***This post discusses school shootings, sexual abuse, and other forms of graphic violence***
What does it mean to be a bystander and why do we become one despite our
awareness of its ethical implications?
I’m sure you felt helpless watching Back-to-School Essentials. Watching
the little girl saying her last goodbyes to her mom through the screen was
gut-wrenching, yet you couldn’t look away (Sandy Hook Promise, 2019, 0:40-0:55).
Perhaps you shed a tear or two, perhaps the short film haunted you for the rest
of the day…
…But did you click the donate button distinctly visible at the bottom of
the video? Likely not, because of the illusion that they are
responsible, not you. The diffusion of responsibility is one of the most
prevalent but toxic beliefs that encourages bystanders. In the presence of a
large crowd, responsiveness to an emergency feels like a collective
responsibility—but the problem begins when we don’t include ourselves in the
collective. Our individual actions seem miniscule and rather pointless when
there are so many others to help, so we don’t even bother trying in a false
sense of security that someone else will. In 1964, thirty-eight people
witnessed the murder of Kitty Genovese right outside their windows. Even though
the perpetrator took over half an hour to kill her, not a single witness answered
her cries, or even called the police. “Their behavior was neither helpful nor
heroic; but it was not indifferent or apathetic either” (Latané & Darley, 1969,
p. 1). With more people present in an emergency situation, the perception that
help is more likely actually fuels the alternative reality that help is in fact
less likely to be given since we exclude ourselves from the expectation. Over
11 million people watched the psa but only $3,832 were raised—assuming just one
dollar per person, that’s merely 0.03% of viewers who donated (Sandy Hook
Promise, 2019). Anonymity furthers this mentality; it’s so easy to blatantly
ignore the criticality of mass shootings when we watch it through the screen.
The victims can’t directly see us, so we don’t feel a moral obligation to help
them.
Additionally, audience inhibition and social influence are conventional
aspects that transform the bystander effect. Emergencies aren’t always as
obvious as a school shooting for instance. The ambiguity of the situation often
leaves people feeling embarrassed to take action, in the event that there may
not be an emergency. What reinforces this passivity is when we see other
witnesses act as bystanders, because it convinces us that we are doing the right
thing by not doing anything (Critelli & Keith, 2003). In A Burning, Lovely
exhibits an extraordinary character with a strong sense of justice. Jivan’s
execution seemed inevitable because of the corrupt political system but was
arguably preventable with the advocacy of her innocence from a few witnesses. Lovely
wasn’t embarrassed to testify in court despite the social backlash she received,
also knowing that no one else would help Jivan. Beyond audience inhibition and
social influence, she doesn’t fall for the diffusion of responsibility. She is
convinced that her support can overturn Jivan’s decision. Unfortunately, she
could not single-handedly influence the court against the numerous witnesses
that testified against her. Had there been more characters with Lovely’s
mentality that fate can be controlled, perhaps it truly would have been.
Essentially, in large-scaled situations of violence, usually nothing will
change through the actions of one individual, but instead through many. It is
this hopelessness of “I can’t make a difference” that discourages collective
action for any sort of difference to occur at all.
How
does desensitization influence our beliefs on the preventability of violence
and promote bystander behavior?
When I first watched the Back-to-School PSA, I didn’t feel any genuine distress
until the last scene. I saw the kids running around, the girl holding scissors,
and even their bloody legs, but I had a very minor emotional reaction to it
(Sandy Hook Promise, 2019). What’s even more concerning is that I didn’t
understand how apathetic my response was until I saw the girl crying—until it
was too late.
As we continue to consume media in our digital age, we mindlessly preoccupy
ourselves with graphic violence. Movies, TV shows, novels, music, expose us to
all kinds of violence and train our minds to become numb, and consequently
comfortable with it. Parents often limit their children from violent television
or video games in fear of instilling violent behavior. However, violent media
doesn’t necessarily create violent people; it creates unreactive people. Both
are dangerous. In a study involving 320 college students, participants were
randomly assigned to play a violent or nonviolent video game and then react to
a (prerecorded) fight outside the room. Although there was no statistically
significant difference between how many decided to help between the two groups,
only 94% of those who played a violent game claimed to have heard the fight
compared to 99% of those who played a nonviolent game. Students that played a
violent game were also much more likely to rate the severity of the fight
lower. As a result of these two mental barriers, “participants who played a
violent game took significantly longer to help, over 450% longer, than
participants who played a nonviolent game” (Bushman & Anderson, 2009, p. 4).
Desensitization to violence is just as daunting as violence itself,
because watching it happen without taking action is simply becoming a
perpetrator. PT Sir, a power-hungry character in A Burning that rises to
political fame ends up leading a rally as a test from the party leader. The
former physical education teacher that used to feed his poorest student with
his own lunch, accidentally instigates a riot and watches the brutal murder of
an entire family while doing absolutely nothing (Majumdar, 2020, Chapter 9). He
was in total shock at first, but when the party leader—with no remorse in
regard to politically driven violence—laughs it off, she normalizes such
atrocious acts for him. Toward the end of the novel, he becomes so numb to
corruption that he genuinely can’t see through his own underhandedness anymore
and can easily manipulate an execution without burden. Desensitization
convinced him that her fate was inevitable even when it was at the palm of his
own hands.
Desensitization conditions us into believing that violence is normal and
an untouchable aspect of human nature. We cannot prevent violence if we don’t
even believe it’s preventable—if we don’t even bat an eye at the sight of it.
How does culture dominate our perception of violence, and consequently
our reactions to it?
The sad truth about Jivan’s story is that she was just another case
number amongst the thousands of people prosecuted by India’s corrupt government.
The system is so hopeless that many find it pointless to fight against it
anymore. The police aren’t your friends, all it takes is a bribe to beat you. Standing
up to anyone powerful means criminal behavior and facing torture, so people are
often taught to avoid these situations entirely. This is a stark contrast from
the United States, where many people not only have the freedom to protest but
are encouraged to. In certain circumstances, an individual could have a similar
impact in both nations, but only one teaches them to try. Culture also teaches
us who is “worth it" to fight for. Islamophobia is very prevalent India
despite the large population; this sadly causes people to actively support
Jivan’s execution and deem her life less valuable.
“When there is no victim, there is no crime; persons of low social status
‘deserve punishment and cannot be victims; therefore, violence against them is
not a crime and the perpetrators are not criminals” (Rimonte, 1991, p. 6). Sadly,
this mentality isn’t uncommon with sexual violence. In many cultures, men are
not only excused but labeled as the victims themselves even when they are the
assailants. Society claims that they have much stress to deal with, taking care
of financial matters and working outside the home that it’s only
“understandable” for them to silence a nagging wife—in addition to maintaining
their status. This promotes a culture of victim-blaming, in that women don’t
cooperate with men and instead get themselves into situations where they anger
them and supposedly bring the abuse onto themselves. This illustrates another
social-psychological aspect of the bystander effect, in which people are determined
to not help in desperate situations not selfishly, but because they genuinely
believe that it is inevitable or well-deserved.
We also see this cultural impact through the Just Joking PSA. School
shooting threats are becoming increasingly common, but that also means they
aren’t being taken as seriously. These indifferent reactions tie back to
desensitization, but also the environment we surround ourselves with. Everything
is a unserious or joke to us in high school, that’s our culture. Sexist jokes,
racist jokes, the insensitive ones are often the most popular. So when we see a
threat, we also tend to view it as a joke. But ultimately, the audience that’s
laughing isn’t just a target for jokes (Sandy Hook Promise, 2023). We lose
sight of how preventable the situation is because we don’t even believe it’s
coming.
Ultimately, the preventability of violence is determined by our
perception of it. Before we can defeat it, we must overcome our own
inhibitions.
References
Bushman, B. J.,
& Anderson, C. A. (2009). Comfortably Numb: Desensitizing Effects of
Violent Media on Helping Others. Psychological Science, 20(3),
273–277. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40575012
Critelli, J. W.,
& Keith, K. W. (2003). The Bystander Effect and the Passive Confederate: On
the Interaction Between Theory and Method. The Journal of Mind and Behavior,
24(3/4), 255–264. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43854004
LATANÉ, B., & DARLEY, J. M. (1969). BYSTANDER “APATHY.” American Scientist, 57(2),
244–268. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27828530
Majumdar, M. (2020). A burning. Alfred A. Knopf.
Rimonte, N. (1991). A Question of Culture: Cultural Approval of Violence
against Women in the Pacific-Asian Community and the Cultural Defense. Stanford
Law Review, 43(6), 1311–1326. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229041
Sandy Hook Promise. (2020, July 28). Back to school essentials
[Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5ykNZl9mTQ
Comments
Post a Comment