Abstract
This chapter examines school shootings to explore the role that communication processes play in the dynamics related to the control of violence. We argue that much of what we observe in regard to school shootings is a mass-media phenomenon. Many such acts of violence carry expressive, communicative connotations, and thus school shootings should be understood as discursive processes. We present a model for this understanding, specifying the participants (i.e., shooters, mass media, and the public) and the directionality of communication that dominate the discourse. In particular we explore the performative script behind many school shootings and the mass media’s role in the emergence of rampages as a social problem, with an examination of how this fits into the natural-history approach to social problems. The discussion concludes with an assessment of whether the shooters’ performative script is acknowledged in policy responses to school violence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Muschert established a typology of school shootings, categorizing rampage shootings, mass murders, terrorist attacks, targeted shootings, and government shootings (2007b, 62).
- 2.
The etiology of school shootings is derived from a complex combination of common social circumstances occurring on three levels: individual, community, and socio-cultural. See Muschert (2007b, 65–71) for a review of the causes associated with school shootings, and for discussion of the difficulties encountered in identifying nomothetic rules for explaining such events. Other scholars have suggested specific theoretical models for the causes of school shootings. Levin and Madfis (2009) point out the importance of cumulative strain, while Newman (2004) (and later Newman and Fox [2009]) points to five factors including marginalization of the shooters, psychosocial problems, available cultural scripts for rampages, failure of surveillance, and availability of weapons.
- 3.
Muschert (2007b, 71–73) points out that the effects of school shootings are under-studied. Most commonly, researchers have examined consequent fear of victimization or post-traumatic stress. Recently, scholars have begun to examine the policy effects of such events; see Addington 2009; Fox and Savage 2009; Muschert and Peguero 2010).
- 4.
For example, see the following: Altheide (2009); Birkland and Lawrence (2009); Frymer (2009); Lawrence (2001); Lawrence and Birkland (2004); Muschert (2007a); Muschert (2009); Spencer and Muschert (2009). For a review of the literature on school shootings research, see Muschert (2007b) and Muschert and Spencer (2009a, b).
- 5.
Pointing out the symbolic degradation of victims should not detract from acknowledging the physical and emotional pain suffered by the victims. We merely intend to point out the symbolic complexity of school shootings as communicative acts.
- 6.
One level of contrast that may operate here is that violence in schools has been a consistent (even somewhat normalized) aspect of the social environment in impoverished areas. Such normalized violence, as it remains segregated within poor environments, may be tolerated by the society at large. In relation to the wider discussion about the control of violence, such tolerance of violence in segregated localities might be itself a weapon of social control wielded by authorities or powerful groups.
- 7.
The only available empirical study examines the United States (Muschert and Carr 2006). Unfortunately, school shootings are not simply an “American disease” of violence, as these events occur in a variety of countries and continents. It is unclear whether similar dynamics would be observed in other countries that have experienced multiple rampage shootings, such as Canada, Finland, and Germany.
- 8.
This is particularly true when viewed from the international comparative perspective. Consider the different responses in the United States and Germany. In US schools, security efforts have tended toward the punitive, including the placement of police in schools, installation of surveillance systems, and establishment of zero-tolerance policies. Germans have initiated few of these measures in schools, instead favoring the mobilization of social capital to reaffirm that schools should remain violence-free institutions open to their surrounding communities. These differences are a potential area for future study.
- 9.
Other questions relevant to the evaluation of control responses to violence include: What is the relationship between internal mechanisms or pressures to conform and external pressures to conform? How are these effective or ineffective in controlling violence?
- 10.
This perhaps results from the level of moral outrage generated by school rampages. Efforts to understand the motivations of the most heinous violent offenders (such as rapists, terrorist, pedophiles, war criminals, serial killers, or mass murderers) are frequently misconstrued as efforts to justify their actions. Most public discussion of school shooters’ motivations avoids offering clarification of their actions (Muschert 2002), and the social context in which shootings occur is insufficient to mitigate the moral responsibility of the shooters (Spencer and Muschert 2009).
- 11.
This raises the question of why many millions of students who experience psychological problems do not commit school rampages.
- 12.
See Spencer and Muschert (2009). Such a denial may also be interpreted as a symbolic gesture on the part of the targeted communities or nation at large, one which disavows the membership of the perpetrator in the very community he targeted.
- 13.
- 14.
Like all institutions, the media have a vested interest in maintain the status quo. By focusing on exogenous or personal factors in rampage shootings, the media absolve the schools themselves from responsibility. This dynamic might prevent the development of effective anti-violence policies. Moreover, by framing the school shooters as deranged persons, the media also diffuse their own role in the dynamic of school rampages. Obviously, they do not pull the trigger, but corporate media have a vested interest in the maintenance of the status quo of contemporary institutional relations.
- 15.
See Henry (2009) for a theoretical discussion of the levels and varieties of school violence.
References
Addington, L. A. (2009). Cops & cameras: public school security as a policy response to Columbine. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(10), 1426–1446.
Altheide, D. L. (2002). Creating Fear: News and the Construction of Crisis. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Altheide, D. L. (2009). The Columbine shootings and the discourse of fear. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(10), 1354–1370.
Altheide, D. L. and Michalowski, R. D. (1999). Fear in the news: a discourse of control. Sociological Quarterly, 40, 475–503.
Anderson, C. A. and Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27–51.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3, 265–299.
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory of mass communications. In J. Bryant and D. Zillman (Eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 2nd Edition (pp. 121–153). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Barak, G. (1994). Media, society, and criminology. In G. Barak (Ed.), Media, Process, and the Social Construction of Crime: Studies in Newsmaking Criminology (pp. 3–48). New York, NY: Garland.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Beck, U. (1999). World Risk Society. Malden, MA: Polity.
Best, J. (2008). Social Problems. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Birkland, T. A. and Lawrence, R. G. (2009). Media framing and policy change after Columbine. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(10), 1405–1425.
Blumer, H. (1971). Social problems as collective behavior. Social Problems, 18(3), 298–306.
Burgess, A., Garbarino, C., and Carlson, M. (2006). Pathological teasing and bullying turned deadly: shooters and suicide. Victims and Offenders, 1, 1–13.
Burns, R. and Crawford, C. (1999). School shootings, the media and public fear: ingredients for a moral panic. Crime, Law, and Social Change, 32, 147–162.
Cohen, S. (1972). Folk Devils and Moral Panics: Creation of Mods and Rockers. London: MacGibbon and Kee.
Derber, C. (2004). The Wilding of America: Money, Mayhem, and the New American Dream. New York, NY: Worth.
Doyle, A. (2006). How not to think about crime in the media. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 34, 383–392.
Ellsworth, M. J. (1927). The bath school disaster: text & pictures. Online resource retrieved March 7, 2007, from http://www.msu.edu/~daggy/tbsd/tbsd-x.htm
Eron, L. D. (1992). The impact of televised violence: Testimony on behalf of the American Psychological Association before the senate committee on governmental affairs. U.S. Congressional Record, June 18, 1992.
Federman, J. (Ed.) (1997). National Television Violence Study, Vol. 2. Executive summary. Center for Communication & Social Policy, Santa Barbara, CA: University of California.
Ferrell, J., Hayward, K., and Young, J. (2008). Cultural Criminology. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Fox, J. A. and Savage, J. (2009). Mass murder goes to college: an examination of changes on college campuses following Virginia Tech. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(10), 1465–1485.
Frymer, B. (2009). The media spectacle of Columbine: alienated youth as an object of fear. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(10), 1387–1404.
Fuller, R. C. and Myers, R. R. (1941). The natural history of a social problem. American Sociological Review, 6(3), 320–329.
Furedi, F. (2005). Culture of Fear: Risk-Taking and the Morality of Low Expectation. New York, NY: Continuum.
Garfinkel, H. (1956). Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies. American Journal of Sociology, 61, 420–424.
Gerbner G., Gross, G., Morgan, M., Signorelli, N., and Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with television: cultivation processes. In J. Bryant and D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 2nd Edition (pp. 43–68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gibbs, N., Roche, T., Goldstein, A., Harrington, M., and Woodbury, R. (1999). The Columbine tapes. Time downloaded 22 April 2009 from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,992873,00.html.
Griffiths, M. (1999). Violent video games and aggression: a review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4(2), 203–212.
Harter, S., Low, S. M., and Whitesell, N. R. (2003). What have we learned from Columbine: the impact of self-system on suicidal and violent ideation among adolescents. Journal of School Violence, 2, 3–26.
Hebdige, D. (2002). Subculture: The Meaning of Style. New York, NY: Routledge.
Henry, S. (2009). School violence beyond Columbine: a complex problem in need of an interdisciplinary analysis. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(9), 1246–1255.
Jenkins, P. (1994). Using Murder: The Social Construction of Serial Homicide. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Katz, J. (1988). The Seductions of Crime. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Kellner, D. (2008). Guys and Guns Amok: Domestic Terrorism and School Shootings from the Oklahoma City Bombing to the Virginia Tech Massacre. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Kimmel, M. S. and Mahler, M. (2003). Adolescent masculinity, homophobia, and violence. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(10), 1439–1458.
Klein, J. (2006). Cultural capital and high school bullies. Men and Masculinities, 9, 53–75.
Larkin, R. W. (2009). The Columbine legacy: rampage shootings as political acts. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(9), 1309–1326.
Larkin, R. W. (2007). Comprehending Columbine. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Lawrence, R. G. (2001). Defining events: problem definition in the media arena. In R. P. Hart and B. H. Sparrow (Eds.), Politics, Discourse, and American Society: New Agendas (pp. 91–110). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Lawrence, R. G. and Birkland, T. A. (2004). Guns, Hollywood, and school safety: defining the school-shooting phenomenon across the public arenas, Social Science Quarterly, 85, 1193–1207.
Leary, M. R., Kowalski, R. M., Smith, L., and Phillips, S. (2003). Teasing, rejection, and violence: case studies of the school shootings. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 202–214.
Levin, J. and Madfis, E. (2009). Mass murder at school and cumulative strain: a sequential model. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(9), 1227–1245.
Lindle, C. J. (2008). School safety: real or imagined fear? Educational Policy, 22(1), 28–44.
McCombs, M. E. and Zhu, J. H. (1995). Capacity, diversity, and volatility of the public agenda: trends from 1954 to 1994. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59(4), 495–525.
McGee, J. P. and DeBernardo, C. R. (2002). The classroom avenger. In N. G. Ribner (Ed.), Handbook of Juvenile Forensic Psychology (pp. 230–249). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Muschert, G. W. (2002). Media and massacre: the social construction of the Columbine story. Doctoral Thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder.
Muschert, G. W. (2007a). The Columbine victims and the myth of the juvenile superpredator. Youth Violence & Juvenile Justice, 5(4), 351–366.
Muschert, G. W. (2007b). Research in school shootings. Sociology Compass, 1(1), 60–80.
Muschert, G. W. (2009). Frame-changing in the media coverage of a school shooting: the rise of Columbine as a national concern. Social Science Journal, 46(1), 164–170.
Muschert, G. W. and Carr, D. (2006). Media salience and frame changing across events: coverage of nine school shootings, 1997–2001. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(4), 747–766.
Muschert, G. W. and Peguero, A. A. (2010). The “Columbine effect” and school anti-violence policy. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 17, 117–148.
Muschert, G. W. and Spencer, J. W. (2009a). Introduction to lessons of Columbine. Part I. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(9), 1223–1226.
Muschert, G. W. and Spencer, J. W. (2009b). Introduction to lessons of Columbine. Part II. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(10), 1351–1353.
Newman, K. S. (2004). Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Newman, K. S. and Fox, C. (2009). Repeat tragedy: rampage shootings in American high school and college settings 2002–2008. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(9), 1286–1308.
Ogle, J. P., Eckman, M., and Leslie, C. A. (2003). Appearance cues and the shootings at Columbine High: construction of a social problem in the print media. Sociological Inquiry, 73(1), 1–27.
Perrow, C. (1984). Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sacco, V. (2005). When Crime Waves. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Signorielli, N. (2005). Violence in the Media: A Reference Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spencer, J. W. and Muschert, G. W. (2009). The contested meaning of the crosses at Columbine. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(10), 1371–1386.
Tonso, K. L. (2009). Violent masculinities as tropes for school shooters: the Montréal Massacre, Columbine attack, and rethinking schools. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(9), 1266–1285.
Vasterman, P. (2005). Media-hype: self-reinforcing news waves, journalistic standards, and the construction of social problems. European Journal of Communication, 20(4), 508–530.
Vestermark, S. D. (1996). Critical decisions, critical elements in the effective school security program. In A. M. Hoffman (Ed.), Schools, Violence, and Society (pp. 101–122). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Vorderer, P. and Bryant, J. (2006). Playing Video Games: Motives, Responses, and Consequences. New York, NY: Routledge.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the encouragement of the research group on Control of Violence at the Center for Interdisciplinary Research at the University of Bielefeld, Germany. In addition, the authors wish to acknowledge the research assistance of Tirth Bhatta.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Research on the Effects of Media Violence
Appendix: Research on the Effects of Media Violence
Research on the effects of media violence on social behavior is vast. Violence is a fact of life that should be included in public discourse. It is present in factual representations (news programs) and in entertainment (movies or television). Many theories address how exposure to violence could cause both long- and short-term increases in aggressive behavior (Anderson and Bushman 2002; Griffiths 1999). Indeed, the effects of the media on behavior are one of the most important issues in media studies. Watching violent television programs could teach children aggressive attitudes and behaviors. Media violence can also desensitize young viewers to both real-world and fantasy violence. Finally, it can lead to fearful or pessimistic attitudes about the non-television world. These dynamics are the mass-media context for our discussion.
The relationship between the viewer and the screen is complex and active: it depends on the personal experience and education of the viewer, and in addition media violence is hard to define and measure. Yet there is a general finding that children who consume high levels of media violence are more likely to be aggressive in the real world: “heavy exposure to televised violence is one of the causes of aggressive behavior, crime, and violence in society. The evidence comes from both the laboratory and real-life studies. Television violence affects youngsters of all ages, of both genders, at all socio-economic levels and all levels of intelligence. The effect is not limited to children who are already disposed to being aggressive and is not restricted to [any] country” (Eron 1992, 1).
This statement is confirmed by the National Television Violence Study (NTVS), a 3-year study to assess the nature, amount, and context of violence in entertainment programming, examine the effectiveness of ratings and advisories, and review televised anti-violence educational initiatives. The report defined television violence as “any overt depiction of the use of physical force—or credible threat of physical force—intended to physically harm an animate being or group of beings” including “depictions of physically harmful consequences against an animate being or group that occur as a result of unseen violent means” (Federman 1997, ix).
The NTVS reported that 58–61% of programs contained some violence; the problem was not only the frequency of violent acts but the way they were portrayed. NTVS showed that 40% of all violent acts were committed by attractive characters, and 75% of violent actions went unpunished. Perpetrators showed no remorse for their acts, and in 37% of the programs the “bad guys” were not punished. Ultimately, NTVS researchers argued that the way TV violence is portrayed encourages children to learn aggressive and hostile behavior. As Bandura (2002) noted, human nature is influenced by direct as well as observational experiences. Long-term exposure to images of violent acts increases the likelihood that viewers will imitate this behavior in real life, or even develop beliefs normalizing aggression (Bandura 2001, 2002). Moreover, more than half of all violent incidents portrayed did not show the suffering of the victims. Federman (1997) shows that only 4% of programs coded had a strong anti-violence theme. The risk of glorifying violence and disregarding the suffering of its victims is that violence can become a model for future behavior.
Desensitization theory suggests that most humans have an innate negative psychological and physiological reaction to observing violence. “It is believed that the unpleasant physiological arousal usually associated with violence inhibits thinking about violence, disregarding violence, or behaving violently; however, as a result of continuous exposure to violent depictions, individuals are expected to no longer have such reactions. Violence becomes perceived as mundane and pervasive, and this may result in a heightened likelihood of violent thoughts and behaviours” (Vorderer and Bryant 2006, 351).
Cultivation theory tries to ascertain if those who spend more time watching television are more likely to perceive the world in ways that reflect the most common messages of the television world. “The cultivation hypothesis is perhaps best known for its research on violence and fear, postulating that the lessons of television, and especially the patterns of victimization, are fear, intimidation and a sense of vulnerability” (Signorielli 2005, 19). This theory proposes that mass media are the dominant and distinctive cultural force in contemporary society (Gerbner et al. 2002, 43), and that heavy viewers of mass media are more likely to see and understand the world through the values and images offered. The heaviest viewers of violent content seem to believe their world is meaner, scarier, and more dangerous than do their lighter-viewing counterparts. According to Signorielli (2005, 29), a paradigm or model for understanding a complex phenomenon of mass-media communication, such as television violence, should involve three aspects: a study of the policies, practices, rules and regulations regarding media; a study of media content, providing an analysis about the messages of violence that are seen by public; and, finally, a study of the effects of these mediated images on the public. Our chapter provides an overview of this second variety of analysis.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Muschert, G.W., Ragnedda, M. (2011). Media and Control of Violence: Communication in School Shootings. In: Heitmeyer, W., Haupt, HG., Malthaner, S., Kirschner, A. (eds) Control of Violence. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0383-9_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0383-9_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-0382-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-0383-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)