I’ve long been skeptical about claims that art should be blamed for human behavior. I’m not a social scientist or psychologist, but that argument has always seemed like bullshit to me, and I’ve never seen any credible research demonstrating that these claims should be taken seriously. But I’m also skeptical about Tarantino’s catharsis idea. I mean, I love Tarantino’s work, and as amateur social scientists go, I don’t think he’s among the worst. And I WANT to believe he’s right about this. But are you aware of any science backing up his idea?
You are doubtless right. If art could make people do things, as they say, we’d mostly all be in church the whole time. What it can do, I suppose, I’d make it worthwhile doing anything else at all. Tarantino’s catharsis idea always strikes me as a little bit self-justificatory. If you want to justify making a violent film, the best argument is surely ‘I’m very good at making films & I want this one to be a violent one’. I can’t bring to mind any research that supports the argument. There may be some but it’s probably quite old & musty by now. I’ll let you know if any pops into my head of course.
Thanks for this wonderful article, Jason. It's fascinating. This part made me laugh:
"Let’s be honest: no country in the western world was exactly suffering from epidemics of school children rushing into toy stores and beating up inflatable dolls, especially not with hammers. No Bobo dolls were crying out about unfair victimisation. The dolls had no support groups and no protests; none of them pinned protest badges to their chests (partly because, being inflatable, they’d have burst)."
Wonderful article that explore an interesting issue. During the Cold War war, both Eastern and Western authorities claimed that American cinema was corrupting youth and driving them to antisocial behavior. One wonders where this commonly used heuristic comes from and why it continues to be so appealing to those who think about social change.
Many thanks for your kind words as ever, and thanks for the link. I'm just dashing off to deliver a class, but I'll be looking at the link as soon as I get five minutes: it looks interesting!
Your essay came just in time, since I recently had a friendly argument about this topic with some friends.
I would like to express some thoughts referring to the following quote of those psychologists: ‘By proving that a child will imitate the behaviour of an adult model, the experiment showed the power of examples of aggression in society’.
First, their claim to have scientifically proven something is philosophically problematic in general. Secondly, and more interestingly, the imitation of violent behaviour by a child might look like violent behaviour, but is not necessarily caused by or related to aggressive emotions felt by that child in that particular moment. Furthermore, that child certainly does not have a 'normal' motive for violent behaviour in that moment; there is no personal conflict to be solved, no will that has to be imposed, no aggression that needs to be acted out. It is more likely playful behaviour. Children also imitate the behaviour of batman, but neither do they feel like batman nor do they share his motivation.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, AA, which I read with interest. Just to let you know, I'm not ignoring you and certainly plan to get back to you on these points, but my next few days are a mad scramble of lectures and interviews. Back to you soon, I hope!
Well, the emotions and motives behind an action are important, for example, for legal professionals and psychologists. In order to categorise actions as intentional or unintentional, functional or expressive, lawful or unlawful, etc. it is always necessary to make assumptions regarding emotional states and motives of the actor.
One example: In some parts of the world, it is a common thing at childrens parties to beat a paper doll (a 'pinata') with a stick in order to extract the sweets which are inside of it. To beat a paper doll with a stick is certainly a violent act, but the emotions and motives behind it are rather playful. If you really think that emotions and motives are irrelevant, then there would be no difference between a child hitting a pinata with a stick to get some sweets and a child hitting another child with a stick out of frustration. While both actions look very similar from the outside, there is a huge psychological difference between them.
I hope that I could clarify this point. Looking forward to your thoughts.
I’ve long been skeptical about claims that art should be blamed for human behavior. I’m not a social scientist or psychologist, but that argument has always seemed like bullshit to me, and I’ve never seen any credible research demonstrating that these claims should be taken seriously. But I’m also skeptical about Tarantino’s catharsis idea. I mean, I love Tarantino’s work, and as amateur social scientists go, I don’t think he’s among the worst. And I WANT to believe he’s right about this. But are you aware of any science backing up his idea?
You are doubtless right. If art could make people do things, as they say, we’d mostly all be in church the whole time. What it can do, I suppose, I’d make it worthwhile doing anything else at all. Tarantino’s catharsis idea always strikes me as a little bit self-justificatory. If you want to justify making a violent film, the best argument is surely ‘I’m very good at making films & I want this one to be a violent one’. I can’t bring to mind any research that supports the argument. There may be some but it’s probably quite old & musty by now. I’ll let you know if any pops into my head of course.
Thanks for this wonderful article, Jason. It's fascinating. This part made me laugh:
"Let’s be honest: no country in the western world was exactly suffering from epidemics of school children rushing into toy stores and beating up inflatable dolls, especially not with hammers. No Bobo dolls were crying out about unfair victimisation. The dolls had no support groups and no protests; none of them pinned protest badges to their chests (partly because, being inflatable, they’d have burst)."
Thank you got your comment! I’m delighted to have made you laugh.
Wonderful article that explore an interesting issue. During the Cold War war, both Eastern and Western authorities claimed that American cinema was corrupting youth and driving them to antisocial behavior. One wonders where this commonly used heuristic comes from and why it continues to be so appealing to those who think about social change.
https://www.curingcrime.com/p/crime-cinema-and-cold-war-berlin?r=2bk4r1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Many thanks for your kind words as ever, and thanks for the link. I'm just dashing off to deliver a class, but I'll be looking at the link as soon as I get five minutes: it looks interesting!
Your essay came just in time, since I recently had a friendly argument about this topic with some friends.
I would like to express some thoughts referring to the following quote of those psychologists: ‘By proving that a child will imitate the behaviour of an adult model, the experiment showed the power of examples of aggression in society’.
First, their claim to have scientifically proven something is philosophically problematic in general. Secondly, and more interestingly, the imitation of violent behaviour by a child might look like violent behaviour, but is not necessarily caused by or related to aggressive emotions felt by that child in that particular moment. Furthermore, that child certainly does not have a 'normal' motive for violent behaviour in that moment; there is no personal conflict to be solved, no will that has to be imposed, no aggression that needs to be acted out. It is more likely playful behaviour. Children also imitate the behaviour of batman, but neither do they feel like batman nor do they share his motivation.
Am I mistaken? Thanks for the article
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, AA, which I read with interest. Just to let you know, I'm not ignoring you and certainly plan to get back to you on these points, but my next few days are a mad scramble of lectures and interviews. Back to you soon, I hope!
"Imitation of violent behavior" that lacks "aggressive emotions"? Who cares what emotions are involved!?
Well, the emotions and motives behind an action are important, for example, for legal professionals and psychologists. In order to categorise actions as intentional or unintentional, functional or expressive, lawful or unlawful, etc. it is always necessary to make assumptions regarding emotional states and motives of the actor.
One example: In some parts of the world, it is a common thing at childrens parties to beat a paper doll (a 'pinata') with a stick in order to extract the sweets which are inside of it. To beat a paper doll with a stick is certainly a violent act, but the emotions and motives behind it are rather playful. If you really think that emotions and motives are irrelevant, then there would be no difference between a child hitting a pinata with a stick to get some sweets and a child hitting another child with a stick out of frustration. While both actions look very similar from the outside, there is a huge psychological difference between them.
I hope that I could clarify this point. Looking forward to your thoughts.
https://thequillandmusket.substack.com/p/the-inherent-right-to-self-defense?r=4xypjp
Less violent crime the weekend the movie was released? How about the following weekend? And the one after that?