Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Violence and Human Nature

    Uploaded by

    Milena
    27 views10 pages

    Original Title

    Violence and human nature

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    27 views10 pages

    Violence and Human Nature

    Uploaded by

    Milena

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 10
    ‘MARTER THREE VIOLENCE AND HUMAN NATURE 33 the result of some natural instinct. All ef those incidents, as I thought stout them later, were explainable by socal exeumstances. Iam in total Agreement withthe statement of the nineteenth-century Eaglish phils opher John Seuaet Mil “OF all she vulgar modes of escaping from the consideration of the effec of social and moral influences upon the aman mind, che most vulgaris that of atsbuting the diversities of conduct and character to inherent natural differences” Yet at an ely point in any discussion of human violence, expecially 4 dseussion of the causes of war, someone will sy, “I's human na- ture” There's ancient, weighty intellectual support for that common, szgunent. Machiavelli in Th Prince, expresses confidently his own view of human nature, that human beings tend tobe had, This gives him | i good reaoa, being “realistic,” to urge laying aside moral seruples in desing with people: “A man who wishes to make a profession of goods sessin everything must necessarily come to grief among s0 many who fre n0¢ good. Therefore iti necesary for a prince, who wishes to ‘aan himself, o learn how not to be good.” The seventeenth-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes suid “I put fora geneanclination ofall mankind, a perpetual and restless desire forgower ater poser, that ceaseth aly in death,” This view of human satu led Hobbes to favor any kind of government, however authori- faa, hat would keep the peace by blocking what be thought was the ‘sun incination of people to do violence to ome another. He talked tna “the dsolute condition of masterless men” that required "a coer- re power to iether hands from rapine and revenge Beliefs about human nature thus become self-fulfilling prophecies. If oa believe human beings are naturally violent and bad, you may be esutied to think (although not ruired to think) that ts “realistic” fobethat way yourself, Butisit indeed realise (meaning, “I regret th er i’safact..") to blame czar on human nature? Ti, Alber Einstein, already world famous for his work in physics snd mathematics, wrote a letcr to another distinguished thinker, Sig Fund Freud Binscin was deeply troubled by the memory of World sgoment ne nt Fe War, which had ended only fourteen years before. Ten milion men {fel man claimed he was owed, and he seed despente by UB 2 2G ehe alls of Farope, for reson that no one ead and threatening, but the older man remained adamant SHE aca erin, Like many others who had lived through that wat, 4 board and hit the other over BoM Boscn was borifed by the thought that hurnan lie could be de. ‘zyed on such a masive scale snd worried that there might be another tar He considered that Freud, the world's leading psychologist, might, throw ligh on the question Why do men make war? i i Violence and Human Natur ] remeinber three different incidents of violens ie three diferent parts of my fe. In two of them | was an observer ino “Tithe fl s nd saw two yours bud i the fall of 19631 was in Selma, Alabama, a yong civil sights workers clbled to the ground by sate croopers nd cielced with electric preds, because they tried (o bring food and watt sadn in ine sing 0 rege "0 v0 a arenold Air Focce bombarie, 8 a bong Word Ware a ny e inion sth napalm bombing of sal rene i sr ead owing co do with winning the Way fe Pe doh anddesaction fre mies below ur pas Schoen whe tenager on tbe sees of Brak oe ee ain an argument witha ld Jesh man as werd posted te hempaye. 1 waa ume ore a 34 DECLARATIONS OF INDEPENDENCE “eae Brfesr Fro” he wrog Is here #57 A dln ‘mankind from the menace of war?” Einstein “that small but ‘determined group, active in every nation, composed of individuals who “regard warfare, the manufacture and sale of arms, simply as an ‘occasion bo advance their personal interests and enlarge their personal tuthorty.” And then he asked, “How ist possible fr this smal lique to bend the will ofthe majority, who stand to Jose and suffer by a state of war, to the service of their ambitions? : Einstein volunteered an answer, “Because man has within him a lost for hatred and destruction.” And then he put hs final question to Freud, “{sie possible to control man's mental evolution so aso make him proof against the psychoses of hate and destructiveness?” Freud responded, "You surmise that man basin him an active instinct {or hatred and destruction, amenable to such stimulations. | entirely agree with you. ..» The most casual glanee st world history will show at onending series of confics between one community and another: Freud pointed to two fundamental instincts in human beings: the erotic cf love, instinct and its opposite, the destructive instinct. But the only hope he could hold for the ero triumphing over the destructive was ‘he cultural development of the human race, including'“a ssengtben- ing of the intellect, which tends to master our instinetve life” :nstein had a different view of the value of intellect in mastering the instincts After pointing to “the psychoses of hate and destructiveness, Einstein concluded, “Experience proves that itis rather the so-called, “Tneligentsa’ that is most apt to yield co these disastrous collective aE yo of the greatst minds of the cena, elpes and red before he persttnce of wae Eisen, venting that gg tr tee ron of wars aks Fred, he expert on nes ee ein coming o'r solution, Note, however, that Einstein Ba, rr fe thin im ats ro "iasrous collie | Fmd faethe fom tine culare nda steele te crcl ee of a ‘But what is Freud's evidence for the existence ‘of such an instir ee ing erius nh segent He fey m0 prot Ieee pig vec mn ance at wontons aoe Secaion forward Hy years ter, 2 shoe A ee ume socblgy The ead are group i EO; Wi, Hansard Univer = fos VIOLENCE AND HUMAN NATURE 36 professor and distinguished scientist. His book Socibiology is an impres- sve treatise on the behavior of various species in the biological world ‘hat have social inclinations, ike ants and bees.* ‘In the last chapter of Sociobiology, Wilson rasned to human beings, and this drew so much atcention that he decided to write a whole book dealing with this subject: On Human Nature. In ie there is a chapter on aggression. Ie starts off with the question: “Are human beings innately aggressive?” Two semences later: "The answer to itis yes." (No hesi tion here.) And the next sentence explains why: “Throughout hiswory, warfare, representing only the most organized technique of aggression, has been endemic to every form of society, from hunter-gatherer bands rw industsialstates."” Here is a peculiar situation. The paychologis (Freud) finds his evi- [dence for the aggressive instinct not in psychology but in history. The Slog (Wibon) Snds his evidence notin biolegy but n istry Tirsuggens thatthe evidence from nether pay chology nor bik issfcent co back up te him for an aggresive Hnstine and 0 these thinkers urn to isory nti spect they ae mo ferent the ordinary person, whose thinking ellos the same loge hi oy flown co dane ie of hi a men ari commen oto serhing dee in buan are something ilo ital, a drive, an instinct for violent aggression earn | logic widespread in molert ong a al | This logic spread in modern thought, in all classes of people, Tene Aru fathennore is dangerous || Wrong, because there is no real evidence for it. Not in genetics, not 200logy, not in psychology, not in anthropology, notin history, not en in the ordinary experience of soldiers in war. Dangerous because it deflects attention from the nonbiological causes of violence and war f | Ttrars out, however, that Wilson's firm assent tothe idea that human. E teings are “innately aggresive” depends on his redefinitons of imately ad aggresive. In On Plumen Nature he says, “Ionateness refers to the csorable probability that trait will develop in a specified se of onments.... By his criterion human beings have a marked heredi- [predisposition to aggresive behavior” And the ‘wocd ageretion ti vari of human actos ony some of which ae Wet fla other words, when Wilson speaks of people being “innately ag- ee des hot ean tha we ue alr ean eae de become violent—it depends on cut environment. And even if we oe aggressive, that need not take the form of violence. Indeed, 7 DECLARATIONS OF INDEPENDENCE Wilson ays chat "he more violent forms of human aggression ae noe Ulaunifecation of inborn Sries” We now have he sys “8 more Rha Caplanution based on the interaction af genetic potential and icaraing® "Thovphcase gente potential get ws closer (0 2 common grosed been Wie and fis radcal entice, who bave atibuted to bim reeties more extreme views about inate aggrsion than Be rally teehee oman Beings certainly ave fom the tart (genetical) Zot for viene bt spre for pacts. Tht eaves ere oall son of posses depending onthe cumstances we fous ad te ceumtanes we x orcas “Theres no own pee for aggression. Indeed, there no known gene for any ofthe commen forms st humaa behavior (1 allowing ecb that « gente defect of the brn might make 2 person sos bt ie ery ct that isa defect means its not maa a). Thessence of genet, the dy ofthat hereditary material cated theory moses eey human cel and nse aceon othe nex, knows 2 good dal about genes for phi crete very litle abou genes for mena ably, and vitally satan about genes for personality ris (lence, competitiveness, Tindns, soriness, 2 sense of humor, et) ‘Wises colleague a Harvard seen Stephen Joy Gout aspect vz eoteion, ye very fal Gn Naval History Magazine 975 Sat ithe diet cvidenc or genetic contol of sei human soc tehavoe? At the moment, the awe, none watever” wry tinged olga PW Medatar pus i this way “By fr the most important charter of human beings is tat we have apd ees nor jedgement and are noo the mereyof ur hormones and genes” Te the spring of 1986 am international conference of scientists in Seville, ‘Span, ‘issued a statement on the question of human nature and. secant syreson, conluding, "Its seen incorrect to ty that de ae by insine or any single motivation... Modert wit wee ic ntttional ue of poand characteris sch sche, cael, and idealism, We cone tat biology doesnot cena humanity to war” What above the acbyee us pn Genes can examine gene, ven “spl renew forms, What paychol sce of psychology? This is not as act” a i rvemmine them, dame do is took at the way people behave tnd think, test them, paychoanalyze them, conduct experiments tos) VIOLENCE AND HUMAN NATURE 37 how people react to different experiences, and try to come to reasunable conclusions about why people behave the way they do. There is nothing in the findings of psychologists to make any convincing argument for ct forthe violent aggressvenes of war. That's why Freud, the founder of modern psychology, had to look for evidence of the destruc- tive instiner in history.” ‘There was a famous “Milgram experiment” at Yale in the 1960s, named after the psychologist who supervised it." A group of paid volunteers were told they were helping with an experiment dealing withthe effects of punishment on learning. Each volunteer was seated ina position to observe someone taking atest, wearing electrodes con- nected toa control panel operated by the volunteer. The volunteer was told to monitor the test and, whenever a wrong answer was given, to pall switch that would give painful eleetrcal ol othe person taking the test, each wrong answer leading toa greater and greater electrical charge. ‘There were thirty switches, with labels ranging from “Slight Shock” to “Danger—Severe Shock.” The volontcer was not told, however, tha che person taking the test ‘was an actor and that 0 teal jolt was given. The actor would pretend = tobe in pain when the volunteer polled the switch. When a volunteer | became reluctant to continue eausing pain, the experimenter in charge would say something like “The experiment requires that you continue” ns, two-thirds ofthe volunteers continued to pull the electrical switches on wrong answers, even when the subjects showed agonizing pain. One-third refused. “The experiment was tied withthe volunteers at different distances BRE rom the subjects. When they were not physically close tothe subject, FB our 35 percent of the volunteers defed authority even when they FAB could not see or talk with the subject. But when they were right next tb the subject, 0 percent refused the order. © The behavior ofthe people who were willing to infice maximum pain ‘can cerainly be explained without recourse to “human nature.” Their Behavior was learned, not inborn. What they learned is wha raost ople lean in modern culture, to follow orders, to do the job you are ited todo, to obey the experts in charge. In the experiment the supe Hors, who had a certain standing and a certain legitimacy as directors of scientific” experiment, kept assuring the volunteers tha they should ahead, even if the subjects showed pain. When they were distant om the subjects, it was easier to obey the experimenters. But seeing Of hearing the pain close up brought out some strong natural feeling ‘of empathy, enough to disobey even the legitimate, confident, scientific supervisors of the experiment ‘Some people interpreted the results ofthe experiment as showing an innate cruelty in human beings, but this was not the conclusion of Stanley Milgram, who directed the study. Milgram sums up his own views, “Teis the extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths ‘on the command of an authority that constitutes the chief finding of the srody. This is, perhaps, the most fundamental lesson of our study: frdinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, ean become agents in a terrible deseructive pro- 0 itis a learned response—“always obey,” “do your job"—and not ‘a natural drive, that caused so many of the people to keep pulling the pain switches. What is remarkable in the Milgram experiment, given the power of “duty ... obedience” taught to us from childhood, is not that 50 many obeyed, but that so many refused. E:P. Snow, 2 British novelist and scientist, wrote in 1961, Wien you think of he lng an lomy hiory ofman, you wil ind more eae le enSommiad in rane of tice ta have cee ees commae inthe ne of elon. The German Ofer Corr See eelgheopn he mow rigorous code of obser in he mae Waheiente hey were pry oad site inthe mot wicked large fens in the ory othe wo “What about the evidence from anthropology—that is, from the be- havior of “primitive” people, who are supposed to be closest to the “iqaturat"” state and, therefore, give strong clues about “human nature”? There have been many studies of the personality traits of such people: ‘African Bushmen, North American Indians, Malay tribes, the Stone ‘Age Tasaday from the Philippines, ete. “The findings can be summed up easily: There is no single patern of warlike or peaceable behavior, the variations are very great. In North ‘America, the Plains Indians were warlike, the Cherokee of Georgia were peaceful. ‘Anthropologist Colin Turnbull conducted two different studies in’ a witch ne Bved fora while wth native ees. In THe Fore Pople, be Unsrbesthe Pygmies ofthe Ia ain forest in central Ais, wondee fly gene and peaceful people whore ide of ponishing 2 wrongdcs | ‘was send him out into the forest to sulk. When he observed the Mbu tribe of Zaire, he found them cooperative and pai. However, when “Turnbull spent vm with the Te people of East Afi, whom he de- sctbes in Toe Mownain Pep be fond them ferocoes an selishs “Thediferencesin bchavior Turnbull found were explana, nt by sents no bythe “ature” ofthese people but by tet eavironmen Gr this living conditions. The celavely cay if ofthe forest people fered goodwill and generosity. The Ik, on the other han, hal ben Aken from ther natural hunting grounds bythe eeation of matonal game reserve into an iclated feof sarvation in barren mounting Tir deperae step to survive brought out the aggressive desu: renee thet Turnbull ow There have Yoon many attempts ous the evidence of ethology (he szudy ofthe behavior of animals) to “prove innate aggressivents in human beings, We fd Rober Aricy sing animal protection of ther terry to sige for a "enor imperative,” which drives Roman Beings to war agin’ one sneer, or Desmond Marri who uses the tvience of prtates (The Nod pe) to sce human beings deeply ‘Mfucrect by ther evolutionary origins a bal hunters, Sut the study of animal Behavior ture op sl kinds of contradictory svidence Baboons observed ina London 100 were found tobe vslen, but when sraied onthe plane of South Afce thet behavior was pete The diference was ext expanae by the fact that in the foo baboons were srangzr to one another, bry fogether by man. -Fren when baboons were aggresive this conse? my of cling to sabling, not doing seus demage to one anate, We might soe the work of Konrad Lorena an imporant zoologist ands specialist inthe say of birds who could nor esi the temptation totum to human Behavior in his book On dggrion Loren often E__cited to support the idea that aggressive instinets in human beings derive from evolutionary origins in animal behavior. But Lorenz was not thet bi) ceruin. Indeed, he sid at one point tha none of our so~alled instints 18 dangerous as our “emotional allegiance to cultural values." 1 Ic isa big jump, in any case, from bees or ducks or even baboons to human beings. Such a jump does not take acount of the critically BE diferent factor of the human brain, which enables learning and culture ihd which creates a whole range of possibiliies—good and bad. Those possibilities are not available to creatures with limited intelligence ose behavior is held close to their genetic instincts (although even ch them differeat environments bring different characteristics) Fe The psychologist Erik Erikson, moving away from Freud's emphasis 40 DECLARATIONS OF INDEPENDENCE 2 costae and on inpreions ane inn) has pone on bictageaiin lhian bigs ave ong chil we tt te me a as Ts ee possibility fora much ver ope of behaviors Eston say that oor nha acm oe ge a mae wat, Thy i oe ha i me sbnton Tht 8 cE ee vane bis nd cate The id spec git of rere Wi hae fr fod a ae : I ee, anhropsogy. and zoiogy—n nono Peviho can deny the frequency of war in human histor de apni camer at gn inn ge ee A at nd nur gee sone of ose Fc i ein every cae, who become canard ote ¢? Is not another of those facts 5 ‘of their own power and seck to extend it vert minories i Set ofthe general population, bt of po * wey wheat note rw een mor mao mr erence het on | ‘whrind or the Fatherland isan Ten case for which one become mt rate Epil nthe mera we oe peneraionm ich Sfrceatan deems» : Se ie of ner Motes oc Fathers Baeiy we do not need human nature to explain war; there are het ly area we put human nature i simple and easy. Te requires very litle ions. hrogghout human history bave led ro so many wars—thatis hard wor Stee analye the soca economic, end ‘One can hardly blame people for avoiding i. ‘But we should take another look at che proposition thatthe pers ‘ence of war in history proves that war comes from human nature cree orSyuces tha wars be not only fequen, but perpetal that di iy as enact srl Base wars a note ied one periods of wer and pede of peace a MIOLENCE AND HUMAN NaTURE 41 there are nations that go to war and other nations that don't—then it is unreasonable to attribute war to something as universal as human nature Whenever someone says, “history paves..." and then cits alist of historical facts, we should beware. We can always select fats from history (there are lots to choose from) to prove almost anything about hhaman behavior. Just as one can select from a person's life just those instances of mean and aggressive behavior to prove the person naturally mean and aggressive, one can also select irom that same person's life only those instances of kind and affectionate behavior to prove him or her naturally nice. Perhaps we should turn from these scholarly studies of history, genet: ies, anthropology, psychology, and zaology to the plain realty of war irself. We surely have a lot of experience with that in our time. T remember reading John Hersey's novel, The War Lover. It inter- ted me greatly, parly because I am an admirer of Hersey's writing, ‘but even more because his subject was the crew of a Flying Fortress the ay heavy bomber in World War 11 had been a bombardier an such crew in just that war. The novel's main character i pilot who loves ‘war. He also loves women, He isa braggart and a bully in regard wo both, F) Iccurns out that his boasted sex exploits area fraud and, in fact, he i impotent; ic appears that his urge to bomb and kill js connected fo that impotence. i>. When [finished reading the novel, I thought, Wel, that may explain this psspoor (a phrase lft over from that war) fellow Hersey has ticked as is subject and bir lust for violence and death, But it doesn't plein war, ‘The men knew in the sir force—the pilots, navigators, bombardiers, nd guoners on the crews fying over Europe, dropping bombs, and Eling lc of people—were aot lusting to kil, were nt enthusiasts for Piclence, and were not war lovers. They—we—were engaged in large Fe Je killing, mostly of noncombatants, the women, children, 208 tey people who happened to inhabit the neighborhoods ofthe cites fat we bombed (offically, these were all “military targets"). But thie not dome out of our ma/ures, which were no different than when we peacefully paying studying, and ving the Lives of American boys Pik in Brooklya, New York, oF Aurora, Missour [he bloody deeds we did came out of a set of experiences not hard ne out We had been brought up to believe that our political tad good motives and could be trusted to da ight inthe world; 42. DECLANATIONS OF INDEPENDENCE sve had learned that the workd had good guys and tail guys, good aaaeas and bad countries, and ours was good. We had been trained

    You might also like