For all the violence, crime and exploitation of women and children on the news, on television, in popular novels and television shows, is the media really to blame for the alleged rise in violence in children and adolescents? As Sissela Bok reveals in her essay Aggression: the Impact of Media Violence, there is no definitive link between violence in media and aggression in children. “How can anyone definitively pinpoint the link between media violence and acts of real life violence? If not, how can we know is exposure to media violence constitutes a risk in the first place?” (Bok, p. 88) The only real issue I can divine from this essay is the fact that media and ‘Hollywood’ glamorizes violence and aggression through popular culture. The question I raise then is who is to blame for the exposure of children to this violent media?
Bok states in her essay that figures from crime say that violent crimes reached a peak in 1990 and started a downturn in 1992, while violence in the media has only escalated since then. This in itself is, if not proof, then at least a suggestion that violence is definitely not the sole reason behind aggression and violence in adolescents. Bok includes a quotation from psychiatrist Brandon S. Centerwall:
Of course, there are many factors other than television that influence the amount of violent crime. Every violent act is a result of a variety of forces coming together – poverty, crime, alchohol, and drug abuse, stress – of which childhood TV exposure is just one.
This again proves that while exposure to violent media may be a small factor in the aggression levels of children, but there are numerous other variables that make it almost impossible to determine the effects of violent media exposures and aggression levels.
One of the biggest issues concerning violence in media is the glamorization and desensitization to violence and aggression. It is commonly accepted that the more violence children, teens and even adults see in the media, the less they understand it for what it is. “There is a near unanimity by now among investigators that exposure to media violence contributes to lowering barriers to aggression among some viewers. This lowering of barriers may be assisted by the failure to empathy that comes with growing desensitization, and intensified to the extent that viewers develop an appetite for violence – something that may lead to still greater desire for violent programs and in turn even greater desensitization” (Bok, p. 86). This desensitization could be perceived and even mistaken as a want for violence in real life.
I believe that the reason children may become violent or have violent tendencies after viewing so many hours of violent related media is entirely the fault of that child’s parents. I remember being explicitly told when I was younger not to watch certain tv programs because they were inappropriate for my age. While this seemed unfair and even mean at the time, I did not question the rules and certainly followed them. To this day I do not enjoy programs that feature coarse, uncouth language and humour, and I distinctly do not like overly violent movies. This is a direct result of my parenting and upbringing as a child. I believe that parents who allow their children to watch these types of programs can only blame themselves when (and if) these children start to develop aggressive tendencies. In essence, irresponsible parenting will lead to irresponsible children, and the cycle will continue until something happens to break said cycle.
In conclusion, as Bok says in her essay, there is no definite connection between violence in the media and violence in youth. If the media is not the cause of this violence, then who is? Who should be the one to take the blame? I say parents and guardians are solely responsible for what their children are exposed to via the media entity, how about you?
I think you have done a great interpretation of Bok's work. In my opinion, the parent's contribution, or lack of, is key in the development of violence and agression in their children. The fact that your parents didn't allow you to watch certain types of programs shows that they took an interest in what you were doing and how you were spending your time. Maybe this alone helped to shape you as a more peaceful person. If parents simply plunk kids in front of the TV, it may not be the violence they watch that makes them more aggressive, but the lack of time and attention from their parents. Could it be that if parents just pay more attention to what their kids are doing, whatever that is, the kids will be less aggressive? Maybe the agression is a cry for attention?
ReplyDeleteHi Jessica,
ReplyDeleteI liked the strong tone of this entry. You have a commitment to good parenting that shines through your words. I'm glad to see you quoting the text and citing your work (Bok 87). Please note that MLA style has no comma between name and page, and no p. I just thought I'd point that out while I had your attention.
In your analysis, you point out that there is no definitive correlation between violent programming and violent acts, and yet you seem to agree with Bok that even with no definitive proof, it is still something we need to look at as a society. As you say, your parents protected you from watching too much violence. Do we really need a scientic study to tell us that watching violence at too early an age can lead to problems? These are some excellent questions to raise in your analysis.