Mayhem: Violence As Public Entertainment

Rating:
Summary: Nothing new
Review: I was extremely disappointed in this book, possibly because I expect a great deal from Sissela Bok. There is nothing in this book which could not be found in past issues of popular magazines.

Bok is amazingly uncritical and seems to have little familiarity with fifty years of research on this topic. She casually dismisses the idea that there is no common definition of violence, for example, without explaining that that argument is not generally about violence in real life (although many have argued that punching inflated bobo dolls is an odd example of violence), but that there is little consensus about what constitutes violence in the media, especially on television. When I teach courses in the media, I routinely ask students to identify specific instances of violence in television programming and the range of perceptions is incredible.

There is a lot on nonsense written on both sides of this argument. Unfortunately, Bok does nothing to clarify the issues or the data. I was hoping to be able to assign this book in my courses, but I won't bother.

Rating:
Summary: Nothing new
Review: I was extremely disappointed in this book, possibly because I expect a great deal from Sissela Bok. There is nothing in this book which could not be found in past issues of popular magazines.

Bok is amazingly uncritical and seems to have little familiarity with fifty years of research on this topic. She casually dismisses the idea that there is no common definition of violence, for example, without explaining that that argument is not generally about violence in real life (although many have argued that punching inflated bobo dolls is an odd example of violence), but that there is little consensus about what constitutes violence in the media, especially on television. When I teach courses in the media, I routinely ask students to identify specific instances of violence in television programming and the range of perceptions is incredible.

There is a lot on nonsense written on both sides of this argument. Unfortunately, Bok does nothing to clarify the issues or the data. I was hoping to be able to assign this book in my courses, but I won't bother.

Rating:
Summary: Important and rational but too restrained
Review: Sissela Bok's "Mayhem" takes on the issue of violence in various media and the effects of that violence on the population. The issue is one that seems to be dominated by those for whom reason is not a priority, and Bok's considered and apparently well-researched book is a welcome voice of sanity. (This is not to say that she is the first to deal with the issue honestly and reasonably; naturally, others have done so. Bok, however, does seem to enjoy more exposure than many of the others, whose work has often been relegated to academic fora.)

Bok takes some time to get to what is really the fundamental point of her book and the point from which her theses spring--that violence in the media does have an effect on the population. It would be more accurate to state that she concludes that media depictions of violence have several effects. It is probably a sad commentary on the state of public debate that Bok must take extra care to state the modest nature of the conclusion. Media depictions of violence are not the only factors that lead to these negative consequences, she points out with stress, nor are we all influenced in the same ways. These points, which should be obvious even to those who would challenge Bok's theses and assumptions, seem to take force from Bok's arguments and diminish the power of the book. In other words, the need to deal with disingenuous counterarguments harms the overall result.

Ultimately, it may be that Bok is a little too careful, though she does suggest that censorship on some level might not be such a bad thing. Her arguments may be too restrained out of an effort to avoid the excesses that seem to dominate the popular debate. While Bok certainly avoids any appearance (to me, at least) of being a demagogue or hidebound ideologue, the result is not anything near a definitive treatment of the topic but instead more of a primer. The effort at objectivity is certainly wonderful, and the text is recommended for those who have not given the issue serious consideration. For those who have ruminated at length on this issue, "Mayhem" probably offers little new.