James Wallace wrote:
>
> I understand the goal of academic writing is to move from the specific to
> the general, but without a touchstone in the specific, ie an accurate
> assessment of the sensational elements of film, the theoretical work is
> perhaps at risk. Yes, no?
Absolutely right, James, I agree strongly with the need not to lose contact with
the specific and the experiential. But research into something like violence
always has to do more than just replicate the specific and experiential. And I
am interested in the fact that the long discussion about the significance of
violence in film etc has had almost no contact with the research traditions on
this - of which there is more than one.
The predominantly American mass communications tradition of investigating
violence as a public health problem I believe really does lose touch with the
kinds of experiential distinctin that people in the discussion want to make.
But there is at least the beginnings of another tradition of research, which has
grown more out of the European cultural/media studies tradition, which I think
does keep more touch with the experiential and the specific - and I am just
interested in the extent to which our discussions on the topic have stayed so
fiercely anecdotal.
So my question remains, I think.
Martin Barker
|