Weapons of Mass Destruction: Violence and Sexuality presented in technology
By Donovan Russell
A recent encounter with an 8-year-old really made it clear to me how detrimental technology can be to children. I sat with this particular kid for about an hour as he played an assortment of video games; while some could be said to be "educational," most rewarded aggression and promoted violence. I sat as he explained to me that, in one particular game, shooting his opponents enabled him to earn twice as many points as he would have through body shots. And as I sat I wondered what this was doing to him in the long run and finally what was I doing just sitting there. Any 12-year-old with a modem and a colorful vernacular is seconds away from a host of graphic images past generations would scarcely believe possible, images of sex and of violence. The world of adult perversion is now upon our children. What’s more they are encountering this world while they are unable to maturely comprehend the information presented, and so are shaped by it. For every benefit modern technology gives us there are a thousand moral dangers underlying them.
How severe is the problem of violence and sexuality? Let’s start with violence. An estimated 50,000 persons die annually in the United States as a result of violence-related injuries (Karch, Lubell, Friday, Patel &Williams, 2008), which is extremely high for an industrialized nation. But what causes these high rates? I would suggest that the media and technology greatly contribute to America’s seemingly violent society. The average American child will see about 100,000 T.V. murders by the time they are 18, not to mention the virtual murders they will participate in via video games. Considering this, it’s easy to understand how this digital generation seems so apathetic towards violence. If you want to hear how those in the media industry feel about the violence they depict watch this video of Mandy Patinkin, an American actor of stage and screen, who starred in Criminal Minds (a contemporary American crime drama).
Mandy Patinkin on TV violence:
Mandy Patinkin speaks of becoming desensitized. Social psychologists talk of something called Adaptation Level Theory; without getting too technical this means people adjust to what they are surrounded by. Basically the more you are exposed to something the less, in time, it affects you. Eskimos don’t feel the cold as much as Brazilians do, and kids growing up around violence don’t think it’s as big a deal as those who don’t. Thus that average American kid (who has seen those 100,000 murders) can’t fail to trivialize real violence because they have developed a sense of it being normal. This trivialization creates an atmosphere where real physical acts are seen as options and solutions to conflict. Many would say that responsibility lies with the parents and that they should regulate what their children digest. This is a good point and I agree that parents need to be more vigilant. However, it’s foolish to think that parents can be everywhere at once and that children won’t find ways and means to test their authority. Another question that needs to be addressed is what impact this continual rotation of violence has on adults. This adaptation to negative images through the media can be said to trivialize attitudes towards violence in adults as well. Adult attitudes then can, in turn, be said to influence children and perpetuate the cycle of violent attitudes.
Now the old argument is that, “so what if we are seeing people die, we know it’s not real?” When talking about children I think it’s questionable to what degree they understand the violence and sexuality they see on T.V. This is especially true when children are introduced to violent programming at a young age through cartoons. Although many cartoons today are not as violent as say the Tom and Jerry cartoons of yesteryear, most still center on combative narratives, use violence for humorous effect and/or emphasize competitive as opposed to cooperative values. To look at an analysis of popular cartoons watched currently, watch Negative Cartoon Content (A Study): Warning to Parents Part 1:
Now when it comes to video games a child’s ability to differentiate reality and fantasy becomes even more questionable. The overwhelming majority of video games are aggressive in nature, and revolve around killing, shooting, hitting or overwhelming an opponent. Also it’s important to remember that video games simulate actions. So the player is actually involved in the violent acts and not just observing. You just have to think about Pavlov and his dogs to realize that repeated actions become habits. The progress of technology means that newer games appear “more real”. Jumping onto the head of a 2D mushroom in Mario Bros is a world away from gunning down a lifelike 3Dimensional prostitute in G.T.A. With advancements in technology come games that are more willing to push boundaries. Video games rely on sympathetic arousal (the fight or flight phenomenon) to produce excitement in gamers. They soon get used to the level of emotions produced and so game makers constantly need to make games that are more intensely arousing. Drawing on violence and sex are easy ways to produce these reactions and so we find ourselves in the situation we are in today where young children are frequently given the opportunity to break almost every social norm in a virtual world. Leaving the virtual world for the real one, kids are often then drawn to activities that produce the same responses they have developed a taste for.
At this stage I think it’s important to remember that violence can be expressed in many ways. I’m not suggesting that all video game addicts become rampage killers yet I am saying that those exposed to excessive violence act more violently. Now these actions can manifest in social, emotional and physical realms. The tone of violent media is what is digested even if behaviors are not physically followed and this affects how people relate to others; seek success or achievement and value peers. Why would this not be so, humans are on a whole a species that learns from its surroundings, that follows the actions of models and explores possibilities through taking on characteristics of those models. Especially in the world we live in where face-to-face community contact is limited, people of all ages compensate by drawing necessary social cues from available mediums. Yet the social cues depicted in the media are influenced by the vested interests of corporations who want to keep you excited, absorbed and disconnected from the real world. The “real world” is at the same time less able to offer such instant gratification.
One of the most disturbing aspects of modern media is how it portrays sexuality. You only have to watch M.T.V for about 20mins to notice that there is an extreme difference between the numbers of scantily clad females to that of males. Women are also more commonly the back up dancers and seem more like “props” than characters. This definitely objectifies them. The word “objectify” gets thrown around a lot but what does it really mean? Well basically it’s the process of making a person an object, and when you think about it, it’s a lot easier to inflict violence onto an object than a person resembling yourself. So objectifying women promotes and excuses the use of violence against them. Mainstream media is awash with images of voiceless, sexualized woman that are valued for their bodies alone. The Internet, which is used by 73% of Americans as opposed to 19.2% of the individuals living in the rest of the world (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats14.htm), is probably the greatest source of sexually explicit material ever compiled. And far from just the volume, it’s the nature of the material on the Internet that creates a problem. Far too much of the porn out there is violent and focuses on domination, subjection and humiliation of others sexually. An American study showed that 71% of male adolescents and 40% of female adolescents were exposed to some form of Internet pornography within the 6 months prior to the survey (Jochen &Valkenburg, 2006). That means that for sure, it’s out there and our kids are watching it. There is a long history of data that agrees that pornography affects your attitudes towards sex and those around you. There is a correlation between watching sexually explicit material and a decrease in male sensitivity toward female victims of sexual assault (Zillman & Weaver 1989). This evidence suggests that watching porn (and in this case it was non-violent porn) could make you more likely to blame victims of rape. An even more disturbing finding was that watching violent pornography increased the self reported likelihood that male college students would commit rape and/or believe rape myths, like “she was just asking for it” (Demare, Lips & Briere1988). Now these studies were done almost 20years ago, before the advent of the Internet. The material available today is both more accessible (suggesting that it is also more frequently watched) and in many cases more overtly violent and harmful. Furthermore in days gone by teens would have to have actively sought out pornography and now they merely have to turn on the computer.
So how are we to combat the hostility and sexual aggression reflected in the media? Is the media to blame or is it simply mirroring the interests of society? I think these are complex questions and the answers are just as complex. Is the media the sole problem? Not entirely, but it’s not helping too much at this point either. Is it just showing us what we want to see? Perhaps, but how many choices are we given? How many positive alternatives are out there? T.V executives, the Internet site creators, video game makers and music producers all have the freedom to produce whatever they like but with that freedom comes a responsibility to their audience, not to exploit youth minds and use cheap thrills to shift units.
(Read the opposing argument)
References:
Jochen P & Valkenburg P.M 2006 Adolescents in Choice Behavior, The object-Person Dimension Perception 13(6) 719-724
Karch DL; Lubell KM; Friday J; Patel N; (2008) Williams Surveillance for violent deaths--National Violent Death Reporting System, 16 states, 2005 DD MMWR Surveill Summ. Apr 11;57(3):1-45.
Demare D, Lips H.M & Briere J. 1988 Violent porn and self reported likelihood of sexual aggression Journal of research in Personality 22, 140-150
Zillman P & Weaver J 1989 Pornography and Men’s sexual Callousness towards Women. Pornography: Research advances and policy 95-125 Hillsdale, NJ:Erbaum.
Additional statistics obtained World Internet Stats (n.d) Retrieved November 20, 2008 from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats14.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment