Some violence is good.
Some violence is bad.
It’s a challenge, one beyond many of us, to actually understand whether violent entertainment is good or bad. And to be able to identify, at least with any certainty, why, and which is which. Expressing the difference between ethical and unethical representations of violence, and the way in which we engage with it for pleasure, requires an incredible amount of nuance.
There is obviously an appetite for violence and a blood lust which must be quenched. Over simplifications, such as banning and cries for censorship, are not helpful and will not work. What might help is instilling an awareness in audiences as to why some violence is okay and some isn’t. Equipped with this knowledge, maybe audiences can enjoy violent entertainment with a clear conscience.
What’s the alternative? Audiences remain complicit in the real life violence that is mirrored on screen for their pleasure.
Thankfully, researchers are doing the intellectual heavy lifting. Dr Mark Piccini describes himself as the ultimate vulgarian. That is to say that his own research into violent texts and media stems from a love of violent entertainment, and the resulting inner conflict he experiences. Piccini admits, “I’m the biggest consumer of that kind of content.”
“That’s why I entered this field, first as a fan of the texts and then as somebody who wanted to think more deeply about them.”
Working in Lacanian psychoanalysis Piccini understands, better than most, why we seek out violence for enjoyment and pleasure. He also understand the challenges, and why simply banning or censoring this type of content will be ineffective. As to the undeniable appeal of violence:
“These psychological quandaries aren’t going to go away. There’s no cure, you can’t take a drug for them or excise a part of the brain that does it. But the more you know about it, the more informed decisions you can make.”
Piccini believes there is space for violent content. But an objective of his research is to encourage audiences to reflect upon and take responsibility for their enjoyment, “I want people to understand their enjoyment more thoroughly”. Piccini doesn’t put any stock in the calls to ban violent movies, music or video games. However, it is his belief, the more we know about exploitative practices the better and more informed decisions we can make. Becoming more responsible consumers of violent content.
But how can this be addressed? Piccini suggests, “the tools are there, it’s Lacanian psychoanalysis, but those are some egregiously impenetrable tools”. This issue of impenetrability is exactly why researchers, like Piccini, have a responsibility to engage with broader audiences beyond their academic peers. Researchers can write journal articles and publish academic books on their work in this space, but the resulting audience is basically themselves1. And though, perhaps, not schooled in Lacanian psychoanalysis, this scholarly audience are already well equipped with some of the tools required, such as critical thinking, to engage with violent media in conscientious and self aware ways. So, it could be suggested that the ultimate aim of this type of research - achieving social impact with audiences of violent media - could fall flat without engagement beyond intimate circles of scholars2.
While Piccini’s scholarly contribution has great merit, his work is also of immense value to consumers of violent media. Even if they don’t know it. These consumers have great appetites for violent content and, potentially, little awareness as to the impact of their consumption. And they aren’t likely to read Piccini’s academic publications. If Piccini, in fact, wants to engage with these audiences he will have to do so outside of traditional academic channels.
According to Piccini, “realising where enjoyment can go awry” is really important. Strong libidinal forces triggered by violent entertainment allow us to ignore, or at least willingly detach from context. A focus of Piccini’s research is Latin America. The context from which audiences are detaching is the real life violence on the streets of Colombia and Mexico. The uncomfortable truths behind larger than life characters represented in popular moivies, television shows, and books. Unpacking audience enjoyment of what Piccini considers “exaggerations”,
“that changes their ability to empathise and engage with the idea of Colombia and Colombians, for example. Or the idea of Mexico and Mexicans.”
The excessiveness of violent representations in narco true crime can leave audiences with distorted world views.
In this context, representations of Latin American violence, Piccini is concerned with its effect on these popular audiences outside of Latin America. And how this portrayal contributes to audiences’ understanding of the region. Consuming violence, as it is glamorised by mainstream entertainment, inhibits our ability to empathise with populations which we see as the other. Such as characters in entertainment media which are different to ourselves, like both the perpetrators and victims of drug related crime in narco-tainment. It is all too easy for audiences to forget or neglect to appreciate that drug related crime and violence is a pervasive problem in parts of Latin America. Consuming mass-produced violence as entertainment is not helping.
Piccini states, “We should empathise acutely with the suffering or people, regardless of where they exist, or whether they fall into the category of same or other”. And this empathy is lacking as audiences binge their way through another season.
Returning to the impenetrability of Lacanian psychoanalysis, the tools required to better understand why we love and why we hate, the challenge is in communicating the principal message of Piccini’s research to consumers of violent entertainment. This aim is at odds with the very way in which academic publishing works. Piccini believes his value is in playing the role of intermediary between the academic research and popular audiences. But he has expressed some concern that his work, as it is currently undertaken, doesn’t really help people on the ground. This is where broader public engagement can come in.
By raising awareness and encouraging more enlightened consumption, it is Piccini’s hope that more informed audiences could “consume better, more eloquent torture porn, more eloquent schlock.” And to close in Piccini’s words:
“It’s an exercise in humility to discover just how much of a pervert you are, and to try to move forward from that.”
Check this out if you’re interested in making better research videos.
Not to discredit the value of this engagement, but its limited reach can’t be denied.
If social impact is not the point, I’m not sure that there is one.