“Aggression: The Impact of Media Violence” by Sissela Bok is a case of mistaken identity. Based on the title, I had assumed that Bok would make a clear argument towards the need for media to curtail the violence that it presents. After reading through the piece the first time, I felt that although she didn’t appear to take a clear stand, she did side with this assumption. However, after several careful readings, I think she is saying something altogether different. I believe she is suggesting that society points a finger at the media contribution to aggressive behaviour, but is unsubstantiated in doing so. Maybe the real fight against aggression lies within us, and how we teach our children.
Bok states that public perception of media violence is “that it glamorizes aggressive conduct” therefore “curbing aggression has priority over alleviating subtler psychological and moral damage.” Could we be focusing so much attention on the violence in the media that we are missing the real issues? She points out that although crime rates have been dropping since 1992, media coverage of violence has escalated. Even so, in 1995, 21 percent of the public blamed television for teenage violence. She goes on to say that “no reputable scholar” accepts this view. Since when does a negative correlation become proof that an issue exists? More violence on TV should not equal a lower crime rate, if violence on TV is the cause of violence in society.
No real proof has been given creating the link between media violence and aggression in society. There is no consensus on how much TV violence affects the violence in society. Only “probabilistic causation” is used to debate the need to curtail TV violence, as it has worked against the “glamorization of smoking and drunk driving” on TV programs, even with the “lack of conclusive documentation of the correlation between TV viewing and higher incidence of such conduct.” In all fairness, this isn’t right. Perhaps what we should do is address violence without blaming an unsubstantiated cause.
Bok suggests that the public is giving too much credit to the media in terms of responsibility for violence in society. She suggests that children should be taught to make decisions on their own about violence and aggression and “to strive, instead, for greater resilience, empathy and self control.” This is not aimed only at violence but at all risk factors that our children will face. We should give our children a chance to mature and grow early on. Although TV violence has not been concretely linked to violence in society, it is a distraction. Maybe we should turn off the TV and encourage a focus on something more productive, in order to foster a well rounded childhood, where a child can become a clear thinker and develop good judgement. It can’t hurt, can it?
Kristi, once again, amazing job! I had the exact same experience reading the essay, it is very much a misnomer. Who do you think should shoulder the blame for the 'violence' in the youth of today?
ReplyDeleteI believe that first and formost it is in the hands of the parents. Sometimes there are people that are just more aggressive than others, but I feel that if parents guide their children from a young age, it can be contained to some extent. I don't think it is solely parents, but I do think that is the largest contributor.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment on my post Kristi, I do think that there are probably an astounding number of cases concerning aggressive children/teens where the aggression is a subliminal cry for attention. The though never crossed my mind until you pointed it out
ReplyDeleteGreat points. I agree that parents should take responsibility for their children's TV viewing however I realize that many do use the TV as a babysitter. It's got to be difficult given the demands on parents time - and there are all those activities kids participate in and homework .... TV does sound like a great reprieve
ReplyDeleteHi Kristi,
ReplyDeleteA sophisticated analysis of the text which makes sense of all the time Bok spends talking about a lack of definitive proof. Everyone who read the article agreed that she didn't make a strong case for linking violent programming to violent actions, but to many of us, it was a muddle as to what she was actually doing.
I like your idea that she might be saying all this effort is misdirected and we should simply give our kids good morals so they don't go around thinking aggression is an answer to anything. This theory also seems to fit in with her previous writing that is focused on morals and values.