‘We cannot claim that there is no impact on our culture and our children that is adverse if there is too much violence coming out of what they see and experience, toughening their hearts and minds to violence and violent acts which would have shocked previous generations.’
President Clinton’s point regards desensitisation. That is, the way teenagers and young children are being brought up in a world where violence is so readily acceptable, we see it every day, in life as well as on television and in films. People are listening to more violent music and film companies are now able to get away with more violence than ever before in their productions due to slacker laws on censorship.
This all begs the question as to whether desensitisation is something which can lead to the development of violent behaviour in individuals, not just in young people, but also in adults.
Violence in Films
Violence is something inherent to entertainment. It has existed in films since Charlie Chaplain and has been a guise adopted by comedy films right through to action films. Pre-1970 movies used violence when necessary and in small doses bar some anomalies which was both reflective of the time and of audiences. Post-war films were made for a generation whose lives had experience of real-life violence, thus violence was not such a large aspect of movies, post-war movies of the 50’s and 60’s concentrated on storylines and plot as opposed to explosions and fighting unnecessary to a plot. However, it is only recently that violence in film has become so extremely gratuitous. In contemporary films such as ‘Gangs of New York’ and even ‘The Lord of the Rings’ show levels of violence unheard of in previous years, with the latter showing a real disparity with its certification. Yet, at the same time, violence in film is more acceptable and widely accessible. This raises the point of desensitisation once again and the maturing of audiences through an introduction to violence at a younger age. This desensitisation can lead to aggressive behaviour and the general public acceptance of televised violence does not help to restrain individuals’ feelings, not making them question their motives and partaking in wanton violence.
The preoccupation with extreme violence in recently produced films, where we often encounter the predatory male who is, in many instances, synonymous with the ‘serial killer’. It is argued that these films afford the audience the opportunity to assume a short-lived psychological proximity to the predatory male, and that such proximity can yield a sense of control, a body of knowledge, and a catalogue of signs that can guide both individuals and society. Consequently, films such as The Silence of the Lambs (1991), Seven (1995), Copycat (1995) and American Psycho (2000) may be read, in part as a cinematic response to the contemporary groundswell of fear and anxiety about victimization and public safety that has been particularly significant since the 1980’s.
The assumption is that in assuming a ‘short-lived proximity’ with an on-screen icon, a ‘regular’ individual will shake it off upon leaving the movie theatre. However, for those more vulnerable, with mental disorders or character development issues or even young children, this short-lived proximity can evolve into a long-term obsession as was seen in the murder of James Bulger by two boys who were allegedly influenced by director Tom Holland’s Child’s Play III, a violent film about a possessed doll who goes on a killing spree.
By using a child’s toy as the main protagonist of violence, the director has immediately, if subconsciously, established a link between the images in his movie and a child. These forms of contact draw young people to violence, making it attractive and desirable. Lecturer Laura Finley of West Michigan University agrees with this theory of establishing links with onscreen characters, and she goes on to say that:
‘Violent media viewing interacts with the viewers’ personal experiences, beliefs, attitudes, and personality.’
Her main view is that the violence on television and in film draws the viewer into the world, so much so that it can become a proactive form of entertainment for them as they are enveloped in a character or environment. This can be another factor which excites some viewers, attracting them closer and closer to the violent world of television and film, possibly blurring the individual’s perception causing them to partake in violence or violent acts. This is a view backed by Ekman and his associates in 1972. They found that children whose facial expressions depicted the positive emotions of happiness, pleasure, interest or involvement, while viewing televised violence were more likely to harm another child than those children who depicted disinterest or displeasure.
Ergo, this shows a link between popular culture and violent behaviour in certain circumstances with certain individuals.
This evidence makes it hard to deny the link between crimes such as violence, and television. One third of young, violent felons admit to consciously imitating crimes from television. But what happens when the visual stimulus is taken away? Is violent behaviour inherent to popular cultures such as film and television, or is there sufficient information to prove music has an influence on violent behaviour?
Violence in Music
Music has not always been related to violent behaviour. Even throughout the 60’s and 70’s when bands such as Iron Maiden, Kiss, Black Sabbath and Judas Priest were on the rock ‘n’ roll scene promoting subversive values and sadism, violence was never a real issue. Although many of these iconic rock figures did condone drug taking and some non-Christian beliefs, they were not deemed as so influential to young people that they could cause violent behaviour in them.
It was the advent of ‘Gangster’ rap in the late 80’s and early 90’s that caused people to start to take note of the violent imagery and description in artists’ lyrics. Ice-T’s song ‘Cop-Killer’ sparked major protest after the Rodney King trial, in the song he raps about killing police-officers:
‘I got my twelve gauge sawed off.
I got my headlights turned off.
I’m ‘bout to bust some shots off.
I’m ‘bout to dust some cops off.
Cop killer, better you than me.
Cop killer, f**k police brutality!
Cop killer, I know your family’s grievin’
(f**k ‘em)
Cop killer, but tonight we get even.’
The anti-authoritarian lyrics appealed to young, predominantly black males at the time when unity was needed due to racism and social and environmental degradation. Arguably, rappers like Ice-T helped mould and shape the culture of true gangster rap which was spurned from his and his contemporaries work.
The murders of ‘East Coast’ rapper Biggie Smalls and ‘West Coast’ rapper Tupac Shakur sparked riots and killing throughout the East and West coast of the United States of America.
Many campaigns were started to ‘ban’ gangster rap by groups such as The Parents Music Resource Centre and Tipper Gore (mental health adviser), which further escalated the individuals’ iconic status as police hating rebels. Rappers and their managers formed great competition between East and West coast record labels which were heavily influential in the lives of many teenagers in the late eighties and early nineties.
The escalating media battles transcended into the everyday lives of young children and teenagers through the music of rappers such as Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls. The uncontrollable hatred between these two sides of the rap industry sparked major gang wars between East and West Coast gangs such as the ‘Bloods’ and the ‘Crips’.
This picture of people being heavily influenced by music reflects the images evoked by the film industry. However, it is something which was often overlooked until gangster rap flooded onto the scene with groups such as Niggaz with Attitude (N.W.A.). The forming of hatred, culminating in murder and gratuitous violence can be blamed on popular culture , namely, popular rap music. The persuasive lyrics and violent imagery; killing policeman, raping women and murdering girlfriends get into the minds of the listeners causing abhorrence between people from different gangs and races in America. The iconic figures that are merely statuary for multi-million dollar record companies promote this violence, and their fans listen to what they preach, a true testimony to the power of the spoken word.
Thus we can see rap music as influential in violent behaviour, not only in America but other Western Democracies such as the United Kingdom, Germany and France.
Experimentation in Music
Although deeply unfounded and incredibly basic, a student at the University of Massachusetts in Boston researched musical experimentation on mice. David Merrell’s research aimed to :
‘Identify a correlation, if any between popular music (i.e. rock and roll, rap music) and changed behaviour in mice.’
His research consisted of putting mice through a maze which initially, before experimentation, took them an average of ten minutes to master. David started playing music to the mice 10 hours a day, then put them back through the maze three times a week for three weeks.
Merrell’s results had deep implications for human beings, if an experiment could ever be recreated in a human social context. He found that the control group of mice, who did not listen to any music, were able to cut five minutes off their time; the mice that listened to classical music cut eight and a half minutes off their time; and the mice that listened to hard-rock music took twenty minutes longer to navigate the maze.
As aforementioned the evidence here is very basic and unfounded with no real professional scientific research. However, his results do show the degenerative effects that music can possibly have on an individual. David continued to say that:
‘I had to cut my project short because all the hard-rock mice killed each other. None of the classical mice did that at all.’
If Merrell or anyone could produce this kind of experimentation on humans it would be undeniable evidence that music can have a degenerative influence on the brain, possibly leading to increased aggression – thus proving the link between popular culture and violent behaviour.
Studies in Music and Violent Behaviour
Studies have been carried out into music and violent behaviour on a theoretical basis, using information gathered on the psychology of individuals and human nature’s method of processing and retaining information, however there has never been a completely independent study into the effects of music on individuals. One possible solution is extensive research on the effects of music in correlation to violence. This research would finally prove whether or not music does have an effect on human behaviour. The tests would be simple and effective: simply monitor the serotonin, adrenaline, and testosterone levels in the subject, then interview the subject to see if his/her behaviour has changed. This would finally give people some evidence with some substance. However, as with all things there is a slight downfall: these tests would require a paid staff willing to do the work and it would take time for the results to come into view.
In an article written by Bibi Baxter on Teenagers, Music and Violence, she relates intense interest in violence to pornography. Her claim is that each consequent image in the music has to be more revealing and degrading than the last in order to maintain the interest of the listener. The article contains a table showing the three stages relating to input and memory and the changed effects they would have on the regular process (see appendix d).
Most people are reliant upon a highly-developed visual memory; therefore progressively violent images teamed with both repetitive, brainwashing music and a wide range of strong sensations should give rise to concern. Add to this, the subliminal reminders which surround us all and it is easy to see how susceptible people could unwittingly become a walking time-bomb, programmed to commit violence which cannot be anticipated, controlled, or avoided.
Although studies are few and far between, there are case studies which help to exemplify the effects some music can have on individuals.
Bill Muhlenburg
Bill Muhlenburg is an Australian who spearheaded a campaign to block (in)famous American white-rapper Eminem from performing at the country’s Summer Festivals. In an article on the subject Muhlenburg attacked the rap-star and all other rappers, claiming that these people were ‘evil’ promoting violence, rape, murder and suicide.
He describes a case where he interviewed the mother of a suicide victim in Queensland in 2000. She said that her son, ‘started to change while in high school. He went from being a beautiful child to a drug using, violent and aggressive teenager.’ Muhlenburg stated in his article that the boy’s mother discovered Eminem tapes under the child’s bed. The blame was instantly shifted to the controversial, drug-using rap-star. Which poses the question as to how influential are musicians in contemporary culture?
Muhlenburg, goes on to argue about the sphere of influence an iconic figure such as Eminem can possess, blaming the artists fully for the reactions of people who listen to their music.
‘The point is, rock stars have tremendous influence on impressionable young people. Indeed, advertisers spend billions of dollars in the belief that images and music can influence a person’s behaviour and the choices he or she will make.’
Muhlenburg’s attack on the industry here is based on a completely valid argument over marketing and the way certain products are marketed at an underage market. In a recent Federal Trade Commission report (see appendix e) they discovered that 80% of R-rated (over 18) movies were targeted at children of the age of 17 and under.
Muhlenburg brings his readers to harsh reality and that is that music can affect people, subconsciously or otherwise. Music is the perfect form in which art can be spread, but it is also a medium with which, as has been seen, subversive messages can lurk which have the ability to manipulate people’s actions causing, in some cases violent behaviour – including self-harm. This is comprehensible evidence of popular culture influencing violent behaviour in contemporary democracy.
The Long-Term Effects of Popular culture
Most criticisms of popular cultures such as television and film regard the short-term effects of over exposure to violent imagery. However, studies have been conducted regarding the long-term effects of violence on television and in films and the effects they can have on individuals over a long period of time.
An initial longitudinal study was conducted by Lefkowitz in 1972. He and his colleagues were able to demonstrate long-term effects in a group of children followed up over a ten-year period. Confirming studies previously demonstrated in 1963 by Eron in the relationship between preference for violent media and the aggressive behaviour of children aged eight. The only question was whether this relationship would hold a grip at later ages in a child’s life.
To answer this question the investigators obtained peer-rated measures of aggressive behaviour and preferences for various kinds of television, radio and comic books when the children were eight years old. Ten years later, when the members of the group were eighteen years old, the investigators again obtained measures of aggressive behaviour and television programme preferences.
Their results indicated that in boys, preference for television violence at age eight was significantly related to aggression at age eight, but that preference for television violence at age eighteen was only sometimes related to aggression at age eighteen. This indicates a high level of influence on younger children who watch violence on film oppressing them into violent acts and behaviour but a lower influence in older children, but still a noticeable influence. This leads on to the question of predicting adolescent aggression from knowledge of their television
The important finding her is the significant relationship, for boys, between preference for violent media at age eight and aggressive behaviour at age eighteen. Equally important is the lack of relationship in the reverse direction; that is, preference for violent television programmes at age eighteen was not produced by their aggressive behaviour in early childhood. The most plausible interpretation of this pattern of correlations is that early preference for violent television programming and other media is one factor in the production of aggressive and antisocial behaviour when the young boy becomes a man. This evidence reflects a study showing the link between popular culture and violent behaviour a real one.
Consequently, a follow-up study was made in 1994, of Lefkowitz’s study. 22 years later, when the boys were thirty years old. The study found that there were significant correlations between violence viewing at age eight and serious interpersonal criminal behaviour at age 30.
By looking at the effects of television, film and music on individuals and the way in which people can be affected by its controlling powers it is possible to draw a picture of defiance and dissidence. Research by Bandura, Liebert, Baron, Merrell and Lefkowitz has shown the possibilities and the reality of a correlation between popular culture and violent behaviour. Indeed, popular case studies coupled with research have provided a substantial case for the answer, ‘yes’ – popular culture is an influence on violent behaviour. In fact, the judicial system in America seems to agree. In 1999 the parents of three students killed in a school shooting in Kentucky filed a successful $130 million lawsuit against two Internet sites, several computer game companies, and Time Warner and Polygram.
Despite successful research into the field of violent behaviour and popular culture and success in court and interesting theories, many people believe that popular culture cannot and does not influence violent behaviour in individuals in contemporary society.
Chapter 2 – Popular culture Does Not Influence Violent Behaviour
Many agreed with Jim Carroll, writer of the controversial Basketball Diaries, one of the alleged influences for the Columbine Killings in 1999 when he said:
‘Artists have nothing to do with the deranged, vaguely connected actions of a few celebrated nut cases - and that’s it.’
There is substantial evidence which backs up Carroll’s case. Both psychology and science believe there is no link between popular culture such as television, film, music and violent behaviour. Indeed when we look at these forms of popular culture the main arguments and centre for debate is censorship. What people are allowed to see and watch and what certain age groups are deemed mature enough to watch or listen to.
Censorship
Censorship in Western Democracies is offered to the public as an elixir of safety. Proponents of censorship suggest that if you get rid of bad pictures you will be rid of bad acts. This is the great, soothing appeal of censorship, the promise of a better life, if only some magazine or movie or text or song is banished.
Will life improve if we ban some image, rock and rap music, or movie? The mass-market pornography and rock ‘n’ roll industries took off only after the Second World War.
Before the 20th century few people, save the wealthy elite, saw any pornography whatsoever. Certainly they heard no rap or rock ‘n’ roll. Yet violence and sexism flourished for thousands of years before recording equipment, the printing press or the camera. Today countries where no sexual imagery or Western music is permitted, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and China, do not boast strong records of social harmony or strong women’s rights records, and they certainly are not free from the clutches of violent behaviour.
For millennia teenagers have managed to become pregnant without the aid of sexual imagery, they have become violent without seeing Natural Born Killers and they have taken drugs before listening to Eminem. In fact, John D’Emillo and Estelle Freedman noted that up to one-third of births in colonial America occurred out of wedlock or within eight months of obviously hurried marriages. Evidence that what are presumed as contemporary problems, influenced by television, film and music are problems which had been encountered before the advent of “popular culture ”.
It has been argued that censorship in television, film and music is a way of drawing parallels between popular media and the consequences such as violent behaviour. In censoring profusely or evening banning - for example a film - the boards of classification are claiming that they recognise a link between the particular piece and violent behaviour. However, the link can be seen as defeated in Britain by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC).
In an article which appeared in the Guardian on the 4th of April 1998, reporter Tom Dewe Matthews wrote about the BBFC and the way:
‘The BBFC does not actually ban films…but will postpone their release until any controversy has died down before issuing a certificate as was seen with Crash and Reservoir Dogs.’
This attitude shows that even the people in charge of censoring films have reason to believe that a film should be released, but hold back because of public reaction. The BBFC argues that:
‘Abstinence is the best form of protection. That is, if someone does not want to see a certain film they should not and that warnings displayed on video cases and in cinemas should act as a deterrent for people.’
This refers back to the introduction and lecturer Laura Finley who argued that a viewer should exercise their, ‘right to vote’ and they should abstain from viewing certain programmes because they always have a choice.
This again shows a solution through censorship and abstinence to the influence of popular culture over violent behaviour. The views on censorship also vehemently argue that there is no link between popular culture and violent behaviour, both with the BBFC’s views on releasing something after public outcry has subsided – bearing in mind the BBFC receive no financial gain from releasing film as they are a government funded organisation – and the history of censorship as a poor way of blocking material from individuals.
Research on Sexually Violent Material
Research has been carried out on sexually violent material which shows that there is no link between popular culture and violent behaviour. The research brought together a group of males and examined there serotonin, adrenaline, and testosterone levels when watching sexually violent material and violent, non-sexual material.
The research seemed to suggest that although non-sexual, violent material increased the male aggression levels in the laboratory, sexually violent material did not change levels of aggression, but rather increased levels of sexual tension and the spread of endorphins through the body. This discloses more about the nature of viewed violence and the effects it has on individuals.
The violent, non-sexual material aroused the individual’s aggressive side because that was the part of the brain which responded to the images in front of them. However, when viewing the sexually violent images the individual’s part of the brain controlling the ‘sex-drive’ was more influential than the aggressive part of the brain. The common denominator here is physical arousal. If there is an increase in heartbeat, blood pressure, galvanic skin response and adrenaline level, a subject’s actions will become enhanced, not only aggression, but also generosity and kindness.
This research into sexually violent material tells more about a person’s reactions to all kinds of stimuli and reveals that the connection between popular culture and violent behaviour if existent at all is co-dependant on other factors and that there is no direct link between violent behaviour and popular culture . Therefore, when looking at case studies such as the Columbine tragedy it is clear that other factors in the two killer’s lives would have acted as the stimuli for the aggression the boys practised. These can include social exclusion resulting in depression or increased stress, let out through their aggressive behaviour. Indeed, the result of their actions may also have been through an altered mental state either due to drug use - which has been proven to increase levels of paranoia, anxiety and deliriousness – or the results of their actions could have been because of an undiagnosed mental disability.
In the context of the question, this evidence defeats the links established by Bandura and his colleagues when they researched aggressive behaviour and visual violence and shows that popular culture does not influence violent behaviour.
The Music Industry
In the first chapter, Bill Muhlenburg argued that popular rock and rap stars were influential in the downfall of many children and that their controversial, subversive lyrics inspired rebellion and violence in individuals.
However, many stars themselves have shunned this view of themselves as role models and go on to argue that, regardless of what they do or say, people’s individuality cannot be taken away from them and that their limited influence cannot compel people into acts of violence. When he was writing about the Columbine massacre, Marilyn Manson touched on his feelings and the collective feelings of many in his position on extreme violent behaviour and the idea that popular culture can influence individuals to commit these acts, he saud:
‘It is sad to think that the first few people on earth needed no books, movies, games or music to inspire cold-blooded murder. The day that Cain bashed his brother Abel’s brain in, the only motivation he needed was his own human disposition to violence.’
The view adopted by Manson is that violence is something which is inbred into society, acquired at birth, propelled by religion and justified in its scruples; he refuses to believe that the majority of people can be directly influenced by popular culture and that it is our own human disposition which draws us to violent acts, regardless of any outward stimulation. Manson carries on by attacking Christianity claiming:
‘…Christianity has given us an image of death and sexuality that we have based our culture around. The world’s most famous murder/suicide was also the birth of the death icon – the blueprint for society. Unfortunately, for all of their inspiring morality, nowhere in the Gospels is intelligence praised as a virtue.’
Manson is trying to reinforce his idea that violence is something born unto us and that regardless of stigma, some people may act upon it. The kernel of his argument provides us with evidence that there is no link between popular culture and violent behaviour. Manson talks about the ability people have to act upon instinct. He dwells upon the fact that rock stars as role models do not influence violent behaviour, but that it boils down to the fact that as long as violence exists all around us, it will be prolific in television programmes, films and in music; be it violent lyrics, physical violence or indecent comments.
Theories Which Defeat the Link between Popular culture and Violence
Chapter 1 looked at research that established a link between popular culture and violent behaviour. The investigations of Bandura and Liebert and Baron showed that both short and long-term viewing of televised violence produced aggressive reactions in the study’s participants.
This section will examine the studies conducted which confront the findings of those in chapter 1, highlighting the lack of substantial evidence to confirm the association between popular culture and violent behaviour. Before looking at studies conducted by Eysenck and Nias, it is important to note that the studies conducted by Bandura et al. were criticised on the grounds that the aggressive behaviour was not meaningful within the social context of their experiments and that the stimulus materials were not representative of available television programming. This highlights the bias in their work and the subjectivity in their experiments, leading towards a predetermined answer established by unfair testing. This alone shows the lack of extensive evidence proving the relationship between popular culture and violent behaviour and its ability to influence individuals’ reactions.
In 1993 the National Research Council (NRC) cautioned that correlations do not prove cause, and could be reflective of poor parental supervision and a heightened potential for violent behaviour. This statement was a profound result of studies conducted in the late 70’s and early 80’s confirming correlations between popular media and violent behaviour but without proving a substantial influence over individuals to act upon violent feelings or aggression. Again, disproving popular culture ‘s influence over violent behaviour through the basis of cause and effect, that is, the cause of violent behaviour is not necessarily the effect of violent images witnessed or listened to but a culmination of different effects in an individuals’ life.
In 1978 Eysenck and Nias suggested a model which assumes pre-disposition to violence (like that which Manson spoke about earlier on) in a country is distributed in the shape of a normal curve of distribution, with 5% of people actually being violent. Their model suggests a 1% shift in propensity to violence would increase the number of violent people in the UK by 350,000 and in the USA by 1.4 million..
Although Eysenck and Nias’ model is over simplified because human behaviour is multiply determined, they conclude that:
‘Even quite small effects, so small as to be hardly measurable may have far reaching and tremendous consequences.’1
It is evident that a small shift in propensity, for example the advent of war, could have a 1% increase on the population on the curve of distribution. War brings together people in countries, with media propaganda increasing hatred between sides, which is enough to increase the level of violent people in a country. Therefore, these people would draw on what they had learned from media and television and channel their aggression through these images in their heads, carrying out copycat acts of violence and aggression based on the only violence that they have seen. Thus, it would appear that popular culture was the influence over these actually violent people, when really, they are reflective of the distribution of violent people in the country.
Ergo, the studies of Eysenck and Nias now show that violence is something inbred into individuals, relating back to Marilyn Manson’s views on Columbine. Thus, the evidence given in chapter 1 regarding the influence popular culture can have over violent behaviour can be associated with a propensity towards violence of the population and not popular culture itself.
What Type of People are Influenced by Popular culture ?
This section will look at the types of people most likely to succumb to the influence of popular culture and whether the responsibility lies within popular culture or if the propensity to be influenced lies within the individual themselves.
Studies have shown that children from lower socio-economic backgrounds watch significantly more than average levels of television. Wartella’s literature review commented that:
‘Children who are more disposed to violence (such as those living in violent homes and environments) are more likely to be influenced by violent portrayals in the media.’
This shows that children who have experience with violence and witnessed images of real-life violence are more likely to react to visual violence. This points towards an individual’s mental abilities and experiences as the major factor in influencing violent behaviour, showing that violence in the media can act as a catalyst but nothing more, demonstrating the lack of real influence that popular culture can have on individuals. This highlights the important fact that children vary in their susceptibility to media influences and that effects tend to be greatest on children most vulnerable to witnessing violence.
This researcher believes that some personal factors lead to greater television watching and aggressiveness, and hence to a greater interest in television violence. Viewing violent programmes then strengthens the encoding of aggressive scripts, further leading to interpersonal conflict. This leads to greater identification with violent television characters and strengthens the interest in television violence, thus creating a vicious, downward spiral. This couples media violence with personal factors, co-dependant factors which, when mixed, result in violent acts. Hence, popular culture can be looked at as a contributing factor to violent behaviour when united with a background of detrimental social problems such as domestic violence or sexual abuse.
This evidence shows the most vulnerable people to be attracted to the detrimental side of popular culture are children and young people and that although there is no direct link, the basis is the socio-economic background of a child which can influence violent behaviour.
The Hypodermic Syringe Effect
This theory has its root in 1950’s America when dominant businesses and the
then government wanted to discover how far the public were influenced by what they saw on television. The Hypodermic Theory came from this Media Effects model, which had a heavy emphasis in psychology. Businesses and the government alike wanted to know how much ‘media is supposedly ‘injected’ into the consciousness of an audience’ via television (Price, 1993) . They wanted to know if through this
relatively new medium the public could be persuaded unquestioningly to, for example, vote for a certain political party or buy a specific brand of washing powder.
The Hypodermic model proposes that the media has a very direct and
extremely immediate effect on the general public, who accept the injected message without question due to their passiveness. It is the idea that producers of media texts can persuade people to do what ever they want and they will unquestionably comply. When the subject of violence is brought into this field, a follower of this ideology would say that the violent behaviour witnessed on screen would be influentially
accepted by the audience without question. Therefore, representing a link between popular culture and violent behaviour.
For example, if a reader was shown the notorious and much discussed film ‘Natural Born Killers’ (Oliver Stone 1994), the Hypodermic model would say that due to it’s alleged glamorization of motiveless violence, where the main
protagonists are seen as romantic folk heroes who get away with their crimes in the end, the reader would simply take in the message, accept it and then violent behaviour would stem from that. ‘Natural Born Killers’ is notable for the fact that the story spins the idea of heroes and villains onto its head. Traditionally those who commit the
violence are the villains who are punished for their crimes, while the police are seen as heroes who save the day. In this instance the police are overly violent, indeed one of them is a murderer himself, and these authority figures end up being punished. The main characters of Mickey and Mallory Knox (Woody Harelson and Juliette Lewis) are the ‘natural born killers’ who violently slaughter without apparent reason, yet due
to Mallory’s abusive upbringing and witty one-liners they gain sympathy and, in a sense, likeability. The implication here is that the viewer will empathise with the main protagonists making them seem likeable, resulting in the viewer condoning their actions and possibly recreating them.
One of the Hypodermic model’s faults is that it assumes the audience will take in what they’ve seen and will be influenced by it in a negative way. There are positive aspects which can influence but these are largely over-shadowed and conveniently forgotten. This model would say that the confused messages of right and wrong within ‘Natural Born Killers’ would inject the reader to accept the violence of the film and then imitate the behaviour. If the killers had been seen ultimately punished in the end, it would be a positive reading, as the reader would know not to mimic as punishment is where that behaviour leads. Ultimately it is children who are seen to be the most at risk from these effects. David Buckingham suggests that children are regarded as not being mentally equipped to understand that what they see is not what they should do:
‘Thus imitative violence, which has remained the central focus of
anxiety in such debates, is largely seen as arising from the inability to distinguish between fiction and reality. Children copy what they see on television because they lack the experience and the intellectual capacities that might enable them to see through the illusion of reality which the medium provides.’
But it is not just children who need protecting, according to the Hypodermic model.
Another problem arises for the Hypodermic Needle when one considers a
text which has a message, but the majority of readers see another message to the one intended. An example of this are John Ford’s westerns, such as ‘The Searchers’. Viewers have read messages of violence, racism and sexism within his films, yet Ford denies he put them there in the first place. The Hypodermic model says that what the
producer of the text intends the message to be is exactly what they say it is and nothing else, as the audience is passive and they will all receive the same message. But even if Ford did intend those messages to be the ones read this does not mean that his viewers are influenced to become violent, racist sexists. The failures of the Hypodermic theory reflects the failure of an established link that popular culture can influence violent behaviour.
This theory’s major failure is that it does not take ‘who the audience is’ into consideration. It sees the population as one mass, all intellectually and culturally the same. It makes great assumptions that everyone of us who watches violence on the screen will receive the same messages and violent behaviour will ensue. It does not take into consideration the fact that not everybody thinks or reacts the same. For example, someone who works in the police force will react differently to someone who does not when watching ‘The Bill’. They become active readers as they bring more to the reading than someone who has not experienced what is being portrayed on screen. If we did not bring our own life experiences and individuality to a reading, then everyone who has watched ‘Natural Born Killers’ would have all come
away with exactly the same impression and this would have instigated violent behaviour. If people were simply passive and accepted everything they saw on the screen and let it influence their behaviour without questioning it, then they would have all become violent to the extreme after watching that film, something which we know is simply not the case. And it is women, children and the working class who are seen as vulnerable as they are assumed to be intellectually inferior, while
those who study the effects, white middle class males, are somehow above being effected by the media. Surly this only goes towards what they say is the reality if the subject as it is they who say readers as a mass will be effected, so by not including themselves they are disproving their own theory.
This apparent bourgeoisie look at influencing violent behaviour through popular culture only affecting the lower classes shows the lack of a substantial link between popular culture and violent behaviour. With these researchers blaming any apparent link to a lack of intellect and absorption in ‘low’ culture as opposed to any link which is all encompassing.
Uses and Gratifications
The second model differs greatly from the Hypodermic one, in that it focuses more on the reader. In the 1950’s Katz and Lazersfield started a school of thought which transformed the question of ‘how the media effects the reader’, to ‘what the reader does with the media’. This is what is known as Uses and Gratifications. Price (1993) explains this as identifying specific groups empirically. Groups must be looked at to see how many people there are within them, as well as their ages, gender, occupation, leisure pursuits, social status and so on. This differs from the Hypodermic model as it sees groups within society as opposed to society as a mass of isolated, identical individuals. In this model who and what a person are is the key to how they use the media text and what gratification they attain from it.
This brings in the idea that an individual, because of who they are and where in society they have come from, will react differently to a text. This was touched on earlier when discussing ‘The Bill’. An individual, depending on who they are, will have a different reading of a text. Regarding something with the high violence content of ‘Natural Born Killers’, it helps build personal identity in that the reader sees it
and knows what not to be like. The reader can judge between what is right and what is wrong. Society rightfully condemns the behaviour of the characters and so do active members of that society. People do not try to emulate them, even if when watching it is a diversion and form of escapism, but that is it and nothing more. It is not reality and this is accepted. And the fact that readers watch the film and do not
automatically become more violent clearly gives this backing.
However, a major problem is that this model does not take the actual media text into extreme consideration; everything is the reader. It does not examine the mode of production or what the producers original messages were, simply the way they are read. Again, in the example of ‘Natural Born Killers’, it would not take into consideration the messages director Oliver Stone makes about the way the media could influence society. It is, in many ways, the opposite problem from the
Hypodermic Needle, but in conjunction with that theory one can see that it is not enough to say that violence on the screen causes violent behaviour.
By looking at a variety of theories, case studies and different means of controlling popular culture, it has become clear that it is too little to say that screen violence produces behavioural effects as it is a generalization. Also behaviour does not seem to be the correct word. When watching violence people react emotionally in different ways, not behaviourally. A reader may be appalled by the graphic and bloody violence of ‘Natural Born Killers’, exhilarated during a hand to hand combat in ‘Rocky’ or even amused by the over-the-top slapstick violence of ‘The Three Stooges’. The message of the maker of the text, the text itself and who the audiences are as individuals are all as equally important as each other, and so all have to be taken into consideration. One without the other two is not enough, it takes more than just screen violence and screen violence alone to produce behavioural effects on viewers.
Conclusion
In conclusion, if screen violence produces behavioural effects on viewers, therefore creating a more violent society, it would be more evident in our everyday lives. Images of violence are all around us in many forms of the media. If we were all effected in the same way then everyone would have the same reaction. If everyone reacted to and mimicked behaviour seen on the screen then our society would be one of constant violence in every situation imaginable. This is simply not the
case. The James Bulger murder where two young boys caused the death of a toddler by supposedly mimicking a scene from the violent horror film ‘Child’s Play III’ has been blamed on screen violence. However there was no evidence, as Martin Barker (1997) explains, that the boys had actually seen that film even though that is what the press latched onto. So where the effects of screen violence were blamed there were
more than likely other elements which helped bring the situation into existence. More than just what such individuals watch has to be taken into consideration, but also who they are and where they have come from. If it was simply that violence on the screen instigated violent behaviour and nothing more, what of other cases such as Mary Bell, a girl who killed two very young children. She had not seen ‘Child’s Play’ or ‘Natural Born Killers’, but had experienced real life abuse at the hands of her mother. It takes more than just watching violence on the screen to cause it. An individual may watch a violent film and then perform the acts in real life, but one would then have to look at what they, as a reader, originally brought to the reading.
Thus, when asked the question, ‘Is popular culture an influence on violent behaviour’ my answer is no. After my extensive research I am led to believe that violent behaviour is intrinsically based on many factors, interdependent on one another and that popular culture cannot solely influence an individual to commit an act of violence. However, I do agree with the fact that images in popular culture can influence the way in which an individual carries out an act of violence. This is because of a lack of other stimuli which a violent individual can act upon, retorting upon something they have seen before in a movie or on television. This however, does not gratify a link between violence and popular culture in that popular culture does not have a direct control over an individual, Reverend J. Williamson of Littleton Colorado, when talking about the murders in Columbine said:
‘…And through the soul, although they shape our behaviour, the roots of violence are much more complicated than just bad rock lyrics or brutal screenplays. Violence lives amongst us, in our homes and on our streets and it is these aspects of life we need to help eradicate before we can stop a repeat of this [ Columbine ] happening.’
Bibliography
Oxford Dictionary of Sociology by Gordon Marshall © 1998 Oxford Publishing Press
Criminology by Stephen Jones © 1998 Reed Elsevier
Masculinities, Violence and Culture by Suzanne E. Hatty © 2000 Sage
Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America © 1995 Eagle Press
Sociology by Anthony Giddens © 1997 Polity Press
Appendix A
Anoop Joshi
7 Bellfield Avenue
Eskbank, Dalkeith
Midlothian
EH22 3JT
2 December 2002
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a 6th year pupil currently studying at Lasswade High School Centre near Edinburgh. For my Advanced Higher Modern Studies dissertation I am looking at ‘The effects of popular culture on criminal behaviour’.
I would earnestly appreciate if you could answer a few short questions.
1 . What are your views on violence in film and television?
2. Do you agree/disagree that the portrayal of violence in film/television is adequate? Why?
3. Do you feel that, violence in particular, in film/television can influence criminal behaviour?
Your answers to these questions would be very helpful and would aid me in producing a succinct and informative essay.
Furthermore, any information that you could send via e-mail or by post (to the above addresses) would be wholly appreciated.
Yours sincerely
Anoop Joshi
Appendix B
Hi-
Thanks you for your letter and I wish you the best of luck for your dissertation. Below is a list of my responses to your questions.
I felt that there is too much violence on television and film, although I do not feel that censorship is the way to reduce it. Instead, I think viewers should exercise their right to ‘vote’, that is, choose NOT to watch, thereby refusing to give their money and support to film-makers, etc. who are including this in their programmes. Further, a vocal populace who explains why they are refusing to watch can go a long way in reducing the violence included in film and television, just as efforts to boycott, coupled with vocal outcry, have reduced or eliminated the reliance on sweatshop labour by certain companies. While some might argue that the violence is included because it is what the public wants, I have seen no credible evidence to back this up. In fact, many today argue that the television producers, film-makers etc. drive what the public watches, not the other way around. I personally do not choose to view war movies, for instance, because I feel that they often end up glorifying killing and justifying war.
The violence included in film and television, in addition to being excess, also suffers from serious exaggerations and falsehoods. For instance, film and television typically over-represent the amount of stranger-stranger violence while under representing domestic or acquaintance-related violence. Women, white men, and the elderly are generally over-represented. The list could go on! I think this has a major impact on the views that the public has about crime and criminal justice; if the populace believes violent crime occurs more frequently and that all parties are equally likely to be victimised, what does that mean for their own personal feelings of safety? For their support of repressive and punitive punishments.
I do believe that media violence can impact criminal behaviour, although not in one specific way but in many different ways. Violent media viewing interacts with the viewers’ personal experiences, beliefs and attitudes, and personality. It is clear that some people have directly copied violent acts they see in the media; interviews with prisoners in Marquette prison have shown that many either tried to or contemplated trying some violent or criminal act they saw in the media. In reality though, I believe this is the least common effect. I feel that heavy viewers of media violence are more likely to be desensitised, leading them to have less concern for the impact of violence on others and possibly making them more likely to use violence in specific situations or at least support it’s use. I also feel as though many people are simply more fearful and demand more and increasingly draconian punishments as a result of viewing media violence, as described in number 2.
I hope these help!
Regards, L.
Appendix C
Ice-T, "Cop Killer"
This song came out originally on Body Count (1992), an album by a rap & heavy metal band of that name which Ice-T had been fronting. They had been playing a version of it in concert for a year, including as part of the 1991 Lollapalooza tour. The recorded version includes references to Rodney King, a black motorist whose beating by LAPD officers had been caught on videotape. Shortly after the record came out, a suburban jury acquitted the officers and riots broke out in South Central LA. Soon after that outbreak, a Dallas police group called for a boycott of the Ice-T record. Ice-T, who actually played a cop in the 1991 movie New Jack City said, "I’m singing in the first person as a character who is fed up with police brutality. I ain’t never killed no cop. I felt like it a lot of times. But I never did it." Soon, however, the offending song was removed from the record, and the next year, Warner Brothers dropped both the band and Ice-T as a solo artist.
Appendix D
There has been much publicity about unprovoked, mindless acts of aggression. The perpetrators of such violence do not fit neatly into certain categories or age-groups, but range right across the whole of society. How can that be? There must be certain common denominators.
Clearly, no one factor can be held responsible, although a number of obvious ones abound, eg:-
-
Increasing drug, solvent and alcohol abuse -
-
Public apathy when faced with anti-social behaviour
-
Lack of respect for authority and/or common decency
-
A tendency for people not be to accept responsibility for their actions
-
etc.
Amongst the many theories which have been advanced so far, disquiet has been voiced in respect of some computer/video games which seem to glamourise brutal acts. Many experts have dismissed such influences as minimal; however, during the course of my work (using music to teach), I believe I have uncovered a powerful conditioning process, further consolidated by subliminal reminders, which should not be ignored.
MUSIC AROUSES EMOTIONS
My company sells pedagogic ideas for use with Beatles’ music, when teaching English to non-native speakers. I have recently discovered that, by using such music to teach, grammar points can be continually reinforced years after the actual lesson, even in the students’ own country where exposure to the English language could be practically nil. Used positively, this could almost be described as the perfect teaching medium; on the other hand, misuse (intentional or accidental) could have disastrous consequences. (My article "" was first published in ELT News & Views, Argentina). The process consists of three main stages: these are summarised as follows:-
Most of us can recall the glorious Hollywood ‘tear-jerkers’ and the hilarious ‘silents’, both of which depended heavily on music to create the right atmosphere. In fact, the entertainment world has a history of using dramatic music to determine the mood of its audiences.
EMOTIONS ENHANCE MEMORY
Think back for a moment and you are more likely to recall events in which certain emotions (such as anger, embarrassment, disappointment, excitement, relief, etc.), have been aroused better than events which were relatively emotionless. For example, which of the following would you remember most?
a) crossing a certain road calmly and safely each day?
b) crossing the same road, but as a hair-raising dash to the other side, achieved by the skin of your teeth?
Undoubtedly, the feelings of fear and relief, encountered in example (b) would be implanted on your memory for quite some time, perhaps to be recalled or relived each time that particular road is crossed, or even when crossing any road if the experience was singularly frightening.
INDOCTRINATED BY FREQUENCY & REPETITION
The use of emotions in the classroom is relatively new; however, learning by repetition is not and was once traditionally employed as a major teaching method. We are all aware of the destructive results achieved by brainwashing techniques incorporating constant repetition, yet many parents from all walks of life unwittingly purchase equipment which can brainwash their children (and sometimes themselves), with repetitive sounds and music which are not only capable of blocking out creative thought, but which can also team limited thoughts with visual violence and pleasurable emotions so that the three are mentally linked together for evermore.
A similar technique is already employed by many TV advertisers, ie: catchy, memorable tunes are teamed with dramatic, visual images which arouse certain emotions relating to:- sex, comfort, envy, hunger, ambition, admiration, aggression, etc.
The brainwashing power of repetitive music, which accompanies computer/video games, seems to have been overlooked by the experts, perhaps because the music chosen is usually familiar or well-known (often traditional or classical). For this reason, it is likely to be heard at times other than when using the games. Computer/video games are played for hours. They can be addictive and the urge for each "fix" (in this case: exciting, violent images) to be more extreme than the one before to produce the same sense of satisfaction is quite usual with reality becoming even less and less meaningful between each "fix". Furthermore, television companies now screen special cartoon programmes, which feature characters from certain computer/video games accompanied by repetitive music and sounds. Shops sell toys, clothes, toiletries and other products linked to films and games.
VIOLENT IMAGES REINFORCED BY MUSIC & EMOTIONS
Hollywood’s use of classical music for enhancing dramatic scenes was skilful and relatively harmless compared with current practices.
Certain pop music is already suspected of invoking violent feelings; this is often encouraged by the groups themselves when the destruction of their instruments is included as an essential part of their act to whip up a frenzy of violent passions in emotionally-disturbed fans.
Other pop music can arouse a whole host of insecurities in the inadequate, yet many modern film-makers use vogue music to awaken strong sensations during dramatic scenes, featuring excessive violence and suffering. (eg: The Rolling Stones "I Can’t Get No Satisfaction" was played during a violent scene in a film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger.) Furthermore such scenes can usually be watched repeatedly, on video at the touch of a button, by those least likely to condemn such violence, but rather to revel in it. Has anyone considered how an intense interest in violence follows a similar pattern to extreme tastes in pornography? To maintain interest, each visual image must be more degrading than the one before.
The three stages, relating to input and memory, could then be seen quite differently:-
Manipulation of minds is taking place on a phenominal scale, yet to all intents and purposes so subtle it remains unrecognised by the victims. The world of advertising has already recognised the potential and has developed highly sophisticated techniques which dictate our lifestyles, opinions and attitudes far more than any of us realise; there is every chance that society may not recognise the powerful link between music and violence until it escalates out of control.
Some games can already be operated without music, yet still retain the sound effects. Until more games have this option, few conscientious parents would be able or brave enough to insist on the sound being turned off, or impose strict time limits, etc. For other parents, these machines provide a quiet life in the short term which might seem more important to them.
An awareness of what is happening could help to put people on their guard, but how many game addicts would be willing to forego any part of what feeds their addiction (ie: music, visual images, sensations) remains to be seen. Nevertheless, guidelines should be issued for conscientious parents so they may counteract current influences which promote violence and be more prepared for the pitfalls which future technology has in store for us.
In conclusion, I would be interested to know whether you feel this theory has any relevance worldwide and would welcome your comments.
Appendix E
Oxford Dictionary of Sociology – Gordon Marshall – Oxford university Press published in 1998
Masculinities, Violence and Culture – Suzanne E. Hatty, 2000 Sage Publications
Taken from response from Laura Finley in a letter dated 2nd December 2002 – see appendix B
Albert Bandura (1986) – Criminology by Stephen Jones Published by Reed Elsevier (UK) Ltd. 1998
Stereotypical athletic students involved in mainstream sports e.g. Basketball/American football
President Bill Clinton May 15th 1999, speaking at a conference on Youth Violence
Masculinities, Violence and Culture – Suzanne E. Hatty, 2000 Sage Publications
Taken from response from Laura Finley in a letter dated 2nd December 2002 – see appendix B
See appendix B for full song lyrics and background information
All quotes, unless otherwise stated, taken from an article in Q magazine issue 45.
Jim Carroll – Writer, The Basketball Diaries in an interview for CNN.
Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America John D’Emillo and Estelle Freedman
Tom Dewe Matthews The Guardian April 4th 1998 in article titled: Ban it? But we never ban any films in Britain
Genesis 4:8 – ‘Later Cain suggested to his brother, Abel, ‘‘Let’s go out into the fields.’’ And while they were there, Cain attacked and killed his brother.’ Taken from New Living Translation © Tyndale 1997
Wartella Literature Review
Sociology by Anthony Giddens © 1997 Polity Press Ltd.
Buckingham, ed. Barker and Petley, 1997
Sociology by Anthony Giddens © 1997 Polity Press Ltd.
