RE: pocket monsters

From: Eugene Matusov (ematusov@UDel.Edu)
Date: Mon Dec 06 1999 - 15:16:57 PST


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



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 14:04:06 PST