Mayhem: Violence As Public Entertainment

As in Lying and Secrets, she puts the question in clarifying perspective and reveals how our ways of dealing with it not only express but also shape our character and lives.

In exploring the modern role of violence as public entertainment, Bok pursues the middle ground, refusing to advocate outright censorship, but also reluctant to simply deny that there is a problem. One of her solutions is to increase "media literacy"--helping children "...learn to take a more active and self-protective part in evaluating what they see." This seems to be an eminently sensible response, protecting freedom of speech while interrogating the place of violence in our lives. It is not the violent entertainment itself that is dangerous, but its passive consumption by an unquestioning audience.

This is a dauntingly complex issue, and Bok cannot offer easy answers or hope to please all her readers, but this is a thoroughly researched and compellingly stated contribution to an extremely important debate.

Bok is amazingly uncritical and seems to have little familiarity with fifty years of research on this topic. She casually dismisses the idea that there is no common definition of violence, for example, without explaining that that argument is not generally about violence in real life (although many have argued that punching inflated bobo dolls is an odd example of violence), but that there is little consensus about what constitutes violence in the media, especially on television. When I teach courses in the media, I routinely ask students to identify specific instances of violence in television programming and the range of perceptions is incredible.

There is a lot on nonsense written on both sides of this argument. Unfortunately, Bok does nothing to clarify the issues or the data. I was hoping to be able to assign this book in my courses, but I won't bother.

Bok takes some time to get to what is really the fundamental point of her book and the point from which her theses spring--that violence in the media does have an effect on the population. It would be more accurate to state that she concludes that media depictions of violence have several effects. It is probably a sad commentary on the state of public debate that Bok must take extra care to state the modest nature of the conclusion. Media depictions of violence are not the only factors that lead to these negative consequences, she points out with stress, nor are we all influenced in the same ways. These points, which should be obvious even to those who would challenge Bok's theses and assumptions, seem to take force from Bok's arguments and diminish the power of the book. In other words, the need to deal with disingenuous counterarguments harms the overall result.

Ultimately, it may be that Bok is a little too careful, though she does suggest that censorship on some level might not be such a bad thing. Her arguments may be too restrained out of an effort to avoid the excesses that seem to dominate the popular debate. While Bok certainly avoids any appearance (to me, at least) of being a demagogue or hidebound ideologue, the result is not anything near a definitive treatment of the topic but instead more of a primer. The effort at objectivity is certainly wonderful, and the text is recommended for those who have not given the issue serious consideration. For those who have ruminated at length on this issue, "Mayhem" probably offers little new.