Why do we watch violence?

Why do we watch violence?

Brian Lynch

Revised

"The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug." Chris Hedges

Why do we watch, read and engage in violence? It was an unsettling question when I was first asked and one I still feel uncomfortable with. It is one I feel less uncomfortable about bringing up in conversation although it tends to be a conversation-stopper.

Our first reaction might be that it is a “silly” question as that “of course” we watch it because it is “exciting” or simply entertaining. I realize too that many are very careful and do not watch violence. They have either seen enough of it, it triggers memories or they just understand that participating in violence vicariously might be unhealthy.

I should also be specific in that I am referring to movies, television, games, and violent sports. From the start, we should not be simplistic and forget that from time immemorial literature has dealt often, almost exclusively, with violence but I am asking and going back to the beginning and even asking why we even bother with the Iliad and the Odyssey or the tragedies’ of Shakespeare?

The answer is not obvious. The world has always been a dangerous place and this question is only even at all sensible in that the world is relatively much more safe compared to only one hundred years ago. That is it would have been laughable as to walk out in the street would to be to see what was on stage. 

I believe it was the humorist Dave Barry who invented the hotel game of “100 Channels.” The idea is to flip through 100 cable channels without seeing a gun. You “win” if you do not see a gun; pretty impossible to do. On the one hand, there is still much violence but otherwise, when is the last time you saw a gun in real life? I live and work in a pretty tough neighborhood and have not seen a gun except in the holster of an armed guard or policeman in about five years, and when I did it was in a lock box in a friend’s home.

This was not the case only a short time ago and throughout, at least recorded history, crime, famine, disease, and war were common. We recognize that often this resulted in times when the general mental status of the common man was quite unstable only adding to the turmoil. That is despite the common notion of “how bad things are now,” things have greatly improved at least as argued by Steven Piker (see an excellent summary of the decline of crime and violence by Steven Pinker). But there is a huge legacy and history of violence and of course still, too often our ways of solving problems involve violence; war to capital punishment and of course crime. 

 This present essay is a version of what I originally wrote and I interject here that I am now not so convinced of Pinker's findings. Since the original writing I have been aware of the criticism of Pinker and on my own have wondered about all the ways humans participate in violence and now at least am a bit dubious of his overall view. I would ask what do you think? I also warn that I do not get my own specific synthesis until the end of this piece.

We need not forget about such violence as domestic violence. Has it altered by much, stayed the same, or is it worse due to modern stressors? 

Until the advent of movies, now only a little over 100 years old, If we were to have live entertainment we only had the theater which was only accessible to the tiniest part of the population. And then reading which has been available to such a small part of the population despite the printing press, until recently. It seems to me that the electronic representation of violence has much to do with interest, interest in being able to so readily see a reflection of the violence in our own lives. 

Being so very ignorant of the causes of the chaos in our own lives we are subconsciously desperately looking and hoping for answers. Unfortunately, so many people grow up with such seemingly mindless violence ( I say seemingly because, in the end, it all has a logic) that much is watched as a means of medication, and retraumatizing or reliving trauma. Do others live the hell that I do? Why do they? How can I survive it? At its worst media is also, unfortunately often and frequently a classroom of “Oh that is how you defend yourself in this or that situation.”

A coherent view of how emotion drives history can be seen through the study of Psychohistory. From the start, I say I have a problem with its foundations in that it uses Freudian ideas where I argue for the more direct approach of motivation to action through our innate feelings. I think little if anything is lost in Lloyd DeMause’s work and thinking, for example, if you substitute one for the other when he talks of infant and childhood terror states being the cause of domestic and international terror. His “Foundations of Psychohistory” is a classic. It is not for everyone. If anything is violent this book is. It is the true history of violence against children. It puts into a historical context why our interest and excitement are focused on what he calls “sacrificial themes,” and why we search them out.

So, we watch to learn and to relive and then there is the pure emotion of it all. Chris Hedges teaches us about the addiction to battle. A former war correspondent he finally realized that he and many of his colleagues were “chasing the battle” and that in fact, he had become addicted to battle. He sobered up. His quote that is used to open this essay is used to open the movie “The “Hurt Locker” the “Best Picture” of 2010 explores one man's addiction to the thrill of disarming military ordnances and IED’s to the point that it is the only “real” thing in his life. He reenlists leaving his mate and young son.

I try to be conscious of when and how much violence I expose myself to. I will often wait a long time before I see a movie that I think is violent. Often I will never see it. But then why do I eventually see some? There are some distinctions to be made the most obvious are gratuitous and non gratuitous violence. Of late I have been surprised at how I have been disavowing much of the violence around me. This is not good and dangerous. Sticking your head in the sand is not good. 

Watching works that present themselves as honest, and I have found to be honest, has helped me evaluate the real world around me. The ends of “Macbeth” or “Hamlet” are not displays of gratuitous violence. And as much as the end of “Reservoir Dogs” might look like “Hamlet” it is not “Hamlet.” There is a movie I waited years to see. I was seduced simply by the name and it's staying power in my memory. 

I forgot it was by Quentin Tarantino. I for example will not see “Inglorious Bustards.” He is who he is and for me, he feeds the addiction of and for violence. I hear him say he has no obligation whatsoever to have a moral stance. His stance is free-floating excitement and whatever serves that end is fine with him. To me, his violence is by definition gratuitous because it is only there to entertain and to satiate. After all, there is no further end, no moral, no real plot. What is the point of most marital art movies except excitement? Or the discharge of anger, rage, disgust, and revenge and not to forget honor?

Why do you enjoy violence?

Although the answer to my question is complex there is one central idea that I find powerful.

Yes, there are various reasons we have mentioned such as curiosity and learning and I will return to them. 

At the core what are we doing? For the most part, we are experiencing a core human mode of existence. Who after all engages in violence? The world is full of violence and all manner of animals and even a few plants can be said to engage in violence. Most violence in the world is for survival in the form of getting food. Next, it is to maintain the existence of self through self-defense. 

In humans, we have the same motivations but the most common cause of violence is from responding to emotional damage. We reach a breaking point when we feel overwhelming shame or humiliation. The majority of the time we avoid violence by removing ourselves from the situation, submitting to the situation, or engaging in some form of distraction. Often it is only when we have exhausted these three options do we attack. These are all solutions to a problem. Many if not most animals have a similar system of survival.

Humans have an added ability and that is to have a high awareness of what is going on. We, as many other animals that have demonstrated even a low level of cognition, can mentally abstract ourselves from the situation. The aforementioned four ways of dealing with a situation tend to be on an automatic or institutional level. In society, they often do not solve anything but make matters worse. Of course, attacking usually causes more problems. 

I am working with the idea then that we watch violence because, on the most basic level, it is a reflection of our lives. A reflection that keeps us in a mental state of the basic four options of removing ourselves, accepting or distracting from the situation until it is too much and we attack. We search out this material because we do not understand, and who does, that this is the way we have developed. 

We are not educated to the point of understanding that behavior can be broken down as I have described and therefore we are in somewhat of a constant state of confusion being pulled in all directions wondering what is necessary and whether we need to or not engage in violence. We are not at a state where we see that we do have higher mental capacities that many times could avoid all the mess. Of course, we try and we muddle our way to peace much of the time but we still need much more clarity. I will leave it at this for now. It is an important topic to come to grips with and others certainly might be better able to articulate it.