Letters to the Editor AND INVESTIGATION INTO THE CINEMATOGRAPH DETERIORATION IN BEHAVIOUR" Dear Sir, It is probably the natural reaction of the reader who works mainly with people, to bristle with queries on reading any article which deals with human reactions quantitatively rather than qualitatively, and to ask at the end, what will be the effect of the conclusion. Even acknowledging this possible bias against passive acceptance of 'AN
statistics, is it not relevant to Dr. de Rudolf's investigation reported in your Spring issue, to ask for more qualitative information on the relations between misbehaviour and films, a further analysis of misbehaviour "and a further
differentiation of the films shown?" One is led to ask what it is in the films which causes the misbehaviour found to be associated with them, and whether it is that they stimulate emotionality for which there is no adequate or social outlet within the Institution (a query which applies also to urban society). Is it that "order can only be maintained if the inmates are kept quiet and "toned down"? It is stated that "incidents of misbehaviour" are included "irrespective of their type and degree," and it is implied?since "noise and truculence, two phases of one action, are recorded as one item"?that noise unaccompanied by truculence is also recorded as one item. This raises the whole question of the definition of "misbehaviour." We realise one cannot make a fair comparison with disturbed children whose misbehaviour when confronted with the possibility of emotional satisfaction after deprivation may be the beginning of emotional development, but even with the group of persons in the investigation recorded, might it not be possible that the suppression of stimulus may decrease their "potentia still further?" Surely one needs to know more about the motivations and group behaviour of both those under authority and in authority before accepting the implication of the conclusion?that all films have an influence that is bad (even though it may well be "undesired") Yours
Rowfant Mill Cottage, Pound Hill, Sussex.
faithfully, M. M.
Silcock, M. E. Russell, Psychiatric Social Workers.
statistics, is it not relevant to Dr. de Rudolf's investigation reported in your Spring issue, to ask for more qualitative information on the relations between misbehaviour and films, a further analysis of misbehaviour "and a further
differentiation of the films shown?" One is led to ask what it is in the films which causes the misbehaviour found to be associated with them, and whether it is that they stimulate emotionality for which there is no adequate or social outlet within the Institution (a query which applies also to urban society). Is it that "order can only be maintained if the inmates are kept quiet and "toned down"? It is stated that "incidents of misbehaviour" are included "irrespective of their type and degree," and it is implied?since "noise and truculence, two phases of one action, are recorded as one item"?that noise unaccompanied by truculence is also recorded as one item. This raises the whole question of the definition of "misbehaviour." We realise one cannot make a fair comparison with disturbed children whose misbehaviour when confronted with the possibility of emotional satisfaction after deprivation may be the beginning of emotional development, but even with the group of persons in the investigation recorded, might it not be possible that the suppression of stimulus may decrease their "potentia still further?" Surely one needs to know more about the motivations and group behaviour of both those under authority and in authority before accepting the implication of the conclusion?that all films have an influence that is bad (even though it may well be "undesired") Yours
Rowfant Mill Cottage, Pound Hill, Sussex.
faithfully, M. M.
Silcock, M. E. Russell, Psychiatric Social Workers.
