Read on Twitter
So the question of "does fiction affect reality" is an age old problem that people have been turning every which way for centuries, and the simple answer is: Yes, but not how you think it does. Here begins the thread:
When this gets asked these days it is usually in regards to fan content tagged with the term 'problematic'. Problematic content is a difficult thing to define, as it is open to interpretation and can be used to describe anything from 2 adults over 20 with an age gap, to incest.
The vagueness of this classification aside, the question remains: Should problematic content be given a platform? The gut reaction for a lot of people is a morally and ethically fuelled 'no' born of personal discomfort, even if they themselves have not been affected by the topics
The argument then put forward is that fiction effects reality directly, and that by this content existing in the world, real people are going to be influenced to enact the things they find in fiction. This represents something called the hypodermic needle theory.
This theory was developed in the 1920s and 1930s in response to the rise of popular radio and propoganda. It is a direct linear theory which suggests that media is injected into the minds of a passive audience who will then react in the same predictable way to any given message.
However, this theory fails to take into account is the factor of individuality and choice. People do not respond to messages within content in the same way, influenced by circumstances like environment, experience, and peer opinion. It also removes any agency from an audience -
- assuming within the hypothetical that all media is consumed the same way without filter. It is largely rejected as a theory on audience behaviour for these reasons, as it is over simplistic and selective in it's supporting evidence.
An incident which informed this theory was the War of the Worlds radio broadcast in 1938. This adaptaion of H.G. Wells's novel was put out as a special Halloween broadcast of a popular anthology show in the US on Oct 30th, and styled to resemble a real life news broadcast -
- intercut with music and ads accordingly. It was so convincing to so many people that it caused panic in select locations in the midwest where people had assumed the broadcast to be real. It is worth noting that the episode began with the usually opening and acknowledgement of -
- the source material. Those who it affected began to mob the streets, and some even fled for safety in fear of an alien attack at any minute. However, this panic was not widespread, as only a small percentage of listeners reacted in this way.
In and of itself this both supports and disproves the hypodermic needle theory. Whilst fiction affected reality, it also did not. Only those who had misinterpreted the broadcast or were already prone to believing in such events acted in this way. Most of the audience did not.
The hypodermic needle theory is what fuels arguments such as violent video games causing violent crimes despite numerous studies demonstrating that this demonstrably is not true. Violent crimes linked back to media in the popular eye are always -
- committed by those who were pre-disposed to those acts, and invariably they were influenced by a range of other factors and motivation. Media in and of itself does not cause this kind of drastic response.
However, media can and does bring about changes in actions and behaviour. The mass rising in the murder of sharks in the wake of Jaws (1975), the development of flip phones thanks to the communicators of Star Trek, and the seasonal purchase of rabbits around Easter, etc.
These things do not stand alone, however, and are products of more than just their media influence. The purchase of pets is driven by a want to fulfill a fantasy presented in a positive light- the "You should want this" effect which is used by advertisers to sell products like -
- toys, perfume, chocolates, vacations, etc. It offers you an idea designed to be appealing like bait on a hook, and yet still only a fraction of people act upon that pitch. People are not mindless consumers and are capable of applying their own thoughts to a media message.
For instance, with the murder of sharks following Jaws, the narrative that sharks are inherrently dangerous already existed, and Jaws simply stoked the fire by keying in to that fear. Those who had more education on sharks were not swayed by the narrative.
The next audience theory to be developed off the back of the hypodermin needle theory was something called the Two-Step Flow theory. This suggests that people subscribed to ideas put forward by other people, and then align their views with these opinion leaders.
This theory does hold water and can be witnessed in influencer culture and politics where people set store by an opinion leader's views and interpretations. It relates to the effectiveness of word of mouth forms of advertising and recommendation, as the words of people -
- over a perceived 'faceless message' will always be more effective in swaying someone's judgement. Think of it in terms of seeing a trailer for a movie vs a friend telling you a movie was good and that you should watch it. One of these things has more power in your brain.
In terms of fiction's impact on reality, this model applies more to the discourse itself than the content. If you don't have much of an informed opinion either way, you are more likely to pick up the views of someone you know or follow, especially if they are vocal on the topic.
This works both ways, good and bad, as an opinion from an opinion leader does not have to be backed up or well informed to gain merit or sway. Simply look at current US politics for an idea about that.
Reinforcement theory is one of the current working models for media impact, and some of it's points have already been gone over in this thread to disprove more outdated models. Reinforcement theory suggests that media does not have the power to drastically change our opinions -
- and instead only reinforces our existing views. This too is flawed, although holds more weight that the hypodermic theory. You as a person have agency in what you interact with. What new channels you watch, what books you read - and unless you are trying to actively -
- challenge yourself, you are most likely going to gravitate towards views and opinions you already share when doing this. So how does this relate to the problematic content debate?
