It’s time to stop playing around and fight back.
Just a few weeks ago we celebrated God’s coming to earth, the focal point of history. Hundreds of thousands of children throughout America woke up on Christmas morning and ran excitedly to see what surprises had been left under the tree.
To celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace, they opened Rambo dolls, G.I. Joes, and a wide variety of other war toys. In fact, the National Coalition on Television Violence reports a 600 percent increase in war toy sales over the last three years. Four of the top five toy lines major in violence, each promoted by its own TV cartoon show. A typical war cartoon averages 41 acts of violence each hour with an attempted murder every two minutes.
Mass exposure to violence is not limited to children, however. On any night of the week, in the comfort of our living rooms, we can—and many of us do—spend an evening witnessing all manner of rapes, murders, and thuggings. The advent of cable television has brought an even greater assortment of graphically violent acts to our fingertips.
As one would expect, researchers disagree on the behavioral effects of exposure to violence. Some say that playing with violent toys is a natural part of a child’s development. But others, including Dr. Arnold Goldstein, director of the Center for Research on Aggression at Syracuse University, disagree. Goldstein claims that it “increases the risks that children are going to use aggression in real-life.… The violent toys serve as a way of rehearsing the violent behavior seen on television.”
At the minimum we can say that war toys, and TV and film violence, affect us in different ways, depending largely on each person’s psychological and moral make-up. We can be thankful that not everyone who sees Taxi Driver will be affected in the same way as was John Hinckley.
However, a substantial amount of research suggests we are influenced by visual media more than we realize or are prepared to admit. What happens, for example, when we see a man being shot in the face in the context of the funniest scene in Beverly Hills Cop, a comical movie? Some experts say that, with our defenses down, violence begins to plant its roots within our latitude of acceptance.
Sexual Violence
There is also a growing concern about the frequency with which violence is being linked with sex. At a recent conference on violence and pornography, I saw a five-minute film clip that pushed me, literally, to the point of nausea. Research psychologist Ed Donnerstein of the University of Wisconsin—Madison, showed an excerpt from the R-rated Tool Box Murders to illustrate the subtlety with which adolescents are trained by the visual media to link sex with violence.
The scene was sexually explicit. It featured a young, attractive woman in a bathtub. A love song played in the background. Suffice it to say it was enough to arouse most males.
But then a large man, wearing a ski mask and carrying a tool box, broke into the house and made his way to the bathroom. His tools were weapons. He pulled out a stud gun, a tool designed to shoot large nails into wood. As the woman tried to escape, he fired a nail that smashed through her abdomen.
With blood pouring from her body, she fell against a chair, by then either dead or about to die. The man drew near and, holding the gun directly against her forehead, shot again. Her eyes stilled as blood raced down her face. The love song continued, uninterrupted.
Here was the intentional juxtaposition of eroticism and calculated, graphic violence. Researchers have established with a high degree of confidence that people who view such scenes register a connection between sex and violence and begin unconsciously to accept the two as belonging together.
Adolescents, whose sexual curiosity is at a peak, are especially vulnerable. Donnerstein pointed out that Tool Box Murders did not come from the pornography industry per se, but that it and other “slasher” films are readily available to (and marketed for) teenagers, as a check at any video outlet will show. He said it was one of ten films recommended as Halloween viewing by the Minneapolis Star and Tribune.
After showing the excerpt, Donnerstein made an observation that unmasked our society’s true attitude toward violence. He said that he had shown the same excerpt from Tool Box Murders on the Phil Donahue Show, but that because the show is on commercial television, a black strip had to be placed over the woman’s breasts. Yet there is no such legal prohibition on the violent elements, including the depiction of her brain being split by a nail.
Evangelicals, too, are far quicker to protest nudity than violence. This is partly because the issue of violence is not as clearcut as pornography. We cannot categorically dismiss all violent actions as immoral. Most evangelicals believe some forms of violence are occasionally appropriate, as in certain police actions or for national defense.
But when it comes to violence in the visual media, we risk underestimating the toll it could be taking on ourselves and our children. I know of a mother who said she was not worried that her children had seen a few “slasher” films because “it didn’t affect them.” But that may be precisely the problem—that it does not affect us anymore.
Loss Of Sensitivity
Researchers have shown that continued exposure to graphic violence leads to emotional desensitization. What we once thought grotesque gnaws away at our minds, seeking acceptance, which it usually finds. As one psychologist put it, “None of us are above the laws of learning.”
Not only is the quality of life affected, but inasmuch as media violence is imitated in the real world, life itself is threatened. With our society’s collective moral conscience so jaded, it is no wonder that the violent act of abortion has come to be regarded as simply another medical procedure.
As Christians, we are to be diligent pursuers of peace, not violence. And no admonition in Scripture is clearer than that we are to work for peace. Peace is fundamental to the gospel. So our striving for peace should be at least as vigorous as our efforts to rid society of pornography.
What Action Is Appropriate?
The issue of violence clearly belongs high on our agenda. We must acknowledge that the problem exists and that it is significant. As pursuers of peace, we must oppose the unwarranted use of force. This includes examining the psychological and sociological effects of the entertainment media’s portrayals of violence. It also means thinking through our moral responsibility, and looking at the place of legal action.
What can we do to rise above the bombardment of media? Some will choose the route of legislation. This may be helpful in containing the problem, but if it becomes the strategic linchpin, the effort is doomed to frustration and perhaps ultimate failure.
The television networks and movie industry know there is money to be made with violence. They will not easily sacrifice profits on the basis of what they consider sketchy evidence, CBS president Gene Jankowski, commenting on the 1982 National Institutes of Health Report “Television and Behavior,” said that “while it concluded that viewing television violence causes ‘aggressiveness,’ it did not find a single study which confirmed that television violence causes behavior that could be characterized as violent in any socially significant way.”
The link between TV violence and the viewer’s behavior is not that tenuous; but suppose we granted his point. We must still face the fact that Jesus challenged people’s attitudes as much as he challenged their behavior. Certainly, our acceptance of violent attitudes in ourselves or others reduces the fervor of our opposition to violence. So we should be concerned about attitudes toward violence quite apart from their connection to behavior.
This suggests that successful opposition to violence, including sexual violence, will particularly center in our homes and churches. As individual Christians, we must assess the degree to which we have been desensitized, perhaps without even knowing it. Sin is more than just committing immoral acts. It includes what we consciously choose to expose ourselves to. In Philippians 4:8, Paul urges us to think about those things that are “pure,” “lovely,” and “good.” We must be sure that our hearts and minds are not damaged by an overdose of subtle influences that work to destroy spiritual health.
So we must re-evaluate our viewing habits and those of our children. Witnessing a violent act is as close as the local theater. It is brought even closer by rental tapes and VCR’s, and by free and cable TV, all of which make the graphic treatment of murder and rape just the push of a button away.
Opposing violence enters at the seemingly trivial level of selecting gifts for our children or grandchildren. Instead of filling their playrooms with toys of violence, we owe it to them to exercise creative options.
In addition, we should protect teenagers from being unconsciously indoctrinated into violence. We have already seen that filmmakers are not above using the sexual curiosity of adolescents to promote a dangerous attraction to violence. We must help them become critical viewers, to recognize subtle powers of persuasion.
Barry Lynn, of the American Civil Liberties Union, addressing a number of comments to the church, writes that “if you cannot persuade persons to reject that which you consider exploitative or unhealthy, do not ask government to impose your will on those same persons.”
We should take this admonition to heart, strengthened by the realization that as we succeed in educating people about violence and pornography, government regulation is rendered superfluous. And a good many producers of such “entertainment” will be looking for another line of work.
RANDY FRAME
