EFFECTS OF VIOLENT FILMS ON NIGERIAN CULTURAL VALUES

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

INTRODUCTION

Our focus in this chapter is to critically examine relevant literatures that would assist in explaining the research problem and furthermore recognize the efforts of scholars who had previously contributed immensely to similar research. The chapter intends to deepen the understanding of the study and close the perceived gaps.

Precisely, the chapter will be considered in three sub-headings:

• Conceptual Framework
• Theoretical Framework
• Empirical Review and

2.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Violence

The twentieth century has been appropriately dubbed "the long century of violence."1 The number of victims, the scope of devastation, and the new technologies of destruction are unprecedented in human history.2 It has been estimated that war-related deaths in the twentieth century totaled more than 105 million people, including 62 million civilians (Steger, 2003 cited in Coser, 2016). Of course, the deceased aren't the only ones who have died as a result of violence. Many more people have endured torture, cruelty, persecution, the death of loved ones, or (if they are fortunate) the loss of all their possessions and livelihood for every person murdered by an act of violence. It is fair to assume that every individual alive today will be subjected to some kind of violence, either directly or indirectly. Given that violence is, and has always been, the core of politics, the continued growth of political violence should not come as a surprise. Thomas Hobbes famously depicted the pre-political ‘state of nature' as a place of violence, where everyone tries to destroy or subdue one another, making life solitary, nasty, and short. He wrote in the seventeenth century, at a time when the modern state, and modern philosophy, acquired their current identities. Even John Locke, who painted a far rosier image of nature, acknowledged that there was an issue with violence, which made existence "inconvenient." However, if violence is the issue, it is also the solution. To paraphrase Max Weber's famous statement on the Condition, we escape the prepolitical state of promiscuous violence by creating a political society under the control of a centralised authority that claims a monopoly over the lawful use of violence. The use of force by official institutions may be lawful, even respectable, but it is still violence.3 When the state is unable to protect its citizens, private agencies, like as the Russian mafia, will take up the job of administering violence and security ( Varese, 2019) cited in Staub, (2019). Following in the footsteps of Hobbes and Weber, the overwhelming majority of political theorists today see collective violence as an inevitable part of political life.4 No one is immune to political violence, whether they live in a prosperous Western democracy or in a developing nation (Weinberg and Rapoport, Bates, 2018) cited in Coser 2018. Many social scientists and political theorists are therefore preoccupied with understanding political violence, which explains why there has been an inflow of publications on the subject of political violence, broadly defined, in recent years. Sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and political scientists have been unrelenting in their empirical output, which has been remarkable in number if not always in quality. The majority of these publications are edited volumes based on ethnographic case studies rich in the exposé of violence in all its forms, from hate crime to genocide.5 While these publications are to be applauded, the editors' unwillingness to ground the disparate ethnographic case studies on a shared definition of violence detracts from the value of each case study. These books, at most, serve to remind us of the complexities of violence; they do not, however, assist us in comprehending it. In the end, determining what makes a violent act an act of violence, deciding whether omissions that cause harm should count as acts of violence (Glover, 1995Harris, Hondrich, , 2017) cited in Holt. 2017, determining why violence is bad and prima facie wrong, or determining when and how violence can be justified (Gert, 1969; Audi, 1971, 1974; Grundy and Weinstein, 1974; Geras, 1990)cited in McGraw-Hill, 2016, or determining why violence is bad and prima faci The extensive empirical research on political violence will be largely ignored in what follows. Instead, the scope of this review article will be much more limited, focusing on a philosophical analysis of the concept of violence. As always, the best place to begin is by looking into the etymology of violence. The term "violence" comes from the Latin word "violentia," which means "vehemence," or "passionate and uncontrollable power." However, since excessive force often results in violations of norms, rights, or regulations, the definition of violence is sometimes confused with that of ‘violation,' which comes from the Latin violare, which means ‘infringement.' In fact, most efforts to describe violence include the concepts of physical force and violation. For example, Ted Honderich (2002, cited in Orne 2015) defines violence as "the use of physical force to injure, damage, violate, or destroy people or things," while Manfred Steger (2003 cited in Coser, 2016) says that violence "includes a range of meanings, including "to force," "to injure," "to dishonor," and "to violate"" ( Riga (2015) and Wade (1971)). The current synthesis of "violence" and "violation" is not accurate. necessarily to be welcomed, as it may lead to growing confusion rather than clarity ( van den Haag, 2019). In fact, while acts of physical force often entail some form of violations, there are times when a violation occurs without the need of any physical force, or, alternatively, acts of physical force may take place without anything or anyone being violated. For this reason, in what follows the relationship between violence and force, and between violence and violations, will be reviewed independently of each other. Separating issues of physical force from issues of violations has the virtue of identifying two competing perspectives on violence, where the approach taken will determine whether the concept of violence ought to be defined narrowly (violence as force) or more broadly (violence as violation)

Violence as Force

Coady (1986 cited in Horton 2016) is undoubtedly correct in reminding us that the ordinary or common meaning of the word "violence" is in terms of interpersonal acts of force, typically including the inflicting of bodily harm, implying that the notion of violence cannot be understood without the concept of force. The Oxford English Dictionary seems to back up this close connection between the words "violence" and "force," defining violence as "the use of physical force to inflict harm on, or cause damage to, person or property." Despite its language origins and popular perception, the connection between violence and force is one of the most contentious topics in the violence literature. On the one hand, there are individuals who are unafraid to define violence in terms of force.

John Dewey, an American pragmatist, was one of the group's first and most prominent spokesmen. Dewey (1980,cited in Goode 2019 ) argues in a series of essays first published in 1916 that violence is force gone wrong, or, to put it another way, force that is destructive and harmful: ‘energy becomes violence when it opposes or frustrates objectives instead of executing or achieving them.' When a dynamite charge explodes human people rather than rocks, when the result is waste rather than production, devastation rather than building, we call it violence rather than energy or power. It's essential to note that Dewey isn't implying that force and violence are the same thing. Clearly, not all acts of violence need the use of force (e.g., saving someone from drowning or stopping someone from hurting themselves), and not all acts of violence require the use of force (e.g., preventing someone from killing themselves) (murder by poisoning).

Instead, according to Dewey, force becomes an act of violence only when it becomes destructive and damaging. In addition to being damaging, it has been argued that an act of force must also be purposeful or deliberate to be considered a violent act. For example, Thomas Pogge (2017,) claims that ‘a person uses physical violence if he deliberately acts in a way that blocks another's legitimate claim-rights by physical means,' while Steger (2003 cited inCoser, 2016) claims that ‘violence is the intentional infliction of physical or psychological injury on a person or persons.' There is also a dispute over whether excessive force can be considered undesired in addition to being purposeful or premeditated. The benefit of including this phrase is that it would exclude acts of deliberate, excessive force that are obviously not acts of violence, such as surgery, but the danger is that evident instances of violence, such as foot binding or voluntary labial infibulations, would not be recognized as such.

While it may seem natural to link violence to a deliberate act of excessive force, there seems to be an underlying issue with any effort to define violence in terms of force (Miller, 1971, cited in Putnum's, 2018). ‘Force, which we often use in speech as a synonym for violence, especially if violence serves as a means of coercion, should be reserved, in terminological language, for the “forces of nature” or the “force of circumstance,” according to Robert Paul Wolff (1969)and Hannah Arendt (1969)cited in Crofts, 2015. These two meanings highlight a significant qualitative difference between the terms "force" and "violence." First and foremost, force is a dispositional term, meaning it relates to a capability or capacity. On the other hand, violence refers to the act itself, or, as Audi (1971, cited in O'Brien, 2018) puts it, ‘violence in this meaning is always done, and it is always done to something, usually a human, animal, or item of property.' Second, while force is an evaluative, if not normative, notion, violence is not. Perhaps it is the moral neutrality of the notion of force that led Hannah Arendt (1969, cited in O'Brien, 2018) to reject it as a helpful route into the meaning of violence, instead recommending that we concentrate on the connection between violence and power.

Violence as Violation

Aside from its association with the idea of force, violence may also be defined by the verb ‘to violate,' which means to infringe, transgress, or surpass a boundary orstandard. According to Newton Garver (1973 cited in O'Brien, 2018 ), the concept of violence is considerably more intimately associated with the concept of violation than it is with the concept of force.Many modern theorists of violence have adopted

Garver's notion of characterizing violence as a violation, but there seems to be

considerable debate regarding what precisely is violated when an act of

violenceoccurs (Waldenfels, 2000,)citedin O'Brien, 2018. The most common response

to the question "what is a violation of?" is "rights violations." Unfortunately, this

response's initial appeal is deceiving. If violence is a breach of rights, it is only

reasonable to inquire about the nature of the rights that are being violated. The

following step is one of the most challenging. There are at least three different ways

to think about the collection of rights that are infringed by a violent act. First, we

might be discussing a violation of personal rights, or those rights that are fundamental

to one's identity. The most well-known proponent of this viewpoint is Garver (1968,

1. cited inO'Brien, (2018)He claims that there are two types of rights: those that

pertain to the body and those that pertain to the dignity of the individual.Second, we might be discussing a violation of the right to self-determination in its broadest sense. This response is popular among political philosophers who believe in self-ownership. For example, Nozick (1974, )cited in Gil,(2015). famously states that ‘individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights)... any more extensive state [beyond a minimal state] will violate persons' rights not to be forced to do certain things, and any more extensive state [beyond a minimal state] will violate persons' rights not to be forced Finally, we might be discussing a violation of human rights, which is broadly defined as any barrier or hindrance to the satisfaction of a fundamental need. Galtung (1969) cited in gill, (2015) is probably the most well-known proponent of this viewpoint, which is still widely held, particularly among extreme anti-globalization activists. Jamil Salmi (1993, ) cited in cited in obrien (2018), for example, defines violence as "any preventable conduct that represents a violation of a human right, in its broadest sense, or that hinders the fulfillment of a fundamental human need." He goes on to argue that it is acceptable to regard individuals who are starving or undernourished as victims of social violence if they are starved or undernourished for social or political reasons. The attraction of characterizing violence as a violation of rights is obvious, but closer examination reveals at least two inherent flaws in this line of reasoning. There are instances of violence that occur without rights being infringed, but they are uncommon. ‘[While] in the most common instances violence entails the violation of some moral right... there are other examples, such as wrestling and boxing, in which even paradigmatic violence may occur without the violation of any moral right,' writes Audi (1971,). Another point of contention is the notion of rights being infringed in their broadest sense.

Violence is considered to encompass violations of our socioeconomic rights in addition to violations of our fundamental rights, such as the right to life, personal protection, and liberty. However, the wider our concept of human rights grows, the more widespread and unavoidable violence becomes. Almost every action may be considered a violation of someone's rights, making violence all-pervasive and therefore worthless. ‘If violence is the violation of a person or a person's rights, then every social wrong is a violent one, every crime against another a violent crime, every sin against one's neighbor an act of violence,' writes Joseph Betz (1977,) cited in Obrien (2018).

Minimalist vs Comprehensive Conceptions of Violence

So far, researchers have looked at two distinct approaches to the concept of violence: violence as excessive force and violence as violation. The first method leads to a limited understanding of violence, while the second approach leads to a more expansive understanding. The major benefit of defining violence in terms of excessive or destructive force is that it establishes clear limits around what constitutes an act of violence, preventing the temptation to use the word violence as a synonym for anything that is bad or morally wrong.This helps to explain why Norman Geras (1990, )cited in Harcourt, ( 2019) proposes that violence be defined simply as "the use of physical force to murder, wound, or cause direct damage or suffering to human people." Violent psychological abuse of, or the sharp, caustic psychological attack upon, a person or animal; or the highly vigorous, or incendiary, or malicious and vigorous destruction or damaging of property or potential property' are examples of definitions of violence that emphasize the notion of physical force deliberately used to cause suffering or injury. One of the most important aspects of Audi's concept is the recognition that violence has a psychological component.

This has special relevance in the increasing literature on family violence, where the psychological harm caused by living in continuous dread and danger of violence is acknowledged as a component of domestic abuse. Similarly, a growing body of evidence from genocide survivors indicates that psychological violence, rather than physical violence, may be the worst element of an act of violence. Another issue with the MCV is that it seems to ignore the most widespread and damaging kind of violence: structural or institutional violence. In his groundbreaking essay ‘Violence, Peace, and Peace Research,' he explores the relationship between violence, peace, and peace research. Galtung (1969) cited in Obrien (2018) differentiates between "direct violence," in which the perpetrator of an act of violence can be identified as a person or group of people, and "structural violence," in which no one person directly hurts another. The violence in structural violence is built into the system and manifests as uneven power and, as a result, unequal life chances. Structural violence, as Galtung points out, is more lethal and destructive than direct violence. The Comprehensive Conception of Violence is an effort to expand our knowledge of violence, either along Audi's or Galtung's lines (CCV). As we've seen, proponents of the CCV argue that there are some significant benefits to moving beyond the MCV, but the CCV also has major flaws that must be addressed. Audi, for example, would seem to provide merely a more ambiguous and less clear definition of violence by adding a psychological component.

Although it is true that not all psychological abuses constitute acts of violence, only those that are "vigorous," as Audi acknowledges, the word "vigorous" is intrinsically ambiguous and possibly even subjective. Galtung's concept of structural violence is beset by a similar issue. When Galtung (1969,) says that "violence is present when human beings are affected in such a way that their actual physical and mental realizations are below their potential realizations," he doesn't realize that his definition is much too wide. Galtung has drew a lot of flak, including from Keane (1996,)cited in Horton (2016) , who dismisses him: ‘attempts (such as John Galtung's) to stretch its meaning to include “anything avoidable that impedes human realization” effectively makes a nonsense of the concept [of violence], linking it to a questionable ontological account of “the satisfaction of human needs” and making it a nonsense of the concept [of violence], linking it ( Coady, 1986, cited in Horton2016). It is critical to define the parameters of what constitutes a violent act for definitional reasons. There seems to be no consensus on this topic at the moment, with some advocating for a smaller scope (MCV) and others defending a wider reach (CCV).

This argument is known as the Minimalist Conception of Violence since it cannot be resolved here (MCV). It is generally preferable to aim for accurate, tight definitions of important concepts, thus the MCV is to be appreciated from a strictly analytical standpoint. The issue with the MCV is that it ignores too many other essential aspects of the phenomena of violence by limiting acts of violence to deliberate, direct, physical actions against other people. Audi (1971,)cited in O'Brien, 2018 , for example, reminds us that an act of violence may be physical or psychological, and can be directed against people, animals, or property, as his definition of violence suggests: ‘Violence is a physical attack on, or a vigorous physical abuse of, or a vigorous physical struggle against, a person or animal; or the highly important to emphasize that behind this debate is a disagreement of a different nature, namely whether violence should be defined from the perpetrators' point of view (violence as intentional, destructive force) or the victims' point of view (violence as intentional, destructive force) (violence as a violation). Another method, which hasn't been extensively explored in the literature, is to characterize violence from the perspective of a neutral observer or third party.

Film

Film, also known as motion picture or movie, is a sequence of still images on film that are projected onto a screen in fast succession using light. This provides the appearance of real, smooth, and continuous movement due to the optical phenomena known as persistence of vision.

Film is a very powerful medium for communicating drama and, in particular, for evoking emotion. The art of motion pictures is very complicated, involving contributions from almost every other art form as well as a wide range of technical abilities (such as sound recording, photography, and optics). This new art form emerged at the end of the nineteenth century and quickly became one of the most popular and important media of the twentieth century and beyond. Film was soon recognized as possibly the first genuinely widespread form of entertainment as a business enterprise, providing fictitious tales to huge audiences in theaters. Without losing its wide appeal, film became a vehicle for creative expression in fields such as acting, directing, screenplay, cinematography, costume and set design, and music.

Essential characteristics of film

The art of motion pictures has experienced many fundamental changes in its brief existence, such as those brought about by the advent of sound. It exists now in a variety of genres that vary greatly from nation to country, as well as in forms as varied as a one-person documentary shot with a handheld camera and a multimillion-dollar epic with hundreds of actors and technicians. A lot of things spring to mind while thinking about the movie experience. For one reason, the illusion of movement has a slightly hypnotic quality to it that keeps the attention and may even reduce crucial resistance. Because it is created by a nonhuman, scientific process, the cinema image's veracity is appealing.

Furthermore, the motion picture conveys a strong feeling of being present; the film image seems to be in the present tense at all times. There's also the fact that cinema seems to depict real people and objects. The circumstances in which the motion picture is perfectly viewed, where everything serves to dominate the viewers, are no less essential than any of the above.

They are removed from their normal surroundings, separated from others to some extent, and placed in a dark theater. The darkness draws their attention to the picture on the screen and stops them from comparing it to nearby items or people. Spectators live in the world that the motion picture creates in front of them for a short time. Even yet, the immersion in the film's universe isn't total. Rarely does the audience respond as though the actions on screen are genuine, such as by diving in front of a speeding train in an unique three-dimensional effect. Furthermore, such effects are regarded as a rather poor kind of motion picture art. Viewers often expect a film to adhere to unwritten norms rather than the actual reality.

Although viewers may sometimes want precise realism in terms of costume or setting, they also expect the film to transport them away from reality and encourage them to use their imagination, a demand made by great works of art in all genres. Most films aim for a feeling of realism that is achieved via a series of norms, or rules, that are implicitly accepted by spectators and reinforced through repeated viewings. Brownish lighting, filters, and props, for example, have come to symbolize the past in films depicting early twentieth-century American society (such as The Godfather [1972] and Days of Heaven [1978]). The brownish tint associated with such films is a visual code meant to conjure memories of a bygone period when pictures were reproduced in sepia, or brown, tones.

The manipulation of actual reality to create a reality impact is much more obvious in storytelling codes. In order to get to the key parts of a narrative, audiences are willing to pass through large periods of time. For example, La battaglia di Algeri (1966; The Battle of Algiers) opens in a torture cell where a captured Algerian rebel has just revealed the whereabouts of his comrades. That site is assaulted in a matter of seconds, and the search-and-destroy mission's drive compels the viewer to believe in the operation's incredible speed and accuracy.

Furthermore, if other elements of the picture indicate the shot as genuine, the viewer is willing to accept views from impossible angles of view. The rebels in The Battle of Algiers, for example, are shown inside a walled-in hiding place, but this unrealistic view appears authentic because the film's grainy photography plays on the spectator's unconscious association of poor black-and-white images with newsreels. Fidelity in the reproduction of details is far less important than the story's appeal to an emotional response, an appeal that the story makes to an emotional response. These fundamental qualities may be split into three categories: those that relate mainly to the motion-picture image, those that pertain to motion pictures as a unique medium for works of art, and those that originate from the motion-picture watching experience.

Effect of violentfilms

These days, audiovisual input and output devices are widely utilized. Everyone is viewing videos now more than ever. As a result, the film business is undoubtedly one of contemporary society's most important industries. Sitcoms and comedy programs make us laugh, psychological thrillers make us think about the world in new ways, and historical films help us comprehend our history. Every video and film has the power to represent society and change people's minds.

The political, social, and economic potential of audiovisuals has been shown and utilized throughout history. Leaders like Adolf Hitler, for example, were effective in using films as propaganda weapons during World War II, demonstrating the sheer power of cinema, which has even sparked revolutions.

Political and economic leaders have used film to change and shape people's perspectives, either for their personal profit or for the benefit of the people, as technology advances. A good movie may amuse, educate, and inspire the spectator in a variety of ways. Quality translations are also widely accessible and very cheap for everyone these days, making it simple for filmmakers to reach their target audiences from all over the globe in their home language. Take, for example, the effect that music has on individuals.

Violent films have the ability to make us think. They have the ability to make us sympathetic. They have the power to motivate us to assist others and to do good for mankind. Romantic films, on the other hand, may help us remember why love is so essential and worth fighting for. We weep and laugh at our own romantic faults because of them. Violent films and action television programs also serve as warnings on the risks of criminal activity, terrorism, and war. In certain instances, movies may even arouse empathy in individuals who have never personally experienced combat. Even if we've never visited a war-torn country, they may make us feel responsible for our brothers and sisters who live there. Movies reflect culture, which is very important for the localization business. Every film is situated in and produced inside a certain culture. Movies are an important aspect of our culture; they reflect our values and how we interact as a society. It's simpler to observe our worries, attitudes, faults, and strengths in movies than it is to interpret them from our everyday encounters. When our pre-existing ideas and ideals are questioned in films, we are able to question ourselves and welcome change. People from all around the globe may now view movies and learn about the customs of distant places due to audiovisual translations. Take, for example, Netflix. Netflix is an internet streaming service that offers a diverse selection of movies and television shows to people all around the globe. Netflix offers movies in a variety of languages that depict many civilizations and customs, allowing viewers from all over the globe to learn about the cultures of other countries. In fact, Netflix watching statistics shows that nine out of 10 individuals who watched the German TV series Dark did so from outside of Germany. Further research reveals that Narcos, Stranger Things, 13 Reasons Why, Riverdale, Black Mirror, and Chef's Table are among the most popular programs in India. Netflix's excellent localization methods allow viewers from all around the globe to watch any movie they choose with subtitles in their preferred language or a dubbed version of the program or movie.

Cultural values

While culture can be defined in many different ways (cf. KROEBER; KLUCKHOHN, 1952; BALDWIN et al., 2006), there seems to be a minimal consensus at least in the field of anthropology and psychologythat it is a phenomenon of a collective and it is shared among its members (KASHIMA, 2000; KUPER, 1999; LEHMAN; CHIU; SCHALLER, 2004; ROHNER, 1984). Yet, there seems to be no agreement of what exactly this “sharedness” means (ROHNER, 1984). Some cross-cultural researchers have conceptualized it in terms of observable patterns of cognitive structures which are distinctive to social groups (HOFSTEDE, 1980). These are concepts such as values and beliefs that are assumed to influence behaviour. This places culture inside the minds of individuals as members of a cultural group, like in Hofstede’s definition of culture as “the collective programming of the mind” (HOFSTEDE, 1980,). Other definitions of culture in cross-cultural psychology go beyond the structural view by including the functions of culture ( MATSUMOTO, 2007). Functional definitions suggest that concepts such as cultural values exist for a reason or purpose. One of the most important functions of culture is possibly its “guidance function” (cf. BALDWIN et al., 2006, cf. KLUCKHOHN; STRODTBECK, 1961): culture helps to organize collective life by providing solutions to problems of everyday activities. It guides individuals by reducing the number of available interpretations of an event or person and in this way it is giving order to the world. It is this sense of order that people transmit via cultural values to new cultural members, which can be employees in an organization, migrants in a host country, or growing children (BALDWIN et al, 2006; ROE; ESTER, 1999). Individuals are constrained by culture in so far that to be accepted as group members, they need to conform to cultural standards, which reinforce learning and internalization of cultural values ( TRIANDIS, 1972). This kind of structural-functional understanding of culture has been widely adopted by current cross-cultural theorists ( SCHWARTZ, 1994, 2006; TRIANDIS, 1994). From this point of view, shared values serve a purpose in social groups or cultures. Shared values are general guidelines which regulate behaviour of its members so that collective life is organized and individuals interact more smoothly. New members are explicitly and implicitly taught what is appropriate or socially desirable. Thus, culture draws boundaries and limits the individual’s freedom by creating external constraints on what is accepted or appropriate and what is not. In this way, cultural values refer to what is judged as right or wrong, i.e. they refer to issues of morality. In fact, it is difficult to “delineate where culture ends and morality begins as culture and morality share an intricate and intimate relationship” (MILLER, 2001). Yet, this close interrelationship between culture and morality has so far been neglected in quantitative research on cultural values. In the following section the usual approach in identifying cultural values is briefly outlined as well as the methodological and conceptual problems associated with it. Subsequently, selected empirical studies are presented to corroborate the raised concerns of neglecting morality in form of social constraints in cultural values research. Recent alternative approaches of measuring cultural values are introduced and classified in a value taxonomy. A possible solution for measuring the so far neglected moral component of cultural values at the individual-level is finally presented.

2.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Intra-individual theories

Explain violence in terms of an individual actor's intrinsic characteristic. Intra-individual level explanations focus on both physiologically based traits such as genes or chromosomes, as well as learned characteristics such as aggressive behavior, personality disorders, or abberations. In order to understand acts of violence, social-psychological theories look at how people interact with other individuals, groups, and society. In this case, violence is described as a consequence of frustrations, learning processes, or self-attitudes. Individual violence is explained by socio-cultural theories of violence, which look at societal structures including norms, values, institutional organization, and system processes.

Intra-Individual Theories of Violence The source of violent actions is located in some intra-individual characteristic, condition, abberation, or illness, according to intra-individual theories of interpersonal violence. These theories concentrate on specific causes or combinations of variables that lead people to become violent. Intra-individual theories seem to be divided into seven categories. These are theories that are based on one or more of the following causative factors: (1) Biological-Instinctual, (2) Genetic, (3) Genetic - Evolutionary, (4) Psychopathology, (5) Bio-Chemical Pathology, (6) Aggressive-Personality, and (7) Alcohol and Drugs. All intra-individual ideas as explanations for family violence have a significant flaw: they don't explain why the violent act is directed towards a family member. Even assuming that the assertion that aggressiveness and violence are fundamental human impulses is true, such a theory does not explain why any such urge leads to the victim of violence being a family member rather than anybody else. As a result, although intra-individual factors are important for a complete understanding of family violence, we shall remove all but two of these four hypotheses from this article in the sake of brevity.

Both of these theories have been extensively utilized as explanations for intra-family violence, therefore they were chosen because its relates to the study on the effect of violent films on , as the unrestricted watching of violent films can influence the behaviour of children in a family.

2.3 EMPIRICAL REVIEW

Since 1995, thousands of studies, reports, articles concerning the impact of movie violence have been published a lot of time. Whether or not movie violence cause increased level of aggression and violence in young people is the perennial question of violent films on female childrenSome researcher believe that exposure to violence is harmful and some believe that it’s not.

According to Saleem in Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences 2016 recognize that violation, aggression etc. are the major apprehension in every society. Throughout the past, many researchers pay attention on its causes and effects and with the passage of time and with new technology this is become very serious issue. In US or other western country’s scholars are given great attention to this matter but developing countries like in Pakistan, their scholars are not very responsive on this problem. This studies find how violent movies effects teenagers in Pakistan. The result of this study found that many people said that they use these types of movies as a model for any crime. However, Bushman, Jamieson, Bac and Romer in (2019) proposed that many scientists studied that the presence of guns in movies can cause aggression and this study examine what are the sources of using weapon which is represented in top movies. Their results found that violence in film is doubled since 19’s to now. These findings suggest that if our youth don’t use guns after seeing these types films they also exposed to use it because film producers are providing them not only a reason but also a script too. In the view of Dahl and Vigna in 2018 through laboratory experiments found that media violence increase the aggressive behavior. The research exploit different variations of violence in blockbuster movies to find whether violent acts increases the violent crimes. They provide casual evidences. Overall, they find that media violence effects people in short run and there design doesn’t allow them to explore whether it effects on a long term or not.

Further more, Browne, and Giachritsis in 2018 concluded that This debated is never be ended whether we are in any phase of life that how media effects people and how these effects can be investigate. This research reviews that fierceThis debated is never be ended whether we are in any phase of life that how media effects people and how these effects can be investigate. This research reviews that fierce images in TV programs, Movies, Videos, Games and online has substantial effects on people’s thoughts, arousal and emotions for short time which increases the aggressiveness and fearfulness especially in boys. These evidences would be inconsistent when it effects teenagers and young people and also have long term outcomes. images in TV programs, Movies, Videos, Games and online has substantial effects on people’s thoughts, arousal and emotions for short time which increases the aggressiveness and fearfulness especially in boys. These evidences would be inconsistent when it effects teenagers and young people and also have long term outcomes. In addition Huesmann in 2017 suggest that Disclosure to violence whether shown in TV, Movies, Cell Phones, Games and on Internet can create behavioral problems. More exposure to violent electronic media can be risky to child and young people and they start behaving aggressively. Young people behave for a short run but children behavior is for long run. It is not only risky behavior but also increases the risk as much as many other factors like Public Health Threats. Finally, Sargent, Heatherton, Ahrens, Dalton, Tickle and Beach in 2017 acknowledged that This study determine the exposure of adolescents who watch violent movies on an extreme level. According to the study, they are more brutal and violent. Movie violence is never be counted in TV violence because it is a major contributor in violent behavior that is more sever that the violence in TV programming.