Media Images of Violence and Reduced Empathy - Case Study Example

Take Home Exam: Media, Images of Violence and Reduced Empathy Name: University: Instructor: Course Title: Date: Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Conceptualisation of Terms 4 2.1 Images of Violence 4 2.2 Empathy 4 3.0 Reduction of Capacity to Empathise: A Case Example of Media 5 3.1 Contextualising Role of Media in Reduction of Individual’s Capacity to Empathise 5 3.2 Media role in Normalisation of Violence and Reduction in Capacity to Empathise: Desensitization Model 6 4.0 Conclusion 9 References 10 1.0 Introduction Hoffman (2001, p.3) observes that empathy has been a critical social element in development of humanity over the years. Nevertheless, he feels that this concept is under threat from various quarters. One of the socialising agents that have been blamed for such downward trend is the media whereby they broadcast and gratify continually images of violence to the public. Images of violence within the context of media are termed as events whether stand still photo, audio, video or combination of both as an exhibition of physical use of force or physical aggression (Huesmann, 2007, p.7). According to Andersen and Taylor (2008, p. 87-88), media as one of the socialisation agents that give social meaning to various elements in the society has played a greater role in the normalisation of violence by desensitising viewers as result of overexposure to violent scenes leading to reduced empathy as reinforced by the concept of social learning theory where people learn from observation. The aim of the paper is to critically analyse the idea that exposure to visual images of violence and suffering has reduced our capacity to empathise with the suffering of others. In relation to images of violence, the framing role that comes into limelight is how media outlets through ascribing of social meaning while depicting images of violence normalise violence. In this regard, the discourse points at the stance/ framing which has been advanced in certain instances by various institutional traditional media houses be it electronic or print and the new media/ social media it normalising violence or in making violence look a normal issue by constantly displaying them to the public or gratify certain violent action. The paper interrogates how this framing leads to reduced empathy under the context of ‘Desensitisation Model’ and how individuals who are the target audience come to embed such behaviour/ perceive (‘Aggressive Behaviour’) in their brains under the learning model such as social learning theory that reinforces the perception that violence is normal and thus, no need to empathise as exhibited by media in images of violence. 2.0 Conceptualisation of Terms 2.1 Images of Violence Media plays an integral role in the development of human society by contributing to democratic discourse, informing people and entertaining people (Finkelstein, 2012). Nevertheless, the media has negative roles such as dissemination of propaganda (Mullen & Klaehn, 2010) and exhibition of images of violence (Huesmann, 2007, p.6). According to Huesmann (2007, p.7) media violence involves “visual portrayals of acts of physical aggression by one human character human like character against another”. Gerbner et al (1980) sees violence as the “overt physical expression of force”. It is portrayal of this physical aggression that the paper aims to establish how it contributes to reduced capacity to empathise. The point of entry would be how media frames violence by giving social meaning that normalises it. 2.2 Empathy From a broader perspective, Davis (1980, p.3) sees empathy as the responsiveness of an individual to the experiences of another person. Empathy is conceptualised as the painful brain stimulus or neural response that drives an individual to have an ability to experience another individual’s pain or suffering (Singer, et al, 2004, p.1157). From the above definition, the emerging conceptualisation is the ability of one to try and fit into the position of the other party who is undergoing nasty experience such as pain or suffering. Hoffman (2001, p.3) on the other simply put it in a summarised form as “the spark of human concern for other”. According to Davis (1980, p.3), empathy can either be categorised as cognitive/ emotional or instinctive/ intellectual. According to him, instinctive empathy “is a quick, involuntary seemingly emotional reaction to the experiences of others”. On the other hand intellectualised empathy is “the ability to recognise the emotional experiences of others without vicarious experiencing of the state”. 3.0 Reduction of Capacity to Empathise: A Case Example of Media 3.1 Contextualising Role of Media in Reduction of Individual’s Capacity to Empathise The entry point of determining how media reduces an individual’s capacity to empathise is conceptualised by what Muschert (2009, p.165) refers to us as ‘Media Framing’ or amplification of issues. Tankard (2001, p.100-101) notes media has a capacity to influence and shape the kind of information delivered to the ultimate consumer. Vertommen, Vandendaele, & Van Praet, (2012) refers to this framing as journalistic stance (p.123 & 124). Muschert (2009, p.165) defines media framing as “how media producers select an interpretive framework for the story, which facilitates the discourse about an issue as well as the public understanding”. On the other hand, Tankard (2001, p.100-101) presents media framing as the deliberate engagement where responsible individuals/ institutions organise a central idea relating to a given news and its content by deliberately sieving the ideas through selection, emphasis, exclusion and elaboration. Vertommen, Vandendaele & Van Praet (2012, p.124) postulates that “media personalities typically invite their readership to align by expressing (either personal or shared) viewpoints, and continuously shifting the responsibility for those viewpoints which can either be averred or mediated”. It this contextualisation that can make whatever they deliver for public consumption to look big/ gratify, small/ demonise, normal, abnormal, right or wrong, who victimizers are and who victims are (Müller, Seizov & Wiencek 2012, p.117). Indeed, Slade (1981, p.144) observes that this framing can lead to biased and stereotyping. Under the context of social meaning, the same argument can be extended to images of violence where media can make them look normal therefore making viewers lose empathy since the scenes presented are normalised as if nothing has happened. Media is one of the socialisation agents globally. Media offers a ‘public sphere’ platform where individuals can engage on various social issues. Mckee (2010, p.4 ) states that the public sphere is “A domain of our social life where such a thing as public opinion can be formed [where] citizens ... deal with matters of general interest without being subject to coercion ... [to] express and publicize their views”. It is in this sphere under the context of ‘media framing’/ ‘media stance’ that the media itself as a socialisation agent gives meaning to images of violence which normalises violence as a normal occurrence and thus inhibiting individual’s ability to empathise. While talking about social meaning, the paper implies how various socialisation agents construct and build perception of individuals about various social phenomenons occurring daily in their lives (Walzer, 1993). In this context, the normalisation role of media as means of ascribing social meaning to violence by depiction of images of violence and therefore leading to desensitisation of individuals and even growth of violent behaviours and thus, lack of capacity to empathise. 3.2 Media role in Normalisation of Violence and Reduction in Capacity to Empathise: Desensitization Model As already seen, media is a socialisation agent. The ultimate methodology at disposal of media outlets through media personalities for socialising individuals/ community is ascription of social meaning to various phenomenon and elements in the society. The question that emerges subsequently is how they are able to attain reduction of individual’s capacity to empathise. The answer lies with the concept known as normalisation process. Under social construct and framing role of media as identified earlier, media platforms can make a phenomenon such as violence through constant overexposure look like a normal scenario that should not worry any individual. Moreover, it can glorify violence which then can induce individual to adore the same and thus have the urge to practice violence therefore leading to reduce capability to empathise. For instance, let us take the role of media under labelling theory whereby they frame and label actions according to their bias. In a nutshell, all these encounters lead to what is known as desensitization. There is a direct causal relationship between depiction of images of violence in various media outlets, aggression and reduced empathy. The reduction of empathy level in such context is conceptualised under the framework of desensitisation. There are host of works relating to desensitisation. In most works, the merging theme in desensitisation model is the lack or reduction in one’s capacity to empathise as result of being over exposed to violent scenes. In a generic approach, Bushman and Anderson (2009, p. 273); Cantor and Wilson (2003, p. 363); Fanti et al. (2009, p. 185) observes that over exposure to violent scenes/ programming in various media outlets make one resistant to violence and thus, reduces ones’ empathy ability. Cantor and Wilson (2003, p. 4) extends the observation by noting that not only does the overexposure reduces one’s ability to empathise, but it also induces one to engage in violent behaviour since over exposure to violence weakens an individual’s inhibition against engaging in aggressive behaviour. The second causal relationship question that emerges is how is it possible for media to desensitise individuals so that they experience reduced or lack empathy. The answer lies within the theoretical framework of social learning theory. Bandura (1977, p.305 & 306) in his worked indicated that individuals have the capacity to learn from their environment as result of observation. This process is affirmed when the whole encounter is rewarded while it discouraged when the whole encounter is punished. Indeed he notes that deviant behaviours such as violence and crime are learnt through observation learning. Bartol (2002) affirms the same by noting that people who live in crime infested setting are likely to graduate to the same activities. Therefore in our context, the setting/ immediate environment would be media broadcast that frames and present violence in a gratified and normal manner instead of something that individuals should desist from. Therefore, creating a physical and psycho-social environment where people have reduced empathy as result of normalisation of violence. Indeed, such scenarios create individuals who equally cannot suppress or overcome their aggression/ Id thereby allowing them to conduct violent activities (Englander, 2007, p.22). the rationale for argument is anchored on the fact that since media are likely to frame violent scenes in a gratified manner, most viewers who are over exposed to such scenes are likely to resort in impulsive pleasure seeking drives (Toch, 1979, 81). Moreover, such exposure can lead to latent delinquency (DiNapoli, 2002, 447). This mental status arise as a result of discrepancy in socialisation, inhibited ability to feel guilty and reduced empathy and thus exhibits itself in ones urge for instantaneous indulgence. Based on the psychoanalysis above, the outcome of all these processes is desensitisation process that reduces empathy as result of the fact that the numerous movies and violent programming that depicts a lot of aggression have high chances of influencing the perception of viewers especially toddlers and adolescents that aggression and violence are norms by empowering them to learn and internalise them as virtues based on over exposure and gratification presented by the media (Andersen and Taylor, 2008, p.86). For instance, let us take the case example of the adolescents and their vulnerability to desensitisation as result of social learning/ learning from observation from the immediate environment. At adolescent stage, Richards (2011, p.4 citing Steinberg, 2005, p.69) postulates that “changes in arousal and motivation brought on by pubertal maturation precede the development of regulatory competence in a manner that creates a disjunction between the adolescent’s affective experience and his or her ability to regulate arousal and motivation.” Therefore, this inability to regulate arousal and motivation is likely to be hampered by over exposure to violent images thus, leading to desensitisation as a result of learning from observation. 4.0 Conclusion The focus of this discourse was to assess and interrogate the idea that exposure to visual images of violence and suffering has reduced our capacity to empathise with the suffering of others. The paper established that media plays a greater role in reducing individuals capacity to empathise with the suffering of others. In this regard, the greatest context was how the media frames issues. Specifically too violence is how it frames by making violent scenes look normal or even gratify them therefore making viewers to be desensitised as they feel that that is a normal encounter that is not worth feeling for. In the centre of all these process is media a socialisation tool and the ability of individuals to learn from their immediate environment as anchored in social learning theory. References Andersen, M. L. and Taylor, H. F. (2008). Sociology: understanding a diverse society. Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bartol, C. (2002). Criminal Behaviour: A Psychological Approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Cantor, J. and Wilson, B. J. (2003). Media and violence: intervention strategies for reducing aggression. Media Psychology, 5, 363-403. Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. DiNapoli, P. P. (2002). Adolescent violent behavior and ego development. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31(6), 446−448. Englander, Elizabeth. (2007). Understanding Violence (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fanti, K. A., Vanman, E., Henrich, C. C. and Avraamides, M. N. (2009). Desensitization to media violence over a short period of time. Aggressive Behaviour, 35, 179-187. Finkelstein, R, (2012). Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation, Canberra: Australian Government. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980). The “mainstreaming” of America: Violence profile no. 11. Journal of communication, 30(3), 10-29. Hoffman, M. L. (2001). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge University Press. Huesmann, L. R. (2007). The impact of electronic media violence: scientific theory and research. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 6-13. Mckee, A. (2005). The Public Sphere: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mullen, A., & Klaehn, J. (2010). The Herman–Chomsky Propaganda Model: A Critical Approach to Analysing Mass Media Behaviour. Sociology Compass, 4(4), 215-229. Müller, M. G., Seizov, O. & Wiencek, F. (2012). Analyzing Visual Media Coverage of Amok School Shootings – A Novel Iconographic Approach, in Glenn W. Muschert, Johanna Sumiala (ed.).School Shootings: Mediatized Violence in a Global Age (Studies in Media and Communications, Volume 7), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.117-139. Muschert, G. W. (2009). Frame-changing in the media coverage of a school shooting: The rise of Columbine as a national concern. The Social Science Journal, 46(1), 164-170. Richards, K. (2011). What makes juvenile offenders different from adult offenders? (Vol. 7). Australian Institute of Criminology. Singer, T., Seymour, B., O'Doherty, J., Kaube, H., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2004). Empathy for pain involves the affective but not sensory components of pain. Science, 303(5661), 1157-1162. Slade, S. (1981). The image of the Arab in America: Analysis of a poll on American attitudes. The Middle East Journal, 143-162. Tankard, J. W., Jr. (2001). The empirical approach to the study of media framing. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Toch, Hans. (1979). The Psychology of Crime and Criminal Justice. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Vertommen, B., Vandendaele, A., & Van Praet, E. (2012). Towards a multidimensional approach to journalistic stance. Analysing foreign media coverage of Belgium. Discourse, Context & Media. Walzer, M. (1993). Objectivity and social meaning. The Quality of Life, 165-77. Read More