Acknowledging Problematic Use

As I have hopefully illustrated in my blogs for this course, there are many areas of interest, study debate, or critique associated to the academic field of videogames theory and culture. For my last blog, I want to focus on discourses of addiction in games, an issue that surrounds the topic of videogames throughout society today.

The idea that playing videogames can become an addiction is a contested one. The idea is controversial in that it raises question to what harm videogames can potentially cause to those who play them. The idea that videogames could cause unanticipated harm to anyone has caused a moral panic throughout society on a global scale.  Opinions stem from multiple perspectives on both sides of the debate (e.g. biological, or social). Whether arguing for or against games being addictive, all perspectives have one thing in common; they are arguing the word ‘addiction’.

The problem with using the word addiction is that it means different things to different people. Today, with many academic fields adopting the word for their own, the term addiction is given multiple meanings. Consequentially, viewpoints supposedly arguing for or against one singular debate could in fact be arguing their view of completely different debates. This makes it very difficult to generate any useful discussion on the discourses of videogames and addiction.  

Neils Clark and Keith Bakker are two of the few who have identified this issue, accepted its problematic nature towards any legitimate discussion of the topic and developed an alternate route to addressing the potential negative effects supposedly caused by playing videogames. Instead of using the term ‘addiction’ they use the term ‘problematic use’.

Problematic Use means “the state of powerlessness a person experiences who, despite attempts to stop or reduce their usage, they are unable to walk away from a game (or substance, or behaviour) even in the face of persistent and deleterious effects on their life” (Reading 9 or 9b).

Problematic Use is by far a better term than addiction because it describes the situation and does not deny that there may be a problem (play). The term encourages an approach where people who play games can be looked at individually. Whereas by labelling behaviours as an addiction, instantly affiliates an individual to the discourses that are attributed to the term addiction.

If we are to generate any useful discussion on what harm videogames can potentially cause to those who play them we must look at the bigger picture, we must stop treating the symptom (‘addiction’) and address the cause (problematic use). The applicability of the term problematic use towards ideas surrounding games and addiction allows room for future empirical research. In time, such research can potentially defuse negative discourses surrounding videogames in large whilst at the same time, allow us as a society to get closer to the answers behind what affects videogames are having on their players. Acknowledging the term problematic use is acknowledging the growth and development of the theory and culture of videogames.

References

Walker, John. “What Is The Truth About Gaming Addiction?”. Web log post. Rock, Paper, Shotgun. 12^th Nov. 2007. 21 Jan. 2012.