“It is essential that we not base our image of ourselves on false foundations. What is involved here is not simply the understanding of the nature of humanity, but also the image of humanity that grows out of that understanding.” - the anthropologist Ashley Montagu
Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but not to his own facts. We've been conditioned to believe that some people are born violent -- but the science shows that's just not true. The concept that humanity is a violent is widespread. It is one of the oldest myths about human nature. From historical and philosophical beliefs to current popular and scientific beliefs, the view that a savage and aggressive beast is a central part of our nature permeates public and academic perceptions. the popular press and much of the public and some academics hold the belief that there is a specific biology or a genetic basis for aggression.Given this view, it is a common assumption that if you strip away the veneer of civilization, the restraints of society and culture, you reveal the primeval state of humanity characterized by aggression and violence. Many schools' curriculums use William Goldings' novel "Lord of the Flies" in which castaway boys regress to a predatory state which reinforces acceptance of this belief. It is an obvious fact, isn't it, that humans today can and do engage in extreme levels of violence and aggression.
Just read the newspapers, watch the TV news and you are guaranteed to come across evidence of humans behaving violently toward other humans. Its natural, isn't it? Animals hunt, kill, and eat prey. Many animals display aggression within the same species and violence, sometimes resulting in death. A male lion might seriously injure another male lion in a fight over access to a pride of females, two rams might butt heads until one of them staggers away seriously hurt but it is relatively rare for most animals to engage in intense, lethal aggression with members of their own species. Nor is that aggressive and violent behaviour the main ways in which animals within their species interact. For the most part, death of opponents in these cases is neither the premeditated goal nor the outcome of the behavior. So, while violence occurs, most species do not exhibit extreme aggression regularly and methodically. Humans, however, are a species that practices premeditated homicide and full-out war. That humans can, and do, participate in this type violence in ways that most other animals do not has led many to theorise that this aggression is part of human evolutionary heritage. The myth of human aggression holds that we are indeed evolved to be killers, or at least aggressors who use the threat of violence as a major evolutionary tool. The mark of this evolved tendency toward aggression can therefore be found in our bodies and minds, especially those of men.
The myth of human aggression is that humans (especially males) have a specific and distinct tendency toward aggression and violence and that this is patterned in our bodies and minds and arose due to evolutionary pressures of competition between men and between groups. If this were true, then aggression and violence must be a core part of who we are as humans because over evolutionary time those with the more aggressive behavioral patterns or traits must have defeated opponents and mated more successfully than those who were more pacific. We now know that aggression itself is not a uniform or consistent discrete trait, so aggression per se cannot be favored by evolutionary pressures to form the basis of the human experience. Human aggression is an amazingly complicated thing. There is variation in conflict styles and aggression across individuals, sexes, genders, societies, and time frames. Aggression is an important part of being human, but it is not who we are. War is common in the human experience today, but it is not a central part of our evolutionary heritage.
The other primate apes show us that we do not have specific, evolved patterns of heightened aggression. We know that more aggressive, more violent, or more warlike males do not necessarily do better, either in humans or in our closest relatives. We are not aggressive, big-brained apes. We know the regions of the brain and body that influence normal aggression. While our genes do not control or determine the normative expression of aggression, abnormal biological function can influence particular patterns of aggressive behavior. The nature of human aggression is not found in our genes, but understanding the function and variation in our biology can help us better understand the pathways and patterns of aggressive behavior. As a species we do not rely on aggression and violence more than cooperation; there is no pattern of evidence to support a notion that humanity is aggressive and selfish by nature. The myth of a human nature characterized by an intrinsic aggressiveness is simply not true. Identifying the genetic key to aggression is not possible, because it does not exist. Despite popular notions that certain genes or genetic elements control or regulate the appearance and intensity of aggressive behaviors, there is no evidence for any one-to-one genetic controls, nor is there evidence for certain molecules or systems in the body that predetermine aggressive outcomes. There is no gene or system in the body that can be identified as “for aggression.” While it appears clear that genetic variation in neurotransmitters and hormones can be involved in the ways in which we express aggressive behavior, there is no direct or casual link. Our genes cannot make us aggressive. Humans are not naturally aggressive, but they do have a great potential for aggression and violence. Certain things spur aggressive actions, but the common notions about our inner, natural aggressive tendencies ignores the complexity of human biology, psychology, history, and society. It downplays the myriad ways in which aggression is initiated and maintained, and oversimplifies what we can mean by, and understand about, human aggressive behavior. And, most dangerously, it enables a kind of inevitability in our communal sense of aggression and society, especially as it relates to males. This need not be the case.
If we believe we are aggressive at our base, that males stripped of social constraints will resort to a brutish nature, then we will expect and accept certain types of violence as inevitable. This means that instead of really trying to understand and rectify the horrific and complex realities of rape, genocide, civil war, and torture, we will chalk at least a part of these events up to human nature. This is a dangerous state of mind that traps us in a vicious cycle of inaction and futility when it comes to moving forward as societies invested in understanding and managing violence.
The full unabridged article by Agustin Fuentes, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Notre Dame can be read here
Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but not to his own facts. We've been conditioned to believe that some people are born violent -- but the science shows that's just not true. The concept that humanity is a violent is widespread. It is one of the oldest myths about human nature. From historical and philosophical beliefs to current popular and scientific beliefs, the view that a savage and aggressive beast is a central part of our nature permeates public and academic perceptions. the popular press and much of the public and some academics hold the belief that there is a specific biology or a genetic basis for aggression.Given this view, it is a common assumption that if you strip away the veneer of civilization, the restraints of society and culture, you reveal the primeval state of humanity characterized by aggression and violence. Many schools' curriculums use William Goldings' novel "Lord of the Flies" in which castaway boys regress to a predatory state which reinforces acceptance of this belief. It is an obvious fact, isn't it, that humans today can and do engage in extreme levels of violence and aggression.
Just read the newspapers, watch the TV news and you are guaranteed to come across evidence of humans behaving violently toward other humans. Its natural, isn't it? Animals hunt, kill, and eat prey. Many animals display aggression within the same species and violence, sometimes resulting in death. A male lion might seriously injure another male lion in a fight over access to a pride of females, two rams might butt heads until one of them staggers away seriously hurt but it is relatively rare for most animals to engage in intense, lethal aggression with members of their own species. Nor is that aggressive and violent behaviour the main ways in which animals within their species interact. For the most part, death of opponents in these cases is neither the premeditated goal nor the outcome of the behavior. So, while violence occurs, most species do not exhibit extreme aggression regularly and methodically. Humans, however, are a species that practices premeditated homicide and full-out war. That humans can, and do, participate in this type violence in ways that most other animals do not has led many to theorise that this aggression is part of human evolutionary heritage. The myth of human aggression holds that we are indeed evolved to be killers, or at least aggressors who use the threat of violence as a major evolutionary tool. The mark of this evolved tendency toward aggression can therefore be found in our bodies and minds, especially those of men.
The myth of human aggression is that humans (especially males) have a specific and distinct tendency toward aggression and violence and that this is patterned in our bodies and minds and arose due to evolutionary pressures of competition between men and between groups. If this were true, then aggression and violence must be a core part of who we are as humans because over evolutionary time those with the more aggressive behavioral patterns or traits must have defeated opponents and mated more successfully than those who were more pacific. We now know that aggression itself is not a uniform or consistent discrete trait, so aggression per se cannot be favored by evolutionary pressures to form the basis of the human experience. Human aggression is an amazingly complicated thing. There is variation in conflict styles and aggression across individuals, sexes, genders, societies, and time frames. Aggression is an important part of being human, but it is not who we are. War is common in the human experience today, but it is not a central part of our evolutionary heritage.
The other primate apes show us that we do not have specific, evolved patterns of heightened aggression. We know that more aggressive, more violent, or more warlike males do not necessarily do better, either in humans or in our closest relatives. We are not aggressive, big-brained apes. We know the regions of the brain and body that influence normal aggression. While our genes do not control or determine the normative expression of aggression, abnormal biological function can influence particular patterns of aggressive behavior. The nature of human aggression is not found in our genes, but understanding the function and variation in our biology can help us better understand the pathways and patterns of aggressive behavior. As a species we do not rely on aggression and violence more than cooperation; there is no pattern of evidence to support a notion that humanity is aggressive and selfish by nature. The myth of a human nature characterized by an intrinsic aggressiveness is simply not true. Identifying the genetic key to aggression is not possible, because it does not exist. Despite popular notions that certain genes or genetic elements control or regulate the appearance and intensity of aggressive behaviors, there is no evidence for any one-to-one genetic controls, nor is there evidence for certain molecules or systems in the body that predetermine aggressive outcomes. There is no gene or system in the body that can be identified as “for aggression.” While it appears clear that genetic variation in neurotransmitters and hormones can be involved in the ways in which we express aggressive behavior, there is no direct or casual link. Our genes cannot make us aggressive. Humans are not naturally aggressive, but they do have a great potential for aggression and violence. Certain things spur aggressive actions, but the common notions about our inner, natural aggressive tendencies ignores the complexity of human biology, psychology, history, and society. It downplays the myriad ways in which aggression is initiated and maintained, and oversimplifies what we can mean by, and understand about, human aggressive behavior. And, most dangerously, it enables a kind of inevitability in our communal sense of aggression and society, especially as it relates to males. This need not be the case.
If we believe we are aggressive at our base, that males stripped of social constraints will resort to a brutish nature, then we will expect and accept certain types of violence as inevitable. This means that instead of really trying to understand and rectify the horrific and complex realities of rape, genocide, civil war, and torture, we will chalk at least a part of these events up to human nature. This is a dangerous state of mind that traps us in a vicious cycle of inaction and futility when it comes to moving forward as societies invested in understanding and managing violence.
The full unabridged article by Agustin Fuentes, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Notre Dame can be read here
No comments:
Post a Comment