Nowadays, more and more social scientists grow to realize that the phenomenon of crime can hardly be discussed as a “thing in itself”, simply because one’s criminal behavior appears to be closely linked to the particularities of how criminally-minded individual perceives a surrounding reality. In its turn, this points out people’s tendency to indulge in anti-social behavior as such that cannot be solely correlated to environmental factors that affected the process of these people’s upbringing.
This is the reason why many of today’s sociologists and criminologists have concluded that, for law enforcement agencies to effectively combat crime, people’s criminal behavior needs to be recognized as having clearly defined sub-cultural subtleties – that is, citizens’ racial, cultural and religious affiliation play crucial role in forming their social attitudes. Therefore, we can only agree with the foremost idea, promoted by essays found in Jeff Ferrell and Clinton Sanders’ book “Cultural Criminology”: “Criminal behavior is, more often than not, subcultural behavior… In this sense, much of what we take as crime is essentially collective behavior; whether carried out by one person or many, particularly criminal acts are often organized within and instigated by subcultural groups” (Ferrell, Sanders 4, 1995).
In its turn, this reveal claims that link the rise of crime in Western countries to these countries’ media’ tendency to glorify violence, as being conceptually conflicting, because most Media operate within the framework of a mainstream culture, which is being actively opposed by people affiliated with criminal sub-cultures. Therefore, while not denying the fact that the influence of today’s media can certainly be related to the “decline of morals”, observed in Western countries, we nevertheless strongly disagree with suggestions that it is namely citizens’ exposal to Media violence, whexposureually causes them to choose in favour of committing violent favor, as the ultimate mean of dealing with their existential challenges.
The fact that modern Medias often make a point in Mediating violence is nothing but an indication that “something is rotten in the fair kingdom of Denmark”. However, it is absolutely inappropriate to rh Media’s tendency as the actual diagnosis for the process of Western societies’ social integrity being continuously undermined, as time goes by. In this paper, we will aim at substantiating the logical soundness of our thesis.
Before we even begin discussing the effects of Media violence upon Australian society, we will need to specify that the realities of post-industrial living make it quite impossible to refer to Australian national Media as being national, in the full sense of this word. In his article “Dictatorship of the Foreign-Controlled Media”, Jonathan Graham is making a valid point when he suggests: “We now live in the virtual dictatorship of a foreign-controlled media. Australia resembles a country occupied by foreign corporations, in which our journalists, bureaucrats, and politicians are collaborators…
By heavily censoring one side of the Asianisation, multiculturalism and disarmament debates, the unprofessional and corrupt media have turned journalism into blatant propaganda” (Graham 1998). Even without indulging in extensive research onto the actual ownership of Australian Media, it is absolutely clear that they should be referred to as being simply the “national branches” of America’s transnational Media corporations.
As saying goes – people’s dreams are made in Hollywood. Therefore, our discussion as to the true reasons why these “dreams” become ever more violent has global, rather than strictly national implications. After all, Australia remains an integral part of Western civilization. And, as a Western country, Australian society’s integrity is being undermined in the same way as it happens in other Western countries, which crazed promoters of multiculturalism had managed to firmly set on the path of turning into Third World slums.
We need to understand that today’s Western civilization is nothing but a spiritual heir of the late Roman Empire, which is why, for us to get an insight into the true reasons why more and more citizens in Western countries tend to indulge in violent behavior, we will simply need to analyze what was prompting Roman citizens, in time of Roman Empire’s decline, to act in a very similar manner.
In the last century, before ancient Rome was being completely sacked by barbarians, there was only one way for Roman Emperors to win public support – by staging ever-more bloodier gladiator shows. And the reason for this was simple – by that time, Romans have ceased to be Romans, in the biologically cultural sense of this word, as the result of being subjected to racial and spiritual marginalization for centuries, which in its turn, was gradually depriving them of their sense of perceptional idealism.
The phrase “bread and entertainment” became the motto of the time (just as is the case in Western countries today). The overwhelming majority of Romans were preoccupied with seeking entertainment, as the very point of their existence. Moreover, they could only be “entertained” by being exposed to the sight of gladiators killing each other in Coliseum’s arena (sometimes, as many as 10.000 people would be killed in one day), because only this could satisfy degenerate Romans’ animalistic appetite for bloody spectacles.
Such our brief historical excurse allows us to get a better understanding of what causes people to enjoy seeing others suffer, regardless of whether we talk about ancient Romans or today’s Australians. In their book “The Critical Criminology Companion”, Thalia Anthony and Chris Cunneen leave no doubt as to the utterly objective essence of people’s fascination with R-rated Media products: “Despite the taken-for-granted condemnation of crime as a social phenomenon, individuals in large numbers choose to spend their leisure time-consuming Media stories about the crime – stories which often present victimization in graphic and confronting detail” (Anthony, Cunneen 19, 2008).
The ultimate reason that prompts media to promote violence is that there is a commercial demand for it. And the reason why there is such a demand in the first place is that, just as it was the case in a time of Rome’s decline, more and more citizens in Western countries are now being deprived of their sense of idealism, by being affected by racial, spiritual and intellectual marginalization (the side-effect of a policy of “multiculturalism” being given official status in Western countries), which in its turn, causes them to think of violence in terms of entertainment.
In his article “An Exploration of Media Violence in a Junior-High School Art Classroom”, Kuan Sheng comes up to essentially the same conclusion, even though the author articulates it in form of a politically correct rhetorical question: “Do people enjoy violent media programs because they offer aesthetic gratification? Does extensive exposure to media violence have detrimental effects? If this is the case, why do so many people thirst for more?” (Sheng 57, 2007).
The very context of this question implies a positive answer. There can be no doubt that people’s sub-cultural inclinations do affect their aesthetic preferences. Even Liberal sociologists, who discuss graffiti on the walls of public buildings in terms of “art”, do admit the fact that this “art” is the product of “collective sub-cultural mentality”, which in its turn, implies that the variety of different factors play their role in forming such mentality, as opposed to purely environmental ones: “Graffiti writers paint a complex system of subterranean signs directly onto the walls of cities that otherwise would render them invisible.
In tagging and piecing for one another, writers also construct alternative systems of status and identity” (Ferrell 83, 1995). The reason author does not specify the “complexity” of graffiti semiotics is because there is nothing complex about it – the presence of graffiti in Western cities simply reflect that fact that, while “progressive” social scientists discuss the graffiti writing as “expression of people’s existential uniqueness”, these cities are being territorially divided on “zones of influence” among competing ethnic gangs.
In its turn, this provides us with insight on the actual roots of just about any criminal sub-culture, as such that cannot be discussed outside of this sub-culture affiliates’ biological makeup. And the reason why mainstream sociologists and criminologists strive to do their best, to avoid discussing the existence of a clear link between people’s tendency to indulge in anti-social behavior and their ethnic affiliation, is simple – they do not want to lose their jobs, as such discussion, on their part, would represent committing a “crime” against the spirit of “political correctness”.
Nevertheless, even the most “open-minded” sociologists, such as Alison Young, are finally beginning to realize that the utilization of a legal system, based on British common law, in a multicultural society is doomed to operational failure.
In her article “Textual Outlaws and Criminal Conversations”, Alison Young explains the ineffectiveness of what she refers to as “Western criminal-legal tradition” by exposing this system being essentially the legal sublimation of euro-centric existential values, which in its turn, contradicts the very conceptual premise of multiculturalism: “Such a crisis (within Western criminal-legal tradition) has arisen out of the inability to solve the conundrum of criminality, to contain its effects and to account for its meanings.
While the notion of crisis is now commonplace, it is often presented within a frame of crisis-management, in which the crisis is to be sutured or cover over” (Young 3, 1996). Unfortunately, while working on her article, the author has failed to realize that her approach to dealing with the issues of criminality represents the classical example of “crisis management” in the field of criminology, simply because sociologist can’t gain insight onto the metaphysical roots of crime, without such sociologist’s willingness to recognize criminal behavior as being rather biologically then environmentally motivated.
As we have suggested earlier in this paper, it is namely the particularities of people’s ethnocultural identity, which define these people’s sense of criminal aesthetics. This is exactly the reason why violent TV programs and movies are especially popular among audiences that consist of “ethnically unique” citizens. For example, the reason why the movie “Fast and Furious”, which glorifies gang-related violence and reckless driving, had instantly become a blockbuster, after being released to American movie theatres, is because of “cinematographic enthusiasm”, on the part of Hispanic moviegoers.
In her article “Movie Marketing Targets Latinos”, Pamela McClintock says: “The surprisingly strong opening of Universal’s “Fast and Furious” – $71 million over the April 3-5 weekend – was Hollywood’s latest reminder of the power of Hispanic moviegoers… Universal made its biggest Hispanic marketing spend to date for the pic. There are an estimated 45 million people with Hispanic backgrounds in the U.S.
For more than a decade, the Motion Picture Assn. of America has pegged Hispanics as the fastest-growing segment of the moviegoing audience” (McClintock 2009). There can be little doubt as to the fact that the fans of “Fast and Furious” do strive to mimic the actions of the movie’s main characters in reality. The only question here is whether they do it as the result of having watched this particular movie or because watching “Fast and Furious”, on their part, had simply helped movie’s fans to take pride in their inborn anti-social instincts.
The second case scenario appears to be much more plausible because there is plenty of evidence available as to the fact that there are no objective reasons to consider Media violence as the actual catalyst of social violence. The validity of this thesis can be easily illustrated by the analysis of violent computer games’ effects on children’s upbringing. In her article “No Strong Link Seen between Violent Video Games and Aggression”, Andrea Lynn points out at conceptual inconsistency of claims that blame violent video games for the apparent increase of levels of intolerance among the youth: “Contrary to popular opinion and most previous research, the new study found that players’ “robust exposure” to a highly violent online game did not cause any substantial real-world aggression” (Lynn 2005).
People do not go out on the street to push drugs, rob stores, or gang-rape women, because, at some point in their lives, they have watched these activities taking place in movies. They do it because of their genetic inclination to indulge in anti-social behavior.
In his famous book “The Man of Genius”, the founder of Positive Criminology Cesare Lombroso comes up with extensive evidence as to inborn subtleties of people’s existential inadequateness, while suggesting that instead of combating crime, society should seek to eliminate preconditions for criminally minded individuals to be born in the first place: “From the head of one American family, Max Jukes, a great drunkard, descended, in seventy-five years, 200 thieves and murderers, 280 invalids attacked by blindness, idiocy or consumption, 90 prostitutes and 300 children who died prematurely. The various members of this family cost the state more than a million dollars” (Lombroso 56, [1891] 2007).
It has been proven since a long time ago that the percentage of children born with genetically predetermined mental or physical abnormalities is significantly higher within inter-racial families and within families with the history of hereditary disorders among its members, as opposed to racially homogeneous families, the members of which lead healthy lifestyles. In other words, it is the fact that Australian society takes pride in being “multicultural” and “tolerant” towards different forms of people’s physical and mental degradation, which prompt more and more normal citizens in this country to fear for their lives, especially when they find themselves stranded on “gang turfs”, which are usually being marked with an abundance of graffiti “art” on buildings’ walls.
In his article “Foreigners among Citizens”, Grant Farred says: “Lebanese Australians took over the streets of several “white” suburbs in the southwest of Sydney: from Cronulla to Maroubra to Brighton-le-Sands. The Lebanese transformed the White suburbs into no-go zones for the residents: the residents had nowhere to go, except stay in their homes” (Fareed 141, 2007). Can we seriously believe that it is “evil” Media that encourage the overwhelming majority of newly arrived ethnic immigrants to Australia to become aggressively violent after they have been granted their landed status? Those who know what the concept of eugenics stands for; can have absolutely no doubts as to the sheer absurdity of such suggestion.
Therefore, Bible thumpers who continue to whine about the “decline of morals” in Australia and other Anglo-Saxon countries, as the result of media promoting the “message of violence”, would be much better off doing what they do best – thumping the “good book”, instead of providing citizens with their “valuable” opinions on issues they could not possibly comprehend. Media content simply reflects citizens’ needs, and the fact that this content grows to be ever-more violent can only have one meaning – citizens long to be exposed to violence, they want to see people blown to pieces, sawn in half, and ridden with bullets, just as spiritually corrupted Romans wanted to be exposed to the sight of gladiators killing each other in Coliseum.
And the reason they have such a need has been explained earlier in this paper. Therefore, only utterly naive people can believe that Australian society’s well-being can benefit from “anti-violent censorship” being imposed upon media. If this happens, it will produce a counter-productive effect – “ethnically unique” citizens will be more encouraged to seek to satisfy their animalistic instincts out on the streets.
The truth is – a Lebanese, Pakistani, or Chinese youth can be forced to play “Bible Crossword” board game, with the access to violent video games being denied to him – yet, he will still be more likely to indulge in violence by the time he grows up, as compared to a White youth, who had been playing “Mortal Combat” all his life, simply because, unlike White Australians, the representatives of racial minorities in this country are being united by their acute sense of racial and cultural solidarity, which causes them to aggressively oppose the euro-centric concepts of law and order, in the first place.
Yes, by writing graffiti on the walls of public buildings and by creating their own “society within a society”, these people can “explore their uniqueness”, as suggested by Young and Ferrell. Yet, they do it at the expense of exporting their countries’ social entropy into Australia. Apparently, despite their extensive academic credentials, both: Young and Ferrell, had failed to realize that by affiliating themselves with criminal sub-culture, people do not seek to realize their individuality but to prevent their ethnobiological identity from being subjected to the euro-centric concept of city living, as something inconsistent with these people’s mentality.
We understand perfectly well that It is so much easier to place blame, over unsightly realities of living in “multicultural” Australia on media, rather than on those who truly deserve it – our own “respectable” politicians and educators, who have embraced ignorance as an integral part of their existential mode, while going as far as to suggest that graffiti and rap music represent some form of “art”.
As the famous saying goes – if God wants to punish people, he deprives them of their sense of logic. Therefore, we can only hope that people in charge of designing socio-political policies in this country, will eventually come to their senses. Given the semantic context of Kevin Rudd’s 2007 speech, during which he came up with the following statement: “This idea of Australia being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity” (Aldridge 2007), we can suggest that the process of Australia’s social policies being adjusted to the notion of sanity has already begun.
Bibliography
Aldridge, J. 2007. Prime Minister Says Immigrants, Not Australians, Must Adapt. The Times Examiner. Web.
Anthony, T. and Cunneen, C. 2008. The Critical Criminology Companion. Sydney: Hawkins Press.
Farred, G. 2007. Foreigners among Citizens. Cultural Critique, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 141-59.
Ferrell, J. 1995. Urban Graffiti. Crime, Control, and Resistance. Youth and Society, vol. 27. no 1, pp. 73 – 92.
Ferrell, J. and Sanders, C. 1995. Cultural Criminology. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Graham, J. 1998. Dictatorship of the Foreign-Controlled Media. Netbay Internet. Web.
Gibbon, E. [1776] 2001. The History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Web.
Lanier M. and Henry, S. 1998. Essential Criminology. Boulder: Westview Press
Lynn, A. 2005. No Strong Link Seen between Violent Video Games and Aggression. 2005. News Bureau, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Web.
Lombroso, C. [1891] 2007. The Man of Genius. NY: Kessinger Publishing.
McKenzie, C. 1997. The Menace of Multiculturalism. Australian Nationalism Information Database. Web.
McClintock, P. 2009. Movie Marketing Targets Latinos. Variety Magazine. Web.
O’Riordan, B. 2005. Race Riots Turn Sydney’s Suburbs into Battleground. Guardian Online. Web.
Sheng, K. 2007. An Exploration of Media Violence in a Junior-High School Art Classroom. International Journal of Education, vol.3, no. 1, pp. 57-68.
Young, A. 1996. Imagining Crime. (Textual Outlaws and Criminal Conversations). London: Sage Publications.