The Illusion of Inevitability: How Media and Culture Shape Our Perception of Violence

 ***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