James et al who queried my query about anecdotes ...
I was picking up on something which has long bothered me in debates I
have become involved in aobut violence, often in the course of staged
public debates about 'how harmful is screen violence?'. In response to
the inevitable parade of dodgy statistics from moral campaigners (did
you know that children watch an average 10,000 acts of violence as they
grow up - are you saying this has no influence on them? etc etc), I have
often found myself and others falling back on the 'but I took my
children to see THE LION KING which isn't a violent movie and they were
much more disturbed by that, with the death of Simba's dad, than they
were by watching PULP FICTION'. Etc etc. it just seems to me that this
indicates a sense on our part that we lack the research resources to
reply in kind to the poor research which blocks differences, loses
distinctions, and expels experience (incidentally if anyone wants to see
*the classic example* of a violence researcher doing the last, have a
look at W James Potter's On Media Violence, p.76 - it will either make
your hair fall out, or split your sides laughing).
So, to Gary, no, I am definitely not trying to expel the anecdote, cos I
think they can be valuable in all kinds of ways. But they aren't
sufficient. And to James, no, I am not looking for a theory of sympathy
(though sympathy ain't a bad thing to begin from, when researching
audiences - it induces a willingness to listen, if nowt else). I am
looking for a way of systematically understanding the complexity of
audience responses, not just my own or my children's. And I just
wondered if I am all alone in this!!!
martin barker
|