N-SCREEN VIOLENCE IN MODERN MEDIA CONTENT

Abstract

The article deals with the problems of destructive principles of man. It is the evil that is the secret of life. This category is a fundamental problem of ethics, and therefore in the television sphere contemporary discourse about the destructive possibilities of screen culture is standing separately. The sociological concept of evil in its foundation laid the understanding of the harmony of society and the availability of the source of evil in his part. The aims of this research are to understand the impact of anthropological screen culture in society, the risk associated with it, to understand the bias of the process and focus on its laws.

This sad conclusion leads to the prospect of violent models not only in society but also in relation to the imposition of stereotypes in culture and art. Appearance of the violence in the socio-cultural context has to find ways of ability to resist them. It is also important to achieve changes in social relationships and settings of people-valuable life.

Determinants examined here can be regarded as the person who controlled their internal assessment, aggressive displays or sensitivity to them. Self-sufficiency should be held by the person to influence diminished manifestation and existence of the genre violence. Freud singled life instinct Eros, whose energy plays in life and it is in a difficult destructive relationship with destructive instinct Thanatos.

Ethological concept of K. Lorenz gave the conception of violence in the animal kingdom: conflict situations defined dominance in order to balance variety of types of the animal world’s social organization, to understand the modification of moral norms and aggressiveness. If Freud promotes violence ravages of death, K. Lorenz has aggression defense. This protection turns into a permanent intention, facilitates the search of "lull" in the situation or his flash. Erich Fromm pointed out the differences between the concept of K. Lorenz true causes of human aggression. They are psychological, social and biological. In general, the research of human personhood, business studies Ch. Darwin "Origin of Species" (1859), B. Porshnev "Social Psychology and History" (1966), "The beginning of human history" (1971), A. Nazaretian "Problems anthropology" (1983), B. Dodsworth "The sum of Anthropology" (1990). These authors were looking for value of reason and violence in a man.

Referring to the letters of Seneca to Lutsyliy, М. Montaigne argues "that the person is not excited either anger or fear, killed another, just to admire it", what is the worst example of aesthetic pleasure. Social and cultural reasons have formulated the laws of society-screen violence in art. Postmodern current views are based on the circumstances. A person in a violent society gets a reference to the mental courage and mental promises to get rid of fear. The ambiguity of contemporary art displays estimates regarding violence isolates dehumanization that positivism is able to equate to negativity or violent subjects to objects that are identified with the subject of violence. The degree of satisfaction on the occasion of the object increases no real-optic vision aggressor: active consumerism here is subject.

Sociologists and psychologists stimulate research on violent behavior in real society. Of course, the most of them qualify this phenomenon as negative one. The impact of violence on aggressive behavior of spectator is obvious.

This socio-cultural problem, for example, has long been "unwound" by the Russian Foundation for Documentary Studies. Researchers distinguish this line of screen performance as a way of forming consciousness that has addictive effect on feelings had seen. For example, "Action" as a factor in the socialization of adolescents giving them the opportunity to play adulthood with devastating implications. Correlation situation of families (parents) and forced addiction manifested in terms of audience identification with the hero.

Sociocultural analysis of the phenomenon of screen violence means stereotypical impact represents its expressional figurative means, allowing to understand the phenomenon of signified power, because there is widely applied concept that is inserted into the society life that distinguishes actions of violent person and the society and how to combat them. Globalization processes of modernity negate the need to use the genre depiction of violence as methods of reproduction are elaborated and used. This screen rubbish should disappear as the weakness of human nature before evil: conflicting theoretical foundations, individual instincts. The doctrine of violence is not defined with the definition of origin: whether acquired or innate? Aggressive behavior violence plays a destructive role in society that does not promote new cultural models. Nowadays in interpersonal relationships evil takes the form of conflict solution which ignores the interests of one party. Lack of spirituality creates social approval and use of evil. Prestige consumption becomes a source of advertising product. This mechanism acts cruelly and futile, activating selfishness. Social status is determined by quantitative representations of material consumption. The socio-cultural identity disabilities mean that most conflicts will be solved with violence as a natural way.