James Garbarino & Blaming Culture

I went to a talk yesterday by James Garbarino at the University of St. Catherine on the topic of female aggression. While really interesting at many points, there was one spot that I almost considered totally tuning out.

He started talking about pop culture and the effects that it is having on today's youth. (This was through the increased portrayal of strong, aggressive females in movies & violence in both music & movies.) And he started into what sounded like a blaming of youth violence on the lack of immunity to these displays of aggression. (Evidently, in a research study on the effects of television on youths, girls were impervious to any negative effect from what they saw until the eighties.) I hate these blame games.

Each time there was a school shooting in the last decade, there were these lines of psychologists (and other "experts") that would rant on & on about the impact that violent games, music, & movies had. Doom & Marilyn Manson make you kill people. I'm sorry...but NO! FUCK NO! If this was true I would feel like there would have to be a lot more blood in the streets. Life is bloody now, but not as bloody as it seems like it should be.

Anyways, I was about to totally tune out (& be VERY bitter that I had dealt with driving just so I could hear a man say things that I didn't believe were good enough), but I managed to hang on just long enough for him to redeem himself.

See, James Garbarino says he analyses from the "ecological" standpoint. That means that the answer to most any question is: "It depends." Broad patterns are contextual, primarily based on society or time period. One of the examples was how "permissive" parenting in the 1920s brought about the best-adjusted adults; while in the 1960s "authoritative" parenting was more effective. This was due to the strictness of the world outside of the home, and how the home worked to counterbalance the outside. Thankfully, in my opinion, this held true to the effects of violence in media as well.

As it came across, violence in the media does not necessarily breed violence in those who view/listen to it. It is only dangerous when there is not a support structure in place. Those who already feel alienated are at a greater risk of acting out than those that have strong "spiritual" ties. (I think this was emphasized because the talk was at a Catholic college.) This "spiritual" grounding was just that the person felt that their life was meaningful in some way, or that the world/universe was meaningful.

I liked this a lot better. Despite the way I defend it, I do acknowledge that youth involved in violent acts are often drawn to violent music, movies, & games. It just should not be the scapegoat, and I do not believe that censoring is the right way to fix it (although it always sounds like the easiest). This "ecological" viewpoint shows that while pop culture is to blame, so are the rest of us that are not supporting each other well enough. It's the parents, the educators, and other positive role models that are lacking as well. There is not just one thing to point fingers at, there are many factors. And that should be acknowledged more often by those who talk about why moral disasters happen.


There, I feel better.