spotted a bit of an odd correlation, as we drink coffee across from the station
the preponderance of threats is why we accept violence in our media more readily than we accept sex, or even romance.
when confronted by something the human mind can either attack it, or run from it. although this is a binary way of looking at our processes every action taken as a result of confrontation exists nearer of further along the path to one of these conclusions, fight or flight.
sex, in our particular expression of social conciousness, occupies a private sphere, much to our degradation, and being private it encourages flight when presented socially. our social performativity can very quickly dissolve in to the crossing of arms and/or legs, the sighing and tsk'ing, looking anywhere but the screen, conversations about how unnecessary it is to depict the graphic act of, in out in out... the use of euphamisms. any number of symbolic ways to disperse the feeling associated with the presentation of sex, or arousal.
but violence is cherished, savoured. the things around violence are doted upon: pleasure derived from discussion of torture, our fondness for weaponry, aesthetics of agression, colours of conflict, explosions, swearing, alpha behaviour lauded.
i think there is a strong correlation with the activation of our fight/flight response and the comfort of seeing the threat destroyed, even symbolically. we are more prone to assessing whether or not something is a threat than we are for considering whether it
is beautiful, arrousing, smells good, needs a cuddle...
and because our daily consciousness is so filled with threats we become increasingly sensitive to those things which will eliminate a threat, dote on those things more and more, increasing their acceptance.
...just a thought.
when confronted by something the human mind can either attack it, or run from it. although this is a binary way of looking at our processes every action taken as a result of confrontation exists nearer of further along the path to one of these conclusions, fight or flight.
sex, in our particular expression of social conciousness, occupies a private sphere, much to our degradation, and being private it encourages flight when presented socially. our social performativity can very quickly dissolve in to the crossing of arms and/or legs, the sighing and tsk'ing, looking anywhere but the screen, conversations about how unnecessary it is to depict the graphic act of, in out in out... the use of euphamisms. any number of symbolic ways to disperse the feeling associated with the presentation of sex, or arousal.
but violence is cherished, savoured. the things around violence are doted upon: pleasure derived from discussion of torture, our fondness for weaponry, aesthetics of agression, colours of conflict, explosions, swearing, alpha behaviour lauded.
i think there is a strong correlation with the activation of our fight/flight response and the comfort of seeing the threat destroyed, even symbolically. we are more prone to assessing whether or not something is a threat than we are for considering whether it
is beautiful, arrousing, smells good, needs a cuddle...
and because our daily consciousness is so filled with threats we become increasingly sensitive to those things which will eliminate a threat, dote on those things more and more, increasing their acceptance.
...just a thought.
Labels: binary thinking, sex, violence
posted by Run for the Dawn | 12:58 AM
2 Comments:
Wow - yes!
I had only just finished watching Michael Mann's "Public Enemies" when I read this. It was a particularly bloodthirsty movie - we got to see more of the inside of bodies (blood) than the outside. The sex to violence ratio was about 1:99.
I thought it was interesting that the wikipedia article for the stress response gives the following examples for manifestations of the flight component: "social withdrawal, substance abuse, and even television viewing."
You've taken this one step further and asked why television viewing should provide any kind of resolution to the fight/flight response at all. After all, if we wanted to avoid our threats, we wouldn't want to see them depicted on television. Your suggestion, if I understand it, is that we experience resolution because television allows us to watch our threats being (violently) destroyed and deleted. It's fighting by proxy, satisfying both the fight and flight (and freeze) response in one hit.
I guess this goes some way toward explaining why so many narratives depict sexually activated people (especially women) being punished with violence. On one level, this violence is the sinner (the sin of lust) being punished by the Lord. On another level, it's the threat of sexual representation being symbolically resolved through violent means (over and over and over again).
I tell you a thing that interests me, and for which I cannot account: Why are men's bodies the ones that inflict this violence? Why do we see men perpetrating so much bodily violence - not just in cinema but in life? I believe that women cherish / adore the paraphernalia of violence as much as men do - action heroes, rugby heroes, white knights, warriors and policemen are stock characters in the erotic imagination of western women.
Anyway, this is a great essay - really thought provoking! I can see I've got a lot to learn on the topic of symbolic violence! xm
I think I'll add that people will watch violence on television, but often disapprove of it in reality...even in the television violence is bloody and the reality is safely inside a ring with a ref and paramedics (who are always super lovely).
And if it's a woman who's inflicting the violence it seems apparently more improper.
And as a Western woman I'll object and say that there are a good deal of us who don't chase the white knight...I personally have dated more morticians than police officers and rugby heroes put together.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home