PSYCH 197

Thought Paper 2

Society has been structured to condition and prepare us for conflict, violence, and, war, in
the attempts to protect the self and feel safe. Perhaps this conditioning served the past genera-
tions well in the evolutionary sense (if it indeed has), but given our advancement especially in
the areas of research, development, and peace promotion, we must be asking: How did it come to
the point wherein for us to achieve a state of ‘peace’, we perpetuate or tolerate violence (such as
wars)? Should it continue to be this way? What are the steps for change?

When children are taught that they should toughen up and prepare for the ‘real world’,
the image being projected to them is that violence is a part of human nature and there is nothing
we can do to avoid it, so it’s better to be ‘ready for violence’ ourselves. This is an example of
how some people argue that violence is a biological necessity; it is part of being human. The
collective voices of our researchers, psychologists, and peace advocates, then, are very relevant
and have been further empowered upon the release of the Seville Statement on Violence by
UNESCO in 1986. Its primary argument is that “peace is possible because war is not a biological
necessity… war is a social invention, and that peace can be invented to replace it.” (Adams,
1991). So peace is not a faraway idea that one can only dream to experience. There are societies
that thrive without the presence of violence, such as people practicing Buddhism or some groups
from Southeast Asian countries. Human violence is a cultural byproduct, an evolutionary
adaptation, and even though humans have biological tendencies for aggression, violence is an
action that conscious thought can produce or counteract. Research reveals that humans have a
natural aversion to harmful action, not only because of empathy for the victim but also because
of the connection between the body and moral decision-making processes (Cushman et. al.,
2011). People have to align their moral reasoning first before manifesting violence into behavior,
similar to what is proposed in the General Aggression Model. If general intelligence and rational
choice are what brought us to wars, then these will bring us to stop wars and promote the general
well-being of individuals, groups, and societies. But before we can create concrete steps for
peace promotion, we have to first understand why and how violence happens in the first place,
beginning at the individual level.

Elizabeth C. Van Cauwenberghe

2019-12223
 Violence is aggression that has extreme harm as its goal; direct violence is a time-bound
event that occurs between a victim and a perpetrator and involves physical damage. Multiple
theories attempt to explain violence, and these were integrated to fall under the umbrella of an
encompassing theoretical framework, the General Aggression Model (GAM). The theory focuses
on an episode of aggression as an ongoing social interaction, analyzing the three main areas of
concern: (a) person and situation inputs; (b) cognitive, affective, and arousal routes through
which these input variables have their impact; and (c) outcomes of the underlying appraisal and
decision processes (Anderson & Bushman, 2002).

Discussions about direct violence are interesting because inasmuch as you are studying
external realities as examples of theory application, what really makes one understand each
theory is how they possibly apply to you. Checking on yourself and your dispositions toward or
experiences surrounding violence makes one understand it better. As an example, let’s say
someone was raising their voice at me which put me in a heightened aggressive state. Using the
theory, I would look at the personal and situational factors that served as input for me to get
triggered by the ongoing social encounter. These would then pass through interconnected routes
that make up my current internal state – cognition (hostile thoughts and scripts), affect (mood
and emotion, expressive motor responses), and arousal. Then, I would decide what to do with my
internal state. How do I act on what’s bothering me? Will I act impulsively (immediate appraisal)
or become intentional and thoughtful with my behavior (reappraisal)? Introspecting about
yourself using the GAM increases your awareness of how the aggression from within you can
express itself as violence to another. If for me, I was unable to restrict my aggressive tendencies,
then I would understand how hard it would be for others to do the same. If it was hard to restrict
my aggressive tendencies but I was able to act consciously nevertheless, then I would understand
how it can be possible for others, too. Both cases would increase one’s empathy and compassion
for human beings. After all, we are all just acting based on the best ways we know how, so
acknowledging the responsibility and conscious choice within yourself to think and act
intentionally paves the way for others to realize that peace is humanly possible, something that
they can attain, too.

Overall, eliminating direct violence and promoting peace is essential for creating a just
and equitable society that values the well-being and dignity of all individuals.

Elizabeth C. Van Cauwenberghe

2019-12223
References:

Adams, D. (Ed.). (1991). The Seville Statement on Violence: Preparing the Ground for the
Construction of Peace, p. 7. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/
48223/pf0000094314

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human Aggression. Annual Review of Psychology,
53, pp. 27-51. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
228079531_Human_Aggression

Cushman, F., Gray, K., Gaffey, A. & Mendes, W.B. (2011). Simulating Murder: The aversion to
harmful action. Emotion, 12(1), 1-7. PubMed. https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/51631107

Elizabeth C. Van Cauwenberghe

2019-12223