Yesterday I came across something that I believe relates to Hobbes and the article we read about dystopias in movies.
My dad and I were watching boxing on ESPN Classic. We were watching some historic fight and I was getting into it. At first I wasn’t really thinking about anything besides who I wanted to win, but about half way through the fight I started to wonder why boxing is a sport and then I wondered why people enjoy watching other people fight. I asked my dad why he thinks we find it entertaining and he replied, “cause that’s what it’s all about,” like the boxers were doing the chicken dance instead of beating each other. I asked him what he meant by that and he didn’t answer. He didn’t even know what to say. So why do we find entertainment in watching people get hurt? Why do we like to watch it? It is quite disgusting if you think about it. The question isn’t even limited to boxing. It can apply to things like gawking at an accident on the expressway or laughing at the people that get hurt on America’s Funniest Home Videos. Is it really in human nature to be entertained by seeing other people get hurt?
Halper and Muzzio agree that pain is entertaining. In their article, Hobbes in the City: Urban Dystopias in American Movies, they say that movies that present utopias are static and that a good movie presents a dystopia (Halper 379). The article argues the idea that movies that are based in either a state of nature or a Leviathan are always the most entertaining (Halper 380). Chaos needs to be present, or an all-powerful sovereign needs to cause conflict. They didn’t list one movie that doesn’t involve people getting hurt. However, I think that most people would agree with their argument.
So why is it that we like these movies? We must really agree with a Hobbesian society or we are terrified of it. Maybe we are comparing these movies to ourselves because we are living in a similar way. We must be (or at least think we are) a Hobbesian society to be able to relate so much. We are terrified of living in a state of nature so we elect a Leviathan (as Hobbes proved). Our actual Leviathan may not be exactly the one Hobbes had in mind, but it is very similar.
Are we entertained by a state of nature because we fear it? Boxing is essentially a state of nature—knock somebody out or be knocked out; every man for himself. Do we like seeing other people get hurt because we like to see how people will react? Maybe we are subconsciously taking notes on how they react so if we ever find ourselves in a similar situation we will know what we want to do. If we do everything out of self interest like Hobbes proposes, then this isn’t too far fetched. Maybe we are in denial if we believe that people do good things out of the goodness of their heart. We get the most entertainment out of people getting hurt, so why would our intentions be out of the goodness of our hearts? Maybe we like to see people hurt because it makes us feel better about ourselves, knowing that there is somebody out there who is feeling worse. It may sound terrible but maybe it is true. What do you think?
Citations:
Halper, Thomas, and Douglas Muzzio. “Hobbes in the City: Urban Dystopias in American Movies.” The Journal of American Culture 30, no. 4 (2007): 379-390.
To some extent I agree with Hobbes when he says that humans are naturally competitive and many of their actions are performed to promote their own self-interest. However, in the other article that we read the author argues that in a state of nature humans band together in order to overcome whatever hardship they have been exposed to. Therefore, I disagree that humans enjoy seeing the pain of others, in most circumstances. We may find it entertaining to some extent however I do not believe that dystopian worlds make good movies because we enjoy seeing others suffer but rather that utopian worlds are boring and there would be no action (painful or not) to entertain us.
I agree with you that the entertainment factor of violence and fighting probably has to do with the state of nature, but I feel that it may have more to do with the fact that our basic human nature, like that of our primitive ancestors, is aggressive (particularly in the case of men, who do make up the majority of boxers, for example) and not because of subconscious fear. Our ancestors had to fight, overcome opponents/competitors, and be aggressive in order to survive. This was due to the lawlessness previous to the establishment of governments, similar to what is described in Hobbes’s state of nature (though of course his state of nature probably doesn’t refer to an actual stage of human development, but rather an idea) – they had nothing to protect them but the ability to outsmart or fight off opponents and competitors. Modern society (and social contracts that usually keep us, by law, from harming or killing one another) has inhibited this aggressive “kill or be killed” instinct, but it seems to me that boxing, violence, and even a lot of contact sports may appeal to that primal, aggressive instinct of humans in a socially acceptable way. So I think that you’re right that the fascination with violence has to do with the state of nature, but I’m not sure that it’s because of fear.
Let me start by saying that I think it’s great that you got all of this from ESPN Classic!
I think this is an incredibly interesting question and one that I have considered before (though admittedly, not in the context of Hobbes). Take those disgusting Saw movies for instance. What pleasure could we possibly derive from watching human beings get tortured in the most brutal and sadistic ways possible? I suppose it’s the thrill of experiencing something that will never (we hope) happen to us. According to Hobbes, we all desperately want to live in a peaceful society, but at the same time, there is that curiosity. I guess when we watch these violent films we kind of satisfy that “What if…” part of our imagination from the safety of our Hobbesian world.
I cannot speak on this topic from experience, since I have not watched in their entirety more than maybe two sports games of any variety. However, I do not believe that humans enjoy watching boxing for the reason you suggest. Rather than some sense of schadenfreude being derived from these violent games, I believe it comes down to more primitive instincts. I believe that these feelings of enjoyment are actually resulting from an abstracted form of tribalism.
Although humans no longer live in simple tribes, common behaviors can be seen between now and then. We still demonstrate patriotism to countries, states, or cities that no more reflect our individual desires than any other community. Yet, when our community succeeds, even if this success does not directly benefit us, we feel a sense of joy. This reaction can probably be traced to an evolutionary advantage for such an emotion, but I will not get into that here. Similarly, communities of sports fans display a parallel set of behaviors. So, when you or your father had developed an association with a boxer, for whatever reason, you cheered his victories and probably sympathized for his losses. Instead of relishing the pain of his opponent, you were merely expressing a societal link that developed between you and your preferred player.
As for our preference for dystopian movies, I think that Halper, Thomas, and Muzzio were correct in their conclusion. We like this sort of film because a depiction of utopia would be without action or plot. In order for a plotline to exist, a problem or question must occur within the story. A utopia cannot have a problem, because, by definition, it is a society without flaws. Therefore, a portrayal of an actual utopia in films would amount to a documentary, a style devoid of plotline.
Section 12
This is definitely a great post and an interesting opinion. I think you may have left out a small detail though. I don’t think we relish in the pain of others so much (although some weird people may) as we are awed and enteratained at the phenonmenon of someone who voluntarily risks getting their brains beaten out in order to make an income. Remember that boxers are not just normal people fighting, they are athletes who train hard and have a particular skill set. Not just anyone can be a boxer. So in this case I dont believe it is as much being entertained by the fact that someone is winning and someone is in pain as much as the fact that two extraordinary athletes train so hard and willingly risk severe pain (and in rare cases death) in order to make a living. I know that when I watch boxing I experience what I have described above. I often feel sorry for the guy who gets beat up (although they usually both take a pretty good pounding) and never cheer because someone got knocked out.
Also I’m not sure if Hobbes would consider this a true state of nature because in boxing, there are plenty of rules and standards which must be followed, whereas in a true state of nature there are no rules or boundaries and the end result is often death.
I think Hobbes was right when he said people look out for their own self-interest. This is exactly the reason why we find it so entertaining to watch other people prevail and fail. Even though our society is not in a state of nature, we are instinctively programed to show interest in anything competitive. So, when we are entertained by sports like wrestling, boxing, etc. its just our innate since of self-interest and competitive nature coming to the surface.
When ever there is a fight their is a huge audience. If two people are fighting everyone stops and watches. In high school when ever there was a fight, people would come running to watch it. I believe the reason for this is because it is in our human nature to enjoy watching people fight for survival and be in that state of nature. That is our human instincts. Thousands of years ago fighting is how us as humans had to survive. This is the very point that Hobbes touches upon that humans in the state of nature must fear for their lives. Watching people fight brings us back to that state of nature and lets peoples adrenaline flow which is enjoyable.
I agree with the fact that most humans do not find enjoyment by witnessing pain. However, I do believe that humans are driven by competition and any form of that will bring about excitement and enthusiasm. Even though one may not necessarily be a part of the action, the adrenaline rush is what satisfies most people who then seek more action. Even though I mentioned earlier that people do not enjoy watching others get hurt, I do believe that this may not always be the case. When I think of Hobbes state of nature and the movies presented in the article “Hobbes in the City” I believe that humans can be driven by their own self-interest. During a time of chaos there always seems to be a hero that comes to the rescue. Heroes are viewed as having good intentions and willing to help others, however it is to their advantage if there are people suffering and they can come save the day. So it isn’t exactly the case that we get enjoyment out of watching people get hurt but the idea that one can gain self-fulfillment by rescuing those in need of help. With the boxing example, we don’t enjoy watching the other player get hurt, but we empathize with the winner as we seek success and competition.
I can understand the point you are making in your argument, but I question what acts are not done out of self-interest. As it has been stated, “knock somebody out or be knocked out,” is clearly a main focal point of boxing and in different contexts a model we all live by. We find enjoyment with these disturbing sports, but I believe that is just the pleasure of watching things out of the norm. When those two participants enter the ring, they are self interested, hoping to knock their opponent out before being knocked out. It is obviously their preference to express self-interest through a victorious match, but I tend to think almost every action we do, in one way or another, is an act of selfishness.