Are humans a naturally violent species?
Sat, 2008-04-12 05:45
#1
Are humans a naturally violent species?
Sat, 2008-04-12 05:45
#2
I believe humans are a naturally violent species.
Looking throughout our history for the last 12,000 years, there has always been conflict and violent acts.
Here are some interactive examples of man’s aggression against his fellow man.
[url=http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/march-of-democracy.html]March of Democracy[/url]
[url=http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/history-of-religion.html]History of Religion[/url]
[url=http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html]Imperial History of the Middle East[/url]
Sat, 2008-04-12 06:19
#3
I would counter your argument webgear. I'm feeling partiularly dialectic this morning.
You enquire if man is a naturally violent species, and argue that it is. I note that man is a gender, and not a species, so before someone else jumps on that I will assume you mean homo sapien sapien.
That being the case, I will argue that your time frame of 12,000 years is far too short, and I will consider one of 200,000 years minimum. In picking 12,000 years you bring us not just into the realm of recorded history, but of citification. I think that might be the problem.
I believe that man is a naturally social being with an inherent inhibition toward killing his own species. The capacity of violence is a natural evolutionary protective adaptation. It will come into play primarily when disparate groups of humans, self identifying as a clan/tribe encounter each other in a situation of very limited resources. I would argue that where violence occurs otherwise, it is an exception, and represents abberent individual behaviour, or a breakdown in the natural problem solving mechanisms of the social group.
Prior to the population spike following the agricultural revolution, I would submit that the scenario af wandering groups fighting over limited resources that I described above would have been exceptional, basically given that there was lots to go around and a fair bit of elbow room. I suggest that co-operation and commerce were the norm. This is born out by archeological/anthropological research and pretty much represents the main stream thinking as far as I know.
So what of your evidence, and what happened 12,000 years ago. Well, there was the agricultural revolution, probably starting earlier than that. That made land tenure more important. Along huge river valleys and flood plains, flooding was exploited for agricultural purposes. This require social organisation beyond the tribe/clan and brought in new hierarchical models. cities followed. Humans needed to interface in a whole new way. This caused social stressors, and our more natural and native social problem solving models collapsed leading to a more violent society.
You mentioned religion. I think that's a biggie. If you look at the religions of peoples who's collective memory still hold the feel of bare feet on a forest floor, and who listened to the wisdom of the trees and the wind, these religions promoted harmony and accomodation with nature. The religions of the huge cities legitimised control and possession.
Actually, I think that as a species, our social paradigms were just beginning to catch up with agricultural society when along came the industrial revolution, and BOOM, the whole thing went to hell in a handbasket again.
So anyway, there ya go. My 2 cents worth. Thanks for asking. Back to my housecleaning.
[ 12 April 2008: Message edited by: oldgoat ]
Sat, 2008-04-12 06:21
#4
remind
Violence begets violence and nothing more than that.
Yesterday, I was speaking with a friend who works in Stop the Violence programs for women. She was speaking to me about how she found that the worst and most cases of family violence occured in those families who have a military war participation history.
Sat, 2008-04-12 06:26
#5
quote:
Looking throughout our history for the last 12,000 years, there has always been conflict and violent acts.
A textbook example of the "Since we have always done it this way, it must be the only/natural/God-ordained to do it" Dilbert-ism. Like all such logical petitions, it seems true until it is disproved by someone doing otherwise: sailing across an ocean, flying an airplane, splitting the atom, treating women as human beings, etc.
Webgear, I believe one of the last threads you started was a thought experiment in justifying torture. Now this 'natural violence' thing. Do you have an agenda here? What IS your relationship with the Canadian Armed Forces? Are you at liberty to tell us?
[ 12 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Sat, 2008-04-12 06:28
#6
N.Beltov
Since we've come down from the trees, eons ago, humans are "naturally" whatever society makes us. And society changes. Moreover, I'm not sure that our tree-dwelling ancestors were all that violent. Just look at today's primates and you'll see what I mean.
Furthermore, have a look at the number of people whose duty it is to keep "order" in our own society. Canada is 30 million people or thereabouts. How many police do we have for 30 million people? The Mounties are only 25,000 [i]in the whole country.[/i] And so on.
Of course, there's lots of violence in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. But there are causes of that violence, hardly inherent to the people that live there. If Iraqis were naturally violent, for example, then the many thousands and thousands of refugees would be bringing a much increased level of violence to the places that they've fled to. But, of course, that's not true. Levels of violence where they've fled aren't particularly higher than before they arrived.
Hmm. I wonder, then, what the cause of the increased violence in Iraq is? In the last 600 years, since both groups have been in the area that is modern Iraq, Shia and Sunni Muslims have lived in relative peace alongside each other. Three guesses as to the cause of recent violence then, and the first two don't count. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 12 April 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
Sat, 2008-04-12 06:38
#7
Frustrated Mess
quote:
I believe humans are a naturally violent species.
I agree. History certainly testifies to it. But I don't think we are bound to our biology as are most other creatures. I think we have the ability to recognize biological behaviour and counter it.
The difficulty comes on a grand scale, such as nation states and empires, when behaviour, that could be seen as biological in nature, is intellectualized and around which bodies of rationale in the form of doctrines are established.
To me, the war in Iraq is an excellent example of base human instincts being raised to a higher level to afford a justification. And even that effort required a foundation of lies.
Sat, 2008-04-12 06:40
#8
quote:
Since we've come down from the trees, eons ago, humans are "naturally" whatever society makes us. And society changes.
Granted that we are impacted by our changing social context, but are you saying our species is sort of a tabula rasa with no natural social state?
Sat, 2008-04-12 06:47
#9
Isn't "natural social" kind of an oxymoron? So is rational "justification" of an often irrational behaviour.
Also, why not take into account the extreme diversity of human cultures? Some have little interpersonal violence, if any.
[ 12 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Sat, 2008-04-12 06:51
#10
quote:
Isn't "natural social" kind of an oxymoron?
I certainly don't think so.
quote:
Also, why not take into account the extreme diversity of human cultures? Some have little interpersonal violence, if any.
While I haven't specifically raised that, I don't discount it or see that as a counter point to anything I said. I wonder what they're doing right and why.
Sat, 2008-04-12 06:54
#11
Frustrated Mess
quote:
Also, why not take into account the extreme diversity of human cultures? Some have little interpersonal violence, if any.
And why don't we? What are examples of those cultures and what makes them different? For example, what is the size of a typical societal grouping? Do they live as we do? Are they as acquisitive? Do they require ever expanding land bases to support their way of life?
Sat, 2008-04-12 06:55
#12
N.Beltov
quote:
oldgoat: Granted that we are impacted by our changing social context, but are you saying our species is sort of a tabula rasa with no natural social state?
Well, no. I was just trying to point out that there's a problem with Webgear's generalization about our "nature". One could just as easily say that we're "naturally" cooperative and, in fact, would never have survived all these millenia without that "nature" predominating.
When it comes to individuals, people can be transformed into beasts. Just think of the training techniques of the Khmer Rouge with adolescent boys. But I think that rather proves my point.
People are also capable of extraordinary anti-violent behavior, refusing to participate in violence despite enormous pressure to do so. The soldier who refuses an order, in wartime, to carry out some unnecessary atrocity or another may be risking his/her life in his refusal. The paradoxical character of such a situation is that it takes great courage to do nothing.
It's our "nature" to be social, of that I'm convinced. But I'm generally wary of abstract generalizations about our nature because of the way I look at the world and because such generalizations are often the foundation for public policy or foreign policy that I reject.
Sat, 2008-04-12 06:58
#13
Cueball
Actually, 99.999999999999999 percent of all human activity is social co-operative. We tend to focus on the violent episodes, because they are unusual. That is why they get so much attention. If violent behaviour were the status quo there would be nothing interesting or noteworthy about it.
I will now don my battle gear and fight my way down to the mini-mart through the swirlling mass of persons all fighting amongst each other, so that I can then pummel the shop-keeper with the butt of my rifle, and then leap over the counter and take a pack of cigarettes.
Sat, 2008-04-12 07:01
#14
quote:
Frustrated Mess: Do they require ever expanding land bases to support their way of life?
I challenge your use of the word "require" here. It seems to make a choice into a necessity. Would you make this imperialist "requirement" part of these societies' "nature"?
Sat, 2008-04-12 07:05
#15
quote:
It's our "nature" to be social, of that I'm convinced. But I'm generally wary of abstract generalizations about our nature because of the way I look at the world and because such generalizations are often the foundation for public policy or foreign policy that I reject.
Yeah, I see your point. I think natural states exist, and we'd know more about them if we could see ourselves back on the Savanna, or scampering about in the ancient forests of Europe. Even then, I'm sure a lot of social realities were reactive and problem driven. I think though that natural states of human group affiliation exist although I don't pretend to know exactly what that is. Probably clues abound though.
Kind of interesting how the discussion is swinging between a very detached worldview incuding the previous interglacial period, and immediate current events.
Sat, 2008-04-12 07:07
#16
Frustrated Mess
Go ahead and challenge it. But I would argue our society, the one which provides Cueball with a minimart stocked with platic wrapped goodies chemically preserved for an eternity, does indeed [i]require[/i] an ever expanding land base. And guess what? You and I are both members of that society and we both benefit from the violence of empire that is rationalized for our consumption and if not approval, at least acquiescence or limited, non-violent, protest.
If you think about it, those who employ violence expect those among them who oppose them, to be pacifist.
Sat, 2008-04-12 07:08
#17
Catchfire
In honour of the dialectical oldgoat:
quote:
Evil, of course, is a traditional name, but, like other names, it has been appropriated by a particular ideology which then offers itself as the whole tragic tradition. In recent years especially, we have been continually rebuked by what is called the fact of transcendent evil, and the immense social crisis of our century is specifically interpreted in this light or darkness. The true nature of man, it is argued, is now dramatically revealed, against all the former illusions of civilisation and progress. The concentration camp, especially, is used as an image of an absolute condition, in which man is reduced, by men, to a thing. The record of the camps is indeed black enough, and many other examples could be added. But to use the camp as an image of an absolute condition is, in its turn, a blasphemy. For while men created the camps, other men died, at conscious risk, to destroy them. While some men imprisoned, other men liberated. There is no evil which men have created, of this or any other kind, which other men have not struggled to end. To take one part of this action, and call it absolute or transcendent, is in its turn a suppression of other facts of human life on so vast a scale that its indifference can only be explained by its role in an ideology.
--Raymond Williams, "Tragic Ideas." [i]Modern Tragedy[/i] (1966)
Incidentally, I have never heard of a culture with virtually no violence that was not an orientalist, edenic Western construction.
Sat, 2008-04-12 07:17
#18
N.Beltov
Reading Cueball's rather amusing remark made me think of the most recent Coen brothers film in a new light. ([i]No Country For Old Men[/i])
I think, perhaps, they're trying to convince me that humans are a naturally violent species.
Sat, 2008-04-12 07:20
#19
Frustrated Mess
I really didn't enjoy that movie. Did you get it? What was the message? Who did the killer represent? How come in American movies you can always shoot up a neighbourhood and there is never a cop around but just let a celebrity get in a car ...
Sat, 2008-04-12 07:21
#20
This test isn't hard.
If humans really were naturally violent, they could just be sent to Afghanistan without basic training - right Webgear?
QED.
Sat, 2008-04-12 07:27
#21
N.Beltov
quote:
Frustrated Mess: I really didn't enjoy that movie. Did you get it? What was the message?
Well, I'm suggesting here that at least part of the message is Webgear's thesis in the title of this thread.
I think we discussed the film on babble somewhere. I can't even remember my own contribution, if any. A google search might get you that thread.
Sat, 2008-04-12 07:37
#22
Human's adapt to whatever environment they are put in. Speaking of No Country for Old Men Cormac McCarthy's other book "The Road" shows how if a extreme disaster(natural or man made) were to occur the civilized manner in which people treat each other, would quickly disappear even among people who consider themselves kind, generous, socially conscious. The instinct to survive and protect offspring at all costs is, has been and no doubt will be our strongest and deepest instinct long into the future.
Extending this from clan, to tribe, to country is a natural extension of societies evolving over time and will no doubt repeat itself after civilizations crumble and new ones emerge.
Sat, 2008-04-12 07:38
#23
quote:
Originally posted by oldgoat:
[b]That being the case, I will argue that your time frame of 12,000 years is far too short, and I will consider one of 200,000 years minimum. In picking 12,000 years you bring us not just into the realm of recorded history, but of citification. I think that might be the problem.[/b]
Even [i]if[/i] we weren't really violent until the agricultural revolution, this still leaves the important question of whether 12,000 years is insufficient for violent tendencies to become prevalent through natural selection.
I weigh in on the 'yes' side using a fairly simple game theoretical argument.
I would counter this point:
quote:
I believe that man is a naturally social being with an inherent inhibition toward killing his own species.
With the response: I believe humans are a naturally [i]tribal[/i] species with inherent tendencies toward altruism toward fellow tribe members, and antagonism toward members of other tribes.
The game theory argument goes that in a world of limited resources (such as that in which [i]all[/i] species have always evolved in), the optimal strategy for guaranteeing access to resources for yourself and your offspring is to form a group that is as large as possible without exceeding what can be supported by available resources. After the group is formed, then destroy all competition to resources, so the group in its entirety can be sustained.
In the long run, if successful, the group will grow and exceed resources, necessitating internal division and further conflict.
The thing is, not only is this an entirely reasonable way to pursue propagation of your genetic material, but it fits entirely with the way we observe people behaving. There is a clear human tendency to view the world around us in terms of 'us' and 'them'. Did anyone not see this happen in school by grade 4 or 5?
The same thing happens in athletic teams, even with fans of athletic teams. Cultural, national, religious, and linguistic groupings: why is it so effective for a charismatic leader to gain compliance of a population for [i]just about anything[/i] by inflaming hatred and fear of another group?
My thesis is that such rhetoric plays to an instinctive worry, along the lines of '[i]Yeah, if those other guys kill all the mastodons in the valley, then I won't have any meat to feed my kids!'
Sat, 2008-04-12 07:48
#24
In terms of considering primate ancestry and social behaviour it is important to consider
quote:
As Frans de Waal, one of the foremost researchers of captive bonobo behavior has said, "In everything they do they resemble us. A complaining youngster pouts his lips like an unhappy child or stretches out an open hand to beg for food. In the midst of sexual intercourse, a female may squeal with apparent pleasure. And at play, bonobos utter coarse laughs when their partners tickle their bellies or armpits. There is no escape, we are looking at an animal so akin to ourselves that the dividing line is seriously blurred."He suggests that had we known about bonobos before chimps, reconstructions of human evolution might have emphasized sexual relations, equality between males and females and the origin of the family, instead of war, hunting and tool technology. In many ways, chimps are a good model of human ancestral behavior in that they show cooperative hunting, food-sharing, tool use, power politics and primitive warfare, as well as the capability of learning symbolic communication such as sign language. For all of these reasons (plus lack of any real knowledge of bonobo behavior till the 1970s), scientists chose to model our ancestral behavior on chimpanzee behavior. However, because of this, what has also persisted is the belief that male dominance is the natural state of affairs in humans, since in chimpanzee society, males, even young males, are always dominant to females. Bonobo society, in contrast, is a female-centered society, that is egalitarian, and substitutes sex for aggression. Females are co-dominant with males and when males attempt to coerce them, they ignore the males. It is impossible to understand the social life of this species without attention to its sexual behavior, the two are inseparable
[url=http://cda.morris.umn.edu/~meeklesr/bonobo.html]Bonobos link[/url]
I would also add that a capacity to behave violently is "natural" but so is a capacity to behave non-violently. I think aggression at it's most basic form is the capacity for self-defence and I mean this in terms of a response to direct physical attack. I think this capacity can then be generalized within social cultural context to how a threat is defined. This is related to the social construction of self and self interest,perception of threat and what is socially defined as a legitimate response to a percieved threat.
I think we live in a culture that is exceedingly violent and much of this violence is unacknowledged and unrecognized. Our entire social economic system is based on and depends on these mechanism of violence and the rationalization and justification of violence for its continuation. I don't think that any of this makes the expression of aggression natural or necessary.
[ 12 April 2008: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]
Sat, 2008-04-12 07:51
#25
quote:
With the response: I believe humans are a naturally tribal species with inherent tendencies toward altruism toward fellow tribe members, and antagonism toward members of other tribes.
Well, that's certainly a very defendable position. In order to rationalize violence toward a fellow human you have to first conceptualize him as "the other". One can easily find a way to tie it in to unionists remark above about the necessity for boot camp.
Among the things that inform me though, is an article I read in Scientifisc American quite a number of years ago, summarising what we were able to take from archeological evidence of the day as it speaks to this point. I certainly won't go into the technicalities, but evidence from inhabited sites preserved by the ice age support a high degree of cooperation and mutual support within communities. You don't argue this point. Looking at larger distributions of material evidence however paints a clear picture of a lot of trade commerce and cultural exchange among groups ranging from mid-east, near-east, and through Europe. This was contrasted by much more minimal evidence of conflict. The methodology is interesting, but really beyond my means to go into. There was an admission that such physical evidence was of course thin.
Sat, 2008-04-12 08:13
#26
Le T
I was a bit confused by the opening post because on the one hand we are asked to consider humans as a "species" but the videos were so clearly Eurocentric in every way it was amazing.
I especially like how the first one starts with "Kings, tribes and dictators" written across Africa and then spreading out through the world. Hmmm... where are they going with that?
Then great pronouncements of U.S.A, first nation founded on democracy!
My point is that this video is propaganda that plays into a myth.
I liked N.R. Kissed's post about monkeys because it is a great example of how we generate this myth and how malleable it is.
I think that it is important to recognize that this discussion deals with a European myth of who we are as people that is always applied universally despite many experiences that question its validity.
Sat, 2008-04-12 08:17
#27
Frustrated Mess
I think this ...
quote:
The game theory argument goes that in a world of limited resources (such as that in which all species have always evolved in), the optimal strategy for guaranteeing access to resources for yourself and your offspring is to form a group that is as large as possible without exceeding what can be supported by available resources. After the group is formed, then destroy all competition to resources, so the group in its entirety can be sustained.
fits very nicely with this ...
quote:
Our entire social economic system is based on and depends on these mechanism of violence and the rationalization and justification of violence for its continuation. I don't think that any of this makes the expression of aggression natural or necessary.
and it returns me to this ...
quote:
what is the size of a typical societal grouping? Do they live as we do? Are they as acquisitive? Do they require ever expanding land bases to support their way of life?
Because I think there is an optimal size for social groupings beyond which social cohesion begins to fail and violence, both internal and external, becomes inevitable.
Sat, 2008-04-12 08:20
#28
quote:
The game theory argument goes that in a world of limited resources (such as that in which all species have always evolved in), the optimal strategy for guaranteeing access to resources for yourself and your offspring is to form a group that is as large as possible without exceeding what can be supported by available resources. After the group is formed, then destroy all competition to resources, so the group in its entirety can be sustained.
Game theory is so riddles with assumptions that are based on the most part the observation of the behaviours and belief systems of American undergraduate students(often students of economics) so I don't think it is very representative or generalizable of human behaviour.
Secondly Humans do not "choose" to join groups as a species we are inherently a social animal, we are born into groups, we are inseparable from others, we defined by our relations to the group. The extent to which otherness is defined is socially constructed and not fixed.
Even social behaviour of primate groups is not fixed. I can't find a link, but I heard an interesting observation of a baboon tribe. Baboons as a species tend to be quite aggressive and heirachal and this specific tribe was no different to begin with. However the aggressive alpha males ended up dying off because they ate infected meat from a human dump site. After the death of the alpha male baboons a curious transformation occured amongst the tribe, the tribe became more egalitarian and co-operative in its social behaviour and actively resisted the intrusion of alpha males from other tribes.
Sat, 2008-04-12 08:37
#29
Oldgoat
Thank you for your counter argument. I had thought of using the last 200,000 years however I thought the last 12,000 years would be more acceptable in the terms of recorded history.
Yes, by using the term “man” did not mean to use the term as gender specific, because both males and females are equally capable of violence. I should stated the term Homo Sapiens instead of man/female.
quote:
Originally posted by oldgoat:
[b]
You mentioned religion. I think that's a biggie. If you look at the religions of peoples who's collective memory still hold the feel of bare feet on a forest floor, and who listened to the wisdom of the trees and the wind, these religions promoted harmony and accommodation with nature. The religions of the huge cities legitimised control and possession.
[/b]
I think you would find many religions not based in huge cities had conducted human sacrifices to their gods. I believe many native groups in South American used human sacrifices quite often. I could be wrong however I will research a group for you later if you wish.
I like your point of view on the agricultural revolution.
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]
Yesterday, I was speaking with a friend who works in Stop the Violence programs for women. She was speaking to me about how she found that the worst and most cases of family violence occurred in those families who have a military war participation history.
[/b]
This is very interesting comment. I would likely agree. What was the average length of military war participation in these families? What is the ethnic background of these families (for example families that came from European, Asian, or African)?
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]
Webgear, I believe one of the last threads you started was a thought experiment in justifying torture. Now this 'natural violence' thing. Do you have an agenda here? What IS your relationship with the Canadian Armed Forces? Are you at liberty to tell us?
[/b]
I do not believe in torture. It is a barbaric and unnecessary act.
I do not have an agenda, I am here to better myself, to learn and understand different points of view and histories.
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]Since we've come down from the trees, eons ago, humans are "naturally" whatever society makes us. And society changes. Moreover, I'm not sure that our tree-dwelling ancestors were all that violent. Just look at today's primates and you'll see what I mean.Furthermore, have a look at the number of people whose duty it is to keep "order" in our own society. Canada is 30 million people or thereabouts. How many police do we have for 30 million people? The Mounties are only 25,000 [i]in the whole country.[/i] And so on.
Of course, there's lots of violence in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. But there are causes of that violence, hardly inherent to the people that live there. If Iraqis were naturally violent, for example, then the many thousands and thousands of refugees would be bringing a much increased level of violence to the places that they've fled to. But, of course, that's not true. Levels of violence where they've fled aren't particularly higher than before they arrived.
Hmm. I wonder, then, what the cause of the increased violence in Iraq is? In the last 600 years, since both groups have been in the area that is modern Iraq, Shia and Sunni Muslims have lived in relative peace alongside each other. Three guesses as to the cause of recent violence then, and the first two don't count. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
[/b]
Are there not primates that kill and attempt to control others in their social groups?
Have Shia and Sunni Muslims lived in relative peace for the last 600 years? (why did you use the 600 years as a number?) If this is the case why the significant increase of secular violence in Iraq, this hatred between the two groups seem to be much more ingrained hatred?
Muslims have had their fair share of conquests against their fellow Muslims. Look at the links in the opening posts. There have been many empires in the middle east attempting to control the area.
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
[b]The difficulty comes on a grand scale, such as nation states and empires, when behaviour, that could be seen as biological in nature, is intellectualized and around which bodies of rationale in the form of doctrines are established.
To me, the war in Iraq is an excellent example of base human instincts being raised to a higher level to afford a justification. And even that effort required a foundation of lies.[/b]
Very interesting point of view, I tend to agree.
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]
Well, no. I was just trying to point out that there's a problem with Webgear's generalization about our "nature". One could just as easily say that we're "naturally" cooperative and, in fact, would never have survived all these millenia without that "nature" predominating.When it comes to individuals, people can be transformed into beasts. Just think of the training techniques of the Khmer Rouge with adolescent boys. But I think that rather proves my point.
People are also capable of extraordinary anti-violent behavior, refusing to participate in violence despite enormous pressure to do so. The soldier who refuses an order, in wartime, to carry out some unnecessary atrocity or another may be risking his/her life in his refusal. The paradoxical character of such a situation is that it takes great courage to do nothing.
It's our "nature" to be social, of that I'm convinced. But I'm generally wary of abstract generalizations about our nature because of the way I look at the world and because such generalizations are often the foundation for public policy or foreign policy that I reject.
[/b]
Yes, I guess I did over generalized. Maybe we could restart the thread with a specific example or era.
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]This test isn't hard.
If humans really were naturally violent, they could just be sent to Afghanistan without basic training - right Webgear?
[/b]
Yes, you could send people into Afghanistan without training. Training is done to better your chances of survival.
The mass training of soldiers is a relatively new idea. Look at the vast peasant armies of medieval Europe, local levies were raised and armed in a matter of days and weeks in order to conduct campaigns.
These peasants were give basic weapons and then fought in large scale battles with little training. They killed without training in order to survive.
Do you have any para-military/military/self defence training? If someone threatened you with physical violence would you be able to defend yourself? The answer is likely yes, no matter if you have training or not.
All humans are capable of violence beause it is apart of us.
[ 12 April 2008: Message edited by: Webgear ]
Sat, 2008-04-12 09:00
#30
quote:
Are there not primates that kill and attempt to control others in their social groups
You skipped over my reference to this,I will reiterate, violence varies depending on species, the bonobos are for the most part peaceful,but even aggressive species such as baboons can intentionally alter their social behaviours.
I'm not sure I find discussion based around all or nothing, whether we are violent or not. I think it is clear that we have a capacity for both. I do think that conflict is a part of human interaction, I think we do have a choice in how conflict is resolved. I think it is a dangerous and assumption to focus only on our capacity to be aggressive as it is used ideologically to undermine attempts and strategies to resolve conflicts by other means.
quote:
All humans are capable of violence beause it is apart of us.
I think there is an important distinction between stating humans are violent as compared to humans have a capacity to act aggressively. The first suggests an inevitability that is beyond choice or control.
[ 12 April 2008: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]
Sat, 2008-04-12 09:12
#31
Jared Diamond in "Guns, Germs, and Steel" describes what he thinks is the least socially constructed group of people known. These are natives of the New Guinea plains which are so hared to live on they cannot support large groups of people. Families are essentially the largest social group. The families do interact and there are temporary large gatherings.
The level of violence relative to the population is huge. It is almost all triggered by young men killing each other over women. After that there is revenge killing by relatives. Almost every woman in that society has become a widow at some time in her life because her husband was murdered.
Diamond posits the theory that all social constructs are fundamentally designed to stop young men from killing each other over women.
He refers to them as kleptocracies, and considers them a good thing.
Sat, 2008-04-12 09:24
#32
quote:
Jared Diamond in "Guns, Germs, and Steel" describes what he thinks is the least socially constructed group of people known.
All societies by defintion are socially constructed it is inaccurate to say one group is more socially constructed than another. Social groups define and co-create not only social realities but the cosmologies which define their meaning and relation to the world.
Sat, 2008-04-12 09:25
#33
N.Beltov
quote:
Webgear: Yes, I guess I did over generalized. Maybe we could restart the thread with a specific example or era.
I avoided making the remark that, in my view, "truth is concrete," because I thought I would just get an anti-Leninist pile on (the expression is Lenin's, BTW) as a reply. But specific examples, like the Bonobo by N.R.KISSED, are very useful as they compare humans to other species in an effort to make intelligent generalizations about us.
BTW, I used 600 years because I think that is the time that Sunni and Shia Muslims have been in what is now Iraq. My point was that they've lived in relative peace that long, prior to all the current fratricidal violence. Of course I mean to draw attention to the armies of occupation in that country over the past 5 years, their role in inciting violence between Sunni and Shia, their sometimes direct role in that violence, and so on. All this is well documented with a little homework. This is only tangentally related to the thread, mind you, and maybe even a harmful distraction from your main claim in the opening post.
Sat, 2008-04-12 09:34
#34
N.Beltov
quote:
jrootham: Diamond posits the theory that all social constructs are fundamentally designed to stop young men from killing each other over women.
Interesting. A book on the history of religion I read, in a section underlining the importance of finding the real roots of religious customs and rituals, claimed that male adolescent circumcision may have a similar origin:
quote:
Tokarev: Thus the custom plays an obvious role, although in extremely brutal form: it temporarily prevents a young man, who has not yet reached full maturity, from violating sexual taboos.
[ 12 April 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
Sat, 2008-04-12 09:34
#35
remind
Most excellent discussion, that was derived from the thread title question that was actually a closed statement of fact.
Others here noted the use of species, and which thereby religates all homo sapiens to not much more than 'beasts of the land', acting instinctually and nothing more. And this notion of only an instinctual being is bolstered by the use of "naturally". This notion was effectively countered by NR Kissed, Old Goat, catchfire in his quoted post, and sporadiacally by FM.
Given the nature of the topic, or premise, should I say, contained in the thread question, one has to ask why was/is this being done?
Catchfire's quote indicates it:
quote:
For while men created the camps, other men died, at conscious risk, to destroy them. While some men imprisoned, other men liberated. There is no evil which men have created, of this or any other kind, which other men have not struggled to end. [b]To take one part of this action, and call it absolute or transcendent, is in its turn a suppression of other facts of human life on so vast a scale that [i]its indifference can only be explained by its role in an ideology.[/i] [/b]
It is a bipartite ideology, that can only perceives the polar opposities, and cannot see and perhaps not understand, the varying degrees in between, as being equally existent and important to social functoning, compelled and un-compelled actions, and indeed that comprise reality equally with the counter parts, the polar opposites.
As such I believe NBeltov is correct when he states:
quote:
I think, perhaps, they're trying to convince me that humans are a naturally violent species.
Sat, 2008-04-12 09:51
#36
N.Beltov
Sidebar warning: Yea, well, if I'm right then that would explain why that film is no great work of art. It's message isn't great and it undermines the skillfulness of the film makers with a cheerful indifference about the banality of evil. etc.. If they don't care about me then why should I care about their film? Viewing it once was quite enough...
Sat, 2008-04-12 10:18
#37
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
The level of violence relative to the population is huge. It is almost all triggered by young men killing each other over women. After that there is revenge killing by relatives. Almost every woman in that society has become a widow at some time in her life because her husband was murdered.Diamond posits the theory that all social constructs are fundamentally designed to stop young men from killing each other over women.
He refers to them as kleptocracies, and considers them a good thing.
Diamond is one of many who point this out. Archeological evidence showing significant levels of violence in the distance past is piling up. Lawrence Keeley in his book "War Before Civilization" compares levels of violence and finds that the level of violence is often staggeringly high. For instance among the Yanomamo where I believe the chances of a male meeting a violent death are higher than 35% (much much higher than the worst years of WWII). Should this be surprising considering that there is a correlation between the number of wives and the number of children that a male member of the Yanomamo tribes has and the number of men he has killed. The most aggressive and most violent are the most successful at passing on their genes.
This brings to the point that was brought up about males and females having equal capacity for violence. I agree both males males and females have the capacity to be violent. Both have the capacity to defend themselves with force. However, there is a difference in between capacity to violence and actually committing those violent acts. And it is in this regard that males are the ones who commit greater than 90% of acts of significant violence such as murder. Seeing as there is a very large difference between the capacity to commit violent acts and the actual committing of those acts - and this appears to be true in every society - then you should ask why. From an evolutionary standpoint there is an reproductive advantage among male primates who are aggressive when it comes to power and access to females (and while it has been mentioned that bonobo are peaceful, and they certainly are compared other primate species, this holds true for them as well. Frans de Waal who was mentioned earlier makes it clear in his books that although bonobos are the free sex hippies of our ancestors there is still lots of very aggressive behavior - afterall that is where a significant amount of the sex comes from - to diffuse aggression. Therefore the more aggressive a male is, the more diffusing, the more sex. Now that is only to a certain extent as in bonobo society they will route out the worst.)
That doesn't mean that violence is justified or that we should just accept it as natural. The opposite as we have found that when a society makes clear that certain behaviors are not acceptable those behaviors decrease in number and we much prefer to live in a nonviolent society. Susane Pinker in her recently published book "The Sexual Paradox" talks about how for males the most aggressive period is aged 2 - 3 before those males have been conditioned to recognize that such aggression is not acceptable. They might not have the strength to cause significant damage but at that age they react to situations in a very aggressive manner - very different from females at the same age. At least that is what she says. I don't have any children.
Sat, 2008-04-12 10:45
#38
To argue whether or not humans are naturally violent is to assume that we are different and apart from every other species on the planet.
Many species can and will at some point cause the death of another of its kind. Whether that is called violence or not is yet another anthrocentric assumption, but the fact is that it happens often.
Why should we be any different? In competition for scarce resources, or over mating privileges, or in determinations of rank, many animals will kill its own. For example. a tom will kill all the kittens of other toms in order to ready the females for its own offspring. Most mammals will fight over territory, and it can lead to the death of one of the combatants.
We can dress it up all we want, but our conflicts are merely large versions of basic animal behaviour. Sorry Webgear, but your Noble Warrior ethos is simply a polished lump of scat. We kill other weaker humans for resources, territory, and mating rights. The only difference between Canada in Afghanistan and a rat devouring the young of another nest is that the rat doesn't have to lie to itself about its motives.
Sat, 2008-04-12 10:50
#39
quote:
Frans de Waal who was mentioned earlier makes it clear in his books that although bonobos are the free sex hippies of our ancestors there is still lots of very aggressive behavior - afterall that is where a significant amount of the sex comes from - to diffuse aggression.
I have read de Waal's book on Bononbos and I do not believe he says that at all. What he does say I believe is that conflict is mediated and negotiated through sexual behaviour rather than aggression. Conflict and aggression are not the same thing, aggression is one response to conflict.
I will reiterate that I don't find it useful to focus on a violent/non-violent binary. I think there is enough evidence that there is a broad variance in the degree of aggression expressed both in human and animal cultures. I think the degree of aggression is mediated both by social factors and the basic necessities of survival.
[ 12 April 2008: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]
Sat, 2008-04-12 11:32
#40
Here is more concerning the study of the baboons that I mentioned.
quote:
Among a troop of savanna baboons in Kenya, a terrible outbreak of tuberculosis 20 years ago selectively killed off the biggest, nastiest and most despotic males, setting the stage for a social and behavioral transformation unlike any seen in this notoriously truculent primate.In a study appearing today in the journal PloS Biology (online at [url=http://www.plosbiology.org),]www.plosbiology.org),[/url] researchers describe the drastic temperamental and tonal shift that occurred in a troop of 62 baboons when its most belligerent members vanished from the scene. The victims were all dominant adult males that had been strong and snarly enough to fight with a neighboring baboon troop over the spoils at a tourist lodge garbage dump, and were exposed there to meat tainted with bovine tuberculosis, which soon killed them. Left behind in the troop, designated the Forest Troop, were the 50 percent of males that had been too subordinate to try dump brawling, as well as all the females and their young. With that change in demographics came a cultural swing toward pacifism, a relaxing of the usually parlous baboon hierarchy, and a willingness to use affection and mutual grooming rather than threats, swipes and bites to foster a patriotic spirit.
Remarkably, the Forest Troop has maintained its genial style over two decades, even though the male survivors of the epidemic have since died or disappeared and been replaced by males from the outside. (As is the case for most primates, baboon females spend their lives in their natal home, while the males leave at puberty to seek their fortunes elsewhere.) The persistence of communal comity suggests that the resident baboons must somehow be instructing the immigrants in the unusual customs of the tribe.
[url=http://www.primates.com/baboons/culture.html]Baboons retool their culture[/url]
quote:
Dr. de Waal, who wrote an essay to accompany the new baboon study, said in a telephone interview, "The good news for humans is that it looks like peaceful conditions, once established, can be maintained," he said."And if baboons can do it," he said, "why not us? The bad news is that you might have to first knock out all the most aggressive males to get there."
If only we had an epidemic that wiped out the most greedy and brutal.
[ 12 April 2008: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]
Sat, 2008-04-12 11:52
#41
Le T
It's hilarious that we can story baboons the way that Eurocentric ethnographies have done to'other' people for so long. Even as social scientists are starting to become remotely aware of their ethnocentric biases, biologists ask us to believe that they are somehow different. The more we change...
Sat, 2008-04-12 11:52
#42
N.Beltov
That's interesting. People who preaches an ideology of the idolatry of force to my face always respond negatively when I suggest that they be given a horrible beating (on the spot) to see how they respond to the theory in practice.
Ha ha. Turns out they're never completely sincere in their beliefs. It's all a lot of hot air.
Sat, 2008-04-12 13:15
#43
Anybody who believes that sociology is [i]everything[/i] rather than just a key piece of the puzzles probably needs to go back to school. That being said, sociology is very powerful. Anthropological studies show that in stone age times, around 40% of people die of homicides. The portion of humans dying of homicide in the 20th century was the lowest of any century in history. There's been some genetic change in the past five thousand years, but I don't think there's been that much.
I think the question of whether or not we are violent by nature is a moot point. We clearly are. The key questions are in which way are we violent, and how can we compensate developmentally for these specific instincts.
*****
I also want to comment on some of the male-focus in this thread. First, there's no reason to believe the probability of war would go down in a female-dominated society; that's currently an unfalsifiable statement. Second, young women can also be violent to each other, but in different ways. Talk to anyone who attended an all girls school, she'll tell you how bad the gossip was, the shunning was, et cetera. Young girls are violent with each other as young women are, it's just a different form of violence.
I got into fights when i was a teenager, and once the fight was over everything went back to normal. I think it's absurd to argue this is so much worse than showing up at school one day and every single one of my friends would be ignoring me and shunning me.
Violence is a human problem, not a man problem.
[ 12 April 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Sat, 2008-04-12 15:43
#44
remind
Ya right apples, in the face of extensive data and evidence to the contrary that show clearly males are far more violent, and not just physically, than females.
** do not take this mean I do not believe females can be violent, of course they can, some have been socialized to be that way in order to exist in a patriarchial and classist society.
Sat, 2008-04-12 18:08
#45
So females can never be violent of their own accord? The only violence females commit is the ones socialized to be that way by males? Wow, talk about a gender bias
Sat, 2008-04-12 18:37
#46
remind
Perhaps bacchus in your rush to attack me, you failed to read what was said above, violence begets violence, no matter the gender.
Sat, 2008-04-12 19:12
#47
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]Game theory is so riddles with assumptions that are based on the most part the observation of the behaviours and belief systems of American undergraduate students(often students of economics) so I don't think it is very representative or generalizable of human behaviour.[/b]
Game theory doesn't contain any more assumptions than any other branch of mathematics.
The only assumption in that point is that natural selection would tend to produce a mathematically optimal strategy for competition for resources.
quote:
[b]Secondly Humans do not "choose" to join groups as a species we are inherently a social animal, we are born into groups, we are inseparable from others, we defined by our relations to the group. The extent to which otherness is defined is socially constructed and not fixed.[/b]
Sure. The central question to this thread is just whether there is a natural tendency in play.
Sat, 2008-04-12 19:16
#48
I tended to skip over the others of no consequence remind. Yours present the better challenges [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] In a battle of wits, there is no fun in challenging a unarmed opponent
Sat, 2008-04-12 19:29
#49
Frustrated Mess
Despite the fact remind and I have our differences, to argue that male and female violence is the same or that females have the same propensity for violence as males is, well, silly.
And it is drift of an otherwise good conversation.
Sat, 2008-04-12 21:37
#50
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Ya right apples, in the face of extensive data and evidence to the contrary that show clearly males are far more violent, and not just physically, than females.** do not take this mean I do not believe females can be violent, of course they can, some have been socialized to be that way in order to exist in a patriarchial and classist society.[/b]
Well, we're both claiming significant differences between genders. You're saying men are more violent than women in all forms, I'm saying that the violence is roughly the same but female violence is different. I can see why you would believe as you do, due to the era you grew up in. Due to the era I grew up in, and what I've seen, I'd be very cautious to believe there are gender differences in quantity of aggression.
quote:
The study of female aggression as a phenomenon in itself has only recently begun to receive due attention. Buss (1961) claimed that women are so seldom aggressive, that female aggression is not worth the trouble to study. Aggression is, accordingly to his view (at that time), a typically male phenomenon. Olweus (1978), who investigated bullying, i.e., aggressive harassment, among adolescent school children, was of the opinion that bullying occurs so rarely among female adolescents that he excluded girls as subjects from his research. Later, he has changed his opinion, and he is now investigating bullying also among girls (e.g., Olweus, 1986). Frodi, Macaulay, and Thome (1977) reviewed 314 studies on human aggression, and found that 54% of these concerned men only, and only 8% women. These facts are certainly revealing.Bjorkqvist and Niemela (1992) pointed out that most studies on human aggression have been conducted by men, and even when females have been the object of study, aggression has been operationalized in typically 'male' fashions, usually as physical aggression.
...
urbank (1987) reviews anthropological research on female aggression. She finds females of different cultures having a large potential of aggressive means to use in order to get even with their husbands, such as, e.g., locking them out of the house for the night: she regards this as an act of aggression. Burbank (1987) found females seldom to resort to physical aggression against their husbands, but they did so, occasionally. The most common reason was that their husbands had committed adultery. Burbank found, however, that women are much more often aggressive towards other women than towards men.
Kuschel (1992) describes female aggressive strategies on the pacific Bellona Island, a culture characterized of extreme male dominance and physical violence. Even there, women had their ways. In conflicts with other women, they were able to use physical means, such as hair-pulling: this was not possible in conflict with males. If they wanted to hurt their husband, they had to resort to circumvent strategies. One method used was to invent a mocking song, which was spread across the island, and the husband was humiliated. If a woman wanted to get a man killed, she could persuade relatives to commit the homicide, or possibly even hire an assassin. A mocking song is a kind of indirect aggression, in which the aggressor tries to hurt the object without putting herself into immediate physical danger. So is the persuasion of a third party (relative or assassin) to commit a homicide.
THE TESTOSTERONE-AGGRESSION LINK: MYTH OR TRUTH?
One of the main arguments why males so often have been suggested to be more aggressive than females is the presumed testosterone-aggression link. The connection between testosterone level in human blood serum or saliva, and aggression, is not, however, established, and the testosterone-aggression link is very uncertain, as far as homo sapiens is concerned....
Since females are physically weaker than males, they may early in life learn to avoid physical aggression, and instead develop other means. Choice of aggressive strategy may become partly habitual, and also reinforced by social norms in the society in question.
The use of indirect aggression requires a certain level of social intelligence, and its was found that indirect aggression, indeed, correlates with measures of social intelligence (Kaukiainen, Bjorkqvist, Osterman, Lagerspetz, and Niskanen, 1993). Indirect aggressive strategies have been reported in a number of cultures, and more often among females than among males, although great cultural variation occurs (e.g., Cook, 1992). Also female primates have been found to utilize indirect strategies of aggression (Holmstrom, 1992).
[url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_n3-4_v30/ai_15383471/pg_7...
There is also rapid social change currently taking place, as can be seen with the Victoria Lindsay beating, and perhaps where these directions are taking us will leave previous theories in the dust.
Sat, 2008-04-12 23:20
#51
quote:
Game theory doesn't contain any more assumptions than any other branch of mathematics.The only assumption in that point is that natural selection would tend to produce a mathematically optimal strategy for competition for resources.
Game theory isn't mathematics it is economics and like all economic theory it focuses on mathematical models that ignore the foundational underlying philosophical assumptions.
In your second sentence you include not only assumptions about human behavior and reasoning but assumptions concerning the mechanismism of natural selection, assumptions about the necessity of competition and assumptions about scarcity of resources. All fairly significant assumptions.
quote:
The central question to this thread is just whether there is a natural tendency in play.
As I have consistently stated there is a distinct diffe3rence in stating that humanity is naturally violent and humans have the capacity to behave in a violnet manner, the first statement is deterministic the second is probabalistic.