Have we evolved?

In a society which pleasures its ego with how progressive it is, why is our system of censorship so out of tune? Based on our standards and cultural norms, what part of our view of reality suggests what actions should be deemed harmful and therefore not appropriate? Centuries of development have molded our society; but, in terms of censorship, have we evolved?

There are countless programs on television. Hundreds of channels are accessible and thousands of images are broadcast to millions of people everyday. The Federal Communications Commission has the Media Bureau to regulate the content of radio and television. Its job is to administer policies and procedures that relate to the content of electronic media.

Through the process of regulation, certain things are cut while other things will be passed through inspection to the frontlines of TV and radio. The deep question relates to this particular dynamic. As our culture developed, there are images and words that cannot pass into the public through a media outlet. Things like boobs, genitals, swear words and gestures are stripped from the media everyday. Why is that?

When running through regular cable it doesn’t take long before coming across a “cop show” of some form. Whether it’s “CSI” or “Law and Order” (or any of their multiple shows), the content is very similar. What is strange is how violent and sometimes grotesque these shows can become. “CSI” is particularly guilty of this. Constant death and perverse autopsy scenes are the show’s main attraction. Why is it OK for a child to see someone’s midsection ripped open with the head only partially attached but not OK to hear a bad word or see a nipple?

Centuries ago it would make more sense. If you encapsulate this dynamic and examine it retrospectively, there is merit in the societal lens. For those who lived in a more violent period, seeing violence day-to-day would be useful. There would be a lesser emotional response to a violent situation and people could react more effectively.

On the other hand, sexual arousal from interacting with a sultry medium would be more harmful.

There was less education and fewer contraceptives. Those in power promoted a sexually regressive culture to ensure health and safety.

That was then. Why is it now considered appropriate to bring children up in a realm of violence and anger? The logic is backward. The naturalness of the human form would be less harmful when set against the unnaturalness of murder.

Humans could more effectively digest the visual concept of a breast than the visual concept of a blown-apart skull; yet, that is not communicated on TV.

Children (and all people for that matter) should relate more to the human form. The body should not be feared or tainted with uncomfortable feelings. If we were open to sexuality, it would help educate and promote greater understanding and safety.

A culture which is more in tune to the atrocity of violence has a greater likelihood to advance.

By softening the reality of violence, our culture will have a more difficult time progressing, particularly with a population of sexually frustrated citizens.

So, have we evolved?

The verdict: No.

Bob Beers

Related Posts:

1. Violent video games don’t kill, guns do
2. The F Spot: Framing the FTC’s Picture
3. Have we evolved:
4. Parental discretion is advised
5. Have we evolved: