Addicted to an Online World

When many people think about videogames, they imagine a thoughtless experience where someone idly plays a game to pass time, compete with friends, or procrastinate from work. But in her book Life on the Screen, Sherry Turkle explains how role-playing games and other MUD’s (see this post) have created near-utopian escapes from real life trials and tribulations. Because of the appeal these games have, it is not surprising that people are susceptible to becoming addicted to Massive Multiplayer Online Games (MMORPGs).

In this article, Michael Fahey describes the course of an addiction to the MMORPG EverQuest. He explains how, over the course of a mere four months, he managed to lose his girlfriend, car, job – essentially his life, all because he was completely consumed by his life in an online world. At one point he stopped eating, sleeping, or interacting with the people that he loved, all because it would take up time that he could have been spending online in EverQuest. Ultimately, he says, the videogame was not at fault, he was. Personal problems and self-esteem issues drove him to the game, and he found it easier to play the game than address his real life. “I ran from my problems, hiding away in a virtual fantasy world instead of confronting the issues that might have been easily resolved if I had addressed them directly. As far as I am concerned, the only thing Sony Online Entertainment is guilty of is creating a damn good hiding place”.

This story is a fascinating read, and I found myself truly sympathizing with Michael’s problem. But in doing so, I realized, both myself and Michael may have been missing a very important point to consider. Perhaps spending all of his time in a virtual world was not a terrible thing to be doing. How and why do we differentiate our virtual lives from our real ones? Why would it not have been perfectly acceptable for him to have an online job, online girlfriend – to basically spend his main life online?

Masculinity Through Media

In Advertising and the Construction of Violent White Masculinity, author Jackson Katz explores the role that advertising plays in shaping male cultural identity. He says that advertisements geared towards young men succeed by stressing gender differences by “constantly reasserting what is masculine and what is feminine” (352). He says that, “One of the ways this is accomplished, in the image system, is to equate masculinity with violence, power, and control” (352). He goes on to argue that there are two main subjects that advertisers use to capitalize on this effect: the military and sports. These ads inherently capitalize on characters with traits associated strongly with masculinity, whether it is a soldier demonstrating leadership or fearlessness, or a football player demonstrating strength, toughness, or teamwork. These advertisements succeed because, as Katz says, they utilize “male icons overtly threatening consumers to by products” or “exploit men’s feelings of not being big, strong, or violent enough by promising to provide them with products that will enhance those qualities.”

This topic of defining masculinity is the same one driving the film Tough Guise: Violence, Media & the Crisis in Masculinity. In it, the narrator explores the many facets of popular culture that have helped instill violence, toughness, big muscles, etc. as essential to “being a man”. The narrator shows a large number of heroic figures from movies that have been portrayed as desirable: nearly all of them are violent and ripped, and commonly rewarded for killing and beating up other men. Similarly, in sports, he shows that the biggest stars, he uses the example of Mark McGuire, are celebrated not for their kindness or charity, but instead for their brute strength and toughness. The result of all of this inaccurate portrayal of masculinity in the media, the narrator argues is terrible, “violence becomes an accepted cultural norm” amongst men and boys. He argues that this leads to everything from school shootings to gang violence. In many ways, the effect of this widespread representation of masculinity can be summed up in the statistic pulled forth by Katz: “approximately 86% of violent crime is committed by males” (349).

Bamboozling Questions

Spike Lee’s Bamboozled is a satire that raises a ton of questions about how we view race, and how race is portrayed in the media. It tells the story of Pierre Delacroix, a highly educated black man who works for a large media network tasked with attracting a higher number of minority viewers. Delacroix hates his job, but the only way that he can get out of his contract is by being fired, so he decides to pitch a concept so racist and ridiculous that the network will have no choice but to release him. He comes up with a pitch for a modern day minstrel show called Mantan: The New Millenium Minstrel Show. Although the plot of the created show was undeniably racist, with offensive jokes and puns, ridiculous stereotypes, and a cast in blackface, it was still embraced by Delacroix’s crazy white boss Dunwitty. The show becomes a huge success on television, but it isn’t long before everything gets out of hand.

While the plot of the film, especially the characteristics of the modern minstrel show, may seem a bit unrealistic from a 21st century perspective, the movie harkens back to a much different period in the history of our country’s entertainment industry. Not only do Delacroix and co. create show that adheres to trademark features of old minstrel shows, but Bamboozled is filled with references to specific shows, minstrel performers, and even historic black television shows such as Amos and Andy. In this way the movie helps establish a strong link to the past, but the main power of this film draws from its ability to raise a number of questions about how we think of race in the present.

One question that frequently surfaces is that of what it means to be black (or any race for that matter). This can be seen with Delacroix’s struggle to identify himself, especially when dealing with his boss. Dunwitty claims to be “blacker” than Delacroix even though he is white, all because he talks in slang, pretends to love black culture, and has memorabilia of famous African-Americans all over his office. He goes so far as to tell Delacroix that it is alright for him to say the word “nigga” because his wife is black. How do we as a culture define race? What are the consequences of labeling a person who is ethnically white as black, or vice versa?

Other questions about race are raised throughout the film, even by more auxiliary characters. For example, Julius, the older brother of Delacroix’s aassistant Sloan, changes his name to “Big Blak Afrika” as a response to a feeling of oppression and the lack of freedom that he feels in the current social and political system that he is a part of. Also, Mantay and Womack, the two main performers in the minstrel show, have to decide whether or not to continue acting in the show, weighing money and fame versus the integrity of their racial identity. In the end, Julius’ rap group the Mau Maus takes matters into their own hands to end The New Millenium Minstrel Show. That bears the question; whose responsibility is it to police racial prejudice? And what steps must we all take to combat racism and harmful stereotypes?

Bamboozled is a powerful film that forces the viewers to reassess a number of issues regarding race and segregation. In harkening to a dark past, the movie raises a number of questions about the power of racial representation in the media. But beyond that, it targets issues of race that are inherent in nearly all aspects of life, and leaves us wondering; when is something racist? What causes and helps perpetuate racial discrimination? At one point in the film Dunwitty praises the stereotypes on Mantan, and defends them to Delacroix “the show can’t be racist,” he says, “because you’re black.” How did our society get to the point where this would be considered a perfectly legitimate statement?