Normalization Of Violence In The Film V For Vendetta

There are three main actors that factor into the normalization of violence in society. The state, the media, and the individual are large contributors to the instigation, magnitude and normalization of violence in a society. The movie V for Vendetta gives the audience a lens through which they can look at the role and impact these three actors play in the perpetuation and normalization of violence. The state; as a system of surveillance, coercing individual’s conformity, and soliciting submission uses its role to project power in the name of national security and maintaining peace. The fascist police state in the movie takes civil liberties away from its citizens, spreading fear through military and media. The state controlled media fuels fear
State was using aggression by military personnel in the service of national policy (Gurr, 13). There was a strong connection between the state, the church and the media. The fascist police state had control over society as a whole. They detained witnesses, censored the media, and had a sensor approved script for shows. The state monitored phones and had surveillance across London. The Chancellor Adam Sutler had decides how the media approached acts of terrorism and what is aired on TV. Similar to the Russian TV (RT) channel we know of today, the Chancellor in the movie had the exact same British Television Network (BTN) that was nationalized. The state even had a secret service, similar to the ones we see in Russia and Syria today, where the secret service hunted down anyone that opposed what it stood for. These acts alone normalize violence; justifying the use of violence for peace and national interest. Chancellor Adam Sutler in V for Vendetta had strong high central legitimacy. As Gurr argues the use of aggression by military personnel establishes high legitimacy. Thus this constant interference in goal attainment for many would lead to goal attainment discouragement as well as increase in level of strife (Gurr, 21-22). The response to aggression by the state does in fact effect the magnitude of aggressive response. That is effectively seen in the movie with the constant use of military personnel to shut down and opposition or free
Disrupting the “order” that could be described as an order of silence. V needed to mobilize the population in order to instigate and increase the degree of violence. This analysis comes from Gurr’s work where he claims there are three factors which contribute to the magnitude of violence 1) degree of participation 2) destructiveness of aggression 3) length of time it persists (Gurr, 13). In V’s position connecting to the mass population would only be possible through accessing the media. The media is most likely to influence and create a large degree of participation which was the first factor that contributed to the magnitude of violence. Length of time was also determined when he gave a one-year limit on the revolt against the government. Although Gurr’s third point is referring to the lasting time of violence, I believe in this case one can observe that the time frame put on the revolution was a positive aspect and led to more violence. This is due to anger that was still fresh and change was less likely to happen within a short time frame, that helping to further encourage violence. Gurr’s Proposition I.5 states that the strength of anger varies directly with the proportion of all available opportunities (Gurr, 24). The time frame V placed on the change to occur and violence to take place made it more difficult for the state. The state was obligated to take action. Thus, in this