Myth # 2: That by viewing violent and aggressive behavior on television, a child's own aggressive tendencies and impulses are "drained off" or satisfied vicariously with the result that he then is less likely to "act out" his belligerent feelings in real life.
Haven't you heard that claim made over and over again? Well, this myth is based upon an application of the Freudian psychoanalytic theory of "catharsis." The underlying belief is that unless aggression is gotten out of one's system by some means, it will supposedly be stored up only to come out later in intolerant attitudes, hatreds, prejudices, and hostile behaviors. Furthermore, it is claimed, failure to release feelings of hostility in childhood can cause neurotic difficulties in later life.
It can readily be seen why defenders of violence in TV programming resort to this argument, for if it is true, or as long as people believe it's true, then murder is medicine and trauma is therapy!
This belief is so ingrained in educational and psychological thinking as to have virtually become a modern-day superstition. Child psychology books are full of it and again, important authorities subscribe to it, thus keeping the myth alive.
Here are just two examples of high-powered experts endorsing the "catharsis" position. Dr. D. McLean, superintendent of Parramatta Psychiatric Hospital, NSW, Australia, told an audience at Sydney University recently that violent television programs could be a positive help in lowering man's natural aggressive potential. He stated that, "This type of program does fulfill [satisfy] some of man's aggressive instincts" (The Australian, July 1, 1968).
Another Briton, Lord Hill, the outspoken chairman of BBC, while addressing 500 educators at a conference of the Association of Assistant Masters in Southampton, England, flatly stated that, "Television violence may reduce real life violence" (Daily Express, January 2, 1969).
Myth # 2 Debunked: To cling to the "catharsis" argument in 1970 is almost pathetically archaic in view of the volume of solid research evidence available to disprove it. Since 1962 at least four comprehensive and independent studies have clearly demonstrated that long exposure to television aggression generates a corresponding impulse in a child — yes, even a normal child.
Perhaps the most interesting if not most conclusive study was done by Alfred Bandura and associates. Briefly, what they did was to expose one group of children to real-life episodes of physical aggression (striking, punching, kicking, etc.) ; another group to the same aggressive episodes in motion pictures; and a third group to aggression shown in movie cartoons.
Following the exposure the children were observed in a situation where they were free to behave aggressively and what do you think happened? You guessed it! They copied the belligerent behavior they had observed with great relish, vigor, and enthusiasm without any coaching. Common sense is again confirmed!
Just to summarize the findings for you, here are the points to remember in the words of the researchers: "The results of the . . . study provide strong evidence that exposure to filmed aggression heightens aggressive reactions in children . . . the available data suggest that, of the three experimental conditions, exposure to humans on film (or TV) portraying aggression was the most influential in eliciting and shaping aggressive behavior." And finally, "The view that the social learning of aggression through exposure to aggressive film content is confined to deviant children finds little support in our, data." In other words, these were normal children who were stimulated to violent behavior (Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 66, 1963, pp. 3-11).
Yes, children do imitate the aggressive acts and they do try out techniques they see in TV programs about thugs, burglars, rioters, and even hero figures who settle every disagreement with violence.
Let's stop flying in the face of reason and lay this "catharsis" myth to rest, never to be mentioned again. The argument that violence on viewed television produces a beneficial effect must be totally discounted as scientifically unsound.
Myth # 3: That criminal behavior which seems to be triggered by viewing television violence only occurs in persons who are psychologically "predisposed" to commit such acts in the first place.
Support for this myth comes mainly from "expert" opinion. But, the argument that there is no research proving an indisputable cause and effect connection between criminal behavior and televiewing is often thrown in for good measure.
Understandably, this theory enjoys great favor with TV producers and writers because it whitewashes them of any responsibility. They would have you believe that if anything evil is done as a consequence of viewing their programs, the person committing the act wanted to do it anyway — he was predisposed to do the foul deed regardless. Therefore, at most, the program only acted as a trigger-mechanism for an already distorted mind.
Myth # 3 Debunked: Now this raises a troublesome dilemma for the supporters of this myth, namely, how is such a predisposition acquired? We can't account for it as an inborn or inherited trait — no respectable psychologist would agree to that. Today we are environmentalists. We explain all behavior in terms of the past personal and social experiences of an individual's life. Remember, the byword is, "Nobody is born bad — society made him what he is!" That being the case, then any predisposition to violence must be accounted for by an individual's own experiences with violence.
Carrying the logic a step further we ask, "What is the greatest source of exposure to violence for infants, children and youth today?" Answer: TELEVISION!
The inescapable conclusion has to be that television itself is the heaviest contributor to antisocial predispositions in our society today! Violence in television programming conditions the mind, teaches the techniques, and then precipitates the action. To summarize simply, "Violence breeds violence."
No, it is not the deviates alone, as we saw in Bandura's study, who are stimulated to brutal behavior by TV, but normal children as well.
In his book, Television and the American Character — A Psychiatrist Looks at Television, Dr. Eugene David Glynn offered this sobering speculation regarding the long-run effect of unrestricted televiewing. "Those traits," he said, "that sick adults now satisfy by television can be presumed to be those traits which children exposed to television . . . all through the character-forming years may be expected to develop." There is the predisposition that television is teaching — a predisposition to mental illness. Is it happening in your home?
Far from blaming others, TV producers and writers who have pandered to violence are themselves largely responsible for the brutalization of the first TV generation.
And so, the "predisposition" myth bites the dust along with the "catharsis" idiocy and the "no harm" nonsense.
These three phony, pseudo-scientific sounding arguments have lulled the public into complacency too long. They are utterly untrue and completely discredited. They should no longer clutter our minds or deter our determination to take charge of our children's education by controlling the television curriculum.
You're the School Board
In a "Walter Mitty" sort of way, nearly every parent has subconsciously wanted to run the schools. We've all dreamed about what we would do if we were on the school board. We would straighten this out and change that and things would be a whole lot different in short order. But, few of us ever get the chance.
Well, now is your chance! You're the PRESIDENT of the school board! Yes, you're not only president of the school board, but you're also the principal of that one-room school in your own living room!
You can decide on school hours. You can select the curriculum. You can lay down the rules for classroom behavior. You can monitor the electronic "schoolmarm" and evaluate her teaching any time. In short, you can decide how your school will be run. But remember, as president of the board and principal, you are also responsible to enforce all these decisions. You MUST TAKE CHARGE of the TV curriculum!
Here's How
First, understand the absolute fact that early childhood experiences make indelible impressions. They lay the foundation for character and personality development. This is a very old truth. As far back as the 5th century B.C. we have Plato's observation that, ". . . the young are not able to distinguish what is and what is not allegory, but whatever opinions are taken into the mind at that age [two to seven] are wont to prove indelible and unalterable" (The Republic, Book II).
Then Aristotle came along at about the same time and left us some advice about what to do. He said, "On this account, we ought to make all base things unfamiliar to the young, and especially those that involve either depravity or malignity." His dogmatic recommendation was to ". . . banish indecent talk . . . for light talk about anything disgraceful soon passes into action . . . banish the seeing of either pictures or representations that are indecent . . ." (Politics, Book VII).
Well, that's pretty up-to-date talk for the "ancients." And the interesting thing is that nothing has changed in the past 2,500 years. Modern behavioral research agrees. Character development is still determined the same way in 1970.
The lesson here is to eliminate violence, lawlessness, indecency, and pornography in all forms from your child's TV curriculum. And it's simple. It only takes the moral determination to twist a dial or flick a switch.
Second, young children want to respect the school principal and they will imitate his example. But you're the principal now, remember? That means your personal TV viewing habits must be discriminating and selective. It's a "monkey see, monkey do" situation and you are being watched. Don't expect what you are unwilling to do yourself.
Third, effective learning requires interaction between teacher and pupil; and here is one great weakness of the TV curriculum. There will be no interaction in your school unless you make an effort to supply it yourself. The electronic "schoolmarm" talks, but she never listens! You will need to make yourself available as much as possible to interpret, explain, clarify, correct wrong ideas, criticize certain content, relate new facts to past experiences, etc. Only in this way can you effectively control what is being learned.
Fourth, every school takes recesses and yours should too. As a matter of fact, the recesses in your school should be considerably longer than the class sessions. A single program at a time is probably a good general rule and then a recess to engage in some other activity.
Your school should be teaching balance in all things — so encourage a wide variety of physical and intellectual interests. And remember, the principal is first of all a leader. That means you must get involved in other activities yourself.
Fifth, establish, and enforce some school policies regarding behavior in your classroom. Here are some to start with: (1) Good posture is important to good health, so there should be appropriate furniture handy and no sprawling or hunch-backed, slack-jawed, semiconscious viewing permitted. (2) A program which has been selected as worthy of watching should receive undivided attention for the duration. (3) Horseplay or other behavior which interferes with the enjoyment of others is out and should carry a penalty. (4) The dining room is for eating and except for an occasional snack there should be no eating in the classroom. The sessions should be short enough so no one is likely to starve anyway. (5) And, of course, school hours must be strictly observed.
Sixth, the TV curriculum should only be a small part of a youngster's education. Each should also be learning lessons through chores, responsibilities, and other obligations. When required, these must take priority over televiewing without any quibbling.
And finally, all schools take vacations for rest and a change of pace. Why not try closing your one-room school for vacation a day or two once in a while. Just unplug the set and ignore it. You may discover you were in a rut. You may also rediscover the joys of family conversation and companionship which the TV curriculum cannot provide.
Accentuate the Positive
Yes, the real school, the real curriculum, the real educational force today is commercial television. And, unfortunately, it is teaching mostly rubbish!
But remember, nobody is requiring COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE in this school. You still have freedom of choice. You can still take it or leave it, so it's up to you. Be selective and accentuate the positive in TV programming. The mind you save may be your own — or your child's.