WASHINGTON—The hearings on television and violence have produced a good deal of posturing and defensiveness—and two sad thoughts:

First, televised violence, though hardly the main cause of the violence that is sweeping America, clearly contributes to it. Second, no one seems to know what to do about it.

I certainly don’t, and judging from the action so far on Capitol Hill, neither do our lawmakers.

The most significant thing to come out of the June 30 session of the subcommittee on telecommunications and finance was the concession from the four major TV networks and the Motion Picture Association of America that televised violence can be harmful to young viewers. That’s as surprising as if the tobacco industry suddenly acknowledged that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer.

Unfortunately, the industry-proposed remedy was about as mild: A warning label that says: “Due to some violent content, parental discretion advised.”

Subcommittee members, naturally, thought the response didn’t go far enough, and some of them, led by subcommittee chairman Rep. Edward Markey (D.Mass.), called for the development of a device that would allow parents to block out objectional programs up to a week before air time.

The industry, just as naturally, objected.

And I just sat there wondering what sort of households—what sort of world—these learned leaders lived in.

To begin with, do they really see television as a major contributor that makes my wife and me so nervous when our children are out late? Do they believe that with less televised violence there would be significantly fewer gang killings, less resort to gunplay to settle petty arguments, no teen-agers spraying a local swimming pool with bullets and no youngsters on railroad overpasses dropping stones onto passing cars?

“You guys sitting at this table are as responsible for this problem (of violence) as anyone in the United States—far more responsible than most,” Rep. John Bryant (D-Texas) told the TV executives.

Now, really. I deplore the excessive, gratuitous and glamorized violence on television just as I deplore the violent and female-degrading lyrics (also available on television) of certain rap artists. I see the potential for harm, and little redeeming social value, in all these things. In short, I am not saying that television is innocent, only that its major crime may be the exacerbation of a situation created by other forces.

On the other hand, I find no credibility in TV’s fear (as expressed by NBC’s Lawrence Littlefield) that efforts to curtail TV violence might make it impossible to air slapstick comedies, “Roadrunner” cartoons or the PBS Civil War series.

But if I was mildly surprised at the rhetoric of the critics and defenders of commercial television, I was astounded by those who think a parent-programmable device would significantly reduce our children’s exposure to violence.

In most of the households I know, parents can’t even videotape the show they’re currently watching without help from the kids. Think all the “12:00 12:00 12:00” time signals you’ve seen flashing on the VCRs of friends who don’t even how to set the clock, and imagine them blocking out next Tuesday evening’s showing of “Death Wish.”

Half the parents I know have trouble finding out what’s on tonight, and on which commercial or cable channel, let alone finding out—in advance—its violence content.

Most parents in my experience—leaving aside those with very young children—don’t know what their children are watching any more than they know what they’re buying at the local record store or listening to on their transistor radios.

We’re raising up a generation of youngsters who are numb to violence and hatred, who know death at close hand and who seriously doubt, as children never should, that they will survive to reach adulthood and middle age. Joblessness, helplessness, miseducation, family deterioration, erosion of fundamental values—all these things contribute to our children’s loss of innocence.

So does television. I wish I knew—I wish somebody knew—what to do about it.