Does violence in young people begin solely from violence in media? Give at least 3 reasons why you think so.
Violence in young people does not begin solely from violence in media because there are many other factors that may influence violence in young people. Young people are defined as youths from the age of 13 to 18 years old and violence is defined as rough tendencies such as fighting. Media in this case is referred to as gaming.
It is undeniable that media may play a role in causing violent tendencies in young people. As shown in the article, studies have shown that minority of young people playing m-rated games do get into trouble committing crimes like theft and fighting but the majority still do not get into trouble. Such violent behaviour may be the result of peer influence. That minority that did such acts may not have carried out the actions if not influenced by the peers. Bad company may cause young people to join fighting gangs and have vioelnt tendencies.
Secondly, violence may begin with the family. In a dysfunctional family whereby these young people are exposed to violent tendencies, they may see violence as a solution to problems hence they may adopt such behaviour. Parents who fought regularly may be the cause for a youth to have violent tendencies hence it is not fair to blame it solely on violence in media. Such behaviour if not corrected from young, will be carried out through their adult lives hence causing them to be an abusive person.
Thirdly, violent children may be the result of war. The hatred that is contained within them and the many strong influences surrounding around them. Given a situation of war where these young people meet the deaths of their loved ones and for the pride of their country, they may be willing to indulge in violent activities. The Tamil Tiger Eelam recruits children to participate in wars hence going through and being brought up in such a condition may result violent children.
Monday, March 1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Young people are defined as youths from the age of 13 to 18 years old and violence is defined as rough tendencies such as fighting. Media in this case is referred to as gaming.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good start to defining keywords but try not to leave it as narrow as 'age range' and 'fighting'.
Perhaps youths aged 13-18 years of age who attend school and are regularly exposed to mass media in the forms of the Internet, TV programmes, computer games, movies and even advertisements.
The question posed mentions 'media' instead of just games.
Thirdly, violent children may be the result of war.
Perhaps 'war' might not be applicable to countries such as Singapore, UK and Australia. How about replacing the idea of 'war' with 'strife' or 'hardship'?
Then you can expand on the struggles of racial riots, ethnic conflicts like in Palestine and the (illegal?) Israeli settlements? Malaysia's Hindu/Muslim, Christian/Muslim unrest? Perhaps youths tend to be influenced by adults and peers on certain beliefs and causes and are then led to think (mistakenly) that their violence is justified.
I like how different your examples are: from the private sphere of family to the more public spheres of media and social influence =)
I suppose it is true that violent games do not necessarily mean violent children. I mean, my own brother spends eons on the computer playing counterstrike everyday and I'd hardly categorise him as violent. I think those who end up violent usually don't know how to differentiate the real world from the cyberworld. It's all about balance :D
ReplyDeleteThank you Hawa for your input.
ReplyDeleteIt's a good point you made: about the inability to differentiate between the real world and cyberspace. The extent of influence media has over its users is limited. It is only when other checks and balances are not in place that the fantasy world dominates the real world.
For clearer information on which factors/ other influences may affect the degree of influence of media over youths, read pages 96 to 100 of this article "The Influence of Media Violence on Youth" for your GP essays.
xingjie- i feel that violent games do not necessarily mean violent children. rather, it is one's degree to differentiate reality from virtual, right from wrong and one's ability to control his actions that influences how violent a child becomes
ReplyDeleteI believe that violent games do not necessarily mean violet children. Like what shaz said, it could be due to family, war etc. However, i do believe that these violent games play apart in affecting the child's mental health. Sometimes, they get so immersed in the game that they become the character cannot differentiate between reality and the game itself. As a result, they exhibit violet behavior. :D
ReplyDeletecarmen: to what extent do violent games harm children?
ReplyDeleteI could rewrite your comment to make it into a thesis statement:
Violent games do not harm children as long as their engagement to the games are moderated and they are able to differentiate reality from fantasy.