Author: Kirill A.Tarasov
Communicology. 2017. Vol.5. No.3
Tarasov Kirill Anatol´evich, Moscow State Institute (University) of International Relations. Moscow, Russian Federation.
Abstract. In the transitional period commercial censorship supplanted the state one. Being predicated on the former, the dominating disposition toward attracting maximum spectator attention to the films had as its consequence an unprecedented inundation of them with images of socially denigrated violence. The agenda of public debates began to feature the issue of their dysfunctional impact on the rising generations, and, along with it, a demand for the social regulation of producing and distributing the spectacle of such kind. For the corner stone, however, it makes more sense to put in something else: regulating the effects of screen-violence impact. In this regard consideration is given to its two facets – the attracting effect and the informational-contagious, and to two aspects of the social regulation – scientific-exploratory and social-practical. An issue is raised of tying-in the creative freedom with the social responsibility of filmmakers. The possibilities of solving the issue are conceived as lying in employing in Russia the three types of the social regulation used in the world practice: «regulation», «self-regulation», and «co-regulation».
Keywords: film, violent imagery, communication, rising generation, dysfunction, moral alarm, social regulation
Text: PDF
For citation: Таrasov K.A. The dysfunctional impact of violence in cinema and the issue of its social regulation. Communicology. Vol. 5. No. 3. P. 102-111 DOI 10.21453/2311-3065-2017-5-3-102-111.
References
1. Zhabskyi M.I. 2016. Sotsiodinamica kinematograficheskoi zhizhni obszhestva. Moskva: Kanon+ROOI «Reabilitatsiya», 496 s. [Zhabskyi, M.I. 2016. The Sociodynamics of Society’s Cinematic Life. Moscow. 496 p.]. (In Russ.).
2. Sharkov F.I. 2015. Genesis sotsiologicheskikh shkol i teoryi kommunikatsii // Kommunikologiya. Tom 3. № 4. S. 27. [Sharkov F.I. 2015. Genesis of sociological schools and theories of communication. Communicology. Vol. 3. № 4. P. 27]. (In Russ.).
3. Merton R.K.1996.. Yavnie i latentnie funktsii // Amerikanskaya sotciologicheskaya misl: Teksti / Pod red. V.I. Dobrenkova. Moskva, S. 428 [Merton R.K. 1996. Manifest and latent functions. American Sociological Thought: Texts / V.I. Dobrenkov, (ed.). Moscow. P. 428]. (In Russ.).
4. Zhabskyi M.I. 2009. Sotsiokulturnaya drama kinematografa. Analiticheskaya letopis (1969–2005 gg.). Moskva, P. 69. [Zhabskyi M.I. 2009. Sociocultural Drama of The Cinema. Analytical Annals (1969-2005). Moscow. P. 69]. (In Russ.).
5. Klapper, J.T. 1960. The Effects of Mass Communication. N.Y.: The Free Press, Р.159.
6. Foht-Babushkin Y.U. 1998. Sotsiokulturnie faktori poseschaemosti kinoseansov. Kino: puti ot filma k zritelyu / Pod osbch. red. M.I. Zhabskogo. Moskva: NII kinoiskusstva. S. 217. [Foht-Babushkin Y.U. 1998. Sociocultural factors of attendance at film showings. Pathways From the Film to The Spectator / M.I. Zhabskyi, (general ed.). Moscow. P. 217]. (In Russ.).
7. Tarasov K.А. 2016. Nasilie v filmakh: tri uslovia mimeticheskogo vozdeistviya // Vestnik VGIK. № 2. (28). S. 84–96. [Tarasov K.А. 2016. Violence in films: three conditions for the mimetic effect. VGIK Herald. № 2. (28). P. 84–96]. (In Russ.).
8. Zhabskyi M., Korobitcin V. 2002. Svoboda i otvetstvennost v televeshchanii // Vischee obrasovanie v Rossii. № 3. S. 61–66. [Zhabskyi M., Korobitcin V. 2002. Freedom and accountability in broadcast television. Higher Education in Russia. № 3. P. 61–66]. (In Russ.).
9. Children and Media Violence / U. Carlsson and C. von Feilitzen, (eds.). Göterborg: The UNESCO International Clearinghouse on Children and Violence on the Screen, Nordicom. Göterborg University.1998. Р. 7.
10. Materiali parlamentskikh slushanii. Pravovoe regulirovanie deyatelnosti sredstv massovoi informatsii v oblasti zaschiti prav detey i molodezhi. Moskva: Federalnoe sobranie – Parlament Rossyiskoi Federatsii. Gosudarstvennaya Duma. Komitet po delam zhenschin, semiyi i molodezhi. 1999. P. 16. [Proceedings of Parlamentari Hearings. The Law Regulation of Mass-Media Behavior in Upholding the Rights of Children and Youth. Moscow. Federal Assembly. 1999. P. 16]. (In Russ.).
11. Aroldi, P. 2003. Television and protection of minors in some European countries. A comparative study. Promote or Protect? Perspectives on Media Literacy and Media Regulations / C. von Feilitzen and U. Carlsson, (eds.). Göteborg: The UNESCO International Clearinghouse on Children and Violence on the Screen, P. 183.
12. Palzer, C., and Scheuer, A. 2003. Self-regulation, co-regulation and public regulation. Promote or Protect? Perspectives on Media Literacy and Media Regulations / C. von Feilitzen and
U. Carlsson, (eds.). Göteborg: The UNESCO International Clearinghouse on Children and Violence on the Screen, Р. 165.
Communicology. 2017. Vol.5. No.3
Tarasov Kirill Anatol´evich, Moscow State Institute (University) of International Relations. Moscow, Russian Federation.
Abstract. In the transitional period commercial censorship supplanted the state one. Being predicated on the former, the dominating disposition toward attracting maximum spectator attention to the films had as its consequence an unprecedented inundation of them with images of socially denigrated violence. The agenda of public debates began to feature the issue of their dysfunctional impact on the rising generations, and, along with it, a demand for the social regulation of producing and distributing the spectacle of such kind. For the corner stone, however, it makes more sense to put in something else: regulating the effects of screen-violence impact. In this regard consideration is given to its two facets – the attracting effect and the informational-contagious, and to two aspects of the social regulation – scientific-exploratory and social-practical. An issue is raised of tying-in the creative freedom with the social responsibility of filmmakers. The possibilities of solving the issue are conceived as lying in employing in Russia the three types of the social regulation used in the world practice: «regulation», «self-regulation», and «co-regulation».
Keywords: film, violent imagery, communication, rising generation, dysfunction, moral alarm, social regulation
Text: PDF
For citation: Таrasov K.A. The dysfunctional impact of violence in cinema and the issue of its social regulation. Communicology. Vol. 5. No. 3. P. 102-111 DOI 10.21453/2311-3065-2017-5-3-102-111.
References
1. Zhabskyi M.I. 2016. Sotsiodinamica kinematograficheskoi zhizhni obszhestva. Moskva: Kanon+ROOI «Reabilitatsiya», 496 s. [Zhabskyi, M.I. 2016. The Sociodynamics of Society’s Cinematic Life. Moscow. 496 p.]. (In Russ.).
2. Sharkov F.I. 2015. Genesis sotsiologicheskikh shkol i teoryi kommunikatsii // Kommunikologiya. Tom 3. № 4. S. 27. [Sharkov F.I. 2015. Genesis of sociological schools and theories of communication. Communicology. Vol. 3. № 4. P. 27]. (In Russ.).
3. Merton R.K.1996.. Yavnie i latentnie funktsii // Amerikanskaya sotciologicheskaya misl: Teksti / Pod red. V.I. Dobrenkova. Moskva, S. 428 [Merton R.K. 1996. Manifest and latent functions. American Sociological Thought: Texts / V.I. Dobrenkov, (ed.). Moscow. P. 428]. (In Russ.).
4. Zhabskyi M.I. 2009. Sotsiokulturnaya drama kinematografa. Analiticheskaya letopis (1969–2005 gg.). Moskva, P. 69. [Zhabskyi M.I. 2009. Sociocultural Drama of The Cinema. Analytical Annals (1969-2005). Moscow. P. 69]. (In Russ.).
5. Klapper, J.T. 1960. The Effects of Mass Communication. N.Y.: The Free Press, Р.159.
6. Foht-Babushkin Y.U. 1998. Sotsiokulturnie faktori poseschaemosti kinoseansov. Kino: puti ot filma k zritelyu / Pod osbch. red. M.I. Zhabskogo. Moskva: NII kinoiskusstva. S. 217. [Foht-Babushkin Y.U. 1998. Sociocultural factors of attendance at film showings. Pathways From the Film to The Spectator / M.I. Zhabskyi, (general ed.). Moscow. P. 217]. (In Russ.).
7. Tarasov K.А. 2016. Nasilie v filmakh: tri uslovia mimeticheskogo vozdeistviya // Vestnik VGIK. № 2. (28). S. 84–96. [Tarasov K.А. 2016. Violence in films: three conditions for the mimetic effect. VGIK Herald. № 2. (28). P. 84–96]. (In Russ.).
8. Zhabskyi M., Korobitcin V. 2002. Svoboda i otvetstvennost v televeshchanii // Vischee obrasovanie v Rossii. № 3. S. 61–66. [Zhabskyi M., Korobitcin V. 2002. Freedom and accountability in broadcast television. Higher Education in Russia. № 3. P. 61–66]. (In Russ.).
9. Children and Media Violence / U. Carlsson and C. von Feilitzen, (eds.). Göterborg: The UNESCO International Clearinghouse on Children and Violence on the Screen, Nordicom. Göterborg University.1998. Р. 7.
10. Materiali parlamentskikh slushanii. Pravovoe regulirovanie deyatelnosti sredstv massovoi informatsii v oblasti zaschiti prav detey i molodezhi. Moskva: Federalnoe sobranie – Parlament Rossyiskoi Federatsii. Gosudarstvennaya Duma. Komitet po delam zhenschin, semiyi i molodezhi. 1999. P. 16. [Proceedings of Parlamentari Hearings. The Law Regulation of Mass-Media Behavior in Upholding the Rights of Children and Youth. Moscow. Federal Assembly. 1999. P. 16]. (In Russ.).
11. Aroldi, P. 2003. Television and protection of minors in some European countries. A comparative study. Promote or Protect? Perspectives on Media Literacy and Media Regulations / C. von Feilitzen and U. Carlsson, (eds.). Göteborg: The UNESCO International Clearinghouse on Children and Violence on the Screen, P. 183.
12. Palzer, C., and Scheuer, A. 2003. Self-regulation, co-regulation and public regulation. Promote or Protect? Perspectives on Media Literacy and Media Regulations / C. von Feilitzen and
U. Carlsson, (eds.). Göteborg: The UNESCO International Clearinghouse on Children and Violence on the Screen, Р. 165.
