In preperation for our disserattations we had to read books or journals related to our topic and then write a 500 word summary on each. Due to a change of mind with my topic i have written one summary on a book relating to my original topic (how music can affect behaviour and how design relates to this) and one on my recent choice of topic (Christmas and how its meaning has altered to being all about consumption and how design relates to this).
In The Dark Side of the Tune: Popular Music and Violence by Bruce Johnson and Martion Cloonan, the main purpose of this article was to highlight the effects that certain genres of music can have on increasing negative behaviour. It was important to note that music doesn't cause violence but can incite and arouse aggressive and violent behaviour.
The authors' key question is, can and which genres in particular cause such violent behaviour?
The authors' state that a lot of violent behaviour is committed as a result of listening to genres such as metal, rock and rap. One boy had killed his girl friend and it had been noted that the killing resembled the “Black Dahlia” murder, which Marilyn Mason had been fascinated with. Marilyn Manson DVDs had been found in the boys home and the DVDs featured the “Black Dahlia” murder suggesting that the boy had been influenced by this. (2009:108) Evidence to support this is several articles from the Guardian; “Goth fan who craved notoriety and said he was in league with the devil” this appeared on 22nd January 2005 and “Jodi's killer to serve at least 20 years in jail” which appeared on 12th February 2005. “Jodi murder: teen killer set to appeal” this appeared in the Observer, 23rd January 2005. Other evidence to support this comes form Robert Walser's Running with the Devil and Ambrose, Moshpit.
The authors' main conclusions were that not everyone who listens to heavy music commits crime and not everyone who commits crime listens to heavy music and that the “murderer who owns a Marilyn Manson CD may well own others as well which are not violent”. (2009:116) Rock/ metal and rap music appear “to further acts of violence”, although they cannot be linked “directly with suicide, satanism or crime”, and that “pop and popular music can and do incite violence”. (2009:122) The authors also state that “...metal offers 'fantasies' of empowerment.” (2009:119)
Other points the authors' state are that although heavy music seems to incite violence for some, for others it can have a completely opposite effect. It appears that for gifted children the heavy music is an escape route and allows them to relieve stress, “work off frustration and anger” (2009:115) this shows that the music also has a therapeutic effect on some individuals. They also state that rap music was a key factor in the rise in gun crime and was blamed for anti-social behaviour among teenagers. Rock music has also been linked to suicides and self harm, “But in some forms of metal, that action is explicitly manifested in violence, including self harm” (2009:104), “...teenager who shot himself while listening to Ozzy Osbourne” (2009:110)
If the authors' points are taken too seriously then rock music will be looked upon as a source from the devil and possibly banned and never listened to by anyone again as it appears to cause so much disorder. If the authors' points are completely ignored then even more bloodshed could occur and be even worse than it has previously been.
The overall main points of view in this article are that rock, rap and metal appear to incite and arouse negative behaviour in certain individuals. Although it causes certain individuals to act in this way it doesn't have this effect on everybody so cannot be solely blamed for such violent behaviour.
In Scroogenomics by Joel Waldfogel the main purpose of the article is to try and make Christmas more economical by eliminating the need to buy presents for Christmas.
The key question the author is addressing is do we actually need to spend and buy as much as we do at Christmas time, is it all real necessary?
The author states that a lot of gifts we buy, we buy because we feel we have to “And there are the adults for whom we are obliged to get something.” (2009:03) He states that a lot of presents bought are just wasted as we don't really know the people we buy for well enough to give them something that they'll actually want or appreciate. It works the other way too as we receive a lot of presents that we don't actually appreciate but we pretend to like as we've been raised in that manner. “The adults all arrange their faces into expressions of pleasure as they unwrap items they would never buy for themselves.” (2009:03) He continues to say that we don't actually have the money to buy what we buy at Christmas and instead its all put on to credit cards, meaning were still paying for Christmas months after the event. “...we do much of this spending with credit, going into hock using money we don't yet have to buy things that recipients don't really want.”
Waldfogel, talks about how people in general are bad economic decision makers, not thinking far enough into the future meaning they don't have enough saved for certain situations. Psychologist Daniel Kahneman's research supports this statement “...that the state knows more about an individual's future tastes than the individual knows presently.” (2009:39)
Likewise, Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler “...have advocated a light-handed government intervention in people's lives through what they term “liberal paternalism” (2009:39) it consists of simple tests which convey whether we are better than others at making consumption decisions for ourselves. The results of these show that people do make good consumption decisions for themselves, showing that purchasing gifts for others creates waste as we generally can't buy them anything better suited to them than they could purchase for themselves.
Waldfogel had done some of his own research which includes surveys and questionnaires. The surveys consisted of asking students to list the Christmas gifts they received, the relationship of the giver to them, the amount they thought was paid for the item and the actual amount they thought it was worth to them. He wrote a paper on this called “The Deadweight Loss of Christmas” this expressed the opinion that “gift giving destroyed at least 13 percent of the resources transferred.” (2009:31) He also did a set of questionnaires which concluded the results that “...people's own choices generate about 18 percent more satisfaction -per dollar spent- than do gifts”
If people take the authors point of views too seriously there will be no giving at Christmas from one to another as he talks about how much waste this circumstance generates. On the other hand if we ignore what the author is saying the world will continue over consuming creating more and more waste which together contributes to destroying the environment an its resources.
The main conclusions are that we appear to give gifts because we feel we have to and we get satisfaction from doing so as we feel guilty if we don't buy a gift for that “distant relative”. But the research shows that we get more satisfaction from buying our own gifts than if someone else was to buy it, with the exception of “...siblings friends and significant others...” (2009:68) so we need to think more carefully about the gifts we give and how “...we could realistically reduce the waste from ill-chose gifts and beyond that to raise some money for good causes” (2009:145).
