John W. Maly wrote:
> While this is definitely a recent invention, I would posit that it simply
> allows children to bring their fantasies closer to reality. The root of
> the problem would seem to be that children are confusing fantasy with reality,
> and even having murderous fantasies to begin with. Violent TV has been around
> longer than the 1990's; the "Faces of Death" movies, and the violent action
> thrillers in the theaters today are not exclusively a product of this decade.
one more thing... it should be possible, to sort some of this out
by cross correlating quantity of media violence per year with
birth dates... the thought being that the "current generation" of
Children has increased vulnerability because they've matured
completely within the established violence-as-"entertainment"
culture, while folks born earlier (including most of those who
develop such "entertainment") had acquired "imunity", to a
degree, because their development was not contained entirely
within the violence-as-"entertainment" culture... the point being
that such total immersion might be a key thing, in that it
disallows alternative, healthy, development. (remember, the early
years of Life are critical years in development... it might be
that what we're seeing is due to the "current generation's" being
the first to be exposed to violence-as-"entertainment" during
those critical years.
add to this, the culture shock of a move from one part of the
country to another, where familiar stablizing factors are lost,
and a Child might view the "anxiety" that naturally accompanies
such lost of familiar stuff as being in the same "class" as the
violence-as-"entertainment" stuff the Child experienced,
inadvertently, during the Child's critical development years...
in other words, the early exposure to violence-as-"entertainment"
would act as a predisposing factor which, when coupled with later
"normal" trauma, might tip the balance.
other point: i might be wrong because i've not kept rigorous
"accounts", but it does seem to me that, for the past 3-4 years,
there's been a trend away from violenceas-"entertainment? anyone
else notice the same?
at any rate, the thing that's unacceptable to me is that the
violence-as-"entertainment" stuff was done in a
calculated-to-win-"profits" way. as such, there's victimization
for "profit" in-there, and such is unacceptable.
these are important considerations that academia should sort out.
there're grounds for understanding because, since the
violence-as-"entertainment" folks were not within the
total-immersion "generation", for them, it's True that they've
grounds for discernment and differentiation that can account for
their "confusion" about the effects of the stuff they've done for
"profit". but for the total-immersion groups there's no such
grounds for discernment and differentiation(?).
if this's tested, and holds up, then Society must Choose to take
action to assure that Children are not immersed in
violence-as-"entertainment" during their critical years of
K. P. Collins