No matter where you look, on TV, your favorite newspaper or anywhere on the Internet: Violence is at the heart of human history. We all learn about the major wars, revolutions, and often about the associated cruelties. And whenever violence on a big scale happens, it makes the headline of any newspaper. And it is not only the physical violence but now with Social Media, also the verbal/mental violence that is affecting us more and more — be it from presidents, populists to everyday people on Facebook.
But why is violence such a predominant part of our existence? Why do people act violently in the first place? Is it really in our nature, is it even genetically?
The Theories of Violence
In their influential article „How could they?“ the American researchers Tage Rei & Alan Fiske asked that question. They stated that the current two main theories, trying to explain violence, fall short for most cases.
- The disinhibition theory: This states that people have violent impulses usually held in check. According to this theory, violence is within us in a dormant state, waiting for a trigger to activate it. While this might explain some violent behaviors, it falls short by neglecting the motivation for violence. Unless you accept violence as a genetic part of human existence, there is no motivation for it, just a trigger to activate it.
- The rational theory: With this theory, violence is just a way to achieve instrumental goals. An example would be if you want to become king, and two heirs are in your way to accomplish this. In medieval times killing those two heirs was a logical approach to achieving your outcome to become king. While there are some cases where this theory might be applicable, it falls short for explaining the many instances of violent behavior where non-violent means would be more effective.
While these theories are valid approaches for some cases, both fall short for the majority of violent cases.
Tage Rei and Alan Fiske described that, for most cases, the purpose of violence is to sustain a moral order (see their article on Aeon). Most of the perpetrators see the usage of violence as just and needed.
If violence is motivated by moral sentiments, what is it motivated toward? What are people trying to achieve through violence? The general pattern the researchers Rei and Fiske found was that the violence was intended to regulate social relationships.
„Across all cases, perpetrators are using violence to create, conduct, sustain, enhance, transform, honor, protect, redress, repair, end, and mourn valued relationships.“
Some of the examples they give in their article:
„A Saudi man paralysed in a fight requests that his attacker be paralysed at the exact same position on the spinal cord — and the judge looks into it. A brother in northern rural India kills his sister because her sexual infidelity has contaminated and shamed their family; her death is the only way to restore the family’s honour and prove to their community that they can be trusted. A US college student rapes a female acquaintance to ‘get back’ at the women who have rejected him and because he believes women are subordinates who are morally required to do as he commands. A suicide bomber in the Middle East kills himself and others in the name of an authority he respects and out of loyalty to his compatriots who will also die. A US fighter pilot bombs an ISIS target, killing several terrorists along with nearby civilians because his commander calculated it was an acceptable loss in order to achieve a greater good, the death of their enemies.
„In the examples above, parents are relating with children; recruits and fighters are relating with peers and superiors; boys and men are relating with their friends; families are relating with their communities; men are relating with women; people are relating to gods; and groups and nations are relating to each other. Across all cases, perpetrators are using violence to create, conduct, sustain, enhance, transform, honour, protect, redress, repair, end, and mourn valued relationships.“
We use violence to defend our moral code
Whenever we believe our moral code is threatened, we often resolve to verbal or physical violence to defend it.
So, the solution to resolve violence is not to focus on violent counter-measures (like mass incarceration), nor is it in enabling perpetrators to control their emotions. While this helps in some cases, the majority of violent cases aren’t touched by these measures.
We need to upgrade our moral codes
To banish violence, we need to upgrade the moral codes.
As long as violence is seen as a legitimate way to defend our moral violence will happen. Only when we change the moral codes to not allowing violence as a means can we stop this vicious cycle. So, violence itself must be made immoral.
Again, from their above Rei and Fiske wrote:
"But if we really want to cut rates of violence, we must focus on its moral motives. Simply stated, violence must be made immoral. This must hold both for the perpetrators and the people they care about. Only when violence in any relationship is seen as a violation of every relationship will it diminish."
They then gave an example:
„In his work reducing gang violence in Boston, the criminologist David Kennedy helps to organize interventions. Killers are confronted by local leaders and the families of victims, who all express the wrongness of killing and insist that violence against anyone undermines their relationships with everyone. Legal sanctions are also present, but they are insufficient on their own. Critically, the message has to come from respected people within the killer’s own community. As Kennedy puts it: ‘their own ideas about right and wrong matter most; the ideas of those they care about and respect matter more’.“
How can I upgrade my own moral code?
But how does this apply to me? I am not a violent person.
I have stated in the beginning that violence is such a predominant part of our human existence that we often don’t recognize it in its small incarnations.
Beating a person we readily associate with violence, but what about cursing or yelling at someone or those subtle intimidations we use to get our way with clerks or even business associates? Those situations where you through your words and your gestures try to bring someone down or feel the need to make sure he knows his/her place - all of these are forms of violence. It is just the degrees that vary.
Since the theory of Rei and Fiske states that violence comes from a moral violation and is also mostly used to regulate social relationships we need to ask ourselves:
- What (moral) believe do I think this person has violated?
- Who should benefit from this? What relationship do I want to strengthen, honor, protect, etc. with this?
- Why do I believe that person/group would approve my behavior?
The first step to recognize violent tendencies is to acknowledge their subtle existence.
Picture from Tom und Nicki Löschner on Pixabay
