( Ten minute read)
Even as violence is a concept that has long accompanied humanity, it is no easy task to make sense of what it is, or how it is exercised.
Ancient Romans flocked to carnage in the Colosseum.
Even the most brutal acts committed by our ancient ancestors pale in comparison to the organized assaults countries have executed in the last century alone.
Ongoing wars and human right violations suggest that we are living in one of the most vicious times in history.
The relationship between violent media and real-world violence has been the subject of extensive debate and considerable academic research, yet the core question is far from answered.
Portrayals of violence can manufacture our consent with government policies, encourage us to endorse the legitimacy of state power and state violence, and help determine who are “worthy victims”.
Results from the two studies suggest that socialization models of media violence may be inadequate to our understanding of the interaction between media and consumer behaviour at least in regard to serious violence.
Our media outlets from News to Gaming – Movies – Net flicks – Social Media – are saturated with violence.
More than 100 million people watched the gory Netflix show, Squid Game.
Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice wins Game Beyond entertainment.
This is a bit like benign masochism, the enjoyment of aversive, painful experiences in a safe context.
Whether or not screen violence is bad for us has been extensively studied and there are reasons to reconsider how much we like watching violence per se.
For example, violence creates tension and suspense, which may be what people find appealing. Another possibility is that it is action, not violence, which people enjoy. That it is violence being deemed off-limits that makes it appealing. It may be that it is justified punishment, rather than violence, that we enjoy watching.
All this suggests that media companies may be giving us violence that many of us don’t want or need.
—————–
We should hence consider what other corporate, political or ideological pressures may be encouraging onscreen violence globally causing us to become disconnected with reality.
Movies lie about the real impact of violence on the human body – with almost 90% of violent actions showing no realistic physical consequences to the victim.
The west won the world not by the superiority of its ideas … but rather by its superiority in applying organised violence.
————-
The question of how humans came to be domesticated — at the will of a deity, independently, as some sort of evolved trait — has plagued philosophers and scientists for hundreds of years.
It is tempting to try to answer this question by invoking biology and genetics, arguing that humanity is wired to be violent.
Whether humans will ever live in a violent-free, as digital technologies—such as social media platforms—become increasingly central to our daily existence they have become essential components in how violence is enacted and experienced. Indeed, as access to and use of social media continue to expand across the world so does the violence enacted through these digital platforms become more common.
For proof of that, just turn on your TV to the evening news and watch murder in all its forms.
What lies behind these episodes. Perhaps, some have argued, our intelligence and systems of culture, such as laws and social norms, are all that are holding that innate violence in check.
How good and evil may have come to co-exist in our unique species. Are humans, by nature, good or evil? The question has split opinions since people began philosophising. We have a low propensity for impulsive aggression, and a high propensity for premeditated aggression.
It raises a deeper question: Why did such an unusual combination of virtue and violence evolve?
A deeper understanding of how and why violence emerges, or doesn’t, might help us achieve a less violent future—or at least one in which we can better comprehend and manage our violence.
41% of people in the United States of America have suffered online harassment, from physical threats (14%) and sexual harassment (11%) to name-calling (31%).
But violence in digital environments is not only expanding, it is also becoming more complex as the evolving affordances, structures, and cultures of contemporary digital environments increase their scale, speed, reach, and visibility (Backe et al., 2018).
For instance, violence on social media is found in the new ways cultural and informational wars are enacted and deployed in the United States filled with school shootings and mugging and terrorist attacks and wars.
——————–
It is a widespread phenomenon that directly or indirectly affects many aspects of our lives.
Nonetheless, digital manifestations of violence are often thought to be less “real,” “serious,” or “harmful” than those enacted face-to-face (Dunn, 2021).
Capitalism is a dirty word for many intellectuals but there are a number of studies showing that open economies and free trade are negatively correlated with genocide and war.
Warfare provides people with a semblance of psychological positivity in oppressed societies where other outlets are lacking.
Any stable, lasting peace depends on creating societies with a richness of opportunity and variety that can meet human needs. The fact that so many societies throughout the world fail to do this makes our future prospects of peace look very bleak.
War and other destructive capabilities are merely the flip side of the same uniquely human faculty that has enabled us to coexist peacefully, to innovate, to travel in space and shape our world.
The evolution of entertainment into a global landscape signifies a world where cultural boundaries blur, and creativity knows no limits. In today’s interconnected world, the entertainment industry has expanded its reach, influencing and captivating audiences worldwide with diverse content and experiences.
Entertainment has transcended geographical boundaries, morphing into a global phenomenon that unites people across cultures, languages, and continents.
Social media is cursed with pervasive and impactful harmful content. Can we imagine addressing only part of this violence without considering the rest?
Can we continue to feign not to see that all of these forms of violence mutually reinforce one another.
Film and television have long been seen as legitimate and powerful means to educate, inspire and empower wider society. To deliver a transformational experience beyond pure entertainment – whether that is to raise awareness through empathy and emotional impact, to engage with real world problems, or to make the world a better place.
The prevalence of war, not just its persistence, could now be our future.
The past two years have seen the most conflicts of any time since the end of the Second World War.
(The list encompasses not just the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, but hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh, Serbian military measures against Kosovo, fighting in Eastern Congo, complete turmoil in Sudan since April, and a fragile cease-fire in Tigray that Ethiopia seems poised to break at any time. Syria and Yemen have not exactly been quiet during this period, and gangs and cartels continuously menace governments, including those in Haiti and Mexico. All of this comes on top of the prospect of a major war breaking out in East Asia, such as by China invading the island of Taiwan.)
What happens when a smart TV becomes too smart for its own good?
The answer, it seems, is more intrusive advertisements.
Reaching beyond video to monopolise the attention of audiences in the home TV violence increases aggression and social anxiety, cultivates a “mean view” of the world, and negatively impacts real-world behaviour.
We are exposed to social media violence just by being there.
The amount of violent content has helped normalise aggression. The reality is that social media platforms have got a lot to answer for. In practically every situation where we’ve seen violence happen there has been some sort of connection with an online platform in some form.
Why are these social media platforms not being held to account?
Why are we so scared of asking really difficult questions and why are these social media platforms not putting more money back in the communities that are being affected by violence?
We don’t fully know the impact of social media.
But social media and the fact that something that is say in passing becomes written down, causes what might have been nothing to become something.
For most violence isn’t at all normal, but there is a proportion whose lives are far too full of violence because of inequality and poverty.
The key driver of violence.
————
But what about games?
As our younger industry matures, what role should games play in reflecting and commenting on the world around us?
Already we have a number of implications that will define the future shape of the online entertainment market. As society seeks answers in the media they trust, streaming devices are now everywhere, pouring news into social media 7/7
People in entertainment, tries to make something for everyone/to make the most profit instead of making what they want, so personality and quality takes a hit.
There is definitely a cultural degradation taking place.
Violence is an almost ubiquitous phenomenon in contemporary digital environments.
Games beyond entertainment.
The advent of video games raise new questions about the potential impact of media violence, since the video game player is an active participant rather than merely a viewer. Video games that involve assuming the roles of aggressors or soldiers offer players the opportunity to be “virtual perpetrators.”
Rewarding players for successfully carrying out violent behaviour.
Online gaming communities, esports tournaments, and multiplayer platforms enable players worldwide to engage, compete, and connect in virtual worlds. Digital platforms have revolutionized entertainment accessibility. Social media influencers transcend borders, shaping entertainment trends and culture on a global scale, such as cultural sensitivities, censorship, and legal barriers that can hinder the free flow of content across borders.
There are fewer empirical studies of video game violence than other forms of media violence. Still, several meta-analytic reviews have reported negative effects of exposure to violence in video games.
Content matters. much of the research into video game violence has failed to control for other variables such as mental health and family life, which may have impacted the results.
Given that effects on individual users may differ widely, policy discussion should be more focused on “more pressing” issues that influence violence in society such as poverty or mental health.
Rest assured that entertainment will need to master new forms of interactive entertainment — whether in video games, sports betting or the more social and communications-based services that thrive on smartphones — to keep audiences hooked.
There was no such thing as YouTube its their Tube.
U Tube now has a War Channel created to appeal military enthusiasts around the world; offering viewers hours of programming on the American Civil war, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Ukraine and all.
————————-
Why are people less imaginative?
Because we all have the internet and other high-information sources that fill in the gaps for us.
Story telling, character-building, authenticity, and originality have all gone out the window, as entertainment has become largely an industry as opposed to a genuine creative outlet.
Game makers have the opportunity – and responsibility – to offer their players an appropriate and powerful means to get close to challenging issues or subject matter.
Games are brilliant at engendering empathy by allowing you to experience the life of other people first hand. As game makers and storytellers we have the ability to take our audiences to places they haven’t been or to feel things they have yet to experience.
There’s the possibility of vertical escalation—meaning that Russia would use more advanced weapons, including nuclear weapons—on the battlefield. And there is the possibility of horizontal escalation, the war spilling over to other countries.
What if anything can be done?
Here are a few key recommendations, which includes improve regulations and legislation for social media companies, greater responsibility so tech companies are held accountable for inaction, and for young people to be involved in panels that are consulted on tackling online harms and the development of games, new content and online spaces.
Legislation in relation to social media platforms is needed, but it is one aspect in an array of required measures, including education, the need to address social inequalities, the need for transparency by companies, by governments who should be constantly aware of how fake violence on our screens serves real violence in our world.
Why?
Because exposure to media violence can desensitize people to violence in the real world.
Yes, its true that for some people, watching violence in the media becomes enjoyable and does not result in the anxious arousal that would be expected from seeing such imagery , but society as a whole is another question.
An average American youth will witness 200,000 violent acts on television before age
18. 46% of television violence occurs in cartoons.
———–
The prevalence and impact of violence portrayed in media and entertainment and the near-ubiquitous portrayals of violence in various forms of media must remained a topic of intense scrutiny.
Fear is what, anxiety and depression, wars, domestic violence, relationship breakdowns, child abuse, terrorism, mass shootings, self-harm and all forms of violence towards oneself and others have in common.
All comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin
Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com
bobdillon33blog 