In West Philadelphia, Born and Raised......you know the rest!

In west Philadelphia, born and raised
On a playground is where I spent most of my days
Chillin’out, maxin and relaxin, all cool and all
Shootin some B-ball….

Anyone that knows where this B-Ball shooting occured either:
1. Remembers back when violence wasn’t a key component of television
OR
2. Is aware that such a time may have existed.

You may also know that the original Mario doesn’t bleed, he only shrinks, that water guns were an acceptable toy for a child, and that “I’m going to kill him!” is not a legally punishable threat, but only an expression meaning that you are highly frustrated at someone. I wonder: What has caused us, as a society, to promote violence so much? Extensive psychological research has proven that exposure to violence causes less inhibition of violent responses at a later time, yet we do nothing. Here’s some of the things that I think may have influenced the change.

Earlier Desensitization
Exposure to violence causes less of a “shocked” reaction in the future. One of my thoughts is that perhaps a slow increase in violence has caused a greater acceptance of violence in general. The first video games, for example, essentially involved a little square knocking chunks out of a big rectangle. Now, you can pick up hoes, shoot people at a very close range with a realistic effect, and steal cars on many video games.

More Media Coverage
Why would anyone fly a plane into a building, open fire on a school only to commit suicide minutes later, or leave bomb threats at government offices? One reason is for attention. In earlier days, if homicide, bombings, or hostage situations occurred, the public may never know it happened. Now, such information is spread around the world in a matter of minutes. Drama sells, and public scares sell even better. Increased media coverage is both good and bad- citizens have a right to know about violent occurrences, but could the images of these occurrences be withheld in many instances?

The Ideas Are All Gone!
One of my ideas behind violence is that all of the great, entertaining ideas have already been overplayed. This does not pertain to most of us- the educated, but to the general population. Musicals, sitcoms, and comedies about roommates just aren’t entertaining anymore. They’ve all been overplayed, and no longer sell. Violent images, however, do sell. They shock and awe, but with each exposure the viewer becomes less shocked at the same image. The majority can handle it enough to not repeat the violent event, but are still subconsciously affected by the image and could eventually accept the image as non-startling. Over a few generations, images such as those in the Saw I, II, and III movie series are no longer repulsive or shocking. As for the small minority of people who cannot view such images without repeating the events DO participate in acts of violence, which gains media attention, and further fuels the cycle.

Violent images have a profound effect on society as a whole. Whether we realize it or not, we become more and more accustomed to violence with each exposure. I am unsure how we should begin to approach the issue legally, but we must be aware of it. The Fresh Prince never dreamed of school shootings and terrorism- using spraypaint as deodorant and being spun around by a couple of guys, who happened to be up to no good, was enough to get him shipped off to Bel-Air.

Thanks for reading, and please take the time to rate my blog if you found yourself singing the Fresh Prince theme song in your head or out loud, or even if you had to look up the lyrics. 

Some interesting things to look at, especially if you wish to argue that violence does not affect psychological response:
http://www.elsevier.com/authored_subject_sections/S05/S05_361/misc/JESP_...
http://www.du.edu/psychology/undergraduate/Peyton_sr_thesis_2004.pdf
http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2005/Dec05/r120505
http://louisville.edu/~bscolw01/paper2.html

Share this post on:

 •    •    •    •    •