The
question is posed as "either/or" but the proper response is "neither/nor."
No, movies, TV, books and other cultural expressions do not, in and of themselves,
"influence the rates of teen pregnancy and STDs," and no, images and messages cannot be dismissed as
"mere reflections of reality."
It's intriguing that you specifically cite Calvin Klein ads, Buffy the Vampire
Slayer and Barbie . . . And what reality, pray tell, do such icons reflect? High
school kids encounter many challenges today but night stalking blood suckers are not, generally
speaking, among them. One of the most striking aspects of contemporary popular culture is how
poorly it mirrors the reality that most Americans experience, with its emphasis on the hip, rich and
unattached in New York or LA, while most of us do in fact live in some sort of family configuration
in places between the big media centers. Pop culture's distortions of ordinary life do not
automatically render such entertainment worthless or destructive; after all, every form of high or
schlock art reaches for some sort of exceptional drama or beauty or horror. But the common argument
that TV and movies show us as we are can only be advanced by those who either live in Hollywood or
Manhattan or, on the other hand, never see TV or movies.
An acknowledgment that the entertainment industry doesn't reflect the real world leads,
inevitably and logically, to another conclusion: that pop culture doesn't single-handedly shape the
real world. In terms of this question, a recognition that mass media aren't "mere reflections of
reality" requires a recognition that these media cannot "influence the rates of teen pregnancy and
STDs . . ." The theory that media messages determine people's lives and values, and
the theory that media messages only mirror people's lives and values, would both require some
resemblance between media messages and the lives and values of most Americans -- and that
resemblance does not, thank goodness, exist.
Consider this issue of child sexuality. Every survey of the issue that I have ever seen
suggests that the overwhelming majority of parents, of every ethnic, religious or income group,
worry about their kids growing up too soon and too cynical. Popular culture, however, flamboyantly
disregards these worries -- just as many American kids flamboyantly disregard the messages of pop
culture. In one of the most under-reported stories of our time, nearly a million teenagers have now
signed the "True Love Waits" pledge, committing themselves to avoiding intercourse before marriage.
Of course, some of these kids will no doubt betray their good intentions, but the very public
statement of such intentions, regardless of ultimate follow through, remains remarkable and
significant. It shows that even teenagers, who are notoriously most vulnerable to messages about
what constitutes hip and stylish behavior, can defy the standards of the mass media culture.
That does not mean, however, that they are altogether untouched by those standards and values.
The contention that the entertainment industry has no influence on our kids is just as illogical and
insipid as the notion that this industry is the only influence. Entertainment is indeed a powerful
force in shaping attitudes and behavior, but it is, in the last analysis, one of many.
When it comes to childhood sexuality another potent force is the national obsession with
adolescence, advanced most famously by my own baby boom cohort. If parents treat kids like best
friends and equals, that allows those parents to delay growing up -- and to invite their kids to
join them in the fun-filled fever swamps of perpetual adolescence. If your kids can be viewed as
lusty, hormone-addled, playful adolescents then it enables parents to continue seeing themselves in
the same way. One of the principal themes of my new book (Saving Childhood, co-authored with
my wife, Dr. Diane Medved) is that allowing children to be children forces parents to behave like
adults -- placing all sorts of inconvenient demands on aging boomers passionately committed to
remaining "forever young."
In any event, the last part of your question must be meant as a joke, right? The very notion
that current cultural exploitation of child sexuality "promotes positive sexual identities, comfort
with one's own changing body, better gender/sexual relations" and so forth is so ludicrous that it
barely requires comment. If our current media images promote "comfort with one's own changing body"
then why do more and more pubescent girls suffer the ravages of anorexia? In what way do the current
horrifying statistics about STDs, out-of-wedlock birth and, worst of all, teen suicide (the federal
government estimates that eight percent of all adolescents will attempt suicide at one time or
another) suggest "better gender/sexual relations"?
In conclusion, pop culture messages cannot solely be blamed for our current predicament,
nor can they be credited for improvements in youthful behavior that most certainly do not exist.
|
Question 1
A. M. Homes
James Kincaid
Judith Levine
Michael Medved
Stephen Schiff
Celine Texier-Rose
Naomi Wolf
Question 2
A. M. Homes
James Kincaid
Judith Levine
Michael Medved
Stephen Schiff
Celine Texier-Rose
Naomi Wolf
Question 3
A. M. Homes
James Kincaid
Judith Levine
Michael Medved
Stephen Schiff
Celine Texier-Rose
Sally Mann
Question 4
A. M. Homes
James Kincaid
Judith Levine
Michael Medved
Stephen Schiff
Celine Texier-Rose
|
