Taking the Rap
Mark Greene considers the violence on our streets and on our screens and offers a few guidelines for media-lovers.
God hates violence.
But there is an awful lot of it around. On our streets, in our clubs and in our bedrooms.
God hates violence (eg Psalm11:5) but there is an awful lot of it in our music, our films, our TV programmes, our computer games, our books. Gore sells. And, as the Royal Academy’s Aztec exhibition demonstrates, it sells museum tickets as well as video nasties. And it sells the Horrible Histories as well as horrible hip-hop.
God hates violence, but if you believe everyone, no one is to blame.
“It’s not the movies,” says Hollywood, as an axe scythes through the air into a skull in Scorcese’s unremittingly bloodspurting Gangs of New York. “It’s not the games we play,” say the games-publishers as a joy-rider takes a chainsaw to a prostitute in Grand Theft Auto Vice City. “It’s not the TV,” say the programmers. “It’s not the music,” claim the music business with label names like Murder Inc. and Death Row. “It’s not the schools,” says the schools. And “It’s not the parents,” say the parents. When it comes to violence no one is prepared to take the rap.
And of course it’s very hard to prove that it is any one of these.
Meanwhile, back in the land of the living, at least 65 children have been named ‘Chardonnay’ in the last year or so. This, of course, has nothing to do with the fact that there was a television programme called Footballers Wives with a character called Chardonnay in it. Rather, it has to do with the fact that Chardonnay sales are growing and that Chardonnay is considerably easier to say than Gewurztraminer.
And there’s the problem in the great debate about the relationship between the media/arts and social behaviour: Just because a Texas chainsaw slice of hip-hop music contains lyrics that glorify violence does not necessarily mean that black people who listen to it are more likely to commit violent acts. Black youth crime might be higher because a black youth is five times more likely to be unemployed, or more likely not to have a father living at home, or more likely to have grown up in poverty and be living in poverty. Or because, as commentators put it in the Black newspaper, The Voice, because there are no positive role models, because there is too much “disrespectful” TV, or because, according to Bob Law, a black American musician, the music business is controlled by people who censor out the “nourishing” lyrics of even well-respected artists and demand material that’s more on the edge. “Bling, bling, you’re dead, I’m rich.” Human behaviour is complex. Societies are complex. Rhyme don’t necessarily lead to crime. Stereotyping hip-hop as irredeemably evil invites ridicule, but ignoring some of its homophobic, misogynistic, nihilistic, savagery is irresponsible – it’s telling us something.
So what do we know about the relationship between arts/media and social behaviour? And how might that affect what we take in ourselves and what we encourage others to take in? Well, here is a concise guide.
1. Media influences
Academics argue about the extent and nature of media/arts influence but advertisers, politicians, propagandists and preachers know that attitudes, behaviour, lifestyles can be changed by communications, and that this can be done directly and indirectly. Product placement in films is an example. In Minority Report, no one says anything about Calvin Klein jeans. It is not even clear that anyone is wearing Calvin Klein jeans but Calvin Klein paid a great deal of money to ensure that it was their brand on display in the mall in Minority Report. Presence alone creates awareness and validates the brand. Business believes it and puts their money where the media is. Media influences - not always and not everyone. And not always in the same way. And not always predictably. But it influences.
2. Media reflects and shapes culture
The age-old question about whether media either reflects or forms culture sets up a false polarity. They do both. Media, the arts, games tend to reflect the concerns and preoccupations of their own times – even if they are set in the past (Lord of the Rings) or the future (The Matrix). At the same time, communications will serve, by their very nature, to reinforce or change attitudes and behaviour. Fill the newspapers with reports about Kosovo, and, lo and behold, the public will tell you that they are very concerned about Kosovo. Fill the papers with reports about Beckham’s foot and, lo and behold, research will indicate that people are not so concerned about Kosovo – whatever the factual situation on the ground. There is usually a relationship between what people are made to be conscious of and what they are concerned about.
3. There is no such thing as value-free media, films, books, games.
All communication contains values and whether or not they intend to change anyone else’s values they will serve to reinforce their own values or demolish competing values.
4. It is very difficult to prove a direct link between broad social trends and a single influence – eg violence in video games and violence generally.
Academic researchers have tried and tried but not convinced anyone. Nevertheless,
it is very difficult to deny that Western societies have become more violent, less moral, less respectful of other people’s dignity, rights, etc. The correlation between rising media violence and rising social violence does not prove causation. But correlation may well indicate a contribution. And a lot of little contributions all add together to produce a media-scape dominated by murder and violence – Die Another Day, 8 Mile, Gangs of New York, Midsomer Murders, The Bill – and the real life murders of Charlene Ellis and Latisha Shakespeare. And the real-life statistics on gun crime and gun-ownership.
5. Media, books, games, films, art contribute to the public imagination – they define social possibilities and social taboos.
Martin Sorrell, the head of WPP, the world’s largest advertising and PR conglomerate, described advertising, as “managing the imagination.” He recognises that the core of the commercial communications task is to help individuals imagine how their identity and sense of self might be reinforced or altered by the purchase and display of the product. As such, advertising suggests that particular attitudes and behaviours are praiseworthy and then associates those with the product. “Ashamed of your mobile?” asks the ad. Owning a naff mobile is as bad a social gaff as burping in the mouth of a girl as you kiss for the first time. Naff mobile, naff human.
A predominance of certain kinds of behaviour or certain kinds of heroes in the media will in time tend to define a society’s criteria for social acceptability, success and heroism. Ask any teenage girl what she’s meant to look like and she’ll tell you. Go into a shop and look for clothes for teenage girls that are moderately modest, yet stylish and fun and affordable, and see if you can find many. Girls dress like that because that’s the way girls have been shown they are meant to dress. And because those are the clothes that are available to them.
Cultures work to define the limits of acceptable behaviour. There is reward for acceptable behaviour, punishment for breaking taboos. Most cultures seek to pass on modes of behaviour that preserve their culture, rather than destroy it. Broadcast media, however, have a preference for conflict and extreme situations. In any individual soap opera, for example, there may be good reasons why a particular character commits adultery and why the response of the other characters leads to general mayhem, acrimony, assault and divorce. But the fact that almost all soap operas present a relatively narrow and often extreme range of responses does not necessarily help real people work out how to resolve such situations in their real lives.
People get their models and their ideas about how to behave from somewhere and if the only models they have are negative, then it is more likely that they will behave that way.
7. The positive or negative moral qualities of material is not primarily determined by the nature of the content but by the perspective of the material towards its content and its impact on people.
Shakespeare’s plays are full of murder and violence but the plays don’t glorify murder. Indeed, violence is inherent in much of the great art of Western civilisation, but it is the attitude of the artist to the violence and the purpose of the material that marks it out as moral or immoral.
So, for example, the controversy that surrounded the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan is a controversy about whether the shocking intensity of battle either:
a. helped people to understand more clearly the horror of battle, the randomness of death, and the courage of those who fought
or
b. glorified the violence and trivialised the human sacrifice.
In Saving Private Ryan Spielberg’s intention was to pose a question to the audience: “Were you worth saving? Were you worthy of such suffering and sacrifice?” This is entirely different from a traditional action movie where the consequences of the carnage are deliberately suppressed, where violence is turned into fun, or even a form of ballet, as in, for example, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or The Matrix. Nevertheless, there is often only a thin red line between gratuitous violence and justifiable shock.
So, for example, the extreme violence of Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs could be justified by reference to the film’s important insight into the persistence of the moral, self-sacrificial dimension in human beings – even criminals. Everyone in the final shoot-out is prepared to risk death to try to save another person for love or a moral principle. But did Tarantino really have to slice off ears to make this point? Indeed, artistic intention does not in itself justify graphic violence because the artist may fail. So Sir David Putnam made what he thought was an anti-violence film. He then sat in an ordinary cinema and saw how the audience responded. The audience gloried in the gore. He vowed never again to use movie violence in an attempt to counter social violence.
8. The argument that great art always breaks taboos is bogus.
Breakthrough great art tends to shows us new things about the nature of reality or to use new techniques to surprise us into seeing things afresh but it does not necessarily need to break social taboos to do so.
9. Some social taboos need breaking because they diminish our ability to flourish as human beings.
The suppression of all discussion or portrayal of human sexuality in the arts would be a denial of our humanity and the Biblical revelation about the nature of human beings. Individuals and communities need to be able to communicate about sexuality and the media and arts should be vehicles for developing understanding.
10. In the censorship argument, the moral debate focuses on the issues of truth, freedom of human expression, human understanding and the development of a ‘better’ society – variously defined.
The Bible obviously shares those concerns. Indeed, the question of whether the material will help human beings flourish or wither is critical. So a number of criteria emerge:
* Is what is being portrayed true?
Is it true that violence has no consequences? That sexual promiscuity is likely to make you healthier? And more likely to develop long-term stable relationships? Or even have a more satisfying sex life? Not according to the research.
Neither Biblical material nor the great Christian writers have avoided violence or sex as vital themes but they have sought to place them in a broader moral and more realistic context based on ideas about the infinite value of human beings and their bodies. Violence may be necessary but it is never ideal. God may wreak destruction on the Canaanites but he gets no pleasure from it. They too were created in his image.
* Does the material edify?
For example:
* Does it lead us to the truth? E.g. Shakespeare’s Macbeth
* Does it help us understand the world better in order to live in it better?
* Will it serve to build better or poorer relationships?
* Does it help us see consequences of good behaviour and bad behaviour?
* Does it provide a range of imaginative possibilities for the resolution of conflict, giving and receiving
forgiveness, the building of relationships and communities?
* Does it develop the skills required to live in the contemporary world?
* Does it honour what is good?
* Does it help us overcome evil with good?
The Bible is tough on crime and on the causes of crime. And the root cause of crime is sinful human nature. The word of God is searingly realistic about human nature – that is that we fail. Sanitised, Walton-esque portrayals of family life may portray an ideal but they may be less successful at helping people live that ideal than The Simpsons which reflects much more truthfully the complexities of family life.
* The Bible recognises the need to understand the mechanisms of evil and of temptation but it calls for a focus on the good, not as a form of escapism but as a means of promoting behaviour and responses that build the good. So, for example, Philippians 4:8:
“Finally, brothers and sisters,
whatever is true
whatever is noble
whatever is right
whatever is pure
whatever is lovely
whatever is admirable –
if anything is excellent
or praiseworthy -
think about these things.”
It is very easy to see how Saving Private Ryan’s depiction of the sacrifices on Omaha Beach clearly reflect many of those categories. Equally, it is hard to see how Grand Theft Auto fits any.
This focus on the good as a means of overcoming evil also applies to the argument sometimes forwarded that the enjoyment of media violence is an appropriate safety valve for violent impulses that would otherwise manifest themselves in real violence. It may be true that it does act in this way but that does not mean that this a healthy mechanism for dealing with anger. Unrighteous anger, vengefulness are sins that need to be confessed and cleansed, not channelled into fantasy violence.
* The Bible recognises that not all material is helpful for all people and that whilst some people’s sleep may be unperturbed by watching Friday the 13th others would wake up for years with nightmares.
So, as Paul knew, some people could not eat meat offered to idols, and some could. (I Corinthians 8:4-9) We need to be “careful that the exercise of our freedom does not become a stumbling block to” others. We should never tell people that they ought to be able to watch particular kinds of material just because we can without, we believe, compromising our holiness.
* Nothing is perfect.
No piece of literature or game is likely to be morally perfect – or indeed to generate invariably morally perfect responses. Human beings are fallen, partial in their insight, and highly variable in the way they interpret and respond to stimuli. This doesn’t mean we should stop seeking to express ourselves through media etc but it does mean we should do so with caution as well as exuberance, with humility as well as enthusiasm.
God hates violence. And in writing this article I’ve realised that there is something in me that still likes it in its artistic expressions. It is soul cocaine. Poisonous but thrilling. In Popcorn Ben Elton’s advice about TV violence was to tell us to turn off our TVs. Yes, we need to deal with the violence in our hearts and we need to deal with the violence on our streets. They are connected. As clearly as anger and murder.
This article first appeared in Christianity & Renewal in June 2003 and is reproduced by kind permission.
Comments
There are currently no comments for this article.
