concluded:
"Fantasy is not without its redemptive purposes, but when it is about sexual conquest or violent destruction, it is, I think, at odds with what it means to live an authentically Christian life."

I've never agreed with you Hugo on pornography, so I'm not with you on fantasy either. Here are some rambling stream of consciousness thoughts about your post. I think what you say about fantasy is true on one level. Refusing to indulge in fantasies that are psychologically or spiritually harmful is probably a good thing for most people most of the time. Pedophile rapists, for example, should probably not be encouraged to cultivate an active fantasy life. But for most people, fantasy simply doesn't have the harmful consequences you think it does. Only your philosophical and theological judgments make fantasy "wrong," and therefore you want to cut it out, or repress the offensive fantasy. Your judgments, however, are only valid on one level of thinking about fantasy: the moralist's. Moralizing about fantasy is one legitimate function, but it's not a very complete picture of what constitutes human flourishing. Go deeper into "fantasy is not without its redemptive purposes" and there you will have a litany of reasons not to oppose or get overly moralistic about pornography or fantasy. The distinctions you make between pornography and erotica (one is good, the other is bad, guess which) strike me as strained ... but then I don't buy the whole "objectification" crapola argument either. If using pornography makes you feel guilty, don't do it. But that doesn't make porn bad, except in your mind. Porn is just another human cultural invention like any other, with a whole host of good and bad and in-between qualities. It can be used for a whole spectrum of purposes from those very low in developmental maturity to very highly mature purposes; and purposes from low to high can all be valid for persons at different times and places. Even saints can need to look at a hunky jock or a buxom lass to get off now and then, and no there's nothing wrong with that, IMAJ. It may not be the highest or most noble or most selfless (what's so damn wrong with selfishness anyways?) act imaginable. Serving soup to the homeless would probably be more dignified. But there are few things more human.

[Jordans 1 Phat Low]

I can’t say enough good things about this shoe, whether you are traveling or reside in a warmer climate, check them out. They are the shoe equivalent to the little black dress.
by Jordans 1 Phat Low

[dermatology emr]

There have been studies that showed watching violence on television caused more aggressive behavior in young children. Young children have fewer layers of socialization to counteract violent images. Old folks have more. But I would say that there are still affects even in older folks.

Kevin