I'm a little torn on the question of whether Disney actually contributes to what most of us would classify as negative understandings of gender and race. On the one hand, we all grew up with Disney, and we view ourselves as perfectly fine -- unaffected by what we can point out in Disney as being real sexist depictions, often with racial undertones. On the other hand, the lasting differences in gender equality our society experiences, and the higher incidence of traditional gender representations in Disney than easily-recognized racial commentary, might suggest something is going on.
You mentioned your little survey of your cousins and I would comment on their responses. I think what is important to note is that representations of sex and gender in Disney are more subtle than the primary plots, which they commented upon. I would perhaps suggest that while your cousins may be coming to understand the concepts of gender and race, and beginning to internalize norms of gender-specific behavior, they might not be conscious of doing so. I don't think Towbin et al ever claimed that the primary themes of the films in question were actually about masculinity and femininity, although these might be reemerging themes nonetheless. Thus it is understandable that your questions did not elicit discussion regarding these things.
I think a better way to go about questioning children might be more direct questions as to why characters acted in such a way, or why they were successful, with the hopes of generating a gender-related comment fitting into the context of the film. For a child to comment upon the success of a character, or the likability of a character, with reference to gender would imply a way of conceiving the world and gender norms. If cause-and-effect is intelligible to the child, and they make a statement about, say, a Princess being loved by a Prince for her beauty in response to the question "why did the Prince love the Princess?", then a child capable of induction might be introduced to an argument: "Princesses are loved because they are beautiful" or even "Women are desirable for their appearance."
This week we learned about sexuality and gender in the media. We learned that despite improvements in the depictions of women and different classes, lingering stereotypes exist even in our most popular entertainment, such as in Disney films. By inclining to value women for beauty over brains, and representing a limited number of possible vocations, Disney may be said to be reinforcing tradition notions of gender that are quite dissimilar from our contemporary society's expectations.
In "Images of Gender, Race, Age, and Sexual Orientation in Disney Feature-Length Animated Films”, Towbin is concerned with the possible internalization of gender roles as depicted in Disney films. Reading about the role of psychologists in encouraging critical dialogue with the material , I couldn't help but think of the reinforcement that Disney itself provides through a slough of other popular culture, including toys, costumes, and Disney Land.
My worry is that the risk of internalization might increase significantly by providing opportunities for, and encouraging, playacting and a recreation of the Disney narratives. And while massive amounts of mass-produced and massively popular action figures and toys facilitate recreation and active engagement with storylines, it is the harm done to females and specifically the limitations on females roles presented to young girls in the princess phenomena that interests me.
The Disney princess, as was mentioned in class, is a massive commodity, and a major popular-cultural phenomena. It is an incredibly popular franchise for Disney, with their 9 princesses, it is a very profitable marketing scheme, involving everything from films, dresses,and accessories to Disney Land. However, what are the values being imparted by these Disney princesses? According to Towbin, Disney is responsible for imparting notions of fragility and servility. However, that said, there seems to be a lot of resistance to negative interpretations of Disney on the internet, such as this website which is dedicated to the merits of Disney princesses as role models, or the comments on any You tube video negatively portraying Disney. I cautiously take this as an example of the power of brand loyalty.
I certainly agree with you that there are instances when the line between human and monstrous is blurred, and that human beings are capable of grotesque acts.
That said, I would disagree with your classification of Tim Thomas as a monster, whereas I would point to those who willing kill other human beings as approaching that line. I think that one of the most important characteristic of monsters, in the sense that we have been using the term, is malevolence, or at the very least, a desire to do what we would call harm to others. One cannot construe Tim Thomas as wishing to kill the 7 people that he did, as it was, as you said, an accident. To call Tim Thomas as monster would be to classify him as other, a being whom we do not understand, and likely fear. I don't think this is the case at all. When it comes to Tim Thomas, we understand exactly how how he feels, just as we would feel he same way had we made such a terrible error in judgment.
I think the line is fine, but that monsters are ultimately characters that we cannot understand on the level of being: we share no recognizable cognitive processes, we do not think and feel the same way, fundamentally.
A human example of monster would be Michael Myers in John Carpenter's Halloween films.
This character does harm to others, by killing innocent people. What he does and desires is foreign to us on a basic level: he desires mayhem, he seeks blood, he kills the innocent. He is arguably a human being, biologically, yet he is distinctly "other" than us. The way that this type of character may be portrayed is by depicting him insane, to the extent that we would likely classify his cognitive processes as lacking something essential in the classification of "human".
In this week’s class we discussed the role monsters play in media to define both humanity and God. By suggesting something entirely unlike ourselves, we negotiate the characteristics that make us human. Similarly, according to negative theology, by portraying what God is not, we come to a better understanding of what he is. In particular, we discussed zombies and vampires in class, while the readings also alluded to ghosts and mummies. I would like to suggest, however, that representations of human beings with grotesque tendencies, who are monster like in action, are much more powerful than monsters that are clearly not (or no longer) human. These monsters fulfill a unique role in art by trying to understand the darkness of humanity in a much less metaphorical fashion.
The perfect example for what I am getting at is Hannibal Lecter, the fictional character from Silence of the Lambs, who is the perfect representative of the sociopathic serial killer. This character is very much a human biologically, however something blocks him from feeling a normal sense of social boundaries or moral sentiment. As a monster, he is quite distinct from mummies, zombies and vampires in that he’s alive, corporeal, and intelligent. Yet, Lecter’s inhumanity, his lack of feeling, his unrecognisable notion of “justice” are arguably more abhorrent and terrifying than the mindless hunger for destruction embodied by zombies.
The thing about Lecter is that he is ostensibly like us: human, alive, intelligent, and yet, so dissimilar. He represents moreso than any other genre what is perhaps the monstrous capacity residing with all, supernaturally/scientifically unaltered human beings. Indeed, in cases such as those of serial killers, and representations of the inhumane human, the boundaries between the monster as Other and us are incredibly blurred. It is for that reason that I think films like that resonate so much with us.
I think the idea that gamers are already playing Christ figures is very interesting, although I'd have to disagree with you. I think we need to remember that the story of Christ is but one instance of the monomyth, or basic story line shared historically by many hero figures transculturally. While I would agree that the Superman myth shares many characteristics with Christ, I would echo the ideas from Deacy's article-- there is something qualitatively quite different from the Christ story that is not found in the Superman story. I think the perfect divinity of Christ, through whom all things were made, is a pretty significant difference to be mindful of when comparing the saving actions of both heroes.
On the other hand, I too am skeptical that there is anything terrible about video game representations of Christ. All representations are limited, however I'd echo the sentiment that video game representations and those in film are not incredibly different. In fact, video games as an artistic medium, present new opportunities for engaging with the narrative of Christ due to the interactivity and ability to explore the environment of said story. I remember playing the Lord of the Rings game for Playstation2 when I was much younger. To see the fantasy world of Tolkein's books before my eyes, and to interact with it, to explore unfamiliar places, and in to some way have an effect upon it, was engaging and exciting much more than merely watching the movies. Thus I think that there is a very real missiological function that might be capitalized upon in video games.
As discussed in Michelle Brown's article, there has been a proliferation of media effects studies since the advent of new technologies such as television, which have mainly been concerned with whether exposure to violent incidents on television somehow encourages violent behaviour. While there have indeed been several hundred studies looking at this, hundreds more have analyzed the methodologies of said studies and argued for and against such causation. Brown alludes to the fact that since there are apparently contradicting results coming out of these studies which often utilize very different methods, it is very easy for research to fall into a "binaristic" model.
One major problem that I did not grand much credence to while reading Brown's article before class has been defining violence, which is not trivial given the majority of violence children are exposed to is cartoon violence. And within the category of cartoon violence itself there are distinctions, as some of it is more realistic and immersive than others. It is also useful to ask about whether the violence act is being portrayed as a positive thing. The importance of such distinctions is evidenced in this montage of cartoon violence from over the decades.
Additional difficulties in showing how violent atypical acts might be related to the consumption of media via media effects studies have to do with the way in which research is done. The laboratory setting is fundamentally different than real life, and adopting the theory that experience, including witnessing violence, provides scripts of how to act, then the laboratory experience is a very unusual setting without as many scripts. Further difficulties arise when considering whether periods of short term aggression or continued exposure somehow desensitizes some individuals to violence to the extent that they will completely abandon normal behaviour and commit an act of violence when it no longer seems worthwhile to adhere to norms. Even if it can be shown that exposure to violence increases short term aggression, what I am most interested is the change in how one comes to relate to the other, and unfortunately we are barred from measuring the slight changes in perception and thought processes which compose our consciousness. This is also of interest to me because of the Christian notion that thought and the will are important to living a good life.
"For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander." (Matthew 15:19)
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28)
A thoughtful Christian’s response to video game violence specifically might be concerned with the emotional state maintained, and acts of the will that are made, while playing video games. Christ taught that sin was not merely present in the physical action, but that sin could also be present in an act of the will; that one might sin in thought as they might sin in deed. I think that a Christian, even recognizing that a game is a fantasy environment, should have to come to terms with willing death in video games, and finding joy in succeeding in an attempt to kill. Recognizing the notion of transference in more and more immersive games, a Christian perspective on video games needs to confront the question of to what extent an avatar in an extension-of-the-self, and what it means to feel joy elicited by terminating representations of human beings.
Counter-points to such a characterization might be:
1) Does one actually feel negative emotion (e.g. hate) while playing video games?
2) There is no other person who is the target of a negative will.
3) Is there actually a will to death or harm while playing video games? How different is moving controls to overlap shapes in Call of Duty from, say, Pong?
The fact remains though, that we choose to participate in a narrative involving the glorification of killing. What does this mean, and how can a Christian come to terms with feeling pleasure while playing violent as opposed to non-violent games?
I think that you have a very good point when you note that "masculinity" is itself a manufactured quality that is often used as a tactic for profit-making. Keeping sports "masculine" is a perfect, although sinister, example of how an industry defines as necessary a tenuous quality which has connotations of gender inequality, self-harm, and harm to others. It is particularly sad that the idea of masculinity resonates so well with society -- leading to the effects such as you mentioned when you said that males are more prone to injury than females.
In response to your question, I don't think that much of what we talk about when we speak of "violence" in hockey is necessary. As pointed out in the article by Trothen, the term violence may be broadly defined and there may exist neutral, or even good forms of violence. I think that in hockey there is a necessarily violence component stemming from the fast-moving, contact nature of the sport (although, to define contact as a quality of hockey is to beg the question, which surprised me in her article). However, when it comes to hockey fights and making conscious decisions of a violent nature such as to check a player with their head down, I think we may view this behavior as reprehensible and unnecessary. This types of risky behaviors which contribute to the normalization of hockey violence at lower levels are not in the spirit of the game (communitas, the euphoria of teamwork, disciplining oneself), or at least in the game we should be encouraging.
What would Jesus do? Well, having taken notice of Weaver non-violent atonement theory, and recognizing Christ's imperatives towards peace, and Paul's espousal of virtues such as "gentleness", I would say the matter is pretty clear-- he would condemn it. Mindful of the influence we have on other people, Paul said, "Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall (1 Corinthians 8:13)". I think our tolerance of violence in hockey -- especially on the level of coaches at minor league levels -- is wholly inappropriate, and Christian ethicists should hold them accountable.
