SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Law enforcement search the area of a shooting at a Fourth of July parade on July 4, 2022 in Highland Park, Illinois. Police have detained Robert "Bobby" E. Crimo III, 22, in connection with the shooting in which six people were killed and 19 injured, according to published reports. (Photo: Mark Borenstein/Getty Images)
What Is Wrong With Us?
We are habituated to the notion that deadly interpersonal violence is somehow normal and is to be expected anywhere and everywhere. Of course, this is not true.
Jul 05, 2022
We shoot each other.
We shoot each other in the streets. We shoot each other in our homes. We shoot each other in rural towns and in big cities. We shoot ourselves in the suburbs and in the ex-burbs. We shoot each other in large mass shootings and in small individualized events. We shoot each other in schools, at concerts, and at parties. We shoot each other in stores, at work, and on vacations.
What is wrong with us? Is this who we are? Some say we shoot each other because we have too many guns (I agree); others, like the NRA, say we shoot each other because there are not enough guns (I disagree). Some say we shoot each other because we don't have good mental health care (I am all for better mental health care, but the mentally ill are more often the victims of violence than the perpetrators of it). I am sure there are lots of reasons why we are shooting each other so often, but that is not the why I am writing.
What astounds and angers me is that our society considers guns and violence--graphic, brutal, and horrific--to be an acceptable form of popular entertainment. Our movies and television shows are stuffed full of beatings and shootings, microscopically depicted, glorified, and romanticized. In fact, loud and graphic images of deadly gun violence are perhaps the most defining commonplace element of our visual entertainment. A lot of money and efforts goes into making these colorfully exaggerated images of blood, gore, and brutality. Our films and programs, it seems, are based in the idea that guns and violence are entertaining. Is this really is who we are?
Please don't get me wrong: I am not saying that movies and television cause us to shoot each other. It may do so (most scholars seem to feel that visual portrayals of violence do fairly often lead to increased aggression amongst viewers), but that is not my subject. What I am trying to point out is just the simple fact that in our country ugly and stark depictions of guns and violence are a favorite form of popular entertainment.
We are habituated to the notion that deadly interpersonal violence is somehow normal and is to be expected anywhere and everywhere. Of course, this is not true; shooting each other is not normal everywhere and it is not considered entertainment everywhere.
So, why is it this way? Who provides us with these images and who teaches us to enjoy violence so much? What kind of person would be so foolish and irresponsible as to produce, as entertainment, the kind of slow motion, graphic violence that characterizes so much popular entertainment made in the USA? And why would they do such a harmful and ugly thing?
The only answer I can think of is that these images are the results of self-interested decisions made by the very wealthy people who create our visual mass media culture. These people, who sometimes preach to us about peace and love, seem to have no problem making movies and programs full of abhorrent images of guns and violence, blood and guts. They decry violence in our society while getting rich by producing and promoting violent images. They are the producers, writers, directors, and actors who we think of as glamorous celebrities.
To understand that it doesn't have to be this way, all you have to to compare most European television shows about cops and law enforcement to American ones. The foreign shows can go a whole season without even one scene of blood and gore, while the shows made in the USA will contain several scenes of violence and a whole armory of weapons in a single episode.
Surely the "celebrities" who make our entertainment are aware of this, but they choose to make entertainment that is violent. Why? I can only guess it's because it's an easy way to get rich. They will probably say something like "we are only giving the people what they want," but that is not adequate as an answer or a justification. After all, the guy selling speed, the CEO pushing opioids, or the company selling cancerous pesticides is "only giving people what they want." In truth, all of them use advertising and other manipulative techniques to form our tastes and desires. Years and years of cross cultural research tells us that human beings are not "naturally" violent. It is not our genes that are the problem, it is our entertainment industry.
What do I propose? Well, let's start with the idea proposed by Hannah Arendt at the beginning of her book "The Human Condition" in which she wrote: "What I propose therefore is very simple: it is nothing more than to think about what we are doing."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Thomas Meisenhelder
Thomas Meisenhelder is a retired Professor of Sociology from California State University, San Bernardino. He lives in Huntington Beach, CA.
We shoot each other.
We shoot each other in the streets. We shoot each other in our homes. We shoot each other in rural towns and in big cities. We shoot ourselves in the suburbs and in the ex-burbs. We shoot each other in large mass shootings and in small individualized events. We shoot each other in schools, at concerts, and at parties. We shoot each other in stores, at work, and on vacations.
What is wrong with us? Is this who we are? Some say we shoot each other because we have too many guns (I agree); others, like the NRA, say we shoot each other because there are not enough guns (I disagree). Some say we shoot each other because we don't have good mental health care (I am all for better mental health care, but the mentally ill are more often the victims of violence than the perpetrators of it). I am sure there are lots of reasons why we are shooting each other so often, but that is not the why I am writing.
What astounds and angers me is that our society considers guns and violence--graphic, brutal, and horrific--to be an acceptable form of popular entertainment. Our movies and television shows are stuffed full of beatings and shootings, microscopically depicted, glorified, and romanticized. In fact, loud and graphic images of deadly gun violence are perhaps the most defining commonplace element of our visual entertainment. A lot of money and efforts goes into making these colorfully exaggerated images of blood, gore, and brutality. Our films and programs, it seems, are based in the idea that guns and violence are entertaining. Is this really is who we are?
Please don't get me wrong: I am not saying that movies and television cause us to shoot each other. It may do so (most scholars seem to feel that visual portrayals of violence do fairly often lead to increased aggression amongst viewers), but that is not my subject. What I am trying to point out is just the simple fact that in our country ugly and stark depictions of guns and violence are a favorite form of popular entertainment.
We are habituated to the notion that deadly interpersonal violence is somehow normal and is to be expected anywhere and everywhere. Of course, this is not true; shooting each other is not normal everywhere and it is not considered entertainment everywhere.
So, why is it this way? Who provides us with these images and who teaches us to enjoy violence so much? What kind of person would be so foolish and irresponsible as to produce, as entertainment, the kind of slow motion, graphic violence that characterizes so much popular entertainment made in the USA? And why would they do such a harmful and ugly thing?
The only answer I can think of is that these images are the results of self-interested decisions made by the very wealthy people who create our visual mass media culture. These people, who sometimes preach to us about peace and love, seem to have no problem making movies and programs full of abhorrent images of guns and violence, blood and guts. They decry violence in our society while getting rich by producing and promoting violent images. They are the producers, writers, directors, and actors who we think of as glamorous celebrities.
To understand that it doesn't have to be this way, all you have to to compare most European television shows about cops and law enforcement to American ones. The foreign shows can go a whole season without even one scene of blood and gore, while the shows made in the USA will contain several scenes of violence and a whole armory of weapons in a single episode.
Surely the "celebrities" who make our entertainment are aware of this, but they choose to make entertainment that is violent. Why? I can only guess it's because it's an easy way to get rich. They will probably say something like "we are only giving the people what they want," but that is not adequate as an answer or a justification. After all, the guy selling speed, the CEO pushing opioids, or the company selling cancerous pesticides is "only giving people what they want." In truth, all of them use advertising and other manipulative techniques to form our tastes and desires. Years and years of cross cultural research tells us that human beings are not "naturally" violent. It is not our genes that are the problem, it is our entertainment industry.
What do I propose? Well, let's start with the idea proposed by Hannah Arendt at the beginning of her book "The Human Condition" in which she wrote: "What I propose therefore is very simple: it is nothing more than to think about what we are doing."
Thomas Meisenhelder
Thomas Meisenhelder is a retired Professor of Sociology from California State University, San Bernardino. He lives in Huntington Beach, CA.
We shoot each other.
We shoot each other in the streets. We shoot each other in our homes. We shoot each other in rural towns and in big cities. We shoot ourselves in the suburbs and in the ex-burbs. We shoot each other in large mass shootings and in small individualized events. We shoot each other in schools, at concerts, and at parties. We shoot each other in stores, at work, and on vacations.
What is wrong with us? Is this who we are? Some say we shoot each other because we have too many guns (I agree); others, like the NRA, say we shoot each other because there are not enough guns (I disagree). Some say we shoot each other because we don't have good mental health care (I am all for better mental health care, but the mentally ill are more often the victims of violence than the perpetrators of it). I am sure there are lots of reasons why we are shooting each other so often, but that is not the why I am writing.
What astounds and angers me is that our society considers guns and violence--graphic, brutal, and horrific--to be an acceptable form of popular entertainment. Our movies and television shows are stuffed full of beatings and shootings, microscopically depicted, glorified, and romanticized. In fact, loud and graphic images of deadly gun violence are perhaps the most defining commonplace element of our visual entertainment. A lot of money and efforts goes into making these colorfully exaggerated images of blood, gore, and brutality. Our films and programs, it seems, are based in the idea that guns and violence are entertaining. Is this really is who we are?
Please don't get me wrong: I am not saying that movies and television cause us to shoot each other. It may do so (most scholars seem to feel that visual portrayals of violence do fairly often lead to increased aggression amongst viewers), but that is not my subject. What I am trying to point out is just the simple fact that in our country ugly and stark depictions of guns and violence are a favorite form of popular entertainment.
We are habituated to the notion that deadly interpersonal violence is somehow normal and is to be expected anywhere and everywhere. Of course, this is not true; shooting each other is not normal everywhere and it is not considered entertainment everywhere.
So, why is it this way? Who provides us with these images and who teaches us to enjoy violence so much? What kind of person would be so foolish and irresponsible as to produce, as entertainment, the kind of slow motion, graphic violence that characterizes so much popular entertainment made in the USA? And why would they do such a harmful and ugly thing?
The only answer I can think of is that these images are the results of self-interested decisions made by the very wealthy people who create our visual mass media culture. These people, who sometimes preach to us about peace and love, seem to have no problem making movies and programs full of abhorrent images of guns and violence, blood and guts. They decry violence in our society while getting rich by producing and promoting violent images. They are the producers, writers, directors, and actors who we think of as glamorous celebrities.
To understand that it doesn't have to be this way, all you have to to compare most European television shows about cops and law enforcement to American ones. The foreign shows can go a whole season without even one scene of blood and gore, while the shows made in the USA will contain several scenes of violence and a whole armory of weapons in a single episode.
Surely the "celebrities" who make our entertainment are aware of this, but they choose to make entertainment that is violent. Why? I can only guess it's because it's an easy way to get rich. They will probably say something like "we are only giving the people what they want," but that is not adequate as an answer or a justification. After all, the guy selling speed, the CEO pushing opioids, or the company selling cancerous pesticides is "only giving people what they want." In truth, all of them use advertising and other manipulative techniques to form our tastes and desires. Years and years of cross cultural research tells us that human beings are not "naturally" violent. It is not our genes that are the problem, it is our entertainment industry.
What do I propose? Well, let's start with the idea proposed by Hannah Arendt at the beginning of her book "The Human Condition" in which she wrote: "What I propose therefore is very simple: it is nothing more than to think about what we are doing."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.