Thanks Eugene, Nate, DC, and Paul, et al
An interesting multilogue. I'm rushing to leave the country, but I'll try
to clarify my position on this (I think) insidious bloody thing:
I watch tv with my kids to regulate what they watch, not only in terms of
content, but in terms of meaning. As I said, the monsters were introduced
here in the form of videos and tv shows. I watched with the kids for almost
2 months, so it wasn't a quick consideration. I'll expand the themes I
identified:
"Domination of nature" ... from a Proppian perspective, it's classically
constructed myth. The young son-of-a-single-parent, would-be "Pokemon
Master" leaves his mother and goes out into the world after purchasing
(sub-theme: slavery) his first pokemon (Pikachu - role: fetish). He must
dominate Pikachu and train the (apparently conscious) animal to do what he
wants (fight all the pokemon that come along), [music theme says: "gotta
catch em all, gotta catch em all "] (theme: control of _all_ the
creatures). His ambition is to be the world's greatest "master" and own all
the pokemon.
"Gladatorialism": The way the pokemon master catches all the creatures is
to have pikachu (and subsequent acquisitions), a "genetically" superior
form of pikachu because of its electrical energy, fight the other pokemon
that come along. Each of the combatants, the humans, set their animals
against each other shouting instructions from the sidelines. Winner keeps
the others' slave. Normally, the "baddies" appear first and offer money.
When the kid won't sell, war ensues between the animals, their respective
gladiators (theme: militarism, managerism, trainerism - the sportification
of ownership - neoliberal winners and losers), and the groups of
"goodies/baddies".
"Darwinism" - social and genetic darwinism enter very early in the
narrative. The group who has the "superior" social morals, resources, and
genetic "stocks" of animals (see my last mail), the would be "master" and
his friends, have an interest in the animals evolving into superior
creatures. I could go on but I don't have time.
Now maybe, as you say Eugene, these themes pervade "western" society.
However, so do the themes of war, genocide, slavery (to debt, to the
theology of "things", to money, to ownership, etc), rape, prostitution,
suicide (esp among young men in our country), and so on. It doesn't mean I
have to expose or submit or endorse them to my children.
When I banned the pokemon (as an aside, Matt was very interested; Zara, not
in the least), I got an outcry, but a very short-lived one because I was
explaining what the themes meant all along. The conversation went something
to the effect of:
"If you had a friend, would you want to own them, or have to buy them?"
"No."
"And, if you did, would you expect them to fight on your behalf so you
could own the loser?"
"No."
"Do you think it would be right for someone to do that to you?"
"No".
"Well that's why I don't want the damn things in the house".
No problems. I don't let 'em watch "South Park" or "Debbie does Dallas"
either. Banning products is okay as far as I'm concerned, especially where
young, vulnerable minds and bodies are concerned. They get plenty of
exposure elsewhere to the above and all sorts of other stuff that I find
distasteful and try to protect them from. Their home, though, is a safe
haven as far as I'm concerned.
Another thing I was getting at was how they are introduced into various
cultures. In the US via games, here via television. It's very slick stuff
in terms of marketing. But I don't have to buy it. I refuse to buy
McDonalds and lots of things. The libertarian worldview might say I'm
authoritarian. I couldn't care less.
These themes get enfolded and carted along for life. They should be
exposed, discursively stripped naked if you will, and discarded. Thus I
agree that banning is not an answer, but it's a simplified description of
what I did. I find it difficult to do such things, but I have a
responsibility to do what I think is right for my kids, but not for anyone
else's. Thus if someone else, like Paul D for instance, thinks it's a good
thing, fine. I cannot criticise and I am not. I could be wrong. As a
parent, though, I'm in a position that doesn't really suit me: primary
responsibility for someone else's worldview and development (albeit to an
unknown extent). I don't like it, but I have to do it and I take it
seriously. Parents are not really real people as far as their children are
concerned, I think. And the reverse might also be true in many cases (maybe
mine too).
It's another paradox of being a social, languaging animal in a capitalist
system that valorises excesses and viciousness that no other animal (except
maybe pelicans, some ants, and certain spiders) can claim.
Phil
PS: "Consumerism and exploitation of Pokemon by corporations". Isn't that
backwards? Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean.
At 18:16 06-12-99 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Phil and everybody--
>
>Thanks for providing your parent voice about Pokemon. I think it is very
>important to hear a spectrum of the voices. I find your criticism of Pokemon
>very interesting and valid. Let me provide alternative views not to dismiss
>yours or challenge your parental judgment but to consider the issues within
>our academic community (actually my points are prompted by your criticism).
>
>1. Consumerism and exploitation of Pokemon by corporations.
>
>I think that this is very fair criticism of Pokemon practice. As a parent,
>I want to neither support those "bloody bastards" nor teach my son
>consumerism. However, on the other hand, it is the nature of corporate word
>to exploit anything that has real potential of an authentic human endeavor:
>rock music, political protests, sex, wrestling, love, insecurity, Pokemon
>game, computer games, and so on. Even anti-consumerism can become a fashion
>that can be exploited by businesses. I do not think that banning practices
>(rock music, wrestling, sex) that businesses successfully exploit is a way
>to go.
>
>2. Pokemon makes kids steal (cards).
>
>We discussed this issue in one of my classes, I teach now, in the context of
>watching the video "Preschools in three cultures." Paraphrasing a Japanese
>educator in the video who was talking about boys' fights, it is possible to
>say, "Is it natural that kids steal?! If they do not steal, that would be a
>problem!" In my view, there is a culture clash here. Japanese educators
>(and, probably, Japanese people in general) seem do not perceive child
>development as a continuous process, like many Western educators do. In
>Western world (I know that this is a huge (over)generalization but still can
>be useful), people assume that if adults do not interfere in kids who fight,
>steal, or lie -- the kids will grow criminals. In Japan, many educators seem
>to believe that it is important for kids to do and experience "bad" things
>when they are young exactly to learn not to do these things later on (this
>comes from my reading about Japan and my personal communication with
>Japanese parents and educators).
>
>The Japanese approach resonated with a comment about kid's stealing made by
>a teacher from the innovative school in Utah that Barbara Rogoff and I
>studied. The teacher told to parents that kids' stealing is "a normal
>reaction to non-normal situation." What she meant, I think, was the
>situation of private property. It is difficult for young kids to understand
>(not only cognitively but emotionally, relationally, and through kids'
>volition) why things can not be used by them (especially when the owner does
>not use them).
>
>I don't argue for encouraging kids' stealing but just look at as a normal
>human experience.
>
>3. Pokemon promotes problematic themes or in Phil's words:
>> domination of nature;
>> crude, "red in tooth and claw", darwinism, gladatorialism, and
>> anthropocentrism.
>
>I think that these themes are a big part of our culture whether we want it
>or not and whether kids see Pokemon or not. I think what to do with them is
>a good question for us and for the kids. I'm not sure that banning the best
>way to involve kids in considering these issues. I found myself useful to
>watch wrestling with my teen son and use many opportunities to discuss
>sexism. In my view, he becomes more sensitive to the issues of sexism by our
>joint watching wrestling than if I banned it (I personally hated wrestling
>but I think that it is not fair for me to push only things that I like --
>currently I really enjoy watching wrestling with my son and discuss with him
>what we see not necessarily for the sake of wrestling itself -- although I
>found many interesting aspects of this cultural practice-- but because of
>shared time and discussions. And it seems to me, it is mutual joy since he
>asks me to join him to watch wrestling).
>
>What do you think?
>
>Eugene
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Phil Graham [mailto:pw.graham@student.qut.edu.au]
>> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 6:28 AM
>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> Subject: Re: pocket monsters
>>
>>
>> I've been avoiding this thread. Please take this as an opinion piece.
>>
>> I hate the damn things (pocket monsters) and have banned them from my
>> house. I'll tell you why:
>>
>> It's not because of the cards or the games or the rules or anything like
>> that, but because of how the things were presented here
>> (Australia). First,
>> pokemon was released on video, then on the television, then on trading
>> cards. I drew the line after about a month of the television show being
>> aired because of the organising narrative themes: domination of nature;
>> crude, "red in tooth and claw", darwinism, gladatorialism, and
>> anthropocentrism. These are overt in the tv series and not values
>> I want my
>> children exposed to. So I banned the tv show.
>>
>> The first I knew of the cards, many months after I'd censored the
>> television show, was that children had begun stealing them from others at
>> my kids' school. Older children then began scamming the younger children
>> for more "valuable" (ie more scarce) cards. Then came the black
>> market: one
>> kid, whose parents are fairly well off, had a huge collection that he was
>> offering for sale at $400.00, a hefty amount for any grade 4 child. This
>> offer was made to grade 1-7 children. The computer game is out
>> for christmas.
>>
>> They may well create an interesting community of interest for children of
>> all ages, and perhaps I am wrong to impose values on my children
>> (ha!). But
>> pokemon "masters" and libertarians alike will have to work damned hard to
>> show me that, whatever the hell that configuration of discourses is, it's
>> anything but unhealthy and insidious (albeit well-planned and strategic)
>> marketing.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>> Phil Graham
>> p.graham@qut.edu.au
>> http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8314/index.html
>
>
Phil Graham
p.graham@qut.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8314/index.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 14:04:06 PST