It's common to hear people bemoaning the morals of the next generation or the increasing violence in the media. The question is: are their comments valid? My answer is a resounding No! Specifically, I propose to demonstrate that violence in society and particularly in entertainment has been declining since the time of the Roman Empire.
Consider a citizen of the Roman Empire would have thought nothing of spending a rest day taking his family to the local Colosseum. There, he might watch races or athletic games but he might equally easily watch people being thrown to lions or gladiatorial combat. So he would sit there and watch a fight to the death close enough to smell the bloodshed and perhaps even be splattered by gore. This was commonly acceptable entertainment! The men condemned to provide this display had done nothing wrong beyond being born to a slave mother. Today, witnessing such a display would be considered traumatizing. Nonetheless, this is what Romans considered entertainment. Indeed, if one gladiator bested the other without killing him, he would look to the local leader for direction. It is said that the crowds would roar in approval if the decision were to kill the gladiator.
Later on, in the Middle Ages, the practice of killing and/or torturing people for pure entertainment seems to have become unacceptable. This, in itself, is a big step. Don't get me wrong: people were tortured and killed in great numbers during this time and such events were definitely considered entertaining to the masses. It's just that there had to be some sort of justification. The victim had to be accused (not convicted) of some sort of crime. The crime could have been something which we would consider to be utterly minor, but at least there would have to be some minimal justification. Given that justification though, the event would certainly be considered entertainment. People would bring their families and possibly a picnic lunch to watch heretics burn at the stake or the torture and maiming of petty thieves. If such a situation was not available, one could always torture or kill innocent animals for entertainment. It was not uncommon to tie a bear in place and set a pack of starving wolves to attack him. I understand that a popular form of comedy was to drop a cat on a raging fire. The poor animal`s yowls and attempts to escape were considered the height of humour.
Skip another few centuries. In Victorian England the death penalty still existed and was used as a matter of course. Executions were still public events but the element of entertainment had dimmed. An execution had become a solemn event which was expected to only follow a trial and conviction. The crime could still be quite petty: breaking and entering for instance, but at least the accused would have had the opportunity to prove his or her innocence. The practice of tormenting animals for entertainment still existed but it was no longer something one discussed in polite company and certainly was not considered a family event.
Comparatively, where are we at today? One could argue that through television and movies, we experience as much gore as Roman citizens did. However, we do so with the underlying knowledge that this display was created without harming a single being. Today, even animals are protected from harm during the creation of films. It is also worth noting that this last, protecting animals from harm during filming, was enacted as a response to popular demand. The film industry was not coerced by legislation: it responded voluntarily to popular outcry about the deathrate of horses during the filming of Westerns. Now, even movies which have nothing to do with animals carry a statement from the SPCA to the effect that this movie was created without harm to any animals.
With this history in mind, somehow the violence on television seems less of an outrage and more part of a positive progression to me. Opinions?
No comments:
Post a Comment