Should teachers permit or discourage violent play themes?

It happens almost every time I give a workshop on play as a medium for learning and development (Bergen, 1988). Either during the question period or after the session is over, at least one teacher asks,

What do you do about gun play at school? Should you allow it? Or should you say it isn't permitted? Even if toy guns aren't in our classroom, some children (almost always boys) use whatever objects are around (e.g., blocks, crayons) as guns. Because children learn through their play, do they learn to be violent when they play with objects that promote violence or when they use violent play themes?

These are not new questions--teachers have been asking me about gun play for years. I do think, however, that the frequency of these questions and the intensity of teachers' concerns has been increasing in recent years. Although they often ask specifically about play with guns, those concerns can also be applied to many other violent play types that are present in some form in every early childhood classroom.

Violent play themes are drawn from real life and fantasy. Books, movies, computer games and television provide many of these themes, while others may come from actual violent events the children witness. The protagonists' labels (e.g., cowboys, cops, astronauts, monsters, witches, superheroes) may change with the times, but the basic structure consistently revolves around dominance and submission.

In such play, aggressive actions result in someone who is more powerful "winning" and someone who is weaker being "defeated." Often, the play has a prosocial theme as well (e.g., saving people or property from the evil invader). The basic message being acted out, however, is that guns and other violent objects or methods can be effective in solving problems. Furthermore, such play advocates destroying "the other" who is different, and therefore threatening. Of course, a corollary message inherent in this play is that boys (i.e., men) are more likely to accept violence as a method of solving problems than girls (i.e., women). When girls do play aggressively, they are more likely to be reprimanded by adults.

In the "less violent good old days" (i.e., pre-1990), I had two standard answers to these questions about guns or other types of violent play. My answers were based on commonly accepted explanations of violent play drawn from two well-known developmental theories--social learning theory (Bandura, 1973) and psychosocial theory (Erikson, 1977). The social learning perspective stresses that children who see aggressive acts performed by powerful models (adults) or similar models (peers) will be likely to act aggressively themselves. This will be especially true if the children see that the models achieve success through aggression. Thus, this perspective adds weight to the argument against permitting this type of play in the early childhood classroom.

The psychosocial viewpoint interprets the expression of aggressive actions in play as a way children can constructively deal with their emotions and gain a feeling of power and control over their environment. According to this viewpoint, violent play is a natural and relatively harmless outlet for aggressive feelings within activities that the children control (i.e., their play). The aggressive feelings can be expressed, mastered and ultimately dissipated. Because both of these theories seem to be useful frameworks, my advice to teachers has been twofold:

Viewpoint 1

If you are opposed to gun (or other aggressive) play, you can develop a policy stating that violent (or specifically, gun) play is not acceptable in the school. You will need to convey to parents your reasons for discouraging violent play among boys, as well as girls. You can cite research evidence showing that when children imitate powerful models who are rewarded for their violence (e.g., television cartoon heroes) their aggressive tendencies increase. Research findings also exist that show how violent play provides peer models of violence and potentially increases other children's violent behaviors.

Classrooms with a policy of no violent play will not have guns or other materials that are primarily designed to be used for violent play. Instead, the teachers should model alternative ways to manage conflicts and solve problems. When violent play does occur, remind children of the school policy and redirect them to other activities. Children are adept at learning what behaviors are acceptable in which situations. Therefore, they can certainly adapt to this policy--as long as they have many models of nonviolent play that are exciting and fun. In actual practice, I have found it very hard to rule out all such play, especially if parents accept or encourage their sons' aggressive activities. If you are persistent and consistent, however, you can substantially reduce the amount of violent play. Sometimes a compromise position between no violent play (Viewpoint 1) and carefully controlled violent play (Viewpoint 2) may be the most successful.

Viewpoint 2

If you think violent play allows children to feel more powerful and thereby express and master their natural anger in a "low-risk" manner, then you may decide to allow such play. You do not want violent play to get out of control, however, so you need limits. For example, you can reserve a specific part of the classroom for this type of play and identify time periods or days when it is allowed and not allowed. Small-sized, less realistic objects can be used in the violent play, rather than life-sized, realistic objects (e.g., miniature figures like toy soldiers, rather than realistically sized toy guns). You can also place restrictions on themes or characters used in such play (e.g., imaginary figures or fantasy themes would be allowed, but not "real life" gangster or murderer themes).

You will need to explain this policy to parents so that they will support your rules. Another essential rule you should establish is that the violent themes can be played out only with children who want to participate. That is, no child involved in some other activity can be "shot at," "captured" or "harassed." Teachers need to frequently check children's desire to participate--even when children seem to be part of the play group. When I see this type of play, I ask "Do you want to keep playing this?" Often those children who were subjects of the pretend aggression (usually girls or younger boys) will immediately say "no." In that situation, the play will have to be suspended. It is very important to have a "safe feeling" environment for all children. Therefore, no children should be the objects of aggressive play if they have not chosen to take the role of "bad guy" or "victim." Because few children choose to take those roles, children often solve this problem by having the "good guys" fight imaginary "bad guys." Then, everyone playing is in a dominant role and no one is feeling scared or harassed by the violent players. Another solution is to take turns being the "good" and "bad" guys.

Changing Circumstances

In all the years I gave this advice concerning violent play, I was never especially concerned that violent play would lead to life-threatening expressions of violence as the children grew older. I have known many young men whose early play had violent themes, yet they grew up to be model citizens. In the past few years, however, there has been an escalating number of violent acts committed by youth, increasing numbers of violent models pervading television and movies, a high incidence of family violence and chilling accounts of children and youth who commit violent acts without an evident sense of their devastating effects. These circumstances call into question the traditional wisdom about playing with violence.

Teachers discuss children whose play seems to consist almost entirely of violent acts and who have difficulty controlling their anger in any situation. I know children whose deeply held fears, the results of having witnessed violence in their families or communities, have made them afraid to trust their environment enough to play at all. Some elementary and secondary schools have become versions of armed camps where survival skills, rather than play or learning, are the primary concern. For many children, exposure to media violence colors their expectations of being safe in the world and also affects their play themes. These fears do not only affect young children: a recent national poll found that the top concern of young people age 10-17 was fear of violence (CDF Reports, 1994).

What are the implications of playing with violence in the circumstances our children are now facing? Will the absence of violent play at school have any effect when these violent models are pervasive in the rest of children's lives? Will the ability to express anger through violent play provide a sufficient means for mastering these feelings when their intensity is so great? Will these children demonstrate an awareness of how their aggressive actions affect others' feelings if they have grown numb from witnessing thousands of simulated acts of violence? Will the difference between pretend violence and real violence be clear to these children?

I think our present theories may be inadequate to explain what is happening to children in today's society and that is why teachers are at such a loss when deciding how to handle violent play. We may be past the point where our actions to combat unrestrained violence can be confined to the classroom. It maybe time for us to speak out against the forces that are turning our children into violence-focused players and fearful victims. Playing with violence may be one way that children deal with the present-day situations in which they find themselves. We need to explore whether such play is a healthy coping mechanism or a distortion of healthy development. It is time to rethink what living in such a violent society is doing to our children's play, learning and overall development.

Conclusion

Children's play mirrors their lives. If violent play is becoming an increasing concern for teachers, then teachers must address the reasons why this type of play is more prevalent. They must be prepared to confront societal factors that affect children's classroom behavior. It is not reasonable to expect children to develop the ability to play richly, expansively and comprehensively if their primary models demonstrate dominance and submission, hatred and fear, contempt and callousness. They need to have models of caring and commitment, joy and hope, and zest for life if they are to express these themes in their play.

Playing with violence should be only a small part of a fully balanced player's life. Both boys and girls should be encouraged to play with caring and teachers should facilitate such play development. In order to accomplish this, however, many teachers and many parents must be committed to finding strategies that will make our societal goals congruent with such play. Because play is such a powerful medium for learning, the behaviors and attitudes children practice in their play have the potential to affect the future. The stance teachers take toward appropriate expressions of violence, both within and outside the classroom, will affect that future as well.

References

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: Social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bergen, D. (1988). Play as a medium for learning and development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Erikson, E. H. (1977), Toys and reason. New York: Norton.

Children's Defense Fund. (1994). Living in fear. CDF Reports, 15(2), 1-2.

Doris Bergen is Professor and Chair, Department of Educational Psychology, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio.