Having recently seen The Social Network, Charles B. Strozier’s essay, “The Apocalyptic Other,” was eerily pertinent. The film, which focuses on two lawsuits brought against Mark Zuckerberg (played by Jesse Eisenberg) – one from two Harvard classmates who allege that he stole their idea for the social networking site Facebook and another from his former CFO and best friend whose shares were watered down from 35 to .003% – depicts Napster founder Sean Parker (played with surprising ability by Justin Timberlake) as a paranoid egomaniac. Strozier’s link between paranoia, fundamentalism, and the apocalyptic mindset are all themes that the film addressed in an impactful way. The film seemed to represent a sort of zeitgeisty, of-the-moment depiction of post-millennial attitudes towards innovation and technology. I found that in the film, both Zuckerberg and Parker are figures who operate on paranoid tendencies, although Parker’s characterization is much more explicit. The paranoid mindset is pervasive, and in the contemporary world, perhaps more associated with concerns of modernity than with any link to religious fanatacism. But the type of paranoia that Strozier expounds on is inseperable from paranoia that is not borne from religious beliefs. I found his case study of Harriet to be highly magnetic and interesting – it too reminded me of one of the most effective depictions of paranoia I have ever seen onscreen, William Friedkin’s 2005 film Bug, based on a stage play by Tracy Letts. Paranoia is fascinating and incredibly varied, but seems to spring from base psychological constructs that are often similar between cases. His reference to White Noise also brought to mind our own contemporary tendency to normalize a socially acceptable undercurrent of paranoia in our daily lives. It seems that the uncertainty of modern times and the ever increasing presence of globalism allows for underlying suspicion about the larger workings of the world around us, even without tangible evidence. In 2010, paranoia is built in – not attained.
I found James W. Jones’ “Eternal Warfare: Violence on the Mind of American Apocalyptic Christianity” to be highly problematic in its acceptance of unverifiable scientific claims. Specifically, the author implicitly brushes off skepticism towards the link between violent media and those who act on violent tendencies. His broad claim stating that “there are, on average, strong connections” between violent games and violence rests on fragile laurels. The study that he bases this claim on apparently found that “exposure to violent video games is significantly linked to increases in aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect and cardiovascular arousal, and to decreases in helping behavior,” and came to these conclusions “even when trait hostility, empathy, and suspiciousness” are controlled for. Those three variables – in my opinion – are nearly impossible to control for, and I am curious as to the methods used to obtain this data. My skepticism aside, I am not sure that the author places enough emphasis on a very important point that is brought up. In his final statement, he defines the inextricable link between players and readers of Left Behind and the contingent of young Christians who are being indoctrinated with notions of violence in the name of Jesus. Jones implicates other video games, like Grand Theft Auto, but makes a crucial distinction between the two series – he states that “it is important to keep in mind that an adolescent from an American apocalyptic Christian church who is playing this game (Left Behind) may … also be hearing a message of violence and bloodshed from the pulpit, in hymns, and in church teaching…. [serving] to normalize violence. Thus it might have more impact on such a person than it would on an adolescent who plays the game in a different religious milieu, or a secular one, where the violent images are not reinforced and sanctified.” I feel that this distinction is in direct opposition to his earlier assertion on the inevitable link between violent media and actual violence because the two scenarios are entirely dissimilar. If his argument was based on the negative connotations of a community encouraging practices in games like the Left Behind series, then I would be much more inclined to agree. Unfortunately, he uses the two highly contrasting scenarios interchangeably and doesn’t necessarily define which he is commenting on until the essay’s conclusion.
Top image from Left Behind: Eternal Forces, the first entry in the video game series based on the books.
I think it is easy to blame violence on video games, but our society’s fascination with violence is what has made those video games the money-making industry that the games have become.