Sensitising

We frequently hear about how video games, TV and films are desensitising people in modern society. People worry that violence in fiction will begin to manifest in reality as people are more familiar with it. It is not just violent or criminal behaviours but also increasingly graphic sexual content that is being depicted although I am unsure of what this gives cause to worry about. It is fair to say that the exposure to this sort of content has increased at a very fast pace over not that large a time frame which is why there is such a fuss about the changes. Had this transition from highly censored media to highly graphic media been slow and smooth over hundreds of years no one would have noticed.

I don't really think there is any cause for concern in regards to desensitising people. I for one have played many violent games and enjoyed many violent films and have no urges to mimic any of those experiences. The thrill of entertainment is enhanced when it gives an experience that is not obtainable in the real world. It is only by acknowledging that an action is bad or not to be done that any interest arises in a program or game that is violent or criminal. Our morbid fascination with crime and violence is a direct result of a well aligned moral compass. If anything violent games are a good outlet for negative feelings and reduce the likelihood of violence in people. It would be very interesting to run a corroborating study to see if there is any relationship between the increase in the availability of porn and a reduction in sexual assaults and offences.

While I don't think desensitising is cause for much concern it does rather distract from the less obvious but more concerning issue of sensitising. This is the exact opposite of desensitising and may be seen to varying extents throughout western society. A simple but easy to appreciate example of where we are becoming less tolerant and less able to cope is with our connection to food. The extent of our industry and division of labour means fewer and fewer people deal with many raw ingredients. Skinning a chicken or gutting a fish are fairly gruesome tasks that we can easily avoid with supermarkets, butchers and restaurants. In many western peoples minds there is meat and there are animals but we try not to think about the process in between. This makes some of us often unwilling to eat food that resembles its animal counterpart and unable to cope when food must be cooked from raw ingredients (this is generally only the case when we elect to go to less developed areas of the world for whatever reason and must live as they do). Being sensitised towards clean and easy food is not really a problem in western society and is only apparent when taken out of that environment. In an apocalypse scenario or social collapse those sensitised towards food will have a harder time of it but that is about the extent of the problem.

There are other more pernicious examples of sensitising that have more impact on western society than changes in diet do. Pain and death are things that we have tried to hide away from view and experience. Our society deals with the death and pain very quickly with hospitals, crematoriums and medicines. When we die we are not left lying around for all to see, our dead are not left on display but promptly disposed of. If we are taken in pain we go to the doctor and expect something to be done about that right away. Certainly we are aware that people die, we see it in our media and we often know of people who have died but we have very little experience of it compared to at any time prior to around the 1950's or those that live in harsher countries. Some notable people of great wealth have gone mad with their quest to avoid pain and death and these are extreme examples however if it could be measured there would be an increase in the sensitivity towards pain and death in western societies.

Another area in which we are more sensitive is towards taking offence. Not only does it appear as if more and more people think it is their right to not be offended but there is also much greater tribalism associated with people taking offence at things although in shall not presently discuss this tangential aspect. There are many reasons for this trend in taking more offence as with the trend in becoming sensitised towards death, pain and food. The main one that is obvious in each of the categories is the improvements to society and technology that have occurred. Life has become easier, more comfortable and more convenient. As hardships are done away with the natural balance and relative perspective will realign to make less serious or significant hardships a greater concern. This is why taking offence is the most recently observable trend in terms of when it started to gather momentum. We started to take offence at things when our lives become free from any other more serious concerns. A couple of hundred years ago being called unpleasant things would be the least of most peoples worries.

As with food, being more sensitive towards death, pain and offence will make people a little more dependant on society as it presently stands and a little less able to cope should society suddenly change. This is not really that big of a problem and is just worth being aware of. A rapid change in society is unlikely and regardless of how unprepared people are most will adapt pretty fast if forced to. Keeping in touch with how life for people has evolved and human roots is useful and allows us to appreciate our lives better but is not something we should require of people nor spend too much time in educating. So if the physical aspects of the areas in which we are becoming sensitised are not really a social concern why did I describe some of the trends as pernicious?

It is the effect on the character of people that is the main problem with the sensitising of a society. In some respects it is alike to spoiling a child or pet which leads to less tolerant and greedier tendencies. By pandering to peoples fear and dislike of death, pain and offence we are suggesting we have a right to avoid these inevitable things in life. This in turn creates false expectation and disproportional responses to pain, death and offence. The effects of a sensitised society are not likely to play a major part in the development of an individual nor do I have any proof or evidence that an avoidance of the realities of life are to the detriment of society. I certainly don't suggest that we allow people to die more easily or stop medical treatment in the name of character building.

All I would suggest is that perspective is an important thing to retain and any ways that we are able to help education and experience provide it should be utilised. With death we should let our kids have pets so they can appreciate death, they should be encouraged to stay with people on their death bed to prepare them best for the inevitable end of life and not have the truth obscured by cliched ambiguities such as they have gone to a better place. In a slightly less morbid vein they should also visit farms and slaughter houses as part of their curriculum so as to gain an appreciation for the process of making food.

Pain is a little more fundamental and is required to appreciate pleasure. We should seek to reduce ours and others pain despite the success of such actions having a sensitising effect. Nor should we inflict it in order to educate or provide experience. The hope is that a more pragmatic approach to the less integral aspects of sensitising such as death and food will foster better attitudes towards pain.

Offence is linked to free speech and would require a huge tangent to fully cover. Legislating offence is very hard and freedom of speech is desirable but so is stopping any intent to offend or incite. There are practical benefits to preprepared foods and health care however I see few benefits for the level of protection against offence we have reached in present society.

While the concept of sensitising is pretty insignificant when compared to other problems in society is it interesting that it is barely discussed and that the opposite trend is instead criticized. Longer life expectancies and greater quality of life are a great measure of the progress of society and one of the great benefits of living as such. Have we become a little blinded by the advantages of these improvements so as to overlook any possible drawbacks that may come with them? It is always good to question things that seem good as well as bad, most things contain bits of both and people wouldn't agree on which are which anyway. Even when it is found that the good greatly outweighs the bad it is still useful information as the solution is rarely to stop a good thing but to do more things to mitigate the bad. We have not stopped driving but cars have become cleaner and safer and will hopefully continue to evolve to maximise their benefits and minimise their detriment to society.