Why would some media industry practitioners today continue to defend the theory of catharsis?

Introduction

Dr. Seymour Feshbach is an eminent professor in the department of psychology at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). He was born in New York City at 1925; in 1951 he was awarded PhD in psychology at Yale University. Later he became a faculty of Pennsylvania University until 1963. Since 1960’s he is very active Media Violence and Television studies and he is well recognized for formulating the Catharsis hypothesis in field of Mass Communication.

Catharsis Theory Overview

Catharsis Theory stands a vital mantle in the discourse on upshots with regard to severity of mass communication and it’s far ranging roots over a time. Catharsis serves as a purifying factor to collective channel sources of information’s such as radio, television, newspapers, and the cyber internet that may inevitably incorporate unappealing visuals that can be harmful not only for the viewing public but can also be destructive means to the mindset of the most minor fans of the said mass media.

With the worsening materials used by the media as of late, the existence of catharsis in the middle of it serves as like a redeeming cleansing sponge that acts as a scouring element to pools of murky world of mass communication. The implementation of the assertive measures of the Catharsis supposition may lessen the alarming push of vulgarities and misgivings and misconstruing of mass media. However, it may not certainly be rendered literally, but it can likely be manifested in a performer’s mental inventiveness.

Theory in Detail

Beholding entertainment shows, that have catastrophic genre helps a person who fail to resist to a dramatic bailout from pessimistic sentiments, sympathy, trepidation or rage. The individuals who go through antipathetic sensitivities are likely surmised to attain soul purification, and rinsing after seeing how the actors depict their appointed parts in a given act with such mundane display of dramatic discomforts and hardships of life, suffering these given elements.

This is the ground of Catharsis Theory to which was also considered favorable to the well-being of a person and the community he lives in, as he allocates his perturbations externally and refined in a civilized wholesome demeanor. The notion of how media must be adjudged is a bit indefinite. Notwithstanding the incrustation, bearing neutrality, lack of character or concurrence, transitory nature, and spectator’s desires of hampering the motivation, the contemporary applied sciences assists the enterprises to appropriately acquaint their earmark spectators to safeguard their piece of information in terms of remission.

Scope/Coherence

In reference to the broad range of Catharsis Theory, it is believed to be a realm of boundless purview considering the ever growing visual materials as per mass media communication is concerned. Nevertheless, theory can also be spotted in Psychology and its domains. It is also manifested the world of Arts, and most of all in an individual’s day to day ordinary lifestyles and in Aesthetics.

It can be put that the emotional release functions along, with probable mental despondent who are the cajoled spectators healed by means of their encounters with the craft of cinema, songs or visuals, and individuals who are by all means precisely ill and were subjected to medical administrations utilized through expressive techniques.

The purpose of this theory is reckoned not only by the experts but also by every individual most of all those who have gone through it and was purged from their agitations. Renewed from their old shells, these individuals who experienced first-hand healing were profoundly persuaded that the ‘Catharsis Theory’ is not simply a melo-dramatic exodus from their forlorn inklings they have gained from TV-viewing, but most of all it has imparted in them a total virtuous transfiguration. Creating in them a brand-new less villainy versions of themselves. This outlook grew widely favored over the passage of time up to the present it still remarkably stands as doctrines of most experts in the fields of Theories.

Example

A film released in 1999, directed by David Fincher, starring Brad Pitt, Edward Norton and Helena Bonham Carter, Fight Club movie is best fitted an example for this type of theory. The film is all about lawlessness and unutterable mayhem, so to speak. In the movie, an anonymous “voice-over” played by Edward Norton, suffers from insomnia. Taking part in a club of testicular cancer patients, he gained his very own catharsis after  deceiving the patients  making them think that he also endures the same ailment. After he lost his house in a sordid blast. He then called a soap merchandiser portrayed by Brad Pitt whom he met on a flight home. Tyler asked him to punch him in the face. Their duel with a clash of bare fists carried on until it has provoked men to construct a “Fight Club” headed by Tyler wherein they can indulge in brawling for leisure purposes. A certain substance abuser known as Marla, portrayed by Helena Bonham Carter, tries to contact the “voice-over” but ends up with sexual engagements with Tyler. This movie is all about mental manipulation wherein a sly “controller” eventually found himself the one who got apparently being controlled in the end.

Is viewing violence cathartic? The large amount of violence in the mass media is often justified by the concept of catharsis. The word catharsis comes from the Greek word katharsis, which literally translated means "a cleansing or purging." The first recorded mention of catharsis occurred more than one thousand years ago, in the work Poeticsby Aristotle. Aristotle taught that viewing tragic plays gave people emotional release (katharsis) from negative feelings such as pity, fear, and anger. By watching the characters in the play experience tragic events, the negative feelings of the viewer were presumably purged and cleansed. This emotional cleansing was believed to be beneficial to both the individual and society.

The ancient notion of catharsis was revived by Sigmund Freud and his associates. For example, A. A. Brill, the psychiatrist who introduced the psychoanalytic techniques of Freud to the United States, prescribed that his patients watch a prize fight once a month to purge their angry, aggressive feelings into harmless channels.

Catharsis theory did not die with Aristotle and Freud. Many directors and producers of violent media claim that their products are cathartic. For example, Alfred Hitchcock, director of the movie Psycho, said, "One of television's greatest contributions is that it brought murder back into the home where it belongs. Seeing a murder on television can be good therapy. It can help work off one's antagonism." More recently, in 1992, Paul Verhoeven, director of the movie Total Recall, said, "I think it's a kind of purifying experience to see violence."

The producers of violent computer games, like the producers of violent films, claim that their products are cathartic. For example, Sega Soft has created an online network containing violent games that claims to provide users an outlet for the "primal human urge to kill." In promotional materials for the fictional CyberDivision movement, the imaginary founder Dr. Bartha says, "We kill. It's OK. It's not our fault any more than breathing or urinating." Dr. Bartha claims that aggressive urges and impulses can be purged by playing violent video games. "It's a marketing campaign," said a SegaSoft spokesperson, "but there is some validity to the concept that you need an outlet for aggressive urges." Some people who play violent computer games, such as the following thirty-year-old video game player, agree: "When the world pisses you off and you need a place to vent, Quake [a violent video game] is a great place for it. You can kill somebody and watch the blood run down the walls, and it feels good. But when it's done, you're rid of it."

What do the scientific data say about the effects of viewing violence? Do violent media decrease or increase aggressive and violent behavior? Social scientists have been very interested in this question since the late 1960s. The results from hundreds of studies have converged on the conclusion that viewing violence increases aggression. In fact, the U.S. Surgeon General came to this conclusion as early as 1972. The scientific evidence is overwhelming on this point. Viewing violence is definitely not cathartic—it increases rather than decreases anger and subsequent aggression.

Brad Bushman and his colleagues recently compared media violence effects with effects from other fields, and the results are displayed in Figure 1. A correlation can range from -1 to +1, with -1 indicating a perfect negative relation and +1 indicating a perfect positive relation. As the figure shows, all of the correlations for the studied effects are significantly different from zero. Note, however, that the second largest correlation is for violent media and aggression. Most people would agree that the other correlations displayed in Figure 1 are so strong that they are obvious. For example, most people would not question the assertion that taking calcium increases bone mass or that wearing a condom decreases the risk of contracting HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

The correlation between media violence and aggression is only slightly smaller than that between smoking and lung cancer. Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, and not everyone who gets lung cancer is a smoker. But even the tobacco industry agrees that smoking causes lung cancer. Smoking is not the only factor that causes lung cancer, but it is an important factor. Similarly, not everyone who watches violent media becomes aggressive, and not everyone who is aggressive watches violent media. Watching violent media is not the only factor that causes aggression, but it is an important factor.

The smoking analogy is useful in other respects. Like a first cigarette, the first violent movie seen can make a person nauseous. Later, however, one craves more and more. The effects of smoking and viewing violence are both cumulative. Smoking one cigarette probably will not cause lung cancer. Likewise, seeing one violent movie probably will not turn a person into a psychopathic killer. However, repeated exposure to both cigarettes and violent media can have harmful consequences.

Catharsis theory is elegant and highly plausible, but it is false. It justifies and perpetuates the myth that viewing violence is healthy and beneficial, when in fact viewing violence is unhealthy and detrimental. After reviewing the scientific research, Carol Tavris (1988) concluded, "It is time to put a bullet, once and for all, through the heart of the catharsis hypothesis. The belief that observing violence (or 'ventilating it') gets rid of hostilities has virtually never been supported by research."

See also:Video and Computer Games and the Internet; Violence in the Media, Attraction to; Violence in the Media, History of Research on.

Bibliography

Bushman, Brad J., and Huesmann, L. Rowell. (2000). "Effects of Televised Violence on Aggression." In Handbook of Children and the Media, eds. Dorothy G. Singer and Jerome L. Singer. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Geen, Russell G., and Bushman, Brad J. (1997). "Behavioral Effects of Observing Violence." In Encyclopedia of Human Biology, Vol. 1, ed. Renato Dulbecco. New York: Academic Press.

Smith, S. L., and Donnerstein, Edward. (1998). "Harmful Effects of Exposure to Media Violence: Learning of Aggression, Emotional Desensitization, and Fear." In Human Aggression: Theories, Research, and Implications for Policy, eds. Russell G. Geen and Edward Donnerstein. New York: Academic Press.

Tavris, Carol. (1988). "Beyond Cartoon Killings: Comments on Two Overlooked Effects of Television." In Television as a Social Issue, ed. Stuart Oskamp. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Brad J. Bushman

Colleen M. Phillips