PROMPT: Is violence and aggression an inherent part of the human condition? Can violence and aggression be controlled? Is peace really possible? What do you think are the major underlying causes of violence and aggression? Can these causes be eliminated? Do you think 20th century modes of telecommunications (i.e. TV, radio, Internet, etc.) work to foster violence or peace? Explain your position in detail and give several examples.
Discussion Response:
Is violence and aggression an inherent part of the human condition?
This is a tough question -one that requires an individual to ultimately answer with a “yes” or “no.” Simply spouting off an answer without considering the depth of the question being asked is impulsive.
Man is born with the natural instinct to want to have his needs met. If man did not, he would not cry as a newborn infant nor set his alarm to wake up to go to work in the morning to earn money so he can at minimum provide for his basic needs (food, shelter, clothing, etc.). This desire to meet basic needs can turn into selfishness, the root of all aggression and violence, without proper nourishment during certain stages in life.
“Deprivation of key developmental experiences (which leads to underdevelopment of cortical, sub-cortical and limbic areas) will necessarily result in persistence of primitive, immature behavioral reactivity, and, thereby, predispose an individual to violent behavior… Developmental neglect and traumatic stress during childhood create violent, remorseless children.”*
There are many different theories that attempt to explain deviance (any violation of a social norm) – under which acts of aggression and violence fall. The differential association theory, developed by Edwin Sutherland, argues that individuals learn deviance from their surroundings (i.e. family, peer group, subculture). Another theory, the label theory, argues that “social groups deviate by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders. From this point of view, deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an ‘offender.’”**
Both of these theories, among other theories, focus on outside influences as contributing to someone committing an act of deviance, which in more severe cases includes aggression and violence. This question has been asked, prodded, and speculated on throughout history. I could easily give a middle ground answer as it is probable to argue that because man is wired with basic instincts to provide for himself that improper nourishment can lead into an instable self-seeking desire that results in aggression or violence. But on the other hand, the sociological viewpoint shows that a person’s surroundings contribute to aggression or violence. But I will choose to answer “yes.” I believe a person’s surroundings teach you to either restrain from aggressive or violent behavior or to accept it. The desire to be aggressive or violent (and there is a difference between the two) is inherent as we have all thought about saying something cruel, hitting something or someone, etc. in our lifetimes. It is just what we do with the temptation that determines whether or not we have acted aggressively or violently.
Therefore, it is probable to assume that violence and aggression can be controlled. It is ultimately the individual who predetermines whether or not he will act aggressively or violently. It is easier for someone who has been reared with good self-control, rationale, and morals to choose not to respond aggressively or violently than someone who has not. But because many do not choose to control their actions and respond in dehumanizing mannerisms, the idealized peace of a “McWorld” can never be achieved.
What contributes to the rampant violence in our world? Hunger and disease certainly have a large impact; however, certain religious beliefs or moral ethics (i.e. women are inferior, racial superiority) largely impact such behavior. Contributing to September 11 was a hatred of the west’s ideologies as Al Queda not only disapproved of America’s democratic system but of how Americans lived their lives. Member-states of the United Nations and NGOs are now in operation to not only eliminate hunger, disease, and injustice, but to prevent people from resorting to aggression or violence as a result.
Also, with the world becoming more interconnected with revolutions in technology, what is media’s influence in fostering violence or peace? We know the potential devastation violent video games can have on players. Columbine suspects, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were thought to have committed their acts of violence because their parents had cut them off from their violent video games. And to a lesser extent, violent video games can also desensitize players to violence.
According to the APA, children viewing and identifying with violent TV shows are more likely to act aggressively as teenagers.***Here are the startling results:
“Results show that men who were high TV-violence viewers as children were significantly more likely to have pushed, grabbed or shoved their spouses, to have responded to an insult by shoving a person, to have been convicted of a crime and to have committed a moving traffic violation. Such men, for example, had been convicted of crimes at over three times the rate of other men.
Women who were high TV-violence viewers as children were more likely to have thrown something at their spouses, to have responded to someone who made them mad by shoving, punching, beating or choking the person, to have committed some type of criminal act, and to have committed a moving traffic violation. Such women, for example, reported having punched, beaten or choked another adult at over four times the rate of other women.”***
*http://teacher.scholastic.com/professional/bruceperry/aggression_violence.htm
**http://www.indiana.edu/~cspc/violence.htm
***http://www.apa.org/releases/media_violence.html
