*** Please help with the Big Catch Up! ***

From Never Again

{At the end of the first reaction paper, I was eager to start answering this question. However, it was very difficult to find any literature that could somehow inform or support this question, and so I communicated with various people who I thought might be able to shed light on this issue. This paper is therefore mostly in reaction to what I discussed with them.}

The title of this paper reflects one of the most fundamental questions of this independent study. Should media containing violence, which is here defined in the broadest sense of the word, be used in a classroom to teach students about particular issues? (Do certain issues require the use of violent media?) Logically, two questions follow: if yes, how, and if no, what is the alternative? It is useful to turn first to these underlying questions, specifically the latter. If we take a protectionist standpoint and decide that as peace educators we should not be exposing students to violent media, that peace education should provide the one space and opportunity in a student’s life to engage in nonviolent media, we are faced with the dilemma of how then to teach about (violent) topics fundamental to peace education, such as violence and human rights (violations).

Subsequently, this raises the question of whether we should teach students about violence and, for example, genocide, and whether these topics require the use of violent images. As violence is pervasive in society and students’ lives and peace education aims to teach students how to be critical thinkers and citizens (counterbalancing the current violent paradigm), understanding violence should arguably be a core topic within peace education curricula. Education, I believe, has the potential to critically evaluate violence, to unveil violence as automated behavior, and to plant "seeds of change and regeneration" (Nagler 2004, 5). This is a fundamental premise of peace education. Simply discussing the role violence played in their everyday lives in many ways transformed the thinking about violence and familiar modes of interaction of the ten eighth grade students I taught during the summer of 2004 (Bie 2005). Potter (2003, xv-xvi) adds, "the public has been conditioned to accept a very narrow definition of what is violence…people generally underperceive the amount of violence in the media." Thus, I am inclined to argue that teaching about the concept of violence and its many meanings, implications, and manifestations is crucial in peace education. How to approach this without showing (visually) what violence is? In a conversation with Renee Cherow-O’Leary (2006) the topic of the Abu Ghraib photographs came up and she argued that if one would never see these images, one would perhaps never believe it and not really understand what was so horrible about the Abu Ghraib scandal. Similar to Susan Sontag (2003), Cherow-O’Leary explained that there is a way in which truth should be told, although it should be carefully contextualized by the educator. Correspondingly, if students are never taught about the horrifying ways in which human rights are violated worldwide, can they be made to understand the importance of human rights law or can they be encouraged to act in protest of such violations?

In the first reaction paper and previous papers, I argued that the use of violent media is basically a failure of imagination on the part of the educator; it defeats the purpose of peace education and is perhaps even counterproductive. Hesitantly I now wonder whether this is a viable argument, because what is the alternative? Can empathy and understanding for the pain of others be created without showing this pain, either visually or through the use of narrative that conjures up violent imagery? One might argue that students already view such pain constantly outside of the classroom, through mainstream media, so why use it in the classroom as well? However, the problem with violent media is arguably not its intensity and pervasiveness in a student’s life only, but rather the selectivity of these images. Critical education about the genocides in Rwanda and Cambodia, to name but two examples, does not occur through mainstream media.

Although he does not directly discuss media literacy, Nagler (2004, 5) carefully argues in favor of a balanced approach to examining human nature, “seeing what is good as well as what is discouraging about us.” Education should counterbalance society’s “obsession with negativity,” he argues (Nagler 2004, 5). Whereas the three main effects of media violence (aggressive behavior, desensitization, and fear) that Potter (1999) discusses are observable/measurable, Nagler (2004, 4) points to a more pervasive and subtle way in which today’s societies and cultures normalize violence. For example, we are not shocked anymore –while we should be– that children carry guns to school (Nagler 2004, 4). Nagler (2004) explains that rather than a lack of examining our violent nature (for example through critically evaluating genocide), there is a lack of examining and educating about the inherent human capacity for nonviolence and community building. In an email Nagler (2006) stated, I happen to believe -- and I know it's unusual -- that we can educate and sensitize children far more effectively by giving them to understand what's positive about the human being. The media is soaked in violent images so they'll get plenty of that exposure. Our job should be to give them what the media apparently never will… I think the utility of telling them how low human beings can sink and what they are capable of doing when they sink that low has been greatly exaggerated. I'd rather teach kids about empathy neurons!

Nevertheless, at a later point Nagler (2006) affirmed,

I think Hotel Rwanda did a very sensitive job. The violence was there, but not wallowed in. More than that I don't think is needed. By late high school, kids should know, on the intellectual level, what human beings have done in Bosnia, Turkey -- you name it, but they should never be desensitized. That's the key.

Nagler thus points to the "kind" of violence that is acceptable to use in the classroom, and also at what age it is appropriate to use such media. I am inclined to argue that peace education has a responsibility to teach about such fundamental issues as genocide; to come to, as Cherow-O’Leary (2006) put it, “a never again”. And how does one teach about the Rwandan genocide without invoking violent imagery? Cherow-O’Leary (2006) explained that when one shows violent imagery in the context of students learning about war and peace, rights, laws, etcetera, one frames these issues in a particular way and provides scaffolding for the students to deal with what they are exposed to. In other words, violence would then not be shown in a classroom just for the sake of it being violent, and one could argue that the violent images used in peace education would not be of the kind we see in mainstream media - gratuitous or entertaining. The film Hotel Rwanda would, according to Nagler, be an example of this. To this end, James Potter (1999, 25) explains,

Exposure to certain violent portrayals can lead to positive or prosocial effects. Intervention studies, especially with children, have shown that when a media literate person talks through the action and asks questions of the viewer during exposure, the viewer will be able to develop a counterreading of the violence; that is, the viewer may learn that violent actions are wrong even though those actions are shown as successful in the media portrayal.

I find this rather persuasive, especially because most theories about the negative effects of media violence seem to assume that consumers are passive, un-skilled (in terms of critical thinking or media literacy), and lack sufficient coping skills, implying that if people would be truly media literate the effects of media might not be so negative (Potter 1999). Thus, as long as violent media is embedded in a critical literacy curriculum and as such evaluated, its negative effects might be mitigated. This addresses an important question I raised in the first reaction paper, namely whether the use of violent media will have the desired effect. This is where the educator’s responsibility comes in. When one uses violent images in the classroom to teach students about, for example, human rights abuses in Colombia, it is up to the educator whether these images will teach what was intended (Cherow-O’Leary 2006).

But do educators have such control over how students interpret media? This approach perhaps again assumes student-consumers are passive, instead of actively engaged (though perhaps subliminal) in the media they are exposed to. Nevertheless, Jeffrey Goldstein (1998, 6) argues, “it is not necessarily the violence that makes violent entertainment appealing; it is what the violence means to its audience that determines whether it will be entertaining or not.” Arguably, this meaning can be influenced by educators, an idea that is at the heart of the media literacy movement.

Finally, Marian Hodgkin (2006) adds another interesting perspective to the supposed tension between the teaching of, for example, genocide and the use of media. She approaches the issue in much the same way as Nagler (2006) by stating,

My major focus would be on the failure of our societies to react to what happened in Rwanda. There was no political will on the part of our governments to act, and this can partly be explained by mass public apathy about 'another tribal war happening in the middle of Africa.' So my rationale for teaching about the genocide is not necessarily for the students to understand what happened as an end in itself (then, perhaps all the grizzly details might be necessary), but to try and encourage a sense of connectedness to 'the other' and demonstrate what can happen when we are so disconnected that a million people can be killed and no one did anything. In other words, we should all be learning not just ABOUT the genocide, but FROM the genocide.

Hodgkin (2006) subsequently argues that if one adopts this approach, creating a sense of interconnectedness, violent images might be counterproductive, creating more "otherness" and distance. The conclusion of this reflection might then be that it is all contextual, depending on the aim of the curriculum and how (violent) media can contribute to this. This should be critically reflected upon by the educator, and Nagler (2006) doubts whether most educators are capable of engaging in such critical reflection of what they are teaching and how it affects their students. Is it then, in the end, all about teacher training?

Bibliography

Bie, Pieternel de. 2005. Nonviolence in Peace Education. MSc thesis. University Utrecht.

Cherow-O’Leary, Renee. 2006. Personal communication with author.

Goldstein, Jeffrey, ed. 1998. Why We Watch: The Attractions of Violent Entertainment. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hodgkin, Marian. 2006. Personal communication with author.

Nagler, Michael N. 2004. The Search for a Nonviolent Future: A Promise of Peace for Ourselves, Our Families, and Our World. Maui, HI: Inner Ocean Publishing.

Potter, James W. 1999. On Media Violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Inc.

Sontag, Susan. 2003. Regarding the Pain of Others. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Reader Reactions

My comment is a reaction to Marian's idea about not using history (in this case, instances of violence) to underscore 'otherness', rather than the ideas that Pieternel is presenting in this paper re: use of violent media in the classroom. While I completely agree with Marian's point, I'm not sure where my next thought fits in...

I do believe that there we experience alternate realities, depending on our role within a given situation. For example, the person who is being 'victimized' (for lack of a better word) experiences something different than someone who is the aggressor. The bystander also has a different experience. Because each person has a different physical, mental, spiritual experience within a given situation, they come out of the situation with different perspectives and outlooks. As a result, each person has something different to teach us about life and humanity. It would not only be a shame, but unfair and unjust not to acknowledge the existence of those alternate yet concurrent realities. So in affirming our common humanity and trying to get rid of this notion of 'the other', we do have to be careful to respect different individual experiences and characteristics. From what I know of Marian, I think that when she said 'the other' she was referring to an archetype in our psyche who is less human because they are perceived to be different in some way. And so this comment is in no way disagreeing with hers, but just a thought that Marian provoked through her idea.

Heddy 09:07, 6 August 2006 (CEST)