A Question Of Sanity
September 6th, 2009Insult Swordfighting points to two posts questioning the portrayal of mental illness in Batman: Arkham Asylum. I can’t fully agree with these complaints, with one important caveat. It seems to me that the Batman universe actually gives rise to their cause, and if you accept that universe then I think you also have to accept its implications.
Justin Keverne feels that the image of “those patients who are contextualised as being mentally ill” is problematic, as those patients are manic and charge Batman on sight. It’s hard not to sympathize, as these patients are so far gone as to be depicted as almost sub-human; unlike the other characters in the game, these patients are incapable of speech or reasoned action and don’t interact with Batman so much as act as human obstacles in the Asylum’s exterior. Travis Megill goes a bit further: he complains that because the patients are generically classed as “lunatics,” rather than being specifically diagnosed, they are stigmatized by the lack of context.
The issue, I think, is that the world which Batman inhabits is one that posits mental illness as an extricable catalyst for criminality. Although I suspect the idea that a relationship exists between the two isn’t a particularly surprising one for most people, Batman takes it a step further: every villain in his world turned to a life of crime after some traumatic event that spurred a break with reality. In most cases (the Joker, Two-Face, Bane, Clayface, and Poison Ivy, among others) became criminals after they were disfigured by some other individual. Others, like Killer Croc, the Riddler, or The Penguin , were victimized by others and retaliated against their rejection by society through a life of crime. A final category (consider Mr. Freeze or Dr. Strange) are depicted as seeking valuable goals in a criminal way through a psychosis-like disregard for the rules of the modern world. In every case, however, the criminal is absolved of agency for his actions with the understanding that others - whether “society” or a specific person - caused them to go insane. In the Batman universe, It’s inconceivable that someone could simply be “evil.”
I’m not particularly concerned with whether or not this is true in our world - it’s a philosophical question beyond the scope of my post. My point, however, is that by this view, the gibbering madmen of Arkham Asylum represent not a distinct incidence of insanity, but its natural extension: if the “typical” super-criminal is mad, the insane inhabitants of the asylum grounds are the extreme iteration of this, so far gone that they can do nothing but attack Batman. They are the Joker, stripped of his gimmicks and reduced to raw id.
Further on, a defense is considered and rejected. I wholeheartedly agree that the “it’s just a game” argument is somewhat specious - there are plenty of statements that would be unacceptable in print or other media, and they’re not any more legitimate when in game form. But I do think that you need to make a small exception for Batman… due to the above, I don’t think you can condemn the game without condeming Batman’s world and its implications.
And that’s where we run into problems, because Batman as metaphor can’t be condemned as easily. One of the posts complains that Psychonauts’s depiction of curing mental illness via a “mini-game” of sorts inaccurately depicts the true course of treatment for this illness. This is true in the same sense that Animal Farm is an inaccurate depiction of animal husbandry: true in the technical sense, but a rather silly objection when you think about it. Batman’s worldview may be correct or not, but to the extent that Batman as a character is an elaborate metaphor or allegory for how we view mental illness as a whole (and the game even acknowledges this, their its references to how sane Batman himself actually is) then I think it’s difficult to argue against it on these grounds.
So yes, if anyone truly views Batman as a legitimate substitute for the DSM-IV, we have some serious problems. But like gaming violence, those interpretations say more about the individual than the medium or game.
Posted in Commentary, Geoff |
September 7th, 2009 at 7:43 am
Also worth mentioning… Batman doesn’t kill anyone, perhaps recognizing in some small way that no one is beyond saving.
Also… Arkham is for the “criminally” insane if I’m not mistaken… by definition, the people in it are criminals. Not only that, but the Joker seemingly has a special hold on them (in the context of the universe, this is certainly important). They charge Batman on site because Joker tells them to.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:57 am
The metaphorical nature of the Batman universe and its links to mental illness and criminality are difficult to argue with. Each of the super-villains is the embodiment of an emotional disorder, and one of the strengths of that universe is that it can intelligently deal with such subjects; The Riddler is an extreme narcissist, Harley Quinn is co-dependent etc.
The problem is that there is a specific divide made between the super-villains, the thugs, and the lunatics.
The super-villains are explicitly individualised and thus cannot be seen as a singular metaphor for mental illness as a whole. The second group, the thugs, are essentially a single homogenous group but they are contextualised as sane criminals and therefore considered “fair game”. The problem arises because the third group, the lunatics, are again treated as a single homogenous entity, and thus representative of mental illness as a whole. The implication is that all mentally ill people are the same, which is mindless raving lunatics who need to be subdued for the good of themselves and society as a whole. Is there more to their depiction than that? Of course, but it’s very subtle and easily missed. The most obvious take away from the game is that all people suffering from mental illness are dangerous and should be subdued with force.
The concern with any negative portrayals of a minority or otherwise marginalised group, is that such portrayals can be seen as validation to people who hold such opinions already. The individualising of each of the super-villains makes them each a special case and therefore not representative of all who share their illness. The portrayal of the lunatics is nowhere near as explicit, so the people most likely to appreciate their presentation as part of the core metaphor of society’s attitude to the mental ill are those already predisposed to give fair treatment to those suffering from mental illness. To those who already have partially or fully formed opinions about the dangerous nature of the mentally ill the representations of them in Arkham Asylum simply serve to validation their opinions.
I hope the majority of people playing Arkham Asylum understand and appreciate that the lunatics are just another part of the metaphor and in a lot of ways a fairly clever one, however as you pointed out, “ just as with game violence those interpretations say more about the individual than the medium or game.” But shouldn’t we be careful to not explicitly validate the opinions of those who already have a prejudice against the mentally ill? Or should the designer simply throw their hands up and abdicate all responsibility to how their work might be perceived?
September 8th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Justin,
Thanks for your comments. As you note, the super-villains in the Batman universe are individualized; however, the nature of games means that it’s difficult to identify every antagonist in a game with a considerable brawler element (consider the members of Joker’s gang in the game as a more palatable alternative).
I wonder if the biggest issue is simply an unfortunate coincidence, in that the natural antagonist in Arkham Asylum were other inmates. I would note that one part of the Asylum has a voiceover indicating that the asylum isn’t all for criminals and that “normal” mentally ill patients are welcomed into it. Obviously, that isn’t demonstrated in the game.
It’s hard for me to hold the developers personally responsible for something that likely didn’t occur to them. But I think your point is well-taken.
September 9th, 2009 at 11:44 am
The problem with comparing Animal Crossing and Psychonauts in this context is that there isn’t a problem in society with people believing that farming is simple. There are, however, many people that believe mental illness is “all in your head,” or that it can be simply “gotten over” if you stop taking things so seriously.
I don’t believe that Psychonauts should address the realistic treatment of mental illness, but the game should consider how its dynamics affect the players. As the game’s setting switches from a psychic summer camp to a mental institution, the dynamics change as well, creating a situation where the unrealistic treatment of mental illness validates a harmful stereotype.
September 9th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Travis,
I agree that the validation of a harmful stereotype can be troubling, but I can’t fully get on board with what you’re saying. I have two main concerns.
It seems to me that you need to take into account the full context of the game when you consider its implications. I compared Psychonauts and Animal Farm because both are highly fictionalized imagined worlds which use some basic trappings of the real world to give the player some context. (I meant the book by Orwell, not the game Animal Crossing, but I think the example still works.) Psychonauts uses a fairly common technique, often found in children’s literature, by taking what the reader or player would presume to be metaphor or idiomatic expression and makes it literal: consider the children’s book “Butterflies in my Stomach,” for example. Looney Tunes cartoons often play with the same idea; think of Bugs Bunny running through a painted tunnel. The context here is key, because once you realize that the Psychonauts world is designed to do this (the lungfish is another example), I think it’s difficult to complain about the depiction of mental illness without being accused of a certain lack of humor: the game is designed with the presumption that the audience is in on the joke. If they’re not, the game doesn’t make much sense.
Although Psychonauts doesn’t deal with mental illness realistically, I would argue that dealing with controversial subjects in non-realistic ways is not per se wrong. In fact, doing so can actually make more meaningful points than being purely objective. The recent Tarantino movie Inglorious Basterds deals with the Holocaust - hard to find a more controversial subject than that - in a way that is profoundly at odds with reality, and yet makes a valid point.
My second concern is specific to the game. I just don’t really get how the game supports the stereotype you cite. I don’t know how many people think mental illness is truly cured by telekinetic protagonists boring into a patient’s mind and platforming around it, but I would have to assume the number is quite small. If you argue more generally that the protagonist cures people too easily and tritely, then I agree: but you also have to condemn nearly every portrayal of neurology and psychology in the media for the past millenium, because we clearly still lack a good understanding of the human brain. One of my criteria for evaluating a game’s treatment of stereotypes is whether or not a reasonable person could conclude that the designer of the game is clearly attempting to perpetuate a harmful stereotype. In this case, I just can’t see it.
One last, practical, point. A game like Psychonauts requires a certain level of sophistication of its audience. But so do many media. If we think this is an issue because some people may not “get it,” then we have to police both which stereotypes are harmful - not an easy task - and which presentations of them may offend someone. Both are practical impossibilities, because the subjectivity of the situation would grant a heckler’s veto to everyone. The inevitable conclusion would be so sanitized to appeal to the lowest common denominator that it would be bland beyond measure.
In some sense, this problem isn’t really solvable - it’s just too subjective. It requires an on-going dialogue about what is acceptably portrayable and what is not. I think AA is at least closer to the line than Psychonauts, but I’m still on the fence about even that game. I just don’t think Psychonauts is offensive.
September 9th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
It’s amusing that I confused Animal Farm and Animal Crossing. I’ll blame it on reading your post on my iTouch at PAX
September 9th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
I think we agree on most points, and I’m currently replaying Psychonauts, so I’m not sure I can argue specifics until I’m finished. Regarding your Tarantino example, I completely agree, but my concern is when the artist isn’t trying to make a point. I’ll have to look at that section of Psychonauts more closely before I can respond.
I don’t think it matters whether the designer of the game is attempting to perpetuate a harmful stereotype or not, though. The effect of the design is far more important than its intent.
I’m also not convinced by the idea that if we tried to avoid offending anyone, we’d have a “sanitized” end result. As long as any material is handled intelligently and responsibly, I don’t see any reason not to explore it. I don’t think that Batman or Psychonauts shouldn’t take place in a mental hospital, just that they take the setting for granted in ways that perpetuate stereotype.