Copyright © 1999 by The American Prospect, Inc. Preferred Citation: Todd Gitlin, "Imagebusters: The Hollow Crusade Against TV Violence," The American Prospect no. 16, Winter 1994. This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from the author. Direct questions about permissions to permissions@prospect.org.
Imagebusters:Guns don't kill people, picture tubes do. Or at least that seems to be the message behind the clangor of current alarms about television violence. Don't misunderstand: I have denounced movie violence for more than two decades, all the way back to The Wild Bunch and The Godfather. I consider Hollywood's slashes, splatters, chainsaws, and car crashes a disgrace, a degradation of culture, and a wound to the souls of producers and consumers alike.
But I also think liberals are making a serious mistake by pursuing their vigorous campaign against violence in the media. However morally and aesthetically reprehensible today's screen violence, the crusades of Senator Paul Simon and Attorney General Janet Reno against television violence, as well as Catharine MacKinnon's war against pornography, are cheap shots. There are indeed reasons to attribute violence to the media, but the links are weaker than recent headlines would have one believe. The attempt to demonize the media distracts attention from the real causes of--and the serious remedies for--the epidemic of violence.
The sheer volume of alarm can't be explained by the actual violence generated by the media's awful images. Rather, Simon, Reno, and MacKinnon--not to mention Dan Quayle and the Reverend Donald Wildmon--have signed up for a traditional American pastime. The campaign against the devil's images threads through the history of middle-class reform movements. For a nation that styles itself practical, at least in technical pursuits, we have always been a playground of moral prohibitions and symbolic crusades.
Even before the technology of movies made savagery so vivid, middle-class uplifters in America and England have been variously enthralled and disgusted by media violence and blamed it for inciting working-class youth. In his study of the 1888 Jack the Ripper phenomenon, cultural historian Christopher Frayling notes that London's penny comic weekly Illustrated Police News regaled readers with detailed accounts and artists' renditions of the Ripper crime scenes, compiling 184 cover pictures during the four years after the last murder. The high-minded were quick to link the Ripper crimes to the excesses of popular culture. Punch magazine asked rhetorically:
Is it not within the bounds of probability that to the highly-coloured pictorial advertisements to be seen on almost all the hoardings [billboards] in London, vividly representing sensational scenes of murder exhibited as "the great attractions" of certain dramas, the public may be to a certain extent indebted for the horrible crimes in Whitechapel? We say it most seriously--imagine the effect of gigantic pictures of violence and assassination by knife and pistol on the morbid imagination of an unbalanced mind.In his excellent new history of American entertainment, Going Out: The Rise and Fall of Public Amusements, David Nasaw tells us that comparable fears about the impact of moving pictures on children's impressionable minds cropped up in the movies' first decade. Of the 250 films it screened in 1910, the Ohio Humane Society found 40 percent to be "unfit for children's eyes," identifying working-class and immigrant children as particularly vulnerable to the message that crime paid. "In 1907," Nasaw writes, "Chicago passed a censorship ordinance requiring police permits for films shown in nickel and dime theaters." When Jane Addams' Hull House opened a theater to show wholesome alternatives--Cinderella and travelogues--very few children showed up, and one of them, a 12-year-old, explained to the reformers: "Things has got ter have some hustle. I don't say it's right, but people likes to see fights, 'n' fellows getting hurt, 'n' love makin', 'n' robbers, and all that stuff."
In the 1930s, the Payne Foundation funded studies attributing juvenile crime to movie violence, complete with testimonials of youthful offenders that they had gotten larcenous ideas from the silver screen. Legions of censors from the Hays Office monitored Hollywood output to make sure that, at the least, crime didn't pay. In the 1950s, Dr. Fredric Wertham made a name for himself by attributing all manner of delinquencies to the mayhem depicted in comic books. Congressmen unable to find sufficient domestic threat in Communism were able to find it in comic books.
If today's censorious forces smell smoke, it is not in the absence of fire. In recent years, market forces have driven screen violence to an amazing pitch. As the movies lost much of their audience-- especially adults--to television, the studios learned that the way to make their killing, so to speak, was to offer on big screens what the networks would not permit on the small. This meant, among other things, grisly violence--aimed to attract the teenagers who were the demographic category most eager to flee the family room. At the same time, the technologies of special effects steadily advanced to permit more graphic representations. We have witnessed the burgeoning of a genre unknown two decades ago: the "action movie," a euphemism for the debased choreography that budding auteurs throughout the world aspire to imitate. Aiming to recoup losses and better compete with cable, television programmers struck back: the networks lowered their censorship standards and pruned their "standards and practices" staffs; the deregulatory Federal Communications Commission clammed up; and local news fell all over itself cramming snippets of gore between commercials.
The financiers, executives, directors, writers, make-up artists, distributors, and others responsible should be covered with shame. But leave aside, for the moment, the aesthetic and moral cost and consider the arguments about the practical consequences of violent images. There is as much evidence as social science is capable of compiling that violence on the screen inspires and expedites some aggression in some children. After watching violent programs, many children become hostile, push each other around, stop cooperating, become more fearful, and become desensitized.
All these conclusions are contained in a recently published
report,
Violence and Youth, by the American Psychological
Association's Commission on Violence and Youth--a report that
Attorney General Reno has recommended. "Depictions of violence in
the mass media . . . may reinforce the tendency toward aggression
in a young child who is already exhibiting aggressive behavior,"
says this report. "There is absolutely no doubt that higher
levels
of viewing violence on television are correlated with increased
acceptance of aggressive attitudes and increased aggressive
behavior." Absolutely no doubt: strong words coming from a
professional association. The report continues: "Aggressive
children who have trouble in school and in relating to peers tend
to watch more television; the violence they see there, in turn,
reinforces their tendency toward aggression, compounding their
academic and social failure. These effects are both short-term
and
long-lasting." If this were not strong enough, the report goes on
to say: "In explicit depictions of sexual violence, it is the
message about violence, more than the sexual nature of the
materials, that appears to affect the attitudes of adolescents
about rape and violence toward women." The report also notes that
"children from low-income families are the heaviest viewers of
television." That is, the children who have the least stable
families, the fewest life prospects, the most violent
environments,
and the greatest potential for race and class resentment are the
ones most exposed not only to images of violence but to the
glaring
contrast between the things available in their own lives and the
things available in the programs and commercials of
television.
And once in a while--meaning far too often--some grotesque image
inspires emulation. Both big and small screens have taught
impressionable people--or at least reinforced their propensity to
practice--thrilling new ways to lacerate flesh. In 1982, after
the
cable television broadcast of The Deer Hunter, several
people killed themselves playing Russian roulette, which was
featured in the movie. American youths recently were killed and
maimed when they lay down on the center strip of a highway,
imitating a scene from Disney's movie The Program. A few
months ago, a 17-year-old French youth blew himself up after
learning from an episode of MacGyver how to build a bomb
in
a bicycle handle, at least according to his mother, who is suing
the head of the channel for manslaughter.
But correlation is not necessarily cause. The notorious
five-year-old Beavis and Butthead fan who started a fire
and
killed his two-year-old sister may have been starting fires long
before these loathsome characters were smudges in their creator's
eye. In the end, it is not possible to know with precision
whether
these victims would have found some other way to commit mayhem in
the absence of the images.
The question the liberal crusaders fail to address is not whether
these images are wholesome but just how much real-world violence
can be blamed on the media. Assume, for the sake of argument,
that
every copycat crime reported in the media can be plausibly
traced to television and movies. Let us make an exceedingly high
estimate that the resulting carnage results in 100 deaths per
year
that would not otherwise have taken place. These would amount to
0.28 percent of the total of 36,000 murders, accidents, and
suicides committed by gunshot in the United States in 1992.
That media violence contributes to a climate in which violence is
legitimate--and there can be no doubt of this--does not make it
an
urgent social problem. Violence on the screens, however
loathsome,
does not make a significant contribution to violence on the
streets. Images don't spill blood. Rage, equipped with guns,
does.
Desperation does. Revenge does. As liberals say, the drug trade
does; poverty does; unemployment does. It seems likely that a
given
percent increase in decently paying jobs will save thousands of
times more lives than the same percent decrease in media
bang-bang.
Now I also give conservative arguments about the sources of
violence their due. A culture that despises and disrespects
authority is disposed to aggression, so people look to violence
to
resolve conflict. The absence of legitimate parental authority
also
feeds a culture of aggression. But aggression per se, however
unpleasant, is not the decisive murderous element. A child who
shoves another child after watching a fist fight on TV is not
committing a drive-by shooting. Violence plays on big screens
around the world without generating epidemics of carnage. The
necessary condition permitting a culture of aggression to flare
into a culture of violence is access to lethal weapons.
Thus when Senator Simon and Attorney General Reno denounce TV
violence, I am reminded of the story of the fool who is found on
his hands and knees searching the sidewalk under a
streetlight.
"What are you looking for?" asks a passerby.
"My watch."
"Where did you lose it?"
"Over there," says the fool, pointing to the other side of the
street.
"Then why are you looking over here?" asks the passerby.
"Because it's dark over there."
It's dark over there in the world of real violence, hopelessness,
drugs, and guns. There is little political will for a war on
poverty, guns, or family breakdown. Here, under the light, we are
offered instead a crusade against media violence. This is largely
a feel-good exercise, a moral panic substituting for
practicality.
But in the language of media consultants, the panic "resonates."
The obsession offers frissons of horror while denying that the
moralist is also attracted. It appeals to an American propensity
that sociologist Philip Slater called the Toilet Assumption: once
the appearance of a social problem is swept out of sight, so is
the
problem. And the crusade costs nothing.
There is, for some liberals, an additional attraction. By
campaigning against media violence, they hope to seize "family
values" from conservatives. Indeed, there is an ideological tilt
in
today's cultural-cleansing campaigns. For the most part,
Republicans are offended by sexual images, Democrats by violence.
Republican candidates like former President George Bush who would
have thought twice about appearing on platforms with Madonna or
Warren Beatty apparently have no compunction against sharing the
stage with that bulging jewel in the crown of family values,
Arnold
Schwarzenegger. By raging against TV violence, liberals aspire to
prove themselves red-blooded defenders of flesh-and-blood
families,
to stand apart from Hollywood, and to take the crusade against
Sin
City away from the likes of Dan Quayle. But the mantle of
anti-violence they wrap themselves in is threadbare, and they are
showing off new clothes that will not stop bullets.
The symbolic crusade against media violence is a confession of
despair. Those who embrace it are saying, in effect, that they
either do not know how to, or do not dare, do anything serious
about American violence. They are tilting at images. If Janet
Reno
cites the APA report, she also should take note of the following
statements within it: "Many social science disciplines, in
addition
to psychology, have firmly established that poverty and its
contextual life circumstances are major determinants of violence.
. . . It is very likely that socioeconomic inequality--not race--
facilitates higher rates of violence among ethnic minority
groups.
. . . There is considerable evidence that the alarming rise in
youth homicides is related to the availability of firearms." The
phrase "major determinant" does not appear whenever the report
turns to the subject of media violence.
The question for reformers, then, is one of proportion and focus.
If there were nothing else to do about deadly violence in
America,
then the passionate crusade against TV violence might be more
justifiable, even though First Amendment absolutists would still
have strong counterarguments. But the imagebusting campaign
permits
politicians to fulminate photogenically without having to take on
the National Rifle Association, or for that matter, the drug
epidemic, the crisis of the family, or the shortage of serious
jobs. To the astonishment of the rest of the known world, we
inhabit a political culture in which advocates of gun control
must
congratulate themselves for imposing restrictions on the purchase
of certain semi-automatic weapons, or a five-day waiting period
before the purchase of a handgun.
In this never-never land, imagebusting is also the refuge
of
the hapless liberal. When I called Simon's office to find out his
views on gun control, his press official told me that the senator
had no position papers on the subject. (Subsequently, he voted
for
the Brady Bill--itself more a symbolic gesture against firearm
violence than a measure likely to reduce violent crime, though it
does set some limits to NRA influence.) Senator Ernest Hollings,
who has co-sponsored the Children's Protection from Violence
Programming Act and on November 23 published a stirring New
York
Times op-ed piece defending it, voted against the Brady
Bill.
To their credit, pandering is not the stance associated with
President and Mrs. Clinton, who have been outspoken about guns as
a menace to public health. But it remains to be seen what the
president and his attorney general will do about the principal
immediate cause of the mounting body count--guns.
Imagebusters may claim that the causes of violence in America are
so intractable that an outraged, frightened public has no better
expedient than to cleanse the media. This counsel of desperation
not only promises very little practical good but also presumes
that
the First Amendment can and should be swept away cavalierly. This
is always a dangerous course. Censorship is a blunderbuss, not a
scalpel. Just which violence is supposed to be cleansed anyway?
The
number of drops of blood spilled is scarcely the test of an
image's
vileness or perniciousness. Context is, by definition,
unmeasurable. Moreover, Hollywood's history of self-regulation is
hardly impressive. The self-imposed movie ratings system that
replaced the old Hays office production code in 1966 has steadily
ratcheted up the mayhem it permits in the PG-13 and R categories.
Even modest advisory notices backfire, often attracting precisely
those they are meant to warn off. The only television program
that
warns viewers to watch with care before each episode, N.Y.P.D.
Blue, has actually depicted the pain and fear that devastate
friends and coworkers after the shooter does his shooting.
Self-restraint is certainly desirable. Public shaming of those
who
produce grisly images is defensible (though it may prove
paradoxically self-defeating). But even in the short run there is
far better public policy to be made. Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, for example, has proposed an efficient and ingenious
means: prohibitive taxes on bullets, with the most damaging
bullets
taxed the most. His point is that the guns already loosed into a
desperate world (200 million, by some estimates) are out there
and
hard to recall. But bullets may well be the weak link in the
violence chain. If we cut off the manufacture of bullets, except
those used for hunting, or tax them prohibitively, then the
bullets
already out in the world will be harder to replace.
With the NRA losing steam, this is the time to generate a serious
debate about guns and bullets. The NRA would make a bully enemy.
A
country choked with the fear of crime might well rally to
Moynihan's proposal against the gun lobby if the stakes were
explained to them. Ballots Against Bullets would be a dandy
organization.
Instead,
we are awash in iconophobia and moral panic. Behind many
a present-day campaign to cleanse the screen stands a common tone
of censoriousness. Behind this censoriousness stands not only a
forceful and perhaps forgivable moral impulse but the same
inflated
belief in the power of images over behavior. Senator Simon and
Reverend Wildmon meet Dan Quayle and law professor Catharine
MacKinnon on the ground of a common terror. Right, left, and
otherwise, advocates of differing stripes agree on a uniform
structure of argument: that acts of communication are (often or
always) binding; that once transferred to innocent hearts and
minds, they flow into action (or, as MacKinnon argues, constitute
action in themselves); and that a certain type of message is so
widespread as to amalgamate into a one-dimensional culture.
In the view of the recent vice president and his conspicuous
co-believers on the Republican platform at Houston in 1992, the
TV
character Murphy Brown was a bad--effectively bad--role
model, said to confer legitimacy on unmarried mothers, presumably
either by discouraging pregnant women from marrying or
encouraging
women to dispense with birth control in the first place. We were
given to believe not simply that Murphy Brown was guilty of
immoral
acts, but that she was an effective cause of them--because she
was
a mouthpiece for a "cultural elite."
Without question, a certain elite makes key television decisions.
It is an elite in the sociological, not the artistic sense; it
supports producers whose popular styles and prior success
persuade
network executives to invest in them. The investors respond to
market conditions; but they do have a certain latitude in
how to respond. (Murphy didn't have to get pregnant,
although pregnancy was one way to build a story line and maintain
suspense; and her decision to have the baby alone was credible
enough to the show's core audience, which would not have been
true,
say, in 1962.)
The industry has considerable discretion about what to depict and
how to depict it. But from this business truth it does not follow
that the captains of entertainment have strong ideological
motives.
In general, they are shallow capitalists who speak the language
of
demographics. Neither does it follow that they are the operative
cause of the cultural shifts, which they further but do not
invent.
The ability to further trends is no mean power, and here lies the
truth of Quayle's overstated claim. The producers of television
are
partisans and inhabitants of the Hollywood version of slick and
easy image making. Executives and producers derive their topics
and
outlooks from their milieux and then, selectively, amplify them.
But the Quayle flail amounts to a confession of conservative
helplessness in the face of a business society. Not willing to
recognize that their beloved consumer economy is predicated on
the
arousal and satisfaction of desire, Quayle chastises the
sellers.
To
Catharine MacKinnon, "hate speech," in particular pornography,
is an--or perhaps the--important instrument of social
inequality. Denigration is more than a sign of oppression; it
is oppression. In her new book, Only Words, she
writes "There is a relation . . . between the use of the epithet
'nigger' and the fact that a disproportionate number of children
who go to bed hungry every night in this country are
African-American; or the use of the word 'cunt' and the fact that
most prostitutes are women." We are to infer that the relation is
causal, and significantly so.
MacKinnon does not trouble herself with evidence of the effective
damage done by pornography; nor does she distinguish between
pornography that is violent and pornography that is not; or
between
pornography whose actresses consent and pornography whose
actresses
do not. She tosses off references to court decisions instead of
approximating reasoned argument about the causes of rape or, in
general, the enshrinement of gender inequality. She does not
address a quarter-century of voluminous arguments to the effect
that pornography is not associated with rape. When she alludes to
a few instances where rapists used pornography before committing
rape, one is reminded of the anti-pornography crusaders who
brandish serial killer Ted Bundy's death row proclamation that
pornography made him do it; the murderer has suddenly been
elevated
to the expert witness on causality, with no ironic notice paid to
the fact that, in his last days on earth, by pinning the blame on
dirty pictures, he was taking himself off the hook.
Moreover, MacKinnon does not trouble herself to note that
Japanese
men gobble up pornography that is far more sado-masochistic than
the American brand and there is almost no (reported, at least)
rape in Japan. The reader is left in the dark as to whether she
would want to argue the weaker case that the prevalence of S&M is
an effective cause of male dominance and female subservience in
Japan. (The argument would have to be made historically and would
have to address the experience of countries like Denmark, Sweden,
and Holland, which are lax toward pornography but rank low on
anyone's male supremacy scale; but MacKinnon's book has no time
for
such considerations.) Nor does MacKinnon show the slightest
interest in the fact that the nations with the most stringent
laws
against pornography, like Saudi Arabia, are scarcely paradises of
women's freedom. Finally, MacKinnon does not know what to do with
the fact that the pornography boom of the last 25 years has
accompanied, rather than prevented, the greatest leap forward in
social equality for women in American history. She prefers the
rapture of victimization.
Of course images matter. They don't only amuse; they cultivate
coarseness and stupidity and bad ideas. Virtually everyone in
America gives over thousands of hours annually to the delectation
of mass-manufactured icons, helping convert vast reaches of
social
life into entertainment, qualifying and disqualifying
politicians,
making Larry King a port of political entry, Rush Limbaugh a
public
voice, and the network news a judge of who among the world's
insulted and injured deserve help. Over years of unrelenting
exposure, a cavalcade of stereotypes manufactured for profit
helps
reinforce bad as well as good ideas of how certain people are
supposed to look, talk, and think. They reinforce popular ideas
about women, blacks, gays, Iraqis, Somalis. They degrade our
public
space and popularize idiocies of a thousand kinds. They set
agendas. As great quantities of research have demonstrated, they
may not tell people what to think, but most of the time they do
succeed in telling most people what to think about. And these
days,
one thing they are telling people to think about is media
violence.
In our time, the preoccupation with images, a necessary component
of politics, has swollen into a surrogate for serious politics.
This is particularly so on the left, helplessly self-fragmented
these days into clans obsessed with their singular rectitude and
victimization. But whatever the Left is, one thing is certain: it
cannot dispense with a democratic faith. To assume that the main
obstacles to equality and justice and domestic tranquillity are
irresistible media is to paint oneself into a corner. The people
to
whom one wants to appeal are seen as nothing but marionettes.
Rancor and futility sprout in that corner, but nothing
else.
There is no space here to address properly the plague of
real-world
violence. But let that discussion proceed with proper respect for
the gravity of the situation. As for media violence, let
it
be criticized for the right reasons and in the right spirit. To
be
loathsome, popular culture doesn't have to be murderous. To
disapprove of media violence, we don't need a threat of
government
action to rectify morals by fiat. The proper disapproval would
have
recourse to categories of judgment that make Americans nervous:
aesthetic and moral standards and the intersection of the two.
The
democracy of taste has not been hospitable to judgments of this
order. We aren't content to condemn trash on the grounds that it
is
stupid, wasteful, morally bankrupt; that it coarsens taste; that
it
shrivels the capacity to feel and know the whole of human
experience.
Let
a thousand criticisms bloom. Let reformers flood the networks
and cable companies and, yes, advertisers, with protests against
the gross overabundance of the stupid, the tawdry, and the ugly.
Let them demand of local TV stations that the news cameras find
something else to photograph besides corpses. To the Hollywood
defense that Shakespeare also piled the stage with bodies, let
reformers reply that Timon of Athens was not piped into
the
living room several times nightly, that revenge plays were not
filling the seats of the Globe Theatre during the rest of the
day--
not to mention every other theater as well--and that close-ups of
Elizabethan sword thrusts and resultant gore were not available
in
living color. If it be objected that Goethe's Sorrows of Young
Werther may have prompted more than one suicide by a spurned
lover, as did Pablo Neruda's Twenty Love Poems and a Desperate
Song, or that more than one nineteenth century Russian youth
(not to mention Ted Bundy, or so he claimed) learned murderous
technique from Crime and Punishment, let reformers ask
whether the questioner seriously asks us to rank the makers of
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre with Goethe, Neruda, or
Dostoevski, and if the answer is yes, let that serve as the
cinching of the case as to what television has done to popular
culture.
Not least, let the reformers not only turn off the set, but
criticize the form of life that has led so many to turn, and
keep,
it on.
Click here for information on the author
Copyright © 1999 by The American Prospect, Inc. Preferred Citation:
Todd Gitlin, "Imagebusters: The Hollow Crusade Against TV Violence," The American Prospect no. 16, Winter 1994.
This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from the author.
Direct questions about permissions to permissions@prospect.org.
Todd Gitlin