Media Violence and Imitation - Essay Example

Running Head: Media Violence Media Violence and Imitation Inserts His/her Word Count = 2000 Media Violence & Imitation In her article “Bypassing conscious control: Media violence, unconscious imitation, and freedom of speech”, Sue Hurley attempts to understand the effect that the portrayal of violence in the media (in particular entertainment media) has on the individual. Based on her research she build an argument which centers around the fact that the cognitive yet subliminal process of imitation is an ongoing occurrence while an individual is exposed to media violence, and that it may lead to an individual committing violent acts in the future. I will provide further details of Hurley’s argument and why I disagree with this proposition. Summary of Article The introductory section of the article presents Hurley’s thesis, that violence in the media cause an increase in aggressive behavior on the part of individuals and in turn creating a more a aggressive society. She states that her argument is not “paternalistic” as it seeks to prevent harm to third parties rather than harm to one’s self. The article then attempts to analyze previous research conducted on the relationship between media violence and aggressive behavior in individuals. Hurley begins with the clarification that: “Responses have been highly politicized, and proponents of each side have often been regarded as selective in their appeals to evidence.” She goes on to present key highlights in several research studies that reinforce Hurley’s original thesis that media violence does in fact cause an increase in aggressive behavior. This is followed by a summation of various cognitive and neuroscience research on imitation as a preconditioned human response that “bypasses autonomous deliberative processes”. She follows this by presenting various arguments on why “special protection of freedom of speech” should not be applied to portrayals of violence in the media, primarily centering around the violation of the harm principle. Summary of Argument Hurley’s argument is essentially derived from and with the purpose of dispelling the argument of individual autonomy in response to controversial stimuli that in Hurley’s opinion liberals tend to employ. As stated earlier she wishes to distance her argument from one that may seem paternalistic by virtue of the fact that she wishes to prevent harm to third parties who are not involved in the relationship between media outlets and their consumers. Moreover, she states that: “I am not arguing for any particular policy response; that is a difficult further question. Rather, I am trying to open up a set of issues and to excavate connections that need considerable further thought, at the levels of both theory and legal policy.” Therefore, one can assume that her intent is to initiate a dialogue on the controversial subject, rather than to demand immediate censorship of all violence in the media. In her assessment of research studies on the relationship between media violence and aggressive behavior sans effects of imitation she states: “Since the Williams (1981) Report, many liberals have felt able to dismiss as unsubstantiated the thesis that exposure to media violence tends to increases aggression. This dismissal is now seriously dated.” To validate her statement she uses the endorsement of “the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association.” She then goes on to refer to various studies that show a positive correlation between media violence and increased aggression among subjects. This is followed by the identification of three major types of methodologies employed in research of this variety, which are: experimental, correlation studies and longitudinal studies. She justifies, why each of these methodologies is adequate in detecting correlation between media violence and aggressive behavior. She also counters objections to the experimental methodology, such as the fact that it is considered to be far too artificial and unrepresentative of real life by using the example of a study in which “institutionalised delinquent boys were first assessed for aggressiveness, and then shown violent or non-violent films for several nights. Those shown violent films were subsequently more violent in daily life, not just in the lab. The effect was especially strong for the boys who had previously rated low in aggressiveness.” In an attempt to advance her argument, she attempts to challenge the objection that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. She does this by presenting several examples of studies in which exposure to violent media shows an active increase in aggressive behavior, in order, to disprove the theory that individuals with violent or aggressive tendencies chose to seek out violent media. The main crux of Hurley’s argument revolves around imitation. Firstly, she differentiates forms of imitation, from each other. This includes full fledged imitation, which is novel behavior learned through observation and involves recreating the means in order to achieve the ends. Emulation is the attempt to achieve the same goal through more altered and personally suited means. The third method of imitation that she writes about is “response priming” which is the imitation of actions and movements, without a desire to achieve the same goals. She argues that imitative tendencies are found first and foremost amonst children whom she describes as “imitation machines” and that children do not have enough developed brain capacity to prohibit imitation. The tendency to imitate is also prevalent among adults albeit in a far more inhibited sense according to Hurley, with the caveat that this tendency “can easily be released.” Both of the above contentions are supported with reference to several studies. She uses two major cognitive science theories to reinforce her thesis that humans tend to imitate violent behavior if it is portrayed on the media. This includes the ideomotor theory and chameleon effect. The ideomotor theory revolves around the idea that “Every representation of movement awakes in some degree the movement it represents.” The Chameleon effect describes deeply innate and inherent human tendencies through which individuals attempt to assimilate themselves with their social environment. She states that this tendency needs to be curbed and that most human attempt to do this, however, it can only be done if and when humans are aware that the chameleon effect is taking place. Furthermore, Hurley feels that “evolution might favor neural structures that facilitate response priming, emulation, and imitation.” She connects the research on imitation with her primary thesis by stating that: “Observed aggressive action does not have a special exemption from these general tendencies. Thus, observing aggression should tend to prime similar bodily movements in the short term, which may or may not be inhibited, and, when the results of observed aggression are attractive, emulation of goals should be expected.” The implication that the imitative processes occur subconsciously and unknown to our autonomous deliberative processes is also of present throughout the article, and Hurley addresses it more comprehensively and goes on to add that since these tendencies may threaten an individual’s self-perception as “autonomous” in these matters, they will find it difficult to accept this theory. She states “Ironically, denial reduces subjects’ ability to control such influences.” One of the main arguments against Hurley’s thesis is that censoring or controlling media output is a violation of freedom of speech, even in cases where the speech is likely to harm others, in violation of the integral harm principle of liberalism, which states the no action shall be interfered with unless it causes harm to others. This is due to the principles of democracy, truth and autonomy. Hurley counters this by claiming that violent entertainment cannot be defined as “speech” in the strictest philosophical definition of the word and thus should not be accorded special protection. Objections I personally tend to disagree with Hurley’s thesis for several reasons. Firstly While the research she has presented can be used to form a substantial link with more aggressive behavior, there is no real evidence that or it is very difficult to prove that portraying violence in the media can actually subconsciously or otherwise compel individuals to perform criminally violent acts, this view is supported by de Bruin. There needs to be a distinction drawn between aggressive behavior and criminally violent acts, as only the latter is a violation of the principle of harm. It can also be argued that the adoption of aggressive behavior may come about as a result of an autonomous deliberative process. According to de Bruin Hurley also implicitly makes a connection with the media violence research she assesess earlier with the cognitive imitation based studies. This link is extremely tenuous and cannot be supported with research. De Bruin adds that even if this link is accepted, the autonomy argument does not hold water. Due to the fact that individual may willing chose to decrease his or her autonomy and that any attempts to censure media violence will in fact decrease an individuals autonomy by removing that decision from their control, contrary to Hurley’s argument that it may increase it. Rebuttals to Objections In defense of Hurley, de Bruins criticisms are derived from the idea that Hurley wishes to censor violent media. When this is not the case, Hurley goes to great lengths to distance herself from the advocacy of a blanket censorship regime, with the government having the power to censor violent media at will. She accepts that this form of legislation will lead to undue power in the hands of governments that will be liable to be misused. Using the example of a movie that may decry the horrors of war, she clarifies her position well. Secondly it would not take a great leap in logic to assume that the adoption of more aggressive behavior may in fact lead to violent acts, particularly when violence has been deeply embedded into one’s mind as a child. The risk towards violent behavior would be greatly increased by the adoption of aggressive stances on most issues. Thirdly, Hurley does not explicitly claim a link between the cognitive and psychological research. She repeatedly clarifies that this research warrants a dialogue that assesses the impact of imitation on the human psyche in terms of violence in the media. She also presents alternatives to government based legislation on the matter. These alternatives include individual civil law suits, in extreme cases where a sufficient link between a violent criminal act and stimuli from the media can be proven. Lastly one may ask the question whether increased social aggressiveness that increases one’s dispensation towards criminal violence is a worthwhile cost of ensuring absolute personal autonomy? Considering the fact that violent entertainment media may not even be considered as a legitimate form of speech in the constitutional and philosophical sense. Conclusion Susan Hurley’s article may not contain any definitive research or universally agreeable answers, and it may be victim of the same narrow partisan dogmatism that she decries (her constant derision of liberals as “outdated”, are a testament to this). But it does contain many valid points that can at least be debated if not accepted by anyone. It must also be noted that Hurley goes through great pains to distance herself from conservative demagoguery and manages to offer somewhat acceptable compromises by invoking tort instead of legislation to deal with the matter. De Bruin manages to address the issue of Tort effectively enough, by stating that a link between criminal violence and media violence may be too difficult to prove even in individual cases, rendering the entire process fruitless and a formality. Furthermore de Bruin also asks the question, how are we to decide which forms of imitative influences are good and which are bad, and one can assume that the logical conclusion to a continuation of filtering imitative influences in the media can lead to another form of social engineering. The lines in this debate as they usually are in debates of the controversial variety are heavily blurred. The side which one takes on this issue is primarily subjective. We must decide for ourselves whether or not personal autonomy should be decreased for the greater social good and whether or not individual members of a society can decide what the greater social good involves. References De Bruin, B. (2008). Media Violence and Freedom of Speech: How to Use Empirical Data. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 11 (5), 493-505. Hurley, S. 2006. Bypassing Conscious Control: Media Violence, Unconscious Imitation,and Freedom of Speech. In S. Pockett, S., Banks, W. and Gallagher, S. (eds.), Does Consciousness Cause Behavior? MIT Press. Read More