|
It’s not
exactly stated, but a
report issued
by the American Psychological Association this month seems to
conclude that words mean things.
I like to think so when I
write anyway, though the study deals specifically with violent
lyrics in songs. It’s a subject worthy of consideration; the
content of any CD that doesn’t have a picture of Elmo on it is
suspect these days.
The average adolescent will
argue that the words don’t matter. They just like the beat, the
rhythm, the guitar solos, the picture on the cover, the crinkle of
the shrink-wrap, that new plastic smell, anything but the actual
message. It’s tempting to believe them given how many vocals
are recorded in an angry mumble only eardrums under the age of 25
can understand, and that when you do catch a fragment you’ll
probably wish you hadn’t.
In experiments on over 500
college students, who often work cheaper than guinea pigs and have
less complicated musical tastes, subjects were found to experience
an increase in aggressive thoughts after listening to songs with
violent lyrics. Those subjected to the mean music were more apt to
connect hostile meanings to words deemed to be violence neutral by
the researchers.
The words used in the study
as “clearly aggressive” were blood, butcher, choke, fight, gun,
hatchet, hurt, kill, knife, and wound. I understand that not
everyone sees things the same way, but I worry about people who read
hostility into inanimate objects like guns, hatchets, and knives.
And to me, a butcher is the friendly old guy who had the shop at the
end of the block when I was a kid, blood is the essence of life, and
choked up is how I feel when I see a butterfly at sunrise.
OK I got carried away, but
you see the problem. The so-called “ambiguous” words are just as
debatable: alley, animal, bottle, drugs, movie, night, police, red,
rock, and stick. “Police” is probably as good a one-word Rorschach
test any but everyone knows that sticks and stones can break your
bones. If you don’t think “movie” is inherently violent you
probably haven’t wandered into a theater lately.
Still, let’s assume the
choice of aggressive and neutral words was appropriate. The study
found that the style of music had nothing to do with increased
hostility. Thus “Mary Had a Little Lamb” performed by the hard rock
band Korn would not increase aggression even though it wouldn’t be
confused for a lullaby. Barry Manilow crooning rap lyrics might
start a riot.
Aggression levels also went
up after listening to humorous violent songs, which seemed like an
oxymoron until I recalled the homicidal “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer” by
that noted death-rock ensemble, the Beatles. And what about Tom
Jones? Good heavens, if he were a rap star every album he ever
released would have a parental advisory warning.
Not that teens are flocking
to buy the latest Tom Jones CDs. They probably don’t like the
beat. In any event if Jones’ fifty-something female fans have ever
torn up a Las Vegas nightclub I haven’t heard of it.
Despite my quibbles with some
of its points, the study’s basic conclusion is right on the mark.
Words do have meanings, meanings suggest thoughts, and thoughts lead
to action. Most reasonably well-adjusted people will suffer no
lasting harm from occasional exposure to violent content, but it
doesn’t take a study to figure out that the constant pounding of
nasty messages from music, television, movies, video games, and
other amusements have a cumulative impact.
It is said that we are what
we eat; I’d argue that we become what we think. If so, perhaps we
should pay as much attention to our entertainment diets as our
waistlines.
|
