By the nature of such studies this is irresolvable, at this point you can only fall back on common-sense and that on any complex problem will be misleading. Could not the relationship assumed by the study be reduced to a simple and rather stupid common-wisdom - "monkey see, monkey do".
I suggest that the test for such studies always consist of finding the assumption of the study. In this case and many studies like it, the assumption is imbecilic, and so the correlations are meaningless. We can rephrase "monkey see, monkey do" but essentially it remains as the assumption, indeed the logic of such a study. Perhaps the statement of "media violence is one of many causal factors that provoke real-life aggression" helps more to disguise the silly premise rather then justify it - afterall the critical phrase is "causual factors" whether it partial or determininate, the fact remains that no justifiable causual relationship is identified.
To quote Lenin "everything is related to everything else", no one is argueing that what is seen on TV has no relationship to actual violence, but just one particular relationship is missing - causality. I firmly believe that Ameriacn film and TV culture is born within a larger framework of US cultural violence and acts as an amplified window to an alienated mentality which many violent disposed and alientated human beings respond to, identify with and express themselves through.
In otherwords, the correlation is expected but the causual relationship is reversed, TV and film expressing what is socially real in a socially removed way (hence real violence is rarely expressed in the medium which romantcisises and stylisies it away). An alien media for alienated existence. I mean this quite seriously as I believe this is the correct order of relationship for the subject and in fact I find it difficult to apprieciate culture in any other way (at least this aspect of it).
Obviously this cultural relationship feeds into the socially existent violence, the expression of alientated violence doing little to negate the causes of actual violence - but it does this in a negative way, through its lack of quality, due to its cultural barreness. In an earlier post I referred to the role of advertising which I believe has an impact of accentuating alienation and thus re-enforcing violent relations. TV advertising is just one of many forms, the effect of which is to further objectify human existence, seeing a victim as an object is a necessity in violent behaviour, empathy and compassion (which despite everything else seem to be the greatest restraints on us behaving violently) have to be minimalized.
The relationship (one amongst many) is therefore not just the projection of alienated social life (which in other circumstances, ie critical awareness, would actually be a motivation to change social life) but projecting it in a culturally barren way. Making stories and plots incomprehensible by breaking up the narrative by advertising slots typifies the fragmented social comprehension being inflicted on us from all corners.
In effect the impact of TV is inseparable from the larger impact of culture, which should allow people greater human expression, but by fragmentation and alienation actually ensures a more animal existence. But the logic is not confining, rather the criticism of culture begins not with what it is doing, but what it fails to do. It is its barreness which does not deliver the intellectual and passionate tools to see ourselves as human beings and thus as others in the same light, it could but it increasingly does not. Popular mass culture thus does not promote but reflect the reality (in a distorted way of course), it should be doing more (not promoting anything but enriching social life) but it does not.
Into this relationship with mass popular culture now drop in the alienated, frustrated and objectified human being. The motivation for violence does not derive from the media, but from social existence, the media's contribution is entirely negative in this measured by what it does not do politically and culturally.
I do not expect the media to recognise its duty to humanity, but lets contextualise the psychological studies which take a simple and incoorect assumption of direct influence. The only reasonable conclusion from such studies is to sanitise the media (exercise the violence from the programs). Now this will have an effect on the media, it will make it in its present context even more barren and trivial and re-enforce its negative development cutting off what little potential it has for giving human social expression a meaningful avenue.
We cannot turn back the clock to the 1940s with the Hays convention. Yes we can censor the medium and enforce every stupid rule of the convention (including separate beds and keeping a foot on the ground), but we don't live life as we lived it 60 years ago, the sense of community and real social existence have gone, the actual relationships which cohered into a livable social life have been eroded away. We are in a social context which bereft of social comforts can only be thought-out and creatively acted and in which mass popular culture must play an important and central role (ill-fitted as it might be at the moment). Add arbitary censorship to the power of culture barons and we cut off our nose to spite our face.
Miles, cultural matters are complex and involved, they deserve to respected for their potential as well as criticisied for their present appalling state, but in troop the psychologists with their simplistic and dangerous prejudices throwing up quasi-scientific correlations to further empower the powerful. I don't expect you to see it that way, but from my political perspective they do this constantly.
I responded to this thread because of my interests in mass popular culture and its political relationships to social life and as a place for potential development. The one thing which immediately muddies the waters is censorship for when it boils down all censorship is, is the power to arbitarily interfere with cultural production, you can guess that the normal diet of C-grade entertainment can live through such interference quite well (being incoherent commercial ventures, what does one more interference really add up to), but what of quality productions where coherence is important (OK they are rare but not exitinct by any measure)?
Greg
--- Message Received --- From: Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 12:15:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: TV & violence & studies
On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Greg Schofield wrote:
> I can assure you that TV in Japan makes what we get in Australia (which
> is mostly US TV) look mild and petit vis a vis violence. Yet Japan is
> undeniably one of the least violent countries in the world (as per
> personal assaults).
>
> I thought the purposes of these experiements was to show a causual
> relationship between representations of violence and socially expressed
> "violence"? In which case Japan does offer a direct contradiction.
>
--Only if the U. S. and Japan are equivalent in every other way, besides prevalence of violent media. The difference in aggressive conduct could be due to any of numerous cultural and/or historical factors that overwhelm the causal effects of media violence. The media hypothesis is typically stated "media violence is one of many causal factors that provoke real-life aggression". Thus the Japan case (or any cross- cultural research) provides no clear evidence in favor of or against the hypothesis.
Miles
--------------------------------
Greg Schofield Perth Australia g_schofield at dingoblue.net.au ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Modular And Integrated Design - programing power for all
Lestec's MAID and LTMailer http://www.lestec.com.au also available at Amazon.com ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________