Social responsibility and Eating disorders and self-injury in literature/film?

[futureapppsy2]

I've heard in several places that books and movies (fiction and nonfiction) shouldn't include graphic or detailed descriptions of harmful behaviors (mostly eating disorders and NSSI), as they often become "how-to" references for people, usually teens, developing EDs or NSSI and thus they are socially irresponsible or dangerous. OTOH, the counter-argument is that people are bound to be triggered/learn from something, and it's not the writer's or whomever's fault if people misuse their work as a "how-to."


What do you think? As both a hobbyist fiction writer (and complete sucker for well-written angst ) and psychology student, I can see both sides.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ollie123]

I'd fully support these being considered when assigning age recommendations, rating, etc.

Saying they shouldn't be included at all because people might treat them as how-to manuals seems....ridiculous. I'd never heard that before, but that crosses so many lines and is so absurd I find it hard to believe anyone but the fringe lunatics would support it. We can't censor the world to avoid offending anyone's delicate sensibilities or someone getting the wrong idea about something...and really need to stop trying to do so.

I'm fine with (and support) not having it thrown in people's faces. People (and their friends/parents/etc.) should have the right and ability to avoid exposure to things if necessary/desired. So I'm okay with laws that restrict advertising venues, etc. Saying it can't exist at all seems absurd. Social responsibility should supplement personal responsibility...we keep trying to treat it as a replacement.

 

[futureapppsy2]

The interesting thing about age restrictions is that most of these books/films are directly and purposefully aimed at teens and young adults, who also tend to be at the age where these disorders commonly develop (because teens/YA tend to be big fans of similarly-aged angst in fiction, I guess?).

I totally agree that we can't censor entire topics just because someone might be offended or misuse it or take out any acknowledgement of personal responsibility.

 

[CSOPP]

My dissertation focuses on self-injurious behavior in teens (specifically, juvenile offenders). Studies have found that there is a contagion effect in both suicidal and self-injurious behaviors; however, most of the contagion studies that focused on self-injury only examined contagion within a group, not how media/books effects self-injurious behavior. My gut reaction is that a teenager that has a good communication style/has effective coping skills will not use a book.media as a "how to."

 

[TNS1991]

I'd fully support these being considered when assigning age recommendations, rating, etc.

Saying they shouldn't be included at all because people might treat them as how-to manuals seems....ridiculous. I'd never heard that before, but that crosses so many lines and is so absurd I find it hard to believe anyone but the fringe lunatics would support it. We can't censor the world to avoid offending anyone's delicate sensibilities or someone getting the wrong idea about something...and really need to stop trying to do so.

I'm fine with (and support) not having it thrown in people's faces. People (and their friends/parents/etc.) should have the right and ability to avoid exposure to things if necessary/desired. So I'm okay with laws that restrict advertising venues, etc. Saying it can't exist at all seems absurd. Social responsibility should supplement personal responsibility...we keep trying to treat it as a replacement.

Good post Ollie. I would just like to also point out that there are many "how to" guides available on the internet as well for people to read and get ideas.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Good post Ollie. I would just like to also point out that there are many "how to" guides available on the internet as well for people to read and get ideas.

I've read in the media about efforts to get "pro-ana" websites/groups banned from Facebook, Yahoo, MySpace, etc., under the premise that they promote harm, so they have not gone unnoticed under the same sort of premise.

My dissertation focuses on self-injurious behavior in teens, (specifically, juvenile offenders). Studies have found that there is a contagion effect in both suicidal and self-injurious behaviors; however, most of the contagion studies that focused on self-injury only examined contagion within a group, not how media/books effects self-injurious behavior. My gut reaction is that a teenager that has a good communication style/has effective coping skills will not use a book.media as a "how to."

Purely anecdotal (there may very well be studies on this, but it's not my area of focus), but I remember my abnormal psych prof in undergrad saying that all of her clients with eating disorders (admittedly, that may have been hyperbole) said they "learned" ED "tricks" from watching movies about ED. I've also seen a lot of parents make similar comments about their children with EDs. Of course, it's very likely that people with tendencies towards these maladaptive coping mechanisms might be drawn to media about them, so they may have eventually sought out of the same info from another source.

 

[Ollie123]

The interesting thing about age restrictions is that most of these books/films are directly and purposefully aimed at teens and young adults, who also tend to be at the age where these disorders commonly develop (because teens/YA tend to be big fans of similarly-aged angst in fiction, I guess?).

And likely enjoyed by many of those teens/YAs without any ill consequences. Despite my obvious concern for those with psychopathology given my choice of profession, I just can't get on board with categorically banning something because it might possibly bring some harm to a small minority of people.

I'm actually of the view that banning them might cause more harm. For one, the extent to which it brings discussions into the public view is valuable. For two, its difficult to draw that line between glamorizing it and portraying it appropriately. It actually relates to the other discussion ongoing about pornography. Obviously, it can cause serious problems for some individuals. To categorically ban it is problematic in part because we cannot define it and I imagine only a very small percentage of those against pornography would also be against any multimedia depiction of sexual activities (in other words...not all depictions of sex are pornography).

Yet perhaps more important...I think back to my HS days, and whenever something similar was done, all it led to was further blame, finger-pointing, and subsequent social isolation of those whom the ban was meant to benefit (which admittedly might be more an immediate reaction and may dissipate over time). "Oh, we're not allowed to read those books anymore. Blame Pat, if he/she wasn't so crazy we'd be able to". My ex was a teacher, and her school banned the Twilight series because kids (seriously) started cutting their fingers and drinking each other's blood. These folks were not exactly the "in-crowd" to begin with, and sure enough, the ban led to a large portion of the school, resenting them etc. Not sure that was to their benefit. Also, as much as it pains me to say something like this about kids who may be struggling with such sisues, I'm not even sure it is inappropriate for kids to react that way towards them...and they certainly wouldn't be incorrect in their assessment of the situation.

 

[PhilAwesome]

I've wondered about this myself. On the one hand, I definitely agree with Ollie's point; a blanket ban generally just makes things worse and gives more power to the thing you're trying to take power away from. On the other hand, the "contagion" effect, especially of media reporting on suicide, seems really frightening. A recent suicide that received media coverage is a risk factor for adolescent suicide, which is terrifying, when you think about it. How can you allow reporting on something when that type of report causes a documentably higher rate of suicide?

I think the only way to handle it appropriately is to talk about the issue more openly and in more depth, and to realize the potential certain forms of media have. I think responsible media outlets that report a suicide will acknowledge the potential urges that report can bring up, will make a serious mention of the tragedy, and will express some kind of empathy for the people who suffer that way. They could even put the national suicide hotline number; it doesn't matter if everyone knows it, I think getting people to think about it could help. In my mind, the same is true of eating disordered behavior and self-injury; the more you can avoid details, the better, and people would be best served if media outlets would make mention of the potential for people to overcome that sort of desparation, and show real and effective treatments.

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

The HBO documentary called "Thin" was one which was called out for being a veritable "how to" manual. I heard a lot about it in one of my classes so I found it and watched it (it's on YouTube, or at least it was a few years ago).

I then found out that a couple of the young women it featured have since died of ED-related complications, and I became fascinated (and saddened) so I did some online research and found that there were entire communities of teenage boys and girls who idolized the people in the documentary for being so thin, and there were pictures of them taken directly from the film.

There was even a book written, and the kids would scan it, page-by-page, to share it with other people. It was surreal, because all of this activity was presumably coming directly from this one documentary film.

 

[mewtoo]

I don't think it really matters what they write in fiction because if someone wants a how-to on an ED or whatever they can just do a google search and find websites dedicated to this sort of stuff. They can even contact people who have these disorders and do these things so I don't see much of a problem with it if its part of a story. If someone published something that was intended as a how-to then I'd have a problem with it. But as long as there is the internet there is no way to stop someone from finding out what they want to. The same thing is even applicable to treatment facilities. People learn 'tips' from other patients. There really isn't much you can do short of censoring the internet and fiction and isolating patients from each other.

'course I'm like the OP and could have written this sentence myself so my views may be a little protective.

As both a hobbyist fiction writer (and complete sucker for well-written angst ) and psychology student, I can see both sides.

 

[deliciousgoose]

The HBO documentary called "Thin" was one which was called out for being a veritable "how to" manual. I heard a lot about it in one of my classes so I found it and watched it (it's on YouTube, or at least it was a few years ago).

I then found out that a couple of the young women it featured have since died of ED-related complications, and I became fascinated (and saddened) so I did some online research and found that there were entire communities of teenage boys and girls who idolized the people in the documentary for being so thin, and there were pictures of them taken directly from the film.

There was even a book written, and the kids would scan it, page-by-page, to share it with other people. It was surreal, because all of this activity was presumably coming directly from this one documentary film.

Pretty well all documentation of eating disorders can be considered a how-to or a trigger. Even academic journal articles could be considered "how-to"s. In the end there is really nothing you can do to stop individuals who suffer from eating disorders from seeking out that information. I think individuals in general, not just those with EDs, are drawn to the stories of individuals' which reflect some of their own plight. With EDs the different media, however, happen to provide instruction rather than just commiseration.

The other thing to wonder about is if the damage done by discussing these harmful, and contagion, behaviours like NSSI and ED behaviours actually does more good than harm. It is possible that some individuals are encouraged by these media, but open discussion of these behaviours via film or books helps to diminish the taboo and stigma surrounding these behaviours. Consequently, IMO, this discussion also helps diminish the shame that these individuals may feel. It is possible that increased media attention to these destructive behaviours actually help youth feel more comfortable seeking help.

One final point to consider is that books and movies about these behaviours also help to correct societal misconceptions. For instance, it is very difficult to read the book Wasted or watch Thin and subsequently subscribe to the ideas of anorexia as a ploy for attention, or as essentially about vanity.

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

For instance, it is very difficult to read the book Wasted or watch Thin and subsequently subscribe to the ideas of anorexia as a ploy for attention, or as essentially about vanity.

This is true.