[PLUG-TALK] morality in media

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Chuck Mize wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 05:53, anonymous wrote:
> <snip yet another incoherent rant>
>
> Why would you care about anybody's morality other than your own?

That's kind of what I was wondering.  I'm all for morality for one's
self and I can make some solid arguments for both a moral and ethical code
that each individual should follow.  But I see the proper way of fighting
perceived immorality as raising awareness and refining tastes in others.
Temptations will always exist.  Banning immoral television or outlawing
drugs doesn't do much at all to curb human appetites (folks are still
going to peek under bedroom doors or spin around in the front yard until
they fall down -- you find a way to get your kicks if you must).

I recently read about a study where children's eyes were tracked as they
watched violence on television.  Interestingly, they didn't really look
directly at the actions taking place as the focus of attention.  They
didn't watch closely as a hand punched a face or as a bullet entered a
body.  They watched the faces.  And, surprisingly, they spent as much time
studying the faces of the on-lookers and fellow viewers as they did the
participants.  It was found that they base their reaction (and, hence,
their later judgment of the material) on the reactions of the folks
present, real or fictional.

I make it a point, now, to treat violence as real regardless of the
context.  By forcing a certain suspension of disbelief and allowing myself
to react as though it were a real event (as well as I can, of course), I
get a better understanding of what is missing in the second-hand
experience of viewing television or playing video games.  (I favor
first-hand experience, of course, wherever possible.  Those poor
cul-de-sac'd kids never have a chance.  No sidewalks, no safe cycling...
they're stuck in their dead-end suburbs with no culture and no meaningful
interaction until they can drive... then they go to the mall because it's
kind of like the basement of their house, but with more people.)

Now, I'm not disgusted by sex as a rule.  Hell, no.  I like, it, in fact.
But I don't like ALL sexual depictions and I think we've become as inured
to demeaning or violent images of exploited sexual power as we have
physical force.  Again, though, I think the appropriate response is open
discussion of the particular instances and circumstances to get other
people thinking about the issue and perhaps learning from their input
yourself.

Anyway, open discussion is the key.  Maybe some of my comments might spur
a bit of that, but really I don't think you get as much out of talking
about television violence or sex in the abstract as you would picking one
particular instance of shared (false) experience and picking it apart to
the satisfaction of all involved in the discussion.  That is to say, there
isn't much to be said about the topic generally.

People have always drifted toward prurient entertainment.  It is as old as
leisure time.

You won't catch me spouting some authoritarian agenda, however.  No sir.
That is a cure much worse than any social disease (and quite literally the
ONLY cure most people can imagine to social ills).  I'll go on and on
about what I think is wrong and what should stop happening and, in some
cases, I might use a phrase like "it should be stopped", but that's not to
imply that I want it to be ILLEGAL.

I'm pretty comfortable with "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the
law", but I also think that we should create a world where what a person
wills is measured harshly against the needs of other living things.  This
is just plain old responsibility taken personally.

So, I think it's irresponsible to depict violence of any form without the
proper context of horror and revulsion that it should inspire in people.
I think it's just as irresponsible to view such things without at least
trying to feel the horror and revulsion toward the violence that is
appropriate.

A dear friend and I went to the movies the other night.  There was a
trailer for a new Denzel Washington picture.  In the movie advertized, a
little girl is kidnapped (or maybe killed... it was unclear to me) and her
bodyguard (portrayed by DW -- apparently she's the spawn of some powerful
person or other) goes on a spree of killing and destruction in a
combination of retaliation, vengeance, and punishment that is just
disturbing as all hell (it may also be a rescue mission, but that wasn't
totally clear to me, either).  There is a line in this movie that goes
something like, "Killing is his medium... and he's about to create his
masterpiece" (this is spoken by a character in the film, not a tagline in
voice-over).  The girl watching the movie with me said, "Oh, great... that
cute little girl is just an excuse for hate and violence."  Ahd that's
exactly how I saw it.  This was a celebration of misanthropy and will to
destroy, maim, kill, and manipulate other human beings.  There was a thin
rationale of vengeance or rescue or whatever, but that is only so much
McGuffin.

Maybe the most immoral thing in modern culture is the concept of the "bad
guys".

I'm kind of rambling to avoid work at the moment.  I'll shut up for now.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org