The unintended outcome of the fight against violent media.
'Parent seminar examines violent media content' was not the headline in the paper the other day. Though by all accounts it probably could have been, and maybe should have been. The parents who went to the seminar came back challenged and motivated. The informative presentations opened their eyes to some important new challenges. They felt empowered to deal with them.
It was probably worth an article in the news paper, except it wasn't really news. Parent seminars have been examining violent media content for years. The parents who went to this seminar could have been the children and grand children of parents who had gone to similarly informative and challenging seminars years before them.
I am of an age to remember when Marshall Dillon was the dangerous character who needed to be reined in lest impressionable children get the idea that the best solution to problems is to shoot the bad guy. And to some extent the campaign worked. The Gunslinger Sheriff gave way to heroes who thought, talked, or charmed their way through conflict. This was not an entirely bad thing as television told artistic and creative stories about characters like Columbo, Banacek, and Rockford. (Movies made a similar transition.)
But there's still a market for violent media. And since it's no longer fashionable for heroic role models to be the physically aggressive type, other kinds of characters have filled the void. In the old days, the violence of the sheriff or soldier taught us the proper use of force was to defend others. The message was use your violence for a noble purpose, not for your own advancement but for the good of others. These are the sorts of people others admire.
In these new days, sheriffs and soldiers have given way to outlandish characters like those in the WWE. The "matches" staged under the WWE banner feature people showing precious little self-discipline. With what seems to be reckless abandon, they act out unrestrained, atavistic aggression. Observers are entitled to ask if civilization has really advanced much beyond the Roman Coliseum.
It has advanced at least to this extent: the performers practise and train to avoid any lethal danger in their combat. But even this is no real advantage, for the audience of impressionable children who watch don't see it. They just see one fighter pounding an opponent's face into the mat. And they get the message loud and clear: use your violence to do what ever it takes, by any means necessary, to get what you want and be the last person standing in the ring. Then you will receive the cheers of an admiring audience.
Now a new generation of parents must learn to cope with the violent images children face. But now it's a much more dangerous kind. Marshall Dillon could be persuaded to lay down his gun for the sake of the greater good. But for the new, nihilistic, impulsive violence, such appeals are literally nonsense. It wonders, How would laying down my gun help me get what I want? and dismisses the request. The new violence can only be restrained by someone using violence against it. Which society must figure out how to do, and quickly.
Maybe we need to welcome Marshall Dillon back to clean up Dodge…
