New Defeatist and Schadenfreude genre in books and film

[shel]

Anyone who is seeing a "collapse of morality in Western culture" is, IMO, over-reacting to superficial and short-lived trends in popular entertainment or has a wildly over-generous view of the virtue of previous generations. Slowly but surely, in a three-steps-forward-two-steps-back kind of a way, we are becoming a better, kinder and fairer society. Go back 150 years and what do you see? Institutionalised slavery accepted as God's dispensation in the Land of the Free. 50 or 100 years ago (depending where you live) women had no vote and no right to own property.

For those that see a disease of nihilism in modern culture, the disturbing implication is that they see equal rights for women, for instance, as nihilistic. Religious narratives/social structure tend to put men in control, therefor anyone who tries to disturb the status quo must be a nihilist, and generally a bad bad person.

[明安 Myoan]

What has changed is that currently ( and the world turns ) nihilism is seen as a badge of honour. Not as pathology.

Nihilism seen as a badge of honor, really? I don't suppose you'd care to try backing that up in some way. Right, I didn't think so.

And a pathology? Such extreme views, good Sir.

The concern is the suffering of beings, and several in my own life indulge in nihilism, such as that friend who said we shouldn't care about shootings.
How bringing sociological statistics in would help this, I'm not sure.

[Dan74]

Thank you for contributing to this discussion, Folks, many interesting perspectives. I'm going to throw a few of mine out there after reading this.

First I would challenge your commonly accepted view, that we are culturally evolving, Kim. We all know the unprecedented horrors that the last 100 years of human history saw, and as you know well, we are now hurtling towards the edge of an ecological catastrophe. Some rights and freedoms have been won, but so much lost in process. Our lifestyles, our mental health are abysmal. A typical Westerner is a confused neurotic mess. We are in the grip of a mental health epidemic that is surely multicausal but profound in its consequences.

So, following on from that, I am challenging the view that a typical consumer of the shows and games we are discussing is able to enjoy the fantasy, compartmentalise it or even draw useful lessons and not be profoundly affected in a negative way. We now have hundreds of millions of people with addiction issues around computers and entertainment. The toys like tablets and smart phones are profoundly addictive and dissociative. There is an implicit assumption among some people in the West that this is progress and a good thing and as far as art and entertainment goes, anything is fair game (except for a few sacred cows like Holocaust denial, blatant racism and homophobia, etc). But clearly much of what passes as entertainment these days especially when comsumed in an unbalanced way can be very harmful. And this lack of balance is by many accounts already the norm. I think a case can be made that shows such as The Game of Thrones, and general increase of graphic violent imagery, is contributing not necessarily to an increase in crime rates, but mental illness.

Lastly, let me qualify, I am not advocating censoring or banning these shows. I am questioning the main-stream acceptance of them. One of my good buddies at Uni was a Death Metal fan and when I stayed at his place I would wake up in the morning to the growling lyrics about burning flesh and crushed testicles. I never dreamed of moralising about it to him and he was a great guy who seemed to take it all in its stride. But I would start getting concerned if they played this music at our local primary school. So my inquiry is about the change is what passes as mainstream these days. Not to say that it is better or worse than it was 20 years ago, just different and what some of us perceive as a nihilistic/narsiccistic streak, underpinned by the short attention spans, cynical attitudes and lack of any silid belief system is what I am wondering about.

[shel]

Thank you for contributing to this discussion, Folks, many interesting perspectives. I'm going to throw a few of mine out there after reading this.

First I would challenge your commonly accepted view, that we are culturally evolving, Kim. We all know the unprecedented horrors that the last 100 years of human history saw, and as you know well, we are now hurtling towards the edge of an ecological catastrophe. Some rights and freedoms have been won, but so much lost in process. Our lifestyles, our mental health are abysmal. A typical Westerner is a confused neurotic mess. We are in the grip of a mental health epidemic that is surely multicausal but profound in its consequences.

So, following on from that, I am challenging the view that a typical consumer of the shows and games we are discussing is able to enjoy the fantasy, compartmentalise it or even draw useful lessons and not be profoundly affected in a negative way. We now have hundreds of millions of people with addiction issues around computers and entertainment. The toys like tablets and smart phones are profoundly addictive and dissociative. There is an implicit assumption among some people in the West that this is progress and a good thing and as far as art and entertainment goes, anything is fair game (except for a few sacred cows like Holocaust denial, blatant racism and homophobia, etc). But clearly much of what passes as entertainment these days especially when comsumed in an unbalanced way can be very harmful. And this lack of balance is by many accounts already the norm. I think a case can be made that shows such as The Game of Thrones, and general increase of graphic violent imagery, is contributing not necessarily to an increase in crime rates, but mental illness.

Lastly, let me qualify, I am not advocating censoring or banning these shows. I am questioning the main-stream acceptance of them. One of my good buddies at Uni was a Death Metal fan and when I stayed at his place I would wake up in the morning to the growling lyrics about burning flesh and crushed testicles. I never dreamed of moralising about it to him and he was a great guy who seemed to take it all in its stride. But I would start getting concerned if they played this music at our local primary school. So my inquiry is about the change is what passes as mainstream these days. Not to say that it is better or worse than it was 20 years ago, just different and what some of us perceive as a nihilistic/narsiccistic streak, underpinned by the short attention spans, cynical attitudes and lack of any silid belief system is what I am wondering about.

Hiya Dan!

I must say that you are incredibly naive to believe the lack of a "solid belief system" is the problem. You mention the unprecedented horrors of the last 100 years. You're of course referring to, amongst other horrors, the holocaust. Granted the Nazis did not have your "solid belief system," but they did have a solid belief system. Your belief system is of course better than anyone else's. That goes without saying, even though I said it. And no one would deny that it's better, perhaps more "solid"? than what the Nazis believed.

I guess what is most unclear in what you propose is who will be the shepherds in any new "solid belief system" who will lead the confused neurotic masses of the West? If people MUST be lead like sheep to be happy and not be confuse neurotic messes, how do we ensure that the sheep are lead by people with a "solid belief system" (can we assume that you mean Buddhists?) and not lead by people with a solid belief system like Hitler?

[shel]

What has changed is that currently ( and the world turns ) nihilism is seen as a badge of honour. Not as pathology.

Nihilism seen as a badge of honor, really? I don't suppose you'd care to try backing that up in some way. Right, I didn't think so.

And a pathology? Such extreme views, good Sir.

The concern is the suffering of beings, and several in my own life indulge in nihilism, such as that friend who said we shouldn't care about shootings.
How bringing sociological statistics in would help this, I'm not sure.

There are no "sociological statistics" to support or deny Simon's claim, so that point is moot.

I guess that I was asking for personal experience, like the example of your friend. And about that, are you suggesting that you are something of an anomaly in your community that you chose not to award you friend a badge of honor for what he said about the shootings? If that is the case, I'd like to know where you live so that I can avoid that part of the world.

[bob]

Some interesting points, Dan et al. Perhaps the next area of consideration would be to inquire into who benefits from the en-darkening of the masses that is occurring on the current stage. Another thought, in terms of long-term views, is that perhaps this en-darkening is a necessary precursor to a greater awakening. In other words, as in koan work, the greater the doubt, the greater the breakthrough.

[Norwegian]

I am quite sure, that if Internet existed in the 80's, there would be a thread about the terrible dangers of Arnold Schwarzenegger's movies such as Conan, Predator, Commando, and Terminator, and there would be suggestions of how these movies contributes to an increase in mental illness. Then in the 90's, there would be a thread about the terrible dangers of movies by Jean Claude van Damme, and Bruce Willis - how Die Hard 1 and 2 contributes to an increase in mental illness.

Of course I remember well how the 90's was in Norway, with the birth and growth of black metal the genre. It was fun being in my teens watching priests appear almost daily on national television, talking about the dangers of metal music, how listening to Metallica (not black metal) would cause children to become devil worshippers, and how those who listens to black metal in general performs baby sacrifices to Satan... Various people appeared constantly in media talking about how black metal was going to corrupt the nation, and how there were secret satanist societies plotting to take over the country. It is true, that there were some rather unfortunate things going on as well, such as a couple of murders, and church arson. With regards to the murder and church arson, it was a handful of people. When these were arrested, the crimes stopped, and it was back to the original point again; which was that of the music, and nothing else.

Time passed, and people realized black metal - while an extreme music genre with harsh nihilistic and misanthropic lyrics - was certainly not the dangerous beast it was once thought of. Today, it is accepted by a mainstream audience, not necessarily as a genre most people listens to and enjoys, but as a legit music genre that Norway is the best at, and is one of the major export articles of Norway. Today black metal (and its sibling genre viking metal) is accepted, and bands have their albums reviewed in the major newspapers, bands or band members appear in talk shows, or morning shows. The national state channel have aired a concert in prime time (with group Dimmu Borgir), there are metal-dedicated radio shows, metal-dedicated magazines, and all in all it is just another form of entertainment. It is not just long haired black-leather wearing metal-heads that listen to black metal these days. It's normal people. In fact the people in these bands are normal people too, with normal jobs. It's just music.

So I wonder if not perhaps those who thinks about the terrible dangers of Game of Thrones are overreacting a little bit.

Here's something interesting:

"Countries where heavy metal is popular are more wealthy and content with life, according to study

Though heavy metal originated amist working class youths in the U.S. and U.K., new socioeconomic trends have shown a relationship between the number of heavy metal bands and a country’s wealth and standard of living. According to The Atlantic’s City Lab and the Martin Prosperity Institute, the number of heavy metal bands in a given area is positively associated with, “economic output per capita; level of creativity and entrepreneurship; share of adults that hold college degrees; as well as overall levels of human development, well-being, and satisfaction with life.”"

Rest of article here: http://consequenceofsound.net/2014/06/c ... -to-study/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All of this extreme stuff... is appealing to people who leads rather comfortable and healthy lives in very peaceful and rather rich countries.

This allegedly new genre, of defeatism and schadenfreude in books and film, isn't really that new. At least not in books. And it's not in every single movie and TV series, or video game. And I also don't think it will be in every single movie, TV series, or video game, in the future either. Film and TV constantly develops. We like diversity, and if things become repetitive, predictable, and transparent, we move along. We always do. So I really am not worried with regards to this.

I think Game of Thrones (or be it Breaking Bad, or Grand Theft Auto, etc.) are parallels to black metal here, and of the same phenomenon. In that they cause an outrage in some of those who do not enjoy it or do not understand it. Instead of trying to understand it, it is easier to dismiss it, and use the broad brush of "degenerate", "causes violence", "causes mental illness", and so on. But as time goes on, we can see that it is false to accuse these as being the main culprits of problems in our society. People always like points the finger at video games being the reason for why there are shootings or murder, but it's just not true.

I'll end this post with the following article:

"Claims that 'video games lead to violence' lead to violence - A recent study reveals that knee-jerk scaremongering by the media that video games lead to violent behaviour actually causes violent behaviour among gamers"

The recent release of Grand Theft Auto 5 and the discovery that the Washington Navy Yard gunman was "obsessed with violent video games" has led to yet another series of media claims that video games cause violence.

There has never been any satisfactory scientific evidence for the association between video games and violent behaviour, but a recent study has revealed that baseless claims from the media that video games cause violence actually do cause violence

Dr Mario Vance, a psychological researcher at the Rapture Institute for headline-inspired science, conducted a seven-year longitudinal study that monitored the anger levels of more than a thousand volunteers from gaming communities. The results showed statistically significant increases in overall aggression and violent tendencies that occurred very soon after tenuous mainstream media stories claiming video games cause violence.

"Mainstream media have never liked video games, but it's just getting silly lately," said Dr Vance. "Recently, several media sources focused on Aaron Alexis (the Washington naval yard gunman) and his enthusiasm for Call of Duty as a cause for his brutal crimes. Because when wondering what could have made a naval reservist, someone trained by the military to engage in actions with the express intention of killing people, turn to violence, the obvious conclusion is 'video games', apparently.

"A bias is one thing, but turning a brutal and deadly shooting into an excuse to attack a tenuously linked entertainment medium? That borders on pathological."

Rest of article here: http://www.theguardian.com/science/brai ... e-violence" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Kim O'Hara]

I guess what is most unclear in what you [Dan] propose is who will be the shepherds in any new "solid belief system" who will lead the confused neurotic masses of the West? If people MUST be lead like sheep to be happy and not be confuse neurotic messes, how do we ensure that the sheep are lead by people with a "solid belief system" (can we assume that you mean Buddhists?) and not lead by people with a solid belief system like Hitler?

Something that is new to the world (or most of it) in the last fifty years or so is that we now have mass communications and mass migrations between communities which had been historically distant enough that they never really had to get along together. What that has been doing to belief systems is to undermine all of them as "the one right way" - we now all live in a pluralistic society, whether we wanted that or not. And what I see emerging slowly from the collision is a consensus that morality and ethics must be rationally based since (as I said elsewhere recently) "because Jesus said so" is no longer a valid reason.
If that continues to grow, we will end up with a much more solid belief system than any we now have.
What it will do for - or to - established religions is another matter. Things don't look too good for monotheism, but Buddhism may do better.


Kim

edit: fixed typo

[shel]

Ethics based in rationality may exclude a belief system, no matter how "solid," whatever solidity is supposed to mean in this context. And indeed, Buddhist ethics are not based in rationality.

[Kim O'Hara]

Ethics based in rationality may exclude a belief system, no matter how "solid," whatever solidity is supposed to mean in this context. And indeed, Buddhist ethics are not based in rationality.

I disagree with both those propositions but giving reasons would take us even further


Kim

[shel]

Ethics based in rationality may exclude a belief system, no matter how "solid," whatever solidity is supposed to mean in this context. And indeed, Buddhist ethics are not based in rationality.

I disagree with both those propositions but giving reasons would take us even further


Kim

Rationality is the very heart of the matter, Miss Kim. Rationality is the destroyer of Gods, so those that fear life without Gods fear rationality. But there is nothing to fear. Meaning can be found everywhere. Meaning that is spoon fed to us, like we were helpless children, is not healthy.

[Mkoll]

Ethics based in rationality may exclude a belief system, no matter how "solid," whatever solidity is supposed to mean in this context. And indeed, Buddhist ethics are not based in rationality.

I disagree with both those propositions but giving reasons would take us even further


Kim

Rationality is the very heart of the matter, Miss Kim. Rationality is the destroyer of Gods, so those that fear life without Gods fear rationality. But there is nothing to fear. Meaning can be found everywhere. Meaning that is spoon fed to us, like we were helpless children, is not healthy.

Poetic, but what's your point?

[shel]

I guess that it's probably not even possible to go backwards (to a "solid belief system"). Still don't know what solid is supposed to mean in this context, btw. Maybe someone can clarify that.