Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA15312 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 15 Apr 2002 14:11:33 +0100 Message-ID: <570E2BEE7BC5A34684EE5914FCFC368C10FC22@fillan.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: media violence report in Science Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:59:55 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Filter-Info: UoS MailScan 0.1 [D 1] X-MailScanner: Found to be clean Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Sorry to butt in. Still playing catch-up.
<Up until quite recently societies have been quite violent on a day
to day
> basis. In the late 19C and 20C the advent of law and order has generally
> made living a lot safer, and people are not exposed to violence. With the
> advent of the visual image you could be introducing children to a
> predisposed propensity to violence that ocurs in the presence of certain
> stimuli.>
>
You could, but since one can't even predict whether exposure to
real/actualy violence will lead individuals to commit violence, how could
mediated violence do so? Besides the point about pre-media societies being
violent, indeed more violent than contemporary society is an argument
against media causing violence- indeed, it's an argument for the
diametrically opposite view, the catharsis view that media violence sates
human's desire for violence and thus stops us doing it. (I don't really buy
that either, as it still suffers from a simple behavioural effects model,
but there you go).
<Remember that in films, shoot 'em up games etc the victims and
protagonists
> turn up again. Either the game gets replayed or the actors make another
> film.>
>
But studies of children show that kids, even quite young kids are
able to recognise this (e.g. the work of David Buckingham).
<Also, the military is quite good at conditioning people to do
amazingly
> dangerous things. If soldiers can be conditioned why are children immune?>
>
Because soldiers (and kids in classrooms, say) have their
environments physically manipulated by other human beings. A recruit can't
turn the drill instructor off, but a kid (or adult) can turn the TV off, or
walk away. Also teachers and drill instructors are persistently and
deliberately trying to impart particular ideas and behaviour into their
respective audiences, audience who are at least supposed to be motivated (by
other social pressures, like family etc.) to pay attention and do what
they're told. None of that is true for the media- advertising is
increasingly a competition for attention the teacher should have the child's
undivided attention. Conditioning via the TV, or other media source, just
doesn't wash.
Vincent
-- The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the University of Stirling shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.=============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 15 2002 - 14:46:12 BST