Essay Question # 4
Topic #4: Discuss the merits of this statement: "Violence on television is th eleading cause of crime committed by today's youth!"
Reponse (rough draft, unedited):
There is historical and scientific precedence in both human and animal behavior for the following thesis: the degree of affectionate physical bonding during childhood and adolescence correlates negatively with the degree of violence exhibited by the individual. During a presentation to the National Institutes of Health, Dr. James Prescott was able to use levels of affectionate bonding during childhood and adolescence to predict the degrees of violent behavior in 49 separate cultures with 100% accuracy. Desensitization through television is a largely impotent force in the face of sensitization through affection and physical bonding.
The argument of causality between violence on television and criminal behavior in youth is often followed closely by calls for censorship or repression of the violent material. While the relatively new connection between television and criminal behavior is hotly debated, the connection between violence and paradigms that support repression is a historically significant one. Whether expressed physically or socially, violence is a natural result of repression and cultural rigidity. The stresses of zealotry and self-denial can be clearly traced through puritanical colonial America, Victorian England, and many Bedouin cultures. The solution to violence, then, is not to censor or repress its expressions in popular media, but to undermine them in the home.
One of the most universal wisdoms is “I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand,” quoted from Confucius. The primary cause of criminal behavior should be looked for in the immediate environment that dictates the actions, not in the relatively superficial sensory experiences of television.
To commit a violent act presupposes that the target of the violent act has been dehumanized, or that the aggressor is acting naively. The former case is a question of to what degree the aggressor is able to empathize with the target- the root of which is found in childhood bonding and expressions of affection. The latter case is a lack of understanding, the answer to which lies not in restricting material but in educating children on its merits and implications.
It is undeniable that exhibited behavior can influence the behavior of an individual. It may even be possible that imitation of behavior on television contributes to some crime. To argue that violence on television is the leading cause, though, one must first answer the question of how this weaker, indirect influence was able to overcome the direct influence of familial and peer behavior. The standards of this question make self-evident the fallacious basis of the claim that violence on television is the leading cause of crime. To attribute juvenile delinquency to violence on television is, at best, misguided. At worst, it is an argument that supports the paradigms of repression that contribute to the underlying problem.
Reponse (rough draft, unedited):
There is historical and scientific precedence in both human and animal behavior for the following thesis: the degree of affectionate physical bonding during childhood and adolescence correlates negatively with the degree of violence exhibited by the individual. During a presentation to the National Institutes of Health, Dr. James Prescott was able to use levels of affectionate bonding during childhood and adolescence to predict the degrees of violent behavior in 49 separate cultures with 100% accuracy. Desensitization through television is a largely impotent force in the face of sensitization through affection and physical bonding.
The argument of causality between violence on television and criminal behavior in youth is often followed closely by calls for censorship or repression of the violent material. While the relatively new connection between television and criminal behavior is hotly debated, the connection between violence and paradigms that support repression is a historically significant one. Whether expressed physically or socially, violence is a natural result of repression and cultural rigidity. The stresses of zealotry and self-denial can be clearly traced through puritanical colonial America, Victorian England, and many Bedouin cultures. The solution to violence, then, is not to censor or repress its expressions in popular media, but to undermine them in the home.
One of the most universal wisdoms is “I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand,” quoted from Confucius. The primary cause of criminal behavior should be looked for in the immediate environment that dictates the actions, not in the relatively superficial sensory experiences of television.
To commit a violent act presupposes that the target of the violent act has been dehumanized, or that the aggressor is acting naively. The former case is a question of to what degree the aggressor is able to empathize with the target- the root of which is found in childhood bonding and expressions of affection. The latter case is a lack of understanding, the answer to which lies not in restricting material but in educating children on its merits and implications.
It is undeniable that exhibited behavior can influence the behavior of an individual. It may even be possible that imitation of behavior on television contributes to some crime. To argue that violence on television is the leading cause, though, one must first answer the question of how this weaker, indirect influence was able to overcome the direct influence of familial and peer behavior. The standards of this question make self-evident the fallacious basis of the claim that violence on television is the leading cause of crime. To attribute juvenile delinquency to violence on television is, at best, misguided. At worst, it is an argument that supports the paradigms of repression that contribute to the underlying problem.