I did not understand that the tests for the influence of violent videos was restricted to the borders of the USA, indeed I would believe that such tests always aim at finding universals.
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.
Do the Japanese experience film differently from Americans, I doubt this very much. Young Japanese children can often be seen aping actions that they have most probably have seen on TV, but the social expression of violence is (compared to the US) tiny.
So basically I am at a loss. What are the social conclusions to be drawn from this material? From the one or two studies I read long ago the experiementers were in no-doubt - censorship. The point used for such experiements when raised in public debate is equally clear - censorship.
If the experimenters only wanted to know the effects of film on human emotions why did they not check for other attributes, sentimentality, romance, sexual eroticism, political awareness, conceptual development and the rest. But this is not what the studies were ever intended to show, they intended to take up a common-sense point (incorrect and crude) and prove it to be a universal, otherwise I cannot see the point of linking TV watching to actual social violence.
Now it could be said that such experiements provide useful information based not on the researchers intention or conclusion but the study itself. Well this would remain true of any research, including Dr Mengel of Austwitz whose work was a few years ago used without anyone approving of his methodology, intentions or most of his conclusions. Ok, this stretches the point and I agree it is an absurd comparison, but is not something of this logic also hold?
When a study precisely announces that watching 3 hours of TV correlates very strongly with violent behaviour it is pretty clear what this research is intended to show and the social-political conclusions are in fact being expressed in the "findings".
Having taught film in high schools, I can assure you that once students are "forced" to actually watch what is in front of them (a difficult thing to do as kids subjected to low quality film most of their lives actually find it difficult to watch and tend to tune out most of the time) and showing them quality film such as the Seven Samurai (full of graphic violence) the emotional and intellectual effect is wonderful. I always show this after viewing the The Magnificient Seven where the violence is hollywoodisied, non-graphic and rather stylisied - in otherwords santisied.
Likewise with so many well written, well filmed works: "take no prisoners" scene in Lawrence of Arabia never fails to get an audience thinking, though the implications of what is done is terrible and while not much gore is seen the effect is strong nonetheless (students always believe they have seen far more gore then actually was portrayed). But it need not stop there, as Random Harvest still provokes tears (strangely enough having the strongest effect on the toughtest kids - sentimental film has its place despite its bad repuation), Goodbye Mr Chips (the old version) still works, as indeed To Sir With Love. Now Voyager with Bette Davis still works very well, in fact the list is almost endless.
In common these well crafted films provoke the emotional and intellectual responses they intended to and once students become acquainted and accepting of their antique status they continue to work (Modern Times for instance, but also The Kid once students can get a grip with seeing silent films). Recent releases such as Memento are provocative, and Lock Stock and Barrel which virtually tells its story in blood is a fine film.
In otherwords emotion and film are co-joined but what about TV watching?
Now we are talking about something entirely different. Good films made incomprehensible by being cut to 4:3, broken at vital points for Ad breaks and a 99% diet of crap, ill written and pedestrain. In front of this sits a teenager mostly switched-off from what is before them, not even attempting to make sense of what is on the screen (nor could anyone with the hash they make of even presenting good material) and simply waiting for something to happen (an action scene). Now what is important is not the time spent in front of the box but the social conditions which place the teenager there for hours and yet for the most part leaves them emotionally and intellectaully bereft.
What now of the 3 hours of TV leads to violence, perhaps the real question is what leads them to be sitting there in the first place. Consider what they do when they get a video, when they can excersise a limited choice on what to see - what do they get? Well past TV watching has trained them to focus in on action, as dialogue and plot become fragmented on commercial TV, so they seek out the video which promises to have the most action (a cheap slasher is preferred) as measured by the amount of gore produced but also the coherency of the plot when little attention is payed to it. Is there any harm even in this?
I don't think so, as it only shows a predicatable selection based on cultural presentation. We come full circle, what is causing what? Obviously kids who are prone to social violence seek the same thing out in video, but also do kids at large, it takes some form of self-education to seek out different stimulii.
I know once kids are taught to actually view the film in front of them and become aware that more than discreet action may be going on it, they don't change their basic diet but do supplement it and experiement more in their tastes, more obviously they begin seeking quality (yes even quality violence). For this to take place however we need to lay before them a rich variety of material (both poor and good quality which is not only harder to find but is virtually suppressed), and improve the general quality of TV (fewer ad breaks, less editing of films to fit time slots, in short that boradcasters start showing some respect for the public).
This of course will do nothing to change violence in society.
Greg
--- Message Received --- From: Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:25:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: TV & violence & studies
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, Dennis Robert Redmond wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, Miles Jackson wrote:
>
> > I'd say it's much more precise and testable than any of Freud's
> > concepts: exposure to violence in mass media will tend to increase
> > aggressive behavior in everyday life. Researchers have clearly
> > tested this hypothesis in many ways: experiments, surveys, observational
> > studies, case studies, archival research.
>
> Nonsense. Japan has one of the most violent media cultures around, and it
> remains a remarkably non-violent, cooperative culture. In the US,
> contemporary TV is chockful of gore, but murder rates have been falling
> for some time. Folks who play violent videogames are often peaceable
> types.
>
> -- Dennis
>
If this is your idea of systematic scientific research that contradicts a hypothesis, get back to the woodshed. Aggression is caused by multiple psychological and social factors. The Japan case is not a clear test of the media aggression hypothesis, because the U. S. and Japan differ in many, many ways, not just in frequency of exposure to media violence. People need to think a bit more rigorously about this stuff.
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 ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________