With no universal conscription, how does the military-industrial complex entice young people into the military?
It certainly helps to keep a substantial portion of the population poor and to limit job opportunities for people of color. But to increase the enthusiasm of adolescents for a career involving weapons, violence, and death, what could be a better avenue than video games?
Don’t assume for one minute that the arms manufacturers and the video game industry are not in bed with each other.
For decades, Lockheed Martin weapons have appeared in extremely violent video games—e.g., Homefront and Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter–in which Americans kill, kill, and kill various enemies threatening the country’s liberty.
Such games are case studies in moral disengagement:
- Enemies are dehumanized
- Pseudo-moral justifications are provided for “wasting” the bad guys
- Responsibility for the violence is always attributed to the victims of the aggression
Lockheed Martin reciprocated, deliberately developing for one of their complex aircraft a training module that resembled a video game and “leveraged” video game technology for “tracking and interpreting real-time events during military operation(s).” Indeed, they bought their own video game maker, 3Dsolve, to develop training materials.
There is considerable evidence—although not undisputed—that exposure to violent video games can teach and increase violent behavior, violent thoughts, and violent emotions [links open in pdf].
The bad news is that this connection may serve the military well, convincing children that war is a game, that “wasting” others is fun, and that massive death and destruction are justifiable.
The good news is that prosocial video games appear to promote prosocial behavior [link opens in pdf].
What are your thoughts about how to promote prosocial videos in a culture of violence?
Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology