Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
The Rejection of Violence in Doctor Who
Written by Mathilde Læssø Christensen, Aalborg University
Læssø, 1
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
Table of Contents:
Thesis Statement …………………………………………………………………………….......... 3
Review on Media Violence Studies ………………………………………………………………. 5
-
Schools of Thought and Their Research
Children and Violence
Defining Media Violence
Review on Nonviolence Studies …………………………………………………………………. 10
-
Means and Ends – An Ethical Discussion
Media Meanings
Literature Review on the Academia of Doctor Who …………………………………………… 14
-
General Violence in Doctor Who
Study of the Doctor Character
Analysis of Notions of nonviolence in Doctor Who ……………………………..……………… 20
-
Mercy
Sacrifice
Ethics of the Doctor
Analysis of Notions of Violence in Doctor Who ………………………………………………… 25
-
Violence as Narrative Device
The Problem of Genocide
The Doctor as Monster
Distinguishing Between Violence Towards Machines and Biological Beings
Manipulation of Companions
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………... 27
Appendix …………………………………………………………………………………………. 28
Works Cited …………………………………………………………………………………….... 32
Læssø, 2
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
Thesis Statement
The American market for entertainment has always been rife with representations of violence.
Since gangster films and film noir, the Hays Office and its modern MPAA-rating censorship have
been concerned with limiting and curving the themes and content suitable for the movie-watching
cinema. It is also hard to avoid the subject because of violent video games, movies and other media
with graphic content directed towards young people. And in a world post 9/11, how we deal with
violence has become a subject for discussion because it has redefined our relationship with violence
and how we view the world. Therefore it is also interesting to look at the kinds of media texts that
seem to go against the norm of violent entertainment, because such shows could be held up as an
example of a more varied TV. This paper has hijacked Doctor Who for such an experiment, because
of its status as the longest running sci-fi series in the world, its utopian stance towards violence and
mainly, its wide appeal to an audience of all ages and general popularity.
The question to be asked is; how can Doctor Who still remain popular even though it rejects
this general permeation of violence as seen in other shows? The immediate follow-up is if the show
really does reject violence? It is clear to anyone who has ever seen it that violent things have
happened throughout the course of Whovian history. So how do we explain that Doctor Who is, on
the one hand, a text expressive of aversion for violence (and interest in non-violence), and, on the
other, a melodramatic action series in which the Doctor’s enemies are often defeated partly by
violent means?
But what constitutes as acts of violence? In relation to Doctor Who it cannot simply be
constructed in terms of physical acts of violence since the show has been associated with monsters
ever since its birth and there is a certain horror element that lends itself to most of its episodes. And
because the debate on media violence has been so pervasive since the 1960’s and has in itself a
plethora of studies, it follows that in order to establish whether violence in Doctor Who is deemed
’violent’, there needs to be an understanding of what constitutes as violent content.
It is also apparent that Doctor Who is concerned with taking a non-violent approach towards
conflicts, in that the Doctor frequently tries to negotiate terms of peace, and is frequently deemed
inferior in comparison to the powers he is up against. As with violent content then, it follows that
there is a need to examine what constitutes as non-violence through a discussion of the history of
non-violence. This might help to uncover the ethics of the Doctors’ non-violent strategy and more
about the role of the character itself in the show.
Læssø, 3
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
The paper will give continue with a short introduction to the universe of Doctor Who and will
include video material of the revived series with extracts from the era of the last 4 Doctors
(technically also accounting for the War Doctor in the 50th Anniversary). Lastly the analysis will
try to answer the question that Steven Moffat has posed, what does the Doctor mean in today’s
world, immortalized in the question – Doctor Who?
Læssø, 4
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
Review on Media Violence Studies:
As a main resource I have chosen Critical Readings: Violence and the Media edited by C.
Kay Weaver and Cynthia Carter because it functions as a reader into the different research in media
violence studies. There are mainly two different schools of thought; researchers that subscribe to
‘effects theory’ and those that do not.
Schools of thought and their research
Those that subscribe to the former argue the strong link between viewing violent media
content and violent behaviour in individuals. Geen says that; ”media violence can engender a
complex of associations consisting of aggressive ideas, emotions related to violence, and serve as
the impetus for aggressive acts’ (...)” (Geen qt. by Weaver, 1 ). The main argument has been the
’Bobo Doll’-experiment which is one of the classic media effects studies. It advocates that children
are very likely to imitate representations of aggressive and violent behaviour when shown a film of
a perpetrator that becomes aggressive. What the experiment fails to answer is if this sort of
aggression is imitated aggression or real, reactionary aggression. “In assessing the possible
influence of televised stimulation on viewer’s behavior (…) it is important to distinguish between
learning and overt performance” (Weaver, 41). Even though they go on to argue that such learned
behavior retains its strength and could reappear later with the right amount of stimuli, they also
acknowledge that the parents of the children could negate such behavior, labelling it negative.
These unanswered questions are also touched upon in the study’s conclusion and have also been
used by Gauntlett to refute the ‘Media Effects Model’.
The other school of thought is the ’no causal effects theory’, where researchers suggest that
representations may effect an audience, but have no causal effect. The relationship between media
and audience is a problematic one in that it is not hegemonic in nature, and especially for
researchers that believe that media has a direct, psychological effect. That would presuppose that
audiences are passive recipients of political messages. Barker and Petley quote Greg Philo when
they say that; ” to accept and believe what is seen on television is as much an cultural act as the
rejection of it. Both acceptance and rejection are conditioned by our beliefs, history and experience”
(Weaver, 80). This is further problematized by Barker and Petley in their study (find name of
study!). The response to action-adventure films was monitored and it was found that,”what is
condemned as ’gratuitous’ and ’immoral’ is actually experienced by key fans as political” (Weaver,
74). In effect, ”audiences are very capable of differentiating between fictional and factual portrayals
Læssø, 5
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
of violence, and appropriately responding to real incidents of violence when they occur” (Weaver,
2).
As one of the researchers that subscribe to the latter, Gauntlett outlines ten things in his study
that are critiques to how the Bobo Doll experiment and other such studies are conducted. He points
to two possible conclusions when discussing 60 years of media effects research; that either direct
effects of media upon behaviour have not been identified since they are simply not to be found, or
that the media effects research has quite consistently taken wrong approach to the mass media, its
audiences, and society in general (Weaver, 54). One of his critiques is that media effects studies
comes at the problem backwards, looking at media and trying to ”lasso connections from there on to
social beings,” (Weaver, 55) which is very counterproductive. One of his most important points is
the reliance the effects model has on developmental psychology during the childhood where
”developmental stages are arranged as a hierarchy, from incompetent childhood through to rational,
logical adulthood” (Weaver, 56). Therefore studies should only affect children, but counter-studies
of adults have never been attempted. More open-minded studies, such as those conducted by
Buckingham counters this opinion of children as being inept. He finds that children ”can talk
intelligently and indeed cynically about the mass media (...) and that children as young as seven can
make thoughtful, critical and ’media literate’ video productions themselves” (Weaver, 57).
Gauntlett also criticizes the way psychologists usually blame the victim to;
”represent social problems as the consequence of deficiencies or inadequacies of young
people, and to psychologize inequalities, obscuring structural relations of domination
behind a focus on individual ’deficient’ working-class young people and/or young people
of colour, their families or cultural backgrounds” (Weaver, 57).
The focus therefore has not been on explaining how mass culture functions when viewing
violent representations on television, but rather on the psychological deficiencies in individuals.
Therefore they are not speaking of the masses but of individuals. Many effects studies follow this
psychologically-oriented mindset and because they only focus on showing the negative effects of
children’s media use, there is a need for studies like Buckingham’s to even the playing field, which
is, to see the complex ways with which children can engage with media content.
Læssø, 6
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
Children and Violence
Gauntlett’s most important critique is that effects studies usually rest on very reductive
assumptions and unjustified stereotypes when it comes to media content. Many effects studies assert
that, ”depictions of violence in the media will always be promoting antisocial behaviour, and that
(...) the medium holds a singular message which will be carried unproblematically to the audience”
(Weaver, 62). Again Buckingham can be used to counter this in his study Children Viewing
Violence (Weaver, 279). Instead of focusing on there being a negative impact, his studies show that
children view horror and violence for pleasure and to deal with negative feelings.
”Even for the most enthusiastic horror viewers, pleasure was seen to be inextricably tied up
with the possibility of pain (...) manifested in the characteristic pose of the horror viewer,
(...) peering over the top of the cushion, or through half-closed fingers, this pose allows
you to feel ’safe’ and yet also fulfill the desire to know the outcome of the narrative”
(Weaver, 286).
Buckingham summarises that it is a very politically progressive notion to suggest that horror
can be therapeutic and can help children deal with negative feelings, while also empowering
children as capable viewers. He suggests that the notion that violence inevitably ”depraves and
corrupts is no more valid than the idea that it is somehow automatically therapeutic,” (Weaver, 287)
and that adults have a responsibility to their children to learn and cope with such experiences that
also respects the complexity of the process.
Defining Media Violence
Defining violence is rendered very problematic against the plethora of cultural concerns and
anxieties and the sheer amount of studies. The use of the word is appropriated frequently. In Barker
and Petley’s study, From Bad Media Violence Research to Good – A Guide for the Perplexed, they
outline that violence means something different for ”real viewers, as against ’effects’ researchers
and moral campaigners, ’violence’ is not some singular ’thing’ which might grow cumulatively
like poison inside people” (Weaver, 67). From a practical point of view, violence can mean any
matter of things; fist fights, swear words, rape, ethnic, minority or gendered violence, domestic,
murder etc. Their study looked at how people responded to different kinds of violence and through
their responses they could make their own very clear definition of violence:
Læssø, 7
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
”Screen violence is any act that is seen or unequivocally signaled which would be
considered an act of violence in real life, because the violence was considered unjustified
either in the degree or nature of the force used, or that the injured party was undeserving of
the violence. The degree of violence is defined by how realistic the violence is considered
to be, and made even stronger if the violence inflicted is considered unfair.” Weaver, 71).
For adult viewers what is defined as violence has less to do with it being performed
graphically than it being performed off-screen to invoke suspense. For the viewers it can be
concluded that it is deemed violence if depicted realistically and more violent if it is considered
unfair by the main characters on screen.
Gerbner also coins a term he calls ‘the mean world syndrome’ which extends cultural
anxieties and prejudice. There is a consideration inherent here that television content does not
conform to real life representations. Gerbner goes on to conservatively argue that television comes
with no preconceptions of literacy or required taste and that it becomes “part and parcel of the
family’s style of life (...) they neither stem nor respond to its particular and selective needs and
wants.” (Weaver, 44-45). In his study, Television Violence – At a Time of Turmoil and Terror, he
traces the role of violence in prime time television and finds that it ”presents a relatively small set of
common themes, and violence pervades most of them” (Weaver, 46). Now Gerbner might be right
in his analysis of today’s media landscape perpetuating anxieties and prejudice in his structuralist
approach to how much violence is shown on screen. (According to his results more people are made
victims than those that are violent with an average of 12 victims per 10 violents). What Gerbner
fails to take into account is that this structuralist approach says nothing about how violence is used
in the narrative. According to Fiske:
“Violence on television is not ‘displayed’ as if through a window (…) It is a vehicle
through which meanings are transferred. (…) Violence enacts social, rather than personal
relations; it takes place between personalized moralities (good v. bad, efficient v.
inefficient, culturally esteemed v. culturally deviant) (…) The audience is so habituated to
these conventional modes of behavior that there is little risk of their mistaking television
violence for anything other than conventional behavior” (Fiske, 179-9).
It is governed by the internal rules and constraints of each individual viewer, unlike real or
factual depictions of violence. One might conclude then that Gerbner rightly points to a general
concern with violence in the media and that this has to be taken into account when looking at the
Læssø, 8
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
general content in media representations, but it also has to be acknowledged that it is problematic to
read violence as violence without taking into consideration its role in media texts. Fiske goes on to
argue that violence’s;
“significance in a television fiction is that it externalizes people’s motives and status,
makes visible their unstated relationships, and personalizes impersonal conflicts between,
for example dominant and subordinate groups, law and anarchy, youth an age. It is never a
mere imitation of real behavior” (Fiske, 34-5).
Læssø, 9
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
Review on Non-violence Studies:
It might seem that anything beyond the media research into violence will be dwarfed in
comparison, yet it is interesting that many effects studies carry within them a very dark and
ambiguous premise of the role of violence when compared with the more optimistic research by
Buckingham, Barker and Petley. The writings of Sharp, Weber and Burrowes help even out the
playing field. The main question is, if we see violence as an act, then the act towards no violence is
necessarily also an act. In animal rights and world preservation groups the concept of peaceful
protest without it leading to physical assault and the burning of cars have been an important
message, because news reports necessarily always focus on violence to artificially enhance a notion
of risk instead of focusing on peaceful world messages. Annette Hill mentions in her study, The
Social Amplification of Risk and the Violence Media Debate, that, ”anti-violence campaign groups
play a role in shaping the societal experience of media violence, and the societal impact of media
violence controversies on media law in Britain.” (Weaver, 92). Sadly, she also concludes that even
though such campaigns have an impact, they have less to say in the media machine, because ”such
information is not featured on press coverage of the alleged negative effects of media violence, nor
is it given proper hearing in public discussion surrounding a risk event.” (Weaver, 87).
With this in mind this section will try to give a definition of what ’nonviolence’ really means.
As mentioned before, the research findings on this subject are of a more individual and
philosophical kind and not necessarily based in media effects research, but considering nonviolence
as an act also makes it relevant to media studies. The main source for this is by authors, Thomas
Weber and Robert J. Burrowes, called Nonviolence: An Introduction, which was first published by
an Australian periodical on peace studies and has since been digitalised as a website. It works
towards a definition of nonviolence as an alternate technique of resolving conflicts instead of
resorting to violence. In describing what constitutes as nonviolence, Weber and Burrowes quote one
of the foremost spokespeople for non-violence; Gene Sharp:
”Nonviolent action is a technique by which people who reject passivity and submission,
and who see struggle as essential, can wage their conflict with-out violence. Nonviolent
action is not an attempt to avoid or ignore conflict. It is one response to the problem of
how to act effectively in politics, especially how to wield powers effectively” (Weber).
Non-violence as an action is exemplified in three different ways of ’acting out’; nonviolent
protest and persuasion, noncooperation and nonviolent intervention, but the most interesting is the
Læssø, 10
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
latter. Nonviolent intervention is mainly concerned with either disrupting established, ideological
norms such as behaviour patterns, policies, relationships and institutions. But they can also be about
establishing new norms from either a political, economic or social viewpoint, such as “(…) nonhierarchical cooperatives, markets (…) parallel media, communications and transport networks.”
(Weber). This last category can also be seen as the most revolutionary of the three. Certain groups
have also exemplified certain strategies of performing nonviolent acts. The most known of these
groups are Amish or Quakers who believe in nonviolent lifestyles as a fundamental part of their
religious belief. Weber and Burrowes mention a number of categories, but those of the most interest
are the ideological extremes of Gandhi’s nonviolence (Satyagraha), moral resistance, passive
resistance and nonviolent direct action (see table 1). These categories are not to be taken in
sequence of ideological extremes but help illustrate the variety with which nonviolent action is
exemplified in groups. Especially Gandhian nonviolence is of interest as it will be used for a
discussion of ethics in a later paragraph. Gandhi coined the term ’Satyagraha’ from Sanskrit, ’sat’:
truth and ’agraha’: firmness, because he felt that the English coining of ’passive resistance’ was too
narrow a term and could be constructed as hatred which could manifest itself in violence. Gandhi
says that it means, ”(...) literally holding onto Truth and it means, therefore, Truth-force. Truth is
soul or spirit. It is therefore known as soul force.” (qt. by Weber). The most interesting thing about
this search for truth is that it is;
”(...) working steadily towards a discovery of the truth and converting the opponent into a
friend in the process. (...) It is not used against anybody but is done with somebody. ’It is
based on the idea that the moral appeal to the heart or conscience is ... more effective than
an appeal based on threat or bodily pain or violence’ (Weber, qt. Gandhi).
Between moral resistance and passive resistance there still rests a discussion of whether or not
to use violence because there is a lack of resources or to use nonviolent tactics such as damaging of
government property. There is also a difference in the means with which the groups use, where
moral resistance might be education, lobbying, politics, passive resistance might be deemed more
’violent’ for their need of immediate results. In the case of non-violent direct action, these
practitioners can see it as either a moral principle or as a means of, not conversion, but victory.
The employment of nonviolence can be divided into different ideological categories of the
pragmatic-ideological and tactical-strategical paradigm made by Gene Sharp (see figure 2). It might
be helpful to differentiate between the extremes by looking at the examples used in the illustration.
The most interesting here is the Montgomery Bus Boycott, better known to people as the case that
Læssø, 11
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
put a stop to racial segregation in busses in the days of Luther King. Here the tactical aim was to
lead other blacks to follow the example of Rosa Parks and the ideological aim was present in Luther
King’s speeches. He insisted that, ”(...) the nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his
opponent but he also refuses to hate him. At the center of nonviolence stands the principle of love,”
(Weber) but even Luther later acknowledged that there was a need for tactical nonviolence. Writing
from prison, ”(...) history is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged groups seldom give
up their privileges voluntarily.” (Weber). Luther hints at the oppressiveness of regimes towards
change and that it is problematic to settle on a boundary towards violence. For some it is the more
practical way of handling conflict when no other options are open, and for others it is a way of life,
even the ’only’ correct method of conflict resolution. Weber and Burrowes have outlined a model
that helps to understand the different criteria and strategies of non-violent strategies (See table 3).
Means and Ends – An Ethical Discussion
But where do you draw the line towards violent actions? The ideological part of the spectrum,
including Gandhi, have formed an interesting discussion. It might be said that there is a certain
extent to which one should accomplish political, societal or economical goals without resorting to
violence, but this group of people holds that any violent act will only breed more violence. Even
though this is true for Gandhi more than any other, his nonviolence has still been questioned as a
method of last resort instead of the best means, because Gandhi was without guns. American social
activist Alisnky talks about means and ends being ”(...) so qualitatively interrelated that the true
question has never been the proverbial one, ‘Does the End justify the Means?’ but always has been
"Does this particular end justify this particular means?” (Weber qt. Alinsky). Even though this a
valid critique, it does not take into account the apparent ideology of Gandhi to bring about a change
in India not to free the Indians from colonization, but to change their world view.
It might be cliché to bring up the saying; ‘means justify the ends,’ but in a Gandhian view of
the world such a saying is deemed completely false, because it implies that violence can justify as
means towards a peaceful resolution. Aldous Huxley says, “the end cannot justify the means, for the
simple reason that the means employed determine the nature of the ends produced” (Weber qt.
Huxley). Gandhi contends this with the metaphor of “means [that] may be likened to a seed, the end
to a tree: and there is just the same inviolable connection between the means and the end as there is
between the seed and the tree” (Weber). There is an interesting discussion here about what that kind
of ideology means for warfare and revolution but it is perhaps Huxley that words it the better. He
Læssø, 12
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
quotes Thomas a Kempi’s ”all men desire peace, but very few desire those things which make for
peace,” (Weber) and goes on to say that, “the golden rule to be kept in mind when ends, and the
means to achieve them, are chosen, is to ask whether the result will be merely the attainment of
some immediate goal, or to transform society (…)” (Weber).
There is a sense here that the way nonviolence is practiced is deeply connected with how it
will affect society; be it short-term or long-term. Long-term changes are especially hard to achieve
from because it cannot be done simply by adopting a new set of norms to regulate behavior. From a
structuralist point of view, nonviolence theorists acknowledge that violence functions on individual,
process and governmental levels. This stems in an anarchist aversion to power because, as Gandhi
says, the ”state is deeply rooted in force and violence (...) It ’represents violence in a concentrated
or organised form.” (Weber). In saying so, Gandhi also forms another fundamental element of
nonviolence theory; the clear distinction between political structures and their functionaries.
”Instead of interpreting the conflict of interests inherent in capitalism, for
example, as one between capitalists and workers, nonviolence theorists
interpret the conflict as one between the structure of capitalism and the people
within it.” (Weber)
There is a clear distinction here from Marxism which would recognise the workers as the
disempowered class and embolden them towards revolution, where nonviolent activists would
initially do the same, but lead them towards a different kind of revolution. The disempowered class
would be recognised as victims of political oppression and economic exploitation and therefore it
would fall to a nonviolent activist to organize the class and provide them with a weapon with which
they could alter the power relationship. Weber defines how this can achieved in three different
ways; accomodation, coercion and conversion, (Weber) but it is important to remember that there is
still the possibility of being changed with the outcome of the conflict, especially in the last one,
conversion.
To expand a bit on Gandhi’s approach to truth, it is interesting that conversion starts with a
change within oneself. It is important to keep the opponent (not enemy) in mind, and keep the mind
open because the ”use of violence indicates an already closed mind.” (Weber). For Gandhi, a person
that practices;
”satyagraha undergoes self-suffering in the optimistic belief that by touching the
opponent's conscience, they can be converted to seeing the truth of the satyagrahi's
Læssø, 13
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
position; or in the belief that a clearer vision of truth for both parties will grow out of the
dialectical process” (Weber).
The concept rests on the acceptance of suffering, because resistance has to be met without
violence so the sufferer keeps the moral high ground and might facilitate a change in the opponent,
in the environment and therefore also changes in the process. Weber argues that;
“in the dialectic of nonviolence both the sufferer and the opponent are transformed: the
opponent(s) by being compelled to confront their own views (…) which may lead to
conversion; and the sufferer who may be morally enriched by not compromising
fundamental principles” (Weber).
Media Meanings
Taking the cue from the previous section of media studies, nonviolent representations is a
very thinly researched area, especially when compared to the massive amount of studies conducted
on the other side of the spectrum. It makes for an uneven picture of representations which might be
explained by the general amplification of risk in the media debate, but also of the implicit
acknowledgement we have of these representations on screen. The amount of studies conducted in
each arena speaks for itself, especially when it is limited to media studies. It is an interesting
juxtaposition that serves to enlighten the moral dilemmas concerning violent depictions on screen,
because of the simple presence of nonviolence, and that is what the next section will concern itself
with.
Here I feel it is important to draw a line between what constitutes as nonviolence and what
pacifism means. Pacifism has come to be an umbrella term for many reactionary forces but falls
short of describing the nature of nonviolence. Within the limits of this paper, nonviolence is used as
a term when there is a choice for the characters or indeed the odd “showrunner” to choose between
following a nonviolent schema or a violent schema, in the sense that we take these notions as
mentally codified definitions. It is of course not definitive that these work as singular schematas as
the above sections have illustrated, because each viewer experience is singularly individual, but it is
helpful in pinpointing certain notions in the show seen from the viewpoint of this paper’s lone
author.
Læssø, 14
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
Literature Review on the Academia of Doctor Who:
So the time has come to look at how the notions of violence and nonviolence are represented
in Doctor Who. First I will take a walk down memory lane having a look at how violence has been
depicted in Classic Who, because the debate about violent content actually has a long history with
the series. Afterwards, I take a look at how violent content clashes with the nonviolent strategy of
the Doctor in the revived series of what is identified as Doctor Who. The emphasis here will be on
the last three seasons because this is the tenure where Steven Moffat has been showrunner, but I
will still touch on the first four seasons. I have included abbreviations for the titles of the episodes
only after I have mentioned them in full. I excuse any spoilers that might occur for non-whovians
and I will try to be thorough with the history although it isn’t exactly that easy to navigate even for
a Whovian like myself.
General violence in Doctor Who
Since the very beginning, Doctor Who has been the target of widespread concern for violent
and horrific content. In Mark Gatiss’ new biopic, An Adventure in Time and Space, it is commented
upon by the first showrunner and the head producer of drama at BBC that it might alienate younger
viewers if Daleks and other monsters were included in the show. It was a big step with any new
series but it was also pushing the bar of what conservatives thought was proper for children to view.
In the end it paid off and ever since then Doctor Who has been all about the monsters. It is the show
you watch on the edge of your sofa, ready to dive behind the sofa if things became too scary. There
are numerous stories of people that have had to take a walk after watching an episode because of
this horror element. I recall especially one scene from Gatiss’ biopic where Daleks cross the bridge
at Westminster with the Houses of Parliament in the background. Such powerful imagery made the
show become real, even with its fantastical premise, because Daleks where in London, sieging
London just like it had been under siege years ago by the Germans.
Even though it cannot be said that Doctor Who subscribes to formula violence, there is still
the violence of horrific imagery to be considered. In consideration of children being the main
‘victims’ of media violence, there is a need to do away with the notion that it is a children’s show.
Firstly, one has to consider the marketing strategy of BBC during the time; Doctor Who was never
explicitly marketed that way from the BBC who instead wanted a show for the family. One of the
scholars on Doctor Who academia, Piers D. Britton remarks that genre-wise, “when it [the show]
was first broadcast on television, the series was explicitly billed in Radio Times as ’an adventure in
Læssø, 15
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
space and time’” (Britton, 155). Selling it as a family program has to hold true even today because
with the advent of Christmas Specials such as Eleven’s epic send-off, the show receives prime time
slots, being sent on Christmas day on BBC One at 8.30 pm where most families will be watching.
Coleman, writing about the history of critique against the show’s sometimes gothic elements, also
clears up the matter by saying that only, ”15 percent of viewers were under seven” (Leitch, 145). As
we established earlier, this is also just at the turning point where children are able to make quite
complex reasoning of television content. One might say that the label of children’s show does not
really hold up so well after all, and that there is a reduced risk of misunderstanding violent content.
Even so, if Doctor Who cannot be considered a children’s show, it follows that it must be
open to more adult themes, and it is this concern with Doctor Who being a monster show that has
been of main concern in the debate. Coleman argues that it might just be the long-standing debate
that has perhaps made the discussion endemic in Doctor Who’s legacy today.
”the series’ fear factor might not perhaps be classified as pervasive, yet it manifests
nevertheless in a unique atmosphere, a sense of dread which can be heightened by terror
and shocking violence (...) It is the ongoing possibility of violence, rather than its
frequency, which may be thought to enhance this reputation” (Leitch, 143).
This concern with Doctor Who being violent stems from the early history of Doctor Who,
where showrunners such as Philip Hinchcliffe (showrunner from 1974-77) enhanced the strength of
the argument that Doctor Who was violent and should not be viewed by children. The conservative
Mary Whitehouse levelled most criticism at the show, calling it ”teatime brutality for tots”. Even
though it is clear that Coleman has been affected by ‘effects theory’ studies, she does have some
interesting points in regards to historical Doctor Who. She acknowledges in her essay A Needle
Through The Heart, that ever since the beginning the use of horrific imagery in Doctor Who has
tested boundaries which has left an ambivalence that persists today, and what started 60 years ago
has become a permanent part of the show today. She says that the, “explicit inclusion of horror
imagery and sadistic violence in visual texts whose audience may include children has always been
a part of television and film production” (Leitch, 142).
Coleman goes on to argue that the impact of a series like Doctor Who as a piece of ”narrative,
represents for its audience the specific intensifying of emotions already present within each of us”
(Leitch, 146). So what Whitehouse might have found offensive content might just have been her
specific reading and her conservatist belief in violent content being able to affect the behavior of
Læssø, 16
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
children. The point is, the way we decipher visual representations builds on individual readings.
Ironically, one of the Doctor’s most popular companions, actress Elisabeth Sladen has been on record saying
about Whitehouse, that “the kind of person who would have been upset by Doctor Who would have been
upset by anything” (Pyramids of Mars).
To describe the amount of general violence in the show is a problematic task from the very
beginning, because it is impossible to give definitive tendencies in a narrative that can readily be
categorised as vast, spanning 50 years of villains, characters, scenarios, showrunners and 800
episodes after the Christmas Special has aired Christmas 2013. Piers D. Britton remarks in his book
TARDISbound, which seeks to analyse Doctor Who across different media platforms that it is
impossible to describe more than rudimentary tendencies throughout the narrative: it is a show that
keeps on reinventing itself. With every new showrunner, every new face of an equally brand new
Doctor, the shows’ themes are affected and changed in accordance with the concerns of society. In
Kieran Tranter’s essay In and Out of Time, it is argued that ”the basic premise for Doctor Who is
remarkably open-ended. (...) has allowed it to first move in the 1960s from a family-history-quasieducational-show to a more strongly themed science fiction, and then to regularly reinvent itself
every few years (...)” (Leitch, 84). Even though violent content might have been deemed
problematic at the time in the early days of television in Britain, Doctor Who has been successful in
creating a program that is followed by a diverse audience, and that the question of violence has been
something that has followed the show around ever since it began. The combination of horrific
imagery, violent content, monsters and an open-ended premise are just among some of the things
that in combination have created a successful show. This is maintained by purely looking at the
show’s longevity.
Study of the Doctor
It is interesting to note though, that even though Doctor Who historically avoids being
labelled as violent, there are still some of those rudimentary traits that can be deemed problematic,
one of them is the possibility of the Doctor being evil. The character has always been steeped in
mystery and even though Tom Baker has once remarked that The Doctor was essentially a very
two-dimensional character to play and colour, it is precisely this idiomatic trait that creates an
enigma wrapped in an enigma, making him potentially dangerous and untrustworthy. Coleman
argues, ”the Doctor himself, while always the series’ hero, has (...) oscillated between being a figure
of danger and comfort,” (Leitch, 143) and Britton says, ” ”(...) he is a Peter Pan character who
Læssø, 17
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
maintains his power, his claim to be unique and special, and his ’wholeness’ by remaining an
ageless, asocial enigma, constantly elusive” (Britton, 86).
When looking at Whovian history the Doctor has been violent. There, I said it. Coleman and
Britton agree with this as the latter acknowledges that even though the Doctor is nonviolent, ”(...)
this assertion, which seems to be linked with the much-vaunted fact that the Doctor does not
(usually) handle a gun, belies a massive weight of contrary evidence.” (Britton, 87). Britton goes on
to say that;
”the Doctor has repeatedly instigated, or at least winked at, massive violence against
adversaries (...) it belies the fact that there are other classically ’masculine’ forms of
violence which has frequently practised. (...) they still endorse the idea that violence has its
uses, or at least that in certain circumstances it is unavoidable” (Britton, 87).
The best example for this is the genocide of the Doctor’s own people, the Time Lords.
Lynette Porter goes on to suggest in her book that he necessarily also has an impact on his
companions because, ”exposure to the Doctor’s adventures does seem to trigger his companions’
more violent responses to encounters with aliens” (Porter, 223). What is remarkable here is that
mostly this occurs when he himself fails to act. In Journey to the Centre of the Tardis, his failure to
think of a solution gets two people killed, i.e turned into zombies (JTTCOTT, 35:30). The Doctor’s
wife River Song also remarks in Name of the Doctor that he is rubbish indoors, when he fails to do
something about the Whisper Men and save his friends (NOTD, 26:53).
In the history of Classic Who, violence and horrific imagery has permeated the show, but
Coleman asks, if the presence of it should even be contested, locating the concerned parties as
television critics such as Mary Whitehouse, British journalists and the National Viewers and
Listeners Association, NVLA, which coincidentally was founded by Whitehouse (Coleman, 144).
The conceit of Whitehouse, believing that watching the violent content would lead children to
condone actual violence is outdated at best. Coleman goes on to explain the role of storytelling as a
way to teach children ”about the inner problems of human beings (...) [that] tragedy and evil are a
part of life, and they must deal with these problems, upholding social values.” (Coleman). It could
be argued then that the presence of horrific imagery and violence is a narrative device that reflects
on real life, but also that the upholding of social values is the non-violent way with which the
Doctor deals with the conflicts and foes he faces.
Læssø, 18
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
Turning an eye to the revived series, the role that the Doctor plays in violence is also a
mainstay question of the new series. In the first episode, Rose, Rose Tyler comes across a man that
has researched a figure in history that never changes his face, which is later found out to be the
Doctor. Clive is the first to actually describe the Doctor; ”when disaster comes, he’s there. He
brings a storm in his wake and he has one constant companion. (...) Death.” (Rose, 21:25) When
Rose asks the Doctor if it is always this dangerous travelling with him, he says yes. Andrew Crome
argues that the Doctor enables a shift in diachronic time, focusing on ’the End’ instead of the
normal ’an end’; e.g to a day, to reading the newspaper, to finishing work. The Doctor is ”(...)
apocalyptic in the sense that he is quite literally the ’unveiler’; pulling back the curtain of the
established world to reveal the true nature of the societies that he visits.” (Leitch, 187). Crome goes
on to suggest that if the Doctor didn’t exist, Britain would have looked much different. In Turn Left,
if Donna had not been there to stop the Doctor from essentially committing suicide, the world
would have collapsed into a dark dystopia where Britain is reduced to war-like conditions with
labor camps. (Leitch, 187).
Britton hints at several times that the notion of violent acts is more problematic under Russel
T. Davies’ tenure as showrunner, because the characterization of the as a figure of authority went
largely unquestioned. The ”(...) largely unreflective celebration of his acts of intervention, and of
the virtuosity with which he accomplishes them, was again central to the programme formula
during David Tennant’s incumbency” (Britton, 85). A bit later in his book, he goes on, saying that,
”(...) the Doctor’s spectacular potential was reorganized to serve rather than undercut the paradigm
of the narcissistic hero” (Britton, 109). So as far as the new series’ first 4 seasons are concerned,
there is a more problematic notion of violence inherent to the Doctor’s usual nonviolent strategy. In
RTJ’s tenure, it was specifically the notion of the Doctor being dangerous and narcissistic that was
the main concern. This was achieved by focusing on his alienness and him being a figure of
authority.
I will not go into depth with this because it is much more interesting to look at the changes
that Steven Moffat implemented after he took over as showrunner, because for him it has also
become a question of realizing the true nature behind all that spectacular potential, which is what I
will turn to next.
Læssø, 19
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
Analysis of Nonviolence in Doctor Who:
Mercy
The Doctor is generally considered to be merciful to his opponents, always electing to
negotiate terms of peace instead of responding with violence. There are numerous examples of him
showing mercy to alien species, even those that are very dangerous. In Cold War, he insists on
forgiving the Martian Ice Warrior, Skaldak, for killing five people on a soviet submarine which has
crashed underwater, even though he has previous history with him and knows him to be very
dangerous.
Doctor: ”Where is the honor of condemning millions to death? 5000 years ago Mars was the
center of a vast empire. The jewel of this solar system. People of Earth have only just
begun coming out of their caves. (...) They’re still frightened children. Still primitive.
(...) Teach them, Grand Marshall, Show them a different way. Show them there is
honor in mercy” (CW, 33:25).
Skaldek leaves with his own species, showing mercy to the humans of the submarine even
though they threatened him. The Doctor’s main objective here is to convert Skaldek’s thinking,
showing him not the horror of his actions, but that he can be a better person/alien. One might call
the Doctor’s nonviolence a strategic one here, because he implicitly knows that they would not
stand a chance against Skaldek, therefore electing to negotiate peaceful terms. This is also the case
in A Town called Mercy, but the interesting thing here is that the Doctor seems to emanate a very
Gandhian ideologic stand in his nonviolent strategy. Here he comes face to face with his own past
when he meets an alien called Kahler Jex that mirrors him in action but not in ideology. Kahler Jex
and the Doctor mirror each other in that they have both committed terrible war crimes, and are now
seeking forgiveness; the Doctor by saving worlds and Kahler Jex by saving people in the town of
Mercy. But this is where the similarities stop. Khaler Jex says at one point that, ” we all carry our
prisons with us. Mine is my past. Yours is your morality” (ATCM, 33:15), meaning that he does not
agree with the Doctor’s nonviolent strategy. Jex also says that ”war is another world. You cannot
apply the politics of peace to what I did. To what anyone of us did” (ATCM, 20:22) again arguing
that he essentially feels that the means justify the end.
Jex is hunted by a cyborg war machine called the Gunslinger, which he created to win the
war, but when The Gunslinger starts to malfunction, he seeks revenge on those that made him into a
Læssø, 20
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
monster. The Doctor feels empathy towards the creature and because he feels guilty about
committing genocide towards his own species, it makes him question why he should show mercy
towards Jex, believing that he should answer for his crimes. This marks a change in his usual
nonviolent strategy, which is commented on by Amy several times. ”When did we start letting
people get executed?” (ATCM, 21:05) and ”this is not how we roll and you know it. What happened
to you Doctor? When did killing someone become an option?” (ATCM, 22:40). The Doctor openly
questions his motives to his companion, Amy, when he acknowledges that his mercy gets people
killed.
Doctor:
”But they keep coming back, don’t you see? Every time I negotiate I try to
understand. Well, not today, no today I honor the victims first. His [The
Gunslinger], the Master’s, the Daleks, all the people who die because of my
mercy!”
Amy:
”…See, this is what happens when you travel alone for too long. Well, listen to
me Doctor, we can’t be like him [Jex]. We have to be better than him” (ATCM,
23:20).
The Doctor concedes grudgingly to Amy’s logic and especially so after the town’s Marshall,
Isaac sacrifices himself to save Jex. His dying words to the Doctor are: ”You’re both good men.
You just forget it sometimes” (ATCM, 29:14). The Doctor resolves to protect Jex and by protecting
him he stops the people in town committing murder, making them come to the same realisation that
he did himself.
Doctor:
”Don’t you see? Violence doesn’t end violence, it extends it.”
Dockery:
”He really worth the risk?”
Doctor:
”Don’t know, but you are.” (ATCM, 29:14)
Afterwards he sardonically says to Amy, ”frightened people. Give me a Dalek any day,”
(ATCM, 30:05). The Doctor succeeds in his nonviolent strategy by showing the townspeople their
faulty morality, and finally, when Jex sees the humanity and self-sacrifice of the Doctor’s actions,
he leaves behind his fears of dying and sacrifices himself for the sake of the town. What is doubly
interesting is that this sacrifice also effects the Gunslinger’s actions, recognizing Jex as a man of
more honour than perhaps himself.
Læssø, 21
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
The Gunslinger:
”I’m gonna walk into the desert and self-destruct. I’m a creature of war. I
have no role to play in peace.”
Doctor:
”Except maybe to protect it.” (ATCM, 41:05)
The Gunslinger resolves to become the town Marshall, and in a fitting voice over at the end
of the episode, the town has not seen violence ever since. This episode helps show how the Doctor’s
humanity can be tested, but that his nonviolent strategy wins out over his emotionality. It is through
his self-sacrificing nature that he lays bare the moral conduct of his opponents and converts them
into better people, quite literally in this instance with humans, aliens and the war machine. But what
is most important about this strategy is that the episode actually shows that it creates a long-term
effect of peace – the city lives up to its given name.
Perhaps the best example of the Doctor negotiating peace terms is in the 50th anniversary,
The Day of the Doctor, where he traps an alien species in the same room as human representatives
and a nuclear bomb that can destroy London. The aliens, Zygons, have the ability to mask their
form as humans. When the Doctor disables their ability to change back and short-circuits their
memories so no one can remember if their human anymore, both Zygons and humans are forced to
negotiate peace terms.
War Doctor:
”You’re about to murder millions of people.”
Kate Stewart:
”To save billions. How many times have you made that calculation?”
Eleventh Doctor:
”Once, turned me into the man I am now. Not even sure who that is
anymore.”
Tenth Doctor:
”You tell yourself it’s justified, but it’s a lie ’cause what I did that day
was wrong. Just wrong.”
Eleventh Doctor:
”And because I got it wrong, I’m going to make you get it right.
(DOTD, 53:05)
The Doctors (plural because there are in fact three of them) question Kate Stewart’s motives
because it is exactly the same choice the War Doctor was faced with on the last day of the Time
War. Their conviction comes from them already having done it, and that is the main reason for them
to negotiate peace. It might be said that the event has become a big part of shaping the ideology of
the Doctor; because it changed him it will change others, which is why he acknowledges the quite
extreme stance of ‘nonviolent means results in nonviolent ends’. It has become his way of life.
Læssø, 22
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
Sacrifice
It is also the question of sacrifice and death which accounts for a lot of the debate on violence
in Doctor Who. As I have already mentioned earlier, death is a natural part of life and an anxiety
that most people can relate to. In regards to children it helps teach them how to deal with it and in a
general sense also adds to the show’s realism. But it is especially the series’ use of sacrifice which
can seem quite extreme sometimes. In Gandhian principles it is the acceptance of sufferance that
enables you to change and touch the conscience of your opponent. The Doctor achieves a change of
heart in others as outlined above in ATCM where Kahler Jex ends his life for the Gunslinger’s sake.
Before he dies, he says: ”(...) you’ve killed enough, I’m ending the war for you too” (ATCM,
39:43). The acceptance of suffering is frequently, quite naively at times, accepted by the Doctor as
he sacrifices his life. There is a bit of a conceit here because the Doctor cannot die. Being a Time
Lord he can cheat death by regenerating every atom of his body, but it comes at a price of him
changing persona/actor/(actress). Emphasis on this is shown in the first season finale, TPOTW,
where he gives his life to save Rose from dying, because she has swallowed the power of the Time
Vortex in order to save him.
The most powerful act of sacrifice is shown in the seventh season with companion Clara’s
timeline. She is ‘The Impossible Girl’ because she keeps turning up in the Doctor’s time stream,
and whenever she does she sacrifices her life in order to save him. In Asylum of the Daleks she
helps him escape the asylum, but is left behind because she has been converted to a Dalek, and in
The Snowmen she falls from a great distance, after helping the Doctor realize he has to come back
to humanity. Her fate and the explanation to her name is given in NOTD;
”I don’t know where I am. I just know that I’m running. Sometimes it’s like I’ve lived a
thousand lives in a thousand places. I’m born, I live, I die. Always, there’s the Doctor.
Always I’m running to save the Doctor. Again and again and again. And he hardly ever
hears me, but I’ve always been there. Right from the very beginning. Right from the day he
started running” (NOTD, 35:15).
It is interesting that Clara functions as a reminder that the Doctor should keep on saving
worlds, because she represents the definitive companion that was born to save him. Her words to
him are always the same; “run you clever boy, and remember (me).”
Læssø, 23
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
Ethics of the Doctor
Often, the Doctor is concerned with a nonviolent strategy which leans towards being an
ideology of life, but as it is hinted at through several instances this can be partly attributed to his
actions during the Time War. But it is interesting that this has the effect of the Doctor going on an
adventure towards redemption, trying to make right from the time he could not. It describes a
psychological need towards saving people and puts the Doctor close to Gandhi’s position in using
nonviolent methods for peaceful changes that are long-term. His nonviolent strategy is also
exemplified in his use of Gandhian ’truth force’ or what Gene Sharp would call ’moral jiu-jitsu’
where the opponent is met with an attitude that is; ”fearless, calm, steady, and because of a different
belief, training or experience, he has much self-control.” (Sharp, 25-26). It even extends to his
companions. In The Parting of the Ways Rose is frustrated by everday life and tries to explain to her
mother what travelling with the Doctor is like:
”The Doctor showed me a better way of living your life. (...) That you don’t just give up.
You don’t just let things happen. You make a stand. You say no. You’ve the guts to do
what’s right when everyone else just runs away and I can’t.” (TPOTW, 21:35)
Moffat has also been concerned with clearing up and re-writing ambiguity around the
Doctor’s name, and because much of Moffat’s writing is bound up by semantics, the name of the
Doctor takes on special meaning and opens up to the ethics of the Doctor. In NOTD, he explains to
Clara what the meaning of his name is, what everyone else seem to misunderstand: ”(...) My name,
my real name. That is not the point, ’cause the name I chose is the Doctor. The name you choose
it’s like, it’s like a promise you make,” (NOTD, 42:50) and when Clara asks what the promise is in
DOTD all the incarnations of the Doctor answer, ”never cruel nor cowardly. Never give up. Never
give in.” (DOTD, 1:02:05). It is his appeal towards a better world and his promise to make it better,
even when faced with resistance. This notion of the Doctor’s name being a promise perpetuates his
role as a symbol of hope. It is also striking that he usually speaks of humanity as being full of hope
as well, most humorously done in RTJ’s The Christmas Invasion:
“These human beings, consider their potential. From the day they arrived on the planet and
blinking step into the sun. There’s more to see than can ever be seen. More to do, no hold
on. Sorry that’s the Lion King, but the point still stands” (TCI, 43:25).
Læssø, 24
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
Analysis of the Violence in Doctor Who:
Violence as Narrative Device
As explained before violence injects realism, enacts social relations and externalises people’s
motives. It effectively puts the Doctor in the role of the hero, but has a weak tendency of
complicating that status. This is usually achieved by using violence as a victimizer/villifier. In
Dinosaurs on a Spaceship it is quite apparent that the only reason the Doctor has kills the bounty
hunter Solomon, deliberately placing a device that will attract on-coming missiles towards his ship,
is because in part of some brilliantly sleazy acting from David Bradley (who incidentally also plays
the first Doctor, William Hartnell, in Gatiss’ An Adventure in Time and Space), but also because
Solomon has killed the Silurians on board and kills a tame Triceraptor right in front of the Doctor to
make him hand over Egyptian Queen Nefertiti.
As hinted above, most of the Doctor’s violence seems to be tied to his emotionality. Several
times his companions tell him to travel with someone to keep from falling into the darker hues that
The Great Intelligence speaks of in NOTD. It is interesting that even though Steven Moffat is
preoccupied with re-writing the Doctor as a thoroughly good man, he still infers the possibility that
without the influence of companions, the Doctor might turn ‘dark side’. Because of the ambiguous
nature of The Great Intelligence doubt must be cast on his words, but since he is described as
information, there is a hint that there might be truth to his words. When the Doctor’s friends refuse
that the Doctor is bloodsoaked, he answers; “tell that to the leader of the Sycorax or Solomon the
Trader, or the Cybermen or the Daleks. The Doctor lives his life in darker hues, day upon day, and
he will have other names before the end; Storm, the Beast, Valeyard” (NOTD, 22:33). Especially
the Valeyard is a promise of bad things to come. In Whovian terms it is the regeneration that is an
amalgamation of the darker side of the Doctor’s nature.
The Problem of Genocide
One of the biggest problems with establishing the Doctor as nonviolent is the fact that he is a
war-criminal who has committed genocide against his own people. It seemed program formula to
infer the Time War only in terms of the Ninth Doctor suffering from PTSD, instead of focusing on
this act of violence. It has the effect of creating empathy towards the Doctor but is quite a stain on
his character. The Time War is seldom mentioned, and when mentioned it is constructed as plot
device as a lesson and to make him feel guilty. This is done by letting him meet the victims of the
Læssø, 25
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
Time War, mostly consistent in the first seasons, such as the Gelth, (The Unquiet Dead) The
Daleks, (Dalek) and even The Time Lords, (The End of Time) but also later with the Cybermen,
(Nightmare in Silver) and the Zygons (The Day of the Doctor). Especially in regards to the Time
Lords there is a sense that he is seeking forgiveness. In The Doctor’s Wife he finds distress signals
from other Time Lords and races to the rescue.
Amy:
”You told me about your people and you told me what you did.”
Doctor:
”Yes, yes, but if they’re like the Corsair they are good ones and I can save
them.”
Amy:
”And then tell them you destroyed all the others.”
Doctor:
”I can explain. Tell them why I had to.”
Amy:
”You want to be forgiven.”
Doctor:
”... Don’t we all?”
This is the first time that he is explicitly questioned about the role he had to play and it frames
him in a more ambiguous light. As far as his companions are concerned, they accept his actions,
mainly because they do not understand him. This is also the first time that Moffat shows renewed
interest in the Time War and how it frames the Doctor. In the previously mentioned Nightmare in
Silver a character tells the Doctor’s companion Clara about a war that eradicated an entire galaxy
with a billion trillion people dying.
Porridge:
”No more Tiberian Galaxy. No more Cybermen. It was effective.”
Clara:
”It’s horrible.”
Porridge:
”Yeah, I feel like a monster sometimes.”
Clara:
”Why?”
Porridge:
”’Cause instead of mourning a billion, trillion dead people, I just feel sorry
for the poor blight who had to press the button and blow it all up.” (NIS,
8:35)
The Doctor is more thoroughly being framed in the role of the victim and by aiming empathy
at him it has the effect of nullifying his act as a violent one. It is also interesting that The Time War
itself is a theme of the 50th Anniversary episode of Doctor Who, The Day of the Doctor, which,
beware spoilers ahead, ends with the Doctor nullifying his genocide. He saves his home planet
Læssø, 26
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
Gallifrey to a pocket universe and thus also its people, leaving the most violent act the Doctor has
ever committed, completely obsolete.
Læssø, 27
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
Conclusion:
Violence can be shown to be very diverse vehicles of meaning when they don’t subscribe to
formula violence. The notion seems quite foreign and dwarfish in size to the media effects debate. I
also cannot help but feel personally that I may not be violent, but I know less than I would if my
media exposure had been different. Even so, Doctor Who does not subscribe to violent content
without reason, but most importantly it does not do so as a threat to the audience – even the young
ones. I can conclude two things in regards to the dubious content in Doctor Who; firstly that it
would be interesting to take a closer look at RTJ’s tenure as showrunner, and secondly that if truly
dubious content has been found, it functions more as a narrative tension to the mystery of the
Doctor character, but that it does little to circumscribe the show’s general nonviolent ideology of
life. As for the narrative structure in Doctor Who so far, I think that Steven Moffat has answered the
question of what Doctor Who means in our time; his name is literally meant to be the Doctor, the
Doctor that heals the world and he represents a hope for humanity. Because he believes in us, we
should believe in him. Now I wouldn’t be surprised now if you go away from reading this to watch
Doctor Who again, for the first or the 50th time.
Læssø, 28
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
Appendix:
Table 1
Part of table on Types of Nonviolence
Moral Resistance
Moral resisters actively resist evil with peaceful and moral means such as
education and persuasion. This has been the basis of much of Western
pacifism.
Passive Resistance
Nonviolent tactics are employed because the means for an effective violent
campaign are lacking or are not likely to succeed; e.g. most strikes, boycotts
and national non-cooperation movements belong to this category.
Nonviolent Direct
Practitioners may view nonviolence as a moral principle or practical
Action
method. The object is victory rather than conversion. An example is
provided by the Greenham Common actions.
Gandhian
Satyagraha aims to attain the truth tnrough love and right action; it demands
Nonviolence
the elimination of violence from the self and from the social, political and
(Satyagraha)
economic environment. Gandhi's Salt Satyagraha is a classic example.
Source: Weber and Burrowes. Nonviolence: An Introduction (qt. in Sharp, 1971, pp. 29-54).
Google Search, 21st Dec, 2013. Web.
Læssø, 29
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
Figure 2
Matrix of nonviolence, showing the strength of ideological standings.
Source: Weber and Burrowes. Nonviolence: An Introduction. Google Search, 21st Dec, 2013.
Web.
Læssø, 30
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
Table 3
Table showing the tactical-strategic and pragmatic-ideological dimensions of nonviolence
The Tactical-Strategic Dimension
Criterion
Tactical Nonviolence
Strategic Nonviolence
Analysis of Social Framework
Conservative
Structural
Aim
Reform
Revolution
Operational Timeframe
Short/Medium Term
Long Term
The Pragmatic-Ideological Dimension
Criterion
Pragmatic Nonviolence
Ideological Nonviolence
Nature of Commitment
Most Effective
Ethically Best
Means and Ends
Separate
Indivisible
Approach to Conflice
Incompatible Interests
Shared Interests
Approach to Opponent
Competitive
Cooperative
Source: Weber and Burrowes. Nonviolence: An Introduction (qt. in Sharp, 1971, pp. 29-54).
Google Search, 21st Dec, 2013. Web.
Læssø, 31
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
Works Cited:
Main Sources:
Britton, Piers D. TARDISbound: Navigating the Universes of Doctor Who. New York and London:
I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, 2011. Book.
Leitch, Gillian I.. Doctor Who in Time and Space: Essays on Themes, Characters, History and
Fandom, 1963 – 2012. North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2013.
Book.
Porter, Lynnette. Tarnished Heroes, Charming Villains, and Modern Monsters: Science Fiction in
Shades of Gray on 21st Century Television. North Carolina: McFarland & Company,
Inc., Publishers, 2010. Book.
Weaver, C. Kay and Cynthia Carter. Critical Readings: Violence and the Media. Berkshire: Open
University Press, 2006. Book.
Supplementary Sources:
Abbott, Stacy. The Cult TV Book. London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, 2010. Book.
Allen, Robert C. And Annette Hill. The Television Studies Reader. New York and London:
Routledge, 2007. Book.
Cawelti, John G.. Mystery, Violence, and Popular Culture. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin
Press, 2004. Book.
Chapman, James. Inside The Tardis: The Worlds of Doctor Who – A Cultural History. London: I.B.
Tauris & Co Ltd, 2006. Book.
Deaville, James. Music in Television – Channels of Listening. New York and London: Routledge,
2011. Book.
Donnelly, K.J. and Philip Hayward. Music in Science Fiction Television – Tuned to the Future.
New York and London: Routledge, 2013. Book.
Læssø, 32
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
Fiske, John and John Hartley. Reading Television. New York and London: Routledge, 2003. Book.
Fiske, John. Television Culture. New York and London: Routledge, 1987. Book.
Gregg, Richard. The Power of Non-violence. Alcester: Read Books, 2007( reprint). Book.
Hills, Matt. New Dimensions of Doctor Who – Adventures in Space, Time and Television. New
York and London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, 2013. Book.
Hills, Matt. Triumph of a Time Lord – Regenerating Doctor Who in the Twenty-first Century. New
York and London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, 2010. Book.
Hochscherf, Tobias and James Leggott. British Science Fiction Film and Television: Critical
Essays. North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2011. Book.
James, Edward and Farah Mendlesohn. The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2003. Book.
Johnson, Catherine. Telefantasy. London: British Film Institue, 2005. Book.
Lavery, David. The Essential Cult TV Reader. Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 2010.
Book.
Leach, Jim. Doctor Who. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2009. Book.
Robb, Brian J. Timeless Adventures – How Doctor Who Conquered TV. Herts: Kamera Books,
2013. Book.
Schostak, John F. and Jill Schostak. Researching Violence, Democracy and the Rights of the
People. New York: Routledge, 2010. Book.
Sharp, Gene. Fra diktatur til demokrati – en håndbog i folkelig frigørelse. København:
Informations Forlag, 2011. Book.
Læssø, 33
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
Short, Sue. Cult Telefantasy Series: A Critical Analysis of The Prisoner, Twin Peaks, The X-Files,
Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Lost, Heroes, Doctor Who and Star Trek. North Carolina:
McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2011. Book.
Telotte, J. P. And Gerold Duchovnay. Science Fiction Film, Television, and Adaptation: Across the
Screens. New York and London: Routledge, 2012. Book.
Tulloch, John and Henry Jenkins. Science fiction audiences : Watching Doctor Who and Star Trek.
New York and London: Routledge, 1995. Book.
Turnock, Rob. Television and Consumer Culture: Britain and the Transformation of Modernity.
London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, 2007. Book.
Internet sources:
Cumberbatch, Dr. Guy. The Effects of Sexual, Sexualised and Sadistic Violence in the Media: A
Review of Research Literature. Report for the BBFC. 1995. Web. 20th Nov, 2013. PDF.
”How Dangerous You Make People: A Boldly Violent New Side to the Doctor.” Tor.com : Science
Fiction. Fantasy. The Universe. And Related Subjects. Tor.com. Published 2nd May,
2011. Web. 30th Oct, 2013. http://www.tor.com/blogs/2011/05/how-dangerous-youmake-people-a-boldly-violent-new-side-to-the-doctor
”The Role of Pacifism and Gun Violence on ’Doctor Who.’” Artboiled: The Lines Between Pulp,
Geek and Arthouse are Imaginary. Artboiled.com. Arya Ponto. Published 18th Sep, 2012.
Web. 30th Oct, 2013. http://www.artboiled.com/2012/the-role-of-pacifism-and-gunviolence-on-doctor-who/
”Longest Running Science Fiction TV Series.” Guinness World Records. n.d. Web. 30th Oct, 2013.
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-4000/longest-running-science-fiction-tvseries/
(”What Steven Moffat Doesn’t Understand About Grief, And Why It’s Killing Doctor Who.” Tea
Leaves and Dog Ears. Blog written by Sarah Siegel. Published 27th Nov, 2013. Web. 8th
Læssø, 34
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
Dec, 2013. http://tealeavesdogears.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/steven-moffat-doesntunderstand-grief-and-its-killing-doctor-who/ )
Weber, Thomas and Robert J. Burrowes. Nonviolence: An Introduction. Victorian Association for
Peace Studies/ now VAPS Newsletter, between 1981-1983. Google Search, 21st Dec,
2013. Web. http://www.nonviolenceinternational.net/seasia/whatis/book.php
Video material:
An Adventure in Space and Time. Dir. Terry McDonough. Wri. Mark Gatiss. Perf. David Bradley,
Brian Cox, Jessica Raine. BBC America, BBC Cymru Wales, BBC, 2013. Film.
A Town Called Mercy. Doctor Who. BBC Cymru Wales and London. 15 Sep 2012. Television.
Asylum of the Daleks. Doctor Who. BBC Cymru Wales and London. 1 Sep 2012. Television.
Cold War. Doctor Who. BBC Cymru Wales and London. 13 Apr 2013. Television.
Dalek. Doctor Who. BBC Cymru Wales and London. 30 April 2005. Television.
Dinosaurs on a Spaceship. Doctor Who. BBC Cymru Wales and London. 8 Sep 2012. Television.
Forest of Fear. Classic Who. BBC, London. 7 Dec. 1963. Television.
Journey to the Centre of the Tardis. Doctor Who. BBC Cymru Wales and London. 27 April 2013.
Television.
The Beast Below. Doctor Who. BBC Cymru Wales and London. 10 Apr 2010. Television.
The Christmas Invasion. Doctor Who. BBC Cymru Wales and London. 25 Dec 2005. Television.
The Day of the Doctor 50th Anniversary Special. Doctor Who. BBC Cymru Wales and London. 23
Nov. Television.
The Doctor’s Wife. Doctor Who. BBC Cymru Wales and London. 14 May 2011. Television.
Læssø, 35
Mathilde Læssø Christensen
Bachelor-project 2013, English
7th January 2014
The End of The World. Doctor Who. BBC Cymru Wales and London. 2 Apr 2005. Television.
The End of Time. Doctor Who. BBC Cymru Wales and London. 25 Dec 2009 and 1 Jan 2010.
Television.
The Parting of the Ways. Doctor Who. BBC Cymru Wales and London. 18 Jun 2005. Television.
The Power of Three. Doctor Who. BBC Cymru Wales and London. 22 Sep. 2012. Television.
The Snowmen. Doctor Who. BBC Cymru Wales and London. 25 Dec 2012. Television.
The Unquiet Dead. Doctor Who. BBC Cymru Wales and London. 9 Apr 2005. Television.
Turn Left. Doctor Who. BBC Cymru Wales and London. 8 Jun 2008. Television.
Name of the Doctor. Doctor Who. BBC Cymru Wales and London. 18 May 2013. Television.
New Earth. Doctor Who. BBC Cymru Wales and London. 15 Apr 2006. Television.
Nightmare in Silver. Doctor Who. BBC Cymru Wales and London. 11 May 2013. Television.
Pyramids of Mars. Classic Doctor Who. Extramaterial on the DVD. BBC, London. Released 1 Mar
2004. DVD.
Rose. Doctor Who. BBC Cymru Wales and London. 26 Mar 2005. Television.
Læssø, 36