Introduction
Aggression can be defined as the tendency of man to perform destructive actions intended to harm others or self-destruction. A destructive form of aggression may lead to violence in man and this may lead to the performing acts of violence against other people with an intention to injure them or even destroy property (Buss, 1999, p12). Accidental injury of a person by another person cannot be referred to as violence since it is not intended. Violence and aggression in men have been a topic of controversy since the 19th century with many scholars trying to find the origin of aggression and violence in men. Various studies by different scholars have come up with different theories trying to explain the origin of aggression in man.
This includes theories such as biological theories, evolution theories, and anthropological theories among others. Some of the scholars who have greatly contributed to the topic have come up with various theses trying to solve the mystery. These include the Rousseauean thesis, Malthusian thesis, Hobbesian thesis, and the Spencerian thesis. Today we live in a world that is full of violence with wars against nations, societies, and communities besides domestic violence. The debate on the causes of violence and aggression still continues to be argued amongst various scholars. The paper will view the various factors that have been brought forward as the main causes of aggression in man and make a conclusion on whether violence in man is something inborn or it is adapted from the social structures where one is nurtured.
Biological perspective
The biological explanation of the causes of aggression in man takes various perspectives. The major one is the theory of evolution that has been attributed to Charles Darwin. It is argued that the natural process of selection makes individuals to be adapted to aggression. In other biological explanations, genetic factors have been considered to be the main cause of aggression in man. Aggression is said to be genetically programmed in human beings such that the offspring normally inherit the aggressive genes from their parents which are later passed to other generations. This suggests that aggression in man is actually something that is inborn and always within us. (Buss, 1999, p15) argues that humans are innately aggressive. The genetic aggressive nature of man is exposed in the social and cultural institutions. He states that man inherits their aggressive nature among all other behaviors that are inherited from their parents. He sees aggression as something that is inborn rather than acquired from the social and cultural norms. Some biologists have linked the causes of aggression in man to the nature of the human brain. Within the human brain is a small part which is referred to as the Amygdala (Pugh, 1978, p7). The scientists argue that when this part of the human is stimulated it causes them to act violently.
When the part is not activated the human tends to be calmer. The chemical configuration in the human brain is also blamed for Aggression in the human. The most referred to chemicals include serotonin and testosterone. When the body has very low levels of serotonin, it may cause individuals to act violently. Research carried out indicated that the criminals in prisons and those convicted of a crime had very low levels of serotonin in their brains. Those who have low levels of serotonin are naturally violent and will dominate the aggressive behavior. A high level of testosterone in the human brain triggers the human to be very aggressive. This explains why men are more aggressive than women. Too much testosterone gives rise to very violent individuals. Research in the prisons also indicated that the individuals who had been convicted of a crime had very high levels of testosterone (Pugh, 1978, p18). The nature of hormones controlling the individuals’ emotions suggests that man is aggressive in nature according to the biologists. Biologists believe that the neuron system in human beings is responsible for controlling human behavior. Thus hormones are responsible for influencing violence in men (James, 2009, p615). Biologists disagree with the notion that violence in man is driven by the environment in which they live.
Philosophical perspective
According to the philosophers, man’s aggressive nature is simply a reflection of God’s aggressive nature. They argue that aggressiveness in man was God’s plan and therefore it is born within man and we do not have any control over it (Buss, 1999, p24). The philosophers have argued that humans have the tendency to seek love when they feel that they have inadequate love from God. They give the example of Abel and Cain. They argue that Cain killed Abel because he felt God did not give him enough love and he did this to seek recognition. In nature, man will always seek recognition by eliminating the other man thus aggressiveness and violence. Philosophers indicate that when a man feels rejected, lost, and cast out they tend to fight back by being aggressive and this is God’s will for man. The philosophers have argued that the nature of war in man originated from the universe just like the stars, planets and thus man has no control over the actions that leads him to war. It just happens naturally as God intended in his violent nature. According to the philosophers, violence is always part of the sacred before God. Hobbes a philosopher explains that violence is natural in man and it is a war of every man against every other man.
Evolutionary perspective
From the evolutionary perspective, the human species has been evolved over time and this has brought changes in view to aggression and violence. In the cause of evolution, humans become adapted to the environment differently and the forces of change make a man be violent and aggressive (Shackelford, 1997, p12). This can be explained through Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection. Men and women in the environment have different adaptive factors. The males usually compete with each other in the cause of evolution and competition itself will be the cause of violence among the male as they struggle to survive.
Only the aggressive individuals were able to survive and pass their genes to other generations and this faced out the non-aggressive individuals and gave rise to aggressive societies. In the cause of the evolution of man from ape to man, human beings learned how to use tools and other weapons. The man was more superior to other animals and he carried out his aggressiveness over the other animals. The ability to reproduce and survive in the human environment leads to the nature of aggressiveness. In the course of evolution, man must compete for scarce resources such as food, water, and also mating opportunities. The most common nature of aggressiveness in man is seen in the interaction between their predators and the prey. Man became aggressive in his bid to ensure survival and protect his offspring.
Psychoanalytical perspective
The two scholars who have been largely involved with this perspective are Freud and Lorenz. According to them, aggression in human beings is driven by the inherent instincts that are possessed by every human being. Freud argues that all human behavior is driven by sexual and instinctive energy which is referred to as libido (Bernard, 1988, p33). Right from childhood hood the female and the male children have instincts for the opposite sex and if such instincts are not satisfied it leads to aggressive behavior which may eventually lead to violence and war. The scholars have supported that aggression in human beings is innate and they are motivated by sexual drives. Freud states that the death of instincts in Human beings is what leads to aggression in man. Initially instincts in man give rise to aggression which is of a self-destruction nature but it is later driven outwards towards other people.
If the instincts in an individual are not addressed over time, they accumulate within the person and this makes such an individual be very aggressive. The levels of aggressiveness in humans will differ depending on the rate of death of the instincts within the specific individuals. According to Lorenz, all human beings are born with instincts that are meant for the flight and also fighting in a bid to guard their offspring, their mates, and also their territory. The psychoanalytic perspective suggests that man has is hostile in nature and all individuals have destructive instincts within themselves. How man depicts the signs and levels of destruction, violence, and aggressiveness are controlled by society. They, therefore, suggest that the destructive and violent nature of man is always present and only needs some social drives to erupt. For the individuals who are not violent, society provides ways of evading the violent nature such that the violent nature is redirected to self and not to other individuals.
Anthropological perspective
The anthropological perspective on the aggressiveness and violent nature of man argues that this behavior of man is not inborn. The anthropologists argue that man was initially a very peaceful animal without any aggressiveness and without any violence. They argue that the development of man and the civilization that came along is what led man to be aggressive. The changes in the cultural and the social structures within man’s surroundings are what led man to be aggressive (Johnson,1979, p52) The necessities that are present within man’s environment throughout the evolution of man are what make a man be aggressive. The anthropological perspective suggests that the social and cultural civilizations that surround man make him struggle for recognition and domination over others. In the view of anthropologists, the human mind is guided by his culture and thus violence and aggressiveness are not inborn characteristics in man (Dayne, 1996, p10).
Anthropologists argue that man is primitive in nature and the normal nature of hunting for food just like other predators cannot be referred to as war or violence. The fact that man was involved in hunting in the early period did not mean that man was violent. This was a natural method of hunting for food. They also argue that the normal disciplinary measures where the society lacks public justice cannot be referred to as war or violence. They maintain that man was initially peaceful and very primitive in matters that are concerned with war and violence (Dayne, 1996, p13). The resulting aggressiveness in man is a result of changing cultures within man’s environment. Within cultural societies, how a child is brought up will greatly determine whether they will be aggressive and violent or not. If a child is brought up in an environment that is full of violence it is most likely that the child will turn out to be violent. This has been proved by raising a child born of violent parents in an environment of calm parents. The child does not adopt his parent’s violent nature but adopts the peaceful and calm environment that they are brought up in. According to anthropologists, Therefore, genes that are inherited by a child do not determine the aggressive nature of the child but the kind of environment into which the child is brought up (James, 2009, p612).
Scholar opinions
Rousseauean
According to Rousseauean view war and violence is not part of human nature but human nurture (Dayne, 1996, p5). He states that war was invented as a matter of politics and it is meant to serve some specific functions within the state. He supports the notion that man was peaceful and very primitive in the Golden ages and that is his natural state. War and violence in man were a result of inequality and struggle for property within the society. He argues that the small populations that existed in the early period did not have to fight for resources since they were enough for them. Civilization and increased populations are the main causes of violence and war in human beings. Thus the origin of the war in man is from the politics of the world and not the nature of man.
Hobbesian
Other scholars such as Hobbes agree that war was a result of some functions within the state such as maintaining the balance of power and solidarity but according to him war is part of human nature (Dayne, 1996, p3). He argues that war is part of humankind and that humans are innately violent. He supports his position by saying that man will naturally be war-like due to reasons such as competition for human resources, defense, and also to gain glory in society. In view of competition, he must be violent in order to be able to invade and compete for scarce resources. He must have also be created violent in order to enable him to guard his territory and ensure safety. The other reason is to maintain glory which helps man to be able to maintain reputation within the society. He argues that all humans are born aggressive and their aggressiveness or violent nature is controlled by the three reasons. According to him the environment in which man stays is necessarily insecure such that there is a raising need for warfare in order for man to survive in it. The two scholars base the reasons for warfare as external and very anti-social. However, the studies that were carried out by Hobbes have been greatly criticized that man is not always in warfare with other men or societies against other societies. Others such as Ferguson have however supported him in the fact that man must fight in order to maintain the balance of power.
Malthusian
He supports the philosophical nature of war and argues that war was a plan of God. He states that war is not intentional in man and that it is actually invisible to him. He explains that war was intended by God as a way of controlling the populations at certain intervals. He explains that God uses violence in man to control the growth of populations not to exceed the available resources (Dayne, 1996, p3). According to him, War is brought about by the natural laws of the demography of which man cannot control. He, therefore, supports the notion that war is part of man and is always present within his environment.
Spencerian
He builds his support for warfare in man using the Anthropological approach. He argues that warfare, violence, and the warlike nature of man were part of the evolution process. He argues that during man’s development, the struggle for resources as explained by Charles Darwin is what led to violence in man. He supports the notion of the struggle for the fittest as the major driver of aggressiveness in man (Dayne, 1996, p8). Those who are aggressive were able to survive and reproduce and thus gave birth to springs that were aggressive and thus warfare in man is a result of the process of evolution.
Freudian
According to Freud, violence in man is innate (James, 1970, p611). He argues that violence and aggressiveness in man are a result of instincts that are inborn. The warfare nature in man is always present within man and it can erupt at any time. What controls the level of aggressiveness in man is society. The instincts in man will control the hostility and the violence in man. Man is born as a destructive being and the instincts within him are the ones that determine the level of hostility in him. He states that society controls the violent instincts in man by providing other ways or scapegoats that make him less violent. According to him aggression normally results from the death of instincts in man.
The Seville statement
The year 1986 was an international year of peace and this was the year when the Seville statement on violence was issued. The authors of the statement basically challenged the biological view of violence and its nature in man. This statement attracted a lot of controversy and debate about warfare in man. Since the 20th century, most biologists have supported the nature side as the course of violence in man while the anthropologists support the nurture view as the course of warfare in man. The Seville statement disagrees with the notion that the human brain shapes the violent nature of man (Foxit, 1986, p2). They support the view that how a man acts is only a result of the socialization process. They disagree that the neuron system in the human body automatically makes a man act violently. The Seville statement also disregards the biological view that war in man is genetically programmed. They argue that the genes present in man do not in any way determine the outcome of man’s actions.
The way man behaves is only a result of the interaction of the genes with the process of nurture within the environment. They also disagree with the Freudian notion that violence in man is controlled by instincts in human beings. The Seville statement argues that modern warfare is the process of transformation from motivational and emotional factors to cognitive factors. They argue that modern warfare is controlled by the personal characteristics within the human institutions such as obedience, suggestibility, and social skills. They especially support social skills citing that language is a major tool that is used to pass information from one person to another and technology in the modern period serves to exaggerate the human traits thus man becomes violent. Language has enabled man to communicate and coordinate amongst the groups and the use of technology such as tools.
The authors state that the biologists did not condemn humanity to war and argue that if the man was capable of inventing war, he is also capable of inventing peace and thus the responsibility of the violent nature of man lies within ourselves. They also disregard the evolution theories stating that the virtue of inheritance in man cannot be used to justify violence in man to have originated from our ancestors (Foxit, 1986, p1). They argue that the early man did not use any weapons to fight and thus such scientific theories cannot support the inheritance of war. They argue that the normal process of searching for food through predatory means cannot be referred to as war or violence in man. The statement has been criticized by some scholars citing that the authors were only being political, and has a religious belief (Gerald, 1994, p847). The statement is cited to be based on ideology Fear and that it’s inaccurate and misleading. Gerald, 1994, p848)
Conclusion
In conclusion warfare, aggressiveness, and violence in man is not innate. Man is not born being violent. In the early centuries, the man was not violent and he was a very peaceful animal very primitive of violence. Over the years the interaction of humans with the environment is the one that has changed the peaceful nature of man to become very violent and aggressive. The issues related to technology have changed the way man thinks and socializes. Through language and technology, man is able to communicate various methods of socialization and this has shaped the social structures that we live in. A child born in any environment will adopt the behaviors that are socially accepted within the society and within the social structures. If society believes that getting resources is through violent means such as in the slums such a child will most likely be violent. If the social structures have adopted power using violent means the society will use violence and aggressiveness to operate within the society. On the other hand, if one is raised in a peaceful and calm environment where the social structures are well, organized without violence, the person will grow up being peaceful and approaching life in a peaceful and calm manner.
References
Bernard (1988). Instinct. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, p32-49.
Buss (1999). The Psychology of Aggression. New York: Wiley, p12-28.
Dayne Dawson (1996). The origins of War: Biological and anthropological Theories. Black well Publishing, p1-29.
Foxit PDF Editor (1986). Seville statement on violence. Foxit Software Company, p1-2.
Gerald Beroldi (1994). Critique of the Seville statement on violence. American Psychological Association, p847-848.
GE Pugh (1978). The biological origin of human values. Prentice Hall p3-19.
James c Davies (2009). Violence and aggression innate/not. University of Utah, p611-625.
Johnson, Roger N (1979). Aggression in Man and Animals. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, p45-68.
Shackelford (1997). Human aggression in evolutionary psychological perspective. Oxford University Press, p8-28.
William R Caspary (1993). New psychoanalytic perspectives on the causes of war. International society of political psychology, p417-446.