I once overheard an interesting confession from a friend of a friend. This guy had been drinking and was admitting to his buddy that he just wanted to get into a fight, punch the next person that walked through the door, stir things up. That sort of thing. I complained to my companion that it was precisely this attitude that causes so much conflict in society and, though my friend agreed, he sheepishly added that sometimes he too enjoyed the thrill of physical violence.
I was reminded of the incident recently in a class on the origins of aggression when we read a passage from Journalist Bill Buford’s Among the Thugs. Buford spent eight years documenting violent episodes in sports crowds and riots. He wrote of the intensity of a violent experience:
I am attracted to the moment when consciousness ceases: the moments of survival, of animal intensity, of violence, when there is no multiplicity, no potential for different levels of thought: there is only one–the present in its absoluteness
If we really can find a sort of solace, release, or even satisfaction in violence, I think this says something about our race, and it makes me wonder if peace is really attainable. We may find it difficult to identify with violent people as we are now, but how would we react if a loved one were taken from us? Would we want revenge? Maybe revenge is the search for the relief that violence can bring however transient or ultimately tragic.
I disagree completely. But only because I want to start a fight.
When you look back on all of human history, it’s pretty obvious we love kicking the crap out of each other. Well, us men do anyways…
That’s interesting. We’ve heard more about this feeling of extra aliveness in more acceptable contexts, such as mountain climbing, playing rugby, etc. — when you must pay attention and try your hardest or you’ll get hurt or worse. It sounds more like intense play – tag with bruises. And there are constructive ways to put it to use: heroic efforts, search & rescue, emergency medical services, cops vs. robbers, peace-keepers vs. pillagers – always trying to keep on the side of right. It’s probably a testosterone high.
I think that revenge is a much more bitter emotion that does not make people feel alive but rather hurts them.
In the middle might be pure physical effort such as jumping over a fence when a bull is chasing you. What do you think?
I don’t see why this would make peace impossible; even as interpreted, it simply presents an obstacle. I mean, if you consider that cultural influences can actually reverse the most basic biological impulse (self-preservation) in various ways…
Fighting is fun. A good fight feels like a runner’s high with adrenaline piled on top. Then again, so do certain sports.
In conclusion, you should all watch Fight Club at least once.
FIGHT CLUB!!!
I can understand the feeling, but I don’t share it.
“Well, us men do anyways…”
Don’t be mistaken, us women love to throw down too. Our fighting has much more of a mental angle. Slap her silly sure, but break her socially.
And any mother who never felt the urge to smack a child either has an inhumane patience or not spent enough hours with the kid.
But as humans we’ve found ritualistic venues to express our anger. Wrestling, boxing, martial arts, watching Dr. Phil, that idea.
I recognize the description of that moment of animal zen. I have never sought it out in violence, which doesn’t appeal to me at any level.
Back when I used to do rock climbing, I found the same focus that the author of that paper describes. Although I was tied to a rope, my animal survival instincts were very much at the forefront, masking out any petty thoughts that normally occupied my higher mental functions.
I cower at even the thought of getting into a real-life fight. Even if I could win I don’t think I’d enjoy it.
I do however enjoy violent movies and if I had the time, I’d probably enjoy violent video games as well.
I loved the violence in ‘The Sopranos’ even though the creators went to great pains to show us just how horrible the effects of that violence was.
Evolutionary psychology provides the simplest explanation for male violence. It’s encoded into our genes (somehow). Nature is violent.
i don’t think extreme desires (needs?) like the one your friend describes necessarily doom us to forever acting them out in anti-social ways. creatively establishing a wide variety of “acceptable” outlets (some of which have been mentioned already) for those feelings is really the key, imo, along with education (promotion?) of those outlets to society as a whole.
heh. a department of anger management? maybe it could be incorporated into something like dennis kucinich’s department of peace idea? :)
how possible would this be to accomplish? i have no idea, over the long run. but i’m reasonably sure it won’t happen in my lifetime!
I disagree with the opinion that violent attitudes like that have any significant effect on the levels of violence in the world.
I can’t think of a single war or conflict that comes about because of that kind of attitude.
Sounds like unscientific hippy bullshit to me.
Oh yeah?
Yes, violence is written into our makeup.
Yes, everyone, including me, has violent thoughts, fantasies, and urges.
No, it doesn’t mean that peace is unattainable for “our race”.
In fact, violent acts are becoming less and less common.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html
As a sports fanatic (origen of Fan), I have taken to outrageous displays of anger. I have, once or twice a year, for the last four years, broken at least one bone in my hands trough the idotic “Me mad, must punch stuff!” pathway. However, before you judge me as some thuggish asshole, I can assure you that after the fact I was much more rational than those who had merely tortured themselves mentally. My ability to punish myself in a silly, and painful, way, meant that I was not about to become violent against any other humans. In fact, I found that after my most violent outbursts, I found myself in a calm place that those who were angry and non violent never found.
I’m just sayin’, punch the shit out of an inanimate object. You will become calmer and more able to accept what has happened.
That doesn’t sound quite the same thing to me. I can relate to the original premises—except that I can’t recall ever really wanting that in the context of assaulting a stranger; on the other hand, I enjoy martial arts, where I can roll around and choke out people who consent and volunteer to be there, with all the adrenaline and competitiveness but safety in that either person can tap out (i.e. the technical martial arts equivalent of saying ) when he realises he’s lost. (In principle, anyway: In reality I’m a beginner to jiu-jutsu and am at the receiving end of all the chokes.)
The heart-pumping, adrenaline rush, the total focus, the loss of distractions and myriad conflicting priorities — all these aspects of a fight can be had quite without felony or malicious assault. It’s helped me tremendously in dealing with clinical depression: Exercise and getting the endorphins going is good in itself, and there’s nothing like being totally focused, body and mind, to take your mind off your troubles (and there’s nothing to force total focus like knowing that you’ll get punched if you don’t).
That doesn’t sound quite the same thing to me. I can relate to the original premises—except that I can’t recall ever really wanting that in the context of assaulting a stranger; on the other hand, I enjoy martial arts, where I can roll around and choke out people who consent and volunteer to be there, with all the adrenaline and competitiveness but safety in that either person can tap out (i.e. the technical martial arts equivalent of saying ) when he realises he’s lost. (In principle, anyway: In reality I’m a beginner to jiu-jutsu and am at the receiving end of all the chokes.)
The heart-pumping, adrenaline rush, the total focus, the loss of distractions and myriad conflicting priorities — all these aspects of a fight can be had quite without felony or malicious assault. It’s helped me tremendously in dealing with clinical depression: Exercise and getting the endorphins going is good in itself, and there’s nothing like being totally focused, body and mind, to take your mind off your troubles (and there’s nothing to force total focus like knowing that you’ll get punched if you don’t).
If you think the threat of being punched forces total focus, wait until you’re at risk of serious injury and/or jail time.
Not that I ever have been. Perish the thought.
In the macro sense the states of most of Europe is at peace with each other (for now), in the microcosm you can look at football (soccer) violence among the “hooligans”. The “hooligans” do not affect the macro in any meaningful way however.
I used to be a bouncer untill some drunk attacked me and I put him in the hospital with broken nose and gash on his head – he had to be flipped onto the gurney. From an existential point the fight was thrilling, but afterwards it was not, especially since I did not want the guy to die or me to go to jail (I did not).
This “afterwards” concept would seem to invalidate many common life decisions made in college. Among them are binge drinking, skipping class, vandalism, and not reading the material.
As it contradicts the consensus among my fellow students, it would seem to be irrelevant.
#5
Excuse me, but rule number one?
How hard have you tried?
If you mean as sole cause, then you are trivially correct, because hardly any conflicts have just one cause.
But I think you’ll find that in many – perhaps even most – civil wars/conflicts this sort of gratuitous violence is a significant contributor (even if the leaders on both sides try to present more “acceptable” reasons for their aggression). Northern Ireland and the disintegration of Yugoslavia are a couple of examples that spring to mind, Ruanda is surely another.
Please don’t give conjecture.
What evidence do you have that people’s attitude of wanting to start violence for no other reason than for the sake of violence had any impact on the situation in Ireland, Yugoslavia or “Ruanda [sic]?”
Jeremy: interviews with the genocidaires in Rwanda were collected in, among other books, “Machete Season” by Jean Hatzfeld and “Intimate Enemy” by Scott Strauss. They certainly bear out Stephen’s idea. To an extent, the genocide happened because it was fun – certainly compared to the killers’ normal lives. It was more enjoyable and more rewarding (financially and otherwise) to go out and hack other people to death than it was to work as a subsistence farmer.
I’d recommend also some reading around the Bosnian conflict. Martin Bell’s “In Harm’s Way” has an account of an interview with the Serb paramilitary leader Arkan. Misha Glenny’s “Seasons in Hell” and William Shawcross’ “Deliver Us From Evil” are also informative on the irregulars involved on both sides of the conflict, and their attitude towards warfare.
That warfare is fun has been known for millennia. Read anything from the Iliad to Njal’s Saga to “An Irish Airman Foresees His Death” to “Alamein to Zem Zem”.
It’s difficult to point to any conflict or slaughter (except possibly Rwanda) that happened solely because fighting and killing was fun, but that fact certainly means that few wars are ever short of volunteers.
Well firstly, Jeremy, what was your sweeping statement if not conjecture?
As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, I shared a house with some people from Northern Ireland during the height of the troubles, and they told me quite a bit about what was going on. As for Yugoslavia there were several stories in the media about gangs who would go and beat up people from one of the “other” communities. And as for Ruanda/Rwanda (both spellings have been officially used, by the way – you can keep your “sic”) two of my acquaintances were working there when the troubles broke out. I would be interested to know how you think you can explain what happened there if sheer bloody-minded violence for the hell of it played no role at all?
I’m sorry, random, impetuous, violence is not the cause of much of the conflict in today’s society.
================================
There’s something wonderful and poetic about someone with the name of ‘Battle’ rejecting violence (comment #7).
Independent of the love of Jesus, men will always become violent unless forcibly restrained. Only when Jesus transforms men from within do they find peace desirable.
Pole Greaser, I guess that must explain the crime rate in atheistic Sweden.
Ok, I will look into those books, but stand corrected for the time being. I wasn’t aware of any details beyond the politics. Sorry :).
Re; Pole Greaser.
In the US atheists make up 12% of the general population, but only 0.2% of the US prison population. On the other hand Christians make up 75% of the general population and also 75% of the prison population. Why is that? (Federal Bureau of Prisons 1997)
Atheists are too smart to get caught.
We’re armed with the wiles and the wickedness of the Devil, after all, and defense lawyers can smell their own.
Damn, I’ve been missing out on the spoils of atheism for all these years :(
Did you call my pint a puff?
Sorry. I love the argument above that independence from Jebus causes men to be violent. Fantastic. Statements in spite of evidence eh? well, I suppose you are religious. What else should I expect?
Seems to me there’s a difference between the physical thrill of intense competition and the high from wielding power over someone else. In some situations, you get both, as with physical sports vs. an opponent (as opposed to, say, rock climbing).
But, I think more to PZ’s point, there’s a marked difference between having the consent of your “opponent” and not.
Even soccer hooligans might agree vaguely about fighting before they commence — and they might leave alone those who don’t wish to take part, more or less.
But PZ’s initial example, “punch the next person that walked through the door” is NOT just about a zen-like spiritual release. It’s not about competition. It’s about overpowering someone to prop yourself up.
It’s antisocial, and, taken to an extreme, it underlies the motives of serial killers and the like. It’s violence committed specifically to hurt, not to compete.
Pinker did say that violence was statistically reducing over time. Nonetheless, I’m packin’ heat if the wedge strategy ever works.
Did anybody else see the article in last week’s New Scientist by David Sloan Wilson and E. O. Wilson about group evolution and altruism.
Based on that you’d have to say that in socially cohesive societies with less violence will overpower more violent societies (presuming it’s the general indirect violence that this discussion is involved in – if a society as a whole directed violence specifically at a different society, that would be a different circumstance).
For a number of years I was among those who would go out looking to fight. For me, and I’m certain others, anger wasn’t a driving force, it was more mischief than malice. We would frequent bars and hardcore punk shows, There were always others, like minded, easily identifiable. Individual pride was IMO the real problem with some, for me “winning” wasn’t the most important objective. I’ve participated in a number of “extreme sports” few match the tremendous viceral rush of adrenaline that accompanies a full on brawl with dozens of people. Often we’d end up drinking together later jovially. Rock climbing for example requires that you mantain a fairly high degree of control, the adrenaline fueled hand and leg shaking is not conducive to maintaining a tenuous grip on a slick surface, you can’t “let go” to the same degree. Some suggest that now that MMA is more accessible with small local amature events that people might have an outlet, I’ve found however, that MMA too often attracts exactly the wrong kind of people though…people who fight for pride…fight because they think they have something to prove. I’d rather fight because it’s, under the right conditions, fun and invigorating. I seldom have the urge like I used to, I suspect that the impulse is largely hormonal. Short of broken fingers, noses, and bruised ribs injuries were fairly rare, our biggest concern was dental, due to expense. I think fighting and losing is actually a valuable experience, once you lose your fear of it, the threat of violence isn’t really influential. I’ve had my ass kick dozens of times, what’s once more. I don’t think your aquaintance should be condemned for sharing an honest impulse, presumably he didn’t act on it. Had he done so, with someone else who shared his sentiment, hey, just grab a chair and enjoy the show. It’s not assault if no one cares to press charges, but yeah, just hitting some random person out of the blue…that’s not okay. Just like sex, consent is important. I suspect that he was aware of that. Anger, pride, and trying to use violence as a means of influence are IMO more the problem the impulse mentioned.
Human history is really one of violence in the extreme to outside groups, and we have evolved little since natural selection has made such violent traits beneficial.
In times of peace, with effective rule of law, we may look at such individuals with dismay. But when the Tartars are storming the walls, these are the ones we are particularly happy to have on our side.
Hooligans are interesting (now, I never thought I’d say that…) because they actually organize themselves and go in search of a fight, in search of release, they don’t fight because of provocation, or patriotism, or in the name of their team. These are just pretexts.
But they are an exception, the reasons for Rwanda, Yougoslavia, Northern Ireland or whatever are in each case well documented. The reasons for each individual who goes and fights could probably be akin to what you describe (although Jared Diamond argues that Rwanda was actually the result of rational decision making… of a sort) but that’s not sufficient to start a conflict of this scale. The individual’s thirst for violence is not a main reason for war and in most case it doesn’t survive very long in a sustained conflict.
The war machine can’t move ahead unless all of the cogs are turning. Governments and warlords are merely especially good at harnessing the evil that lurks in the hearts of men.
Any detailed, gruesome account of any genocide is likely to demonstrate just how willing soldiers can be. I recommend The Rape of Nanking. The beheading game was particularly vivid.
Young one, consider this: long ago, there once was a monk who left to live alone in the hills so as to to get away from the aggravations of other people, and presumably to live a more devotional life. One day he was frustrated about something or other and smashed a pot, and he realized that other people weren’t the problem, that there was even a violent nature within in need of some sort of control….. and having realized that, he returned to live with people.
Is rock and roll ametaphor for violence?….Hmmmm
WEDNESDAY MORNING MUSIC CLUB
The Ramones took their inspiration from The Bay City Rollers.
No kidding. Joey was crazy about the song “Saturday Night” and the influence was obvious on the Ramones first song.
Hey Ho, Let’s Go….Check out Johnny and Dee Dee in the first 30 seconds.
It’s better than coming :-)
It’s not a testosterone rush. Testosterone poisoning (heh) may prompt men to initiate or join in violence more readily than women, but that in-the-now clarity is something else entirely, and is reported by people of all genders. Adrenaline, endorphins, I dunno. Violence is optional. People who say things like “I’ve never felt more alive!” are usually referring to their involvement in a birth event, a death event, or an experience of high stress or peril. (I admit this conclusion is based on collected anecdotes.)
Oh? I imagine the Dalai Lama would be quite amused to hear this. (Another arrogant, myopic Christian heard from.)
Why, Kim is right again. The real cause is internet trolling.
“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.” H. L. Mencken
Kamehameha the Great, you should offer up that Ramones clip to Mr. Richard Harris, over on the Role Model thread, as evidence of the elegance and nuanced sophistication of rock’n’roll.
Also, for “itchy” and others who may have overlooked it, this is not one of PZ’s posts. It’s another entry by the bright and engaging Katie Glasrud.
I’m not sure that you can draw a direct connection between the minor threat our existance posed by wanting to punch somebody in the face, and the existential threat posed by the ability to kill people sight unseen by turning a dial. I’m not asserting that there is NO connection, but I do think that mass destruction is fairly divorced from personal violence.
I agree with those commenters that imply that the post is conflating things – alcohol consumption, violence, physical thrill and revenge. And these are many-faceted phenomena.
Looking at revenge and violence first, culturally and individually they are separate but of course often confluent. We have cultures with complicated and severe revenge customs, as well as cultures which support the practical side of violence (say for war, or to divert street violence) or its emotional side. The saying that “revenge is a dish best served cold” is telling on the individual side, the drive seems to have another basis than relief by violence.
I too think that physical thrill can be managed in other ways. The little I have done in rock climbing or high-speed cars I too found them inducive for focusing on instinct and flow, and I have found mostly the later in other intense sports.
Finally, alcohol consumption let people go from their inhibitions. Most individuals can still keep control if they wish. But you see timid people start to be vocal and/or aggressive as if to compensate.
I’m not sure what the level of control has to do with this activity as opposed to others. If you want to win a fight trained movements and other forms of control can be as efficient as scaring your opponent with rage and it will certainly decrease the risk of damage. But as you say, “winning” or damage didn’t concern you much.
Fighting is described as a saturday night entertainment here [Sweden] too in earlier societies. Today it is more dangerous (in the earlier tradition people was supposed to stop when the opponent fell, now they may more often finish with kicking or jumping on the head of the loser, killing or mentally crippling them) and often a means to an end such as intimidation.
Well, they often do. One of our modern pugilists started out as a city thug that fought for power in his subculture and to rob people. But when he later had to fight just to prove himself he was smart enough to take it into the ring. Now he is a media personality. And you hear similar stories a lot.
I agree with those commenters that imply that the post is conflating things – alcohol consumption, violence, physical thrill and revenge. And these are many-faceted phenomena.
Looking at revenge and violence first, culturally and individually they are separate but of course often confluent. We have cultures with complicated and severe revenge customs, as well as cultures which support the practical side of violence (say for war, or to divert street violence) or its emotional side. The saying that “revenge is a dish best served cold” is telling on the individual side, the drive seems to have another basis than relief by violence.
I too think that physical thrill can be managed in other ways. The little I have done in rock climbing or high-speed cars I too found them inducive for focusing on instinct and flow, and I have found mostly the later in other intense sports.
Finally, alcohol consumption let people go from their inhibitions. Most individuals can still keep control if they wish. But you see timid people start to be vocal and/or aggressive as if to compensate.
I’m not sure what the level of control has to do with this activity as opposed to others. If you want to win a fight trained movements and other forms of control can be as efficient as scaring your opponent with rage and it will certainly decrease the risk of damage. But as you say, “winning” or damage didn’t concern you much.
Fighting is described as a saturday night entertainment here [Sweden] too in earlier societies. Today it is more dangerous (in the earlier tradition people was supposed to stop when the opponent fell, now they may more often finish with kicking or jumping on the head of the loser, killing or mentally crippling them) and often a means to an end such as intimidation.
Well, they often do. One of our modern pugilists started out as a city thug that fought for power in his subculture and to rob people. But when he later had to fight just to prove himself he was smart enough to take it into the ring. Now he is a media personality. And you hear similar stories a lot.
Petter,
I couldn’t agree more with your feelings on martial arts. I’ve been practicing jujitsu for around 7 years. It’s the best outlet for all the aggression that I build up with everyday frustrations (such as theists). There’s something exhilirating about fighting with a consenting partner in a safe environment. You have all the fun with a lessened risk of harm.
I find this subject both fascinating and crucial on both the personal and political levels. Here are a few random thoughts; I’ll try not to turn this into an essay. (I probably will write that essay one day.)
!.) Look at the behavior of our fellow tribal primates, especially those that resemble us socially such as chimps and baboons. How do males determine hierarchy? How do they bond? While there are a variety of strategies, for males violence plays a very important role in both. As a kid I understood the former and was baffled by the latter. My life would have been very different if I had been able to accept friendly overtures from other boys who had fought me.
My best guess is that by fighting with someone and then befriending them, you then have a friend who you know can fight — which for us fighty primates translates to enhanced survival.
2.) I suspect (which is my way of saying that this probably isn’t a sound enough notion to qualify as even a hypothesis) that modern warfare is the result of a design flaw — that the willingness on the parts of society and individuals to accept warfare is something that has a biological basis, warfare itself is preventable. There was no biological imperative to invade Iraq until a large and influential segment of our society was taught (or rather triggered) to regard Iraq as the Enemy. The desire for an enemy and the impulse to punish them are inherent; the use of media to trigger those needs and impulses is inherently controlled and controllable.
3.) These needs and impulses are subject to wide variation among individuals. There are gals who fight like guys and guys that fight like gals. Me, I’m a fighty guy and coming to terms with that is one of my personal challenges. Honestly, I have more respect and regard for those in whom the impulse towards violence is weak, but I’m starting to understand that my own propensities are both controllable and involuntary — being a violent person doesn’t make me a bad person if I do not direct my violence into channels that lower the quality of life for others.
4.) On the other hand, I think it would be healthy if there were some accepted and controlled ways for people who want to fight each other to get down to it. Fight Club is good. Going out and tagging random strangers is bad. Like sex, the difference is consent. Martial arts (which I really need to check out) are a step in the right direction but they are too controlled and too demanding — for most of us the occasional fight would be a better solution than becoming a combat hobbyist. I’d love a return to the code of the duel. Criminalizing mutual violence seems really wrong to me, especially since the loser is always going to be legally perceived as the victim no matter who started the fight. I’m sick of not fighting people who want to fight (or who feel that they can deliberately provoke me without consequences) because I’d win. There are severe physical and emotional consequences to being pushed to the edge of violence and refusing to go over — as noted above, sometimes violence to the self is the alternative to violence directed at others — and they will probably wind up contributing to my death. Which is the price I’ve chosen to pay for minimizing my negative impact on those around me. Oh, well.
Go read Among The Thugs. It’s the best tool I know of for understanding the connection between personal and national violence.
I think this is true for guys. I have days/times like this too. That’s when I reach for a video game. I can invoke more havoc, destroy more wantonly, and just all around cause way more mayhem then I could ever get away with in real life.
When I switch it off life is all back to normal, all those aggressive desires are satiated, nobody gets hurt, nothing gets destroyed, and the police don’t care.
Most genocide historically has required many hundreds to millions of people getting their hands bloody. The Rape of Nanking, for instance, involved thousands gang-raping everything with a vagina in the streets and staging massive beheading contests when a touch of levity seemed to be required.
Modern warfare has allowed some exceptions to this kind of conduct. Now mass murder really can be done with the push of a button, but that is the exception and not the rule. By and large, genocide and ethnic cleansing even today are done up close, with hand-held weaponry.
Next time you pay your taxes, consider how many M16s-worth of money you’re paying and try to guess who the government is going to sell them to. It’s fun!
Make sure to remember that they don’t sell guns or chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein any more, because he’s a “bad guy” now, so they had men in ski masks hang him.
I confess, I’m cynical.
A fascinating book on this subject is Richard Rhodes’ Why They Kill: The Discoveries of a Maverick Criminologist.
http://tinyurl.com/2esgl8
It’s a biography of Lonnie Athens, now a professor at Seton Hall, who grew up in a Greek American family terrorized by a violent father, and who but for chance path-crossings with a few key friends and mentors believes he would have gone down a similar life course. Instead he made it his life’s work to try to discover why some people become irretrievably sociopathically violent. Athens struggled for decades to achieve recognition of his work, which was a challenge because of both his out-of-fashion methodology and the fact that the rough-edged personality he had developed in his lower-class family of origin did not go over well in the groves of academe.
Like all other of Rhodes’ work I’ve read, this book is also well written. Most of his works deal in one way or another with the dark side of human nature, a fact he suspects derives from having been nearly starved to death, along with his brother, by an arch-typically evil stepmother.
Regarding the rock and roll connection: I never got into consensual fighting as described by some here, but I get it. Anyone who routinely cranks up “Master of Puppets” while working out can understand it.
And to avoid confusion, this post wasn’t written by PZ, but by Katie Glasrud (nice job).
huh.
You know, I can’t relate. At all.
Guess I’ve just always been more of a parasympathetic kind of guy…
p.s. I’m pleased to admit that I don’t know what Master of Puppets is. I hate the Ramones too.
I think us coming to terms with the darker side of our nature – which may or may not constitute the evolutionary baggage from more primitive times – has, and will continue to be very much a long term challenge. One that is, nevertheless, worth rising to, IMHO.
Of course, even if we do have some crusty old caveman exons, this doesn’t at all justify senseless belligerence. We have the ability to reason, which, despite being a relatively new development, is nevertheless enough to check our more backward and reactionary drives. No matter what the perceived wrong, we always have a choice to retaliate or reconcile, and I think reason usually proves that the latter is the most beneficial course of action in the long run. Retaliation only ever provokes further retaliation; we’ve seen that time and time again.
BTW, my reluctance to join the crusade against religion is that I think the fight needs to be far broader than that. Religion, along with hard-line secular ideologies, is just symptomatic of groups of people turning away from reason and embracing primitive behaviour patterns; Us Vs Them sorta stuff. Trying to dissociate religion from society doesn’t solve the problem of why we ended up with religion in the first place. I’m not even convinced there needs to be an anti-religious element to the mission of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens et al. I think a concerted effort to push reason alone will, as a potent side effect, undermine the fear and ignorance that nourishes superstition.
Tallahassee Florida is a college town and drunken fights are accepted as a common part of life. Two weeks ago two guys fought on the sidewalk in front of a bar. Guy #1 hit Guy #2, who stumbled backwards into the street.
He was killed instantly by a passing car.
while reading this i thought of this article:
http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=kmlblrct9smn9vmdvlscgbjby9szffbz
you might find it interesting.
I think the subject broached is really more complex than ‘it’s bad’ or ‘it’s good.’
There’s BIG difference between wanting to go out and get into a simple soccer riot or brawl with another drunk and doing murder. They’re both the desire to physically assert your will over someone else, but you might as well say that sports, a popular pastime among men AND women is the same thing as murder. Sports are a very low-level form of violence which conform to rigorous sets of rules. Murder is what happens when a person completely loses control of their reason and humanity.
I sure want to go out and get into a fight sometimes, but it’s less an innate sense of violence than an emotional reaction to my current situation, and I never act on it. Sometimes I watch someone do something stupid in traffic for the hundredth time and all I want to do is drag he or she out of the car by the hair and beat them to sleep. Then I go lift weights and listen to something heavy and feel better after a while.
There are so many kinds of fights and so many kinds of violence that it’s not something you can just classify without examining it; or even better, experiencing them firsthand. And then you get some academic who’s never raised his voice in the middle of a fight claiming to have never felt so alive, when most of us got it out of our system in school.
I agree with a bunch of the posts here (yep, recreational violence goes way back, aggression in general is innate, not the same as mass destruction).
Given the early observation that fighting tends to shut down “higher thought”, I’d like to point out that almost anything that does shut down our “higher functions” (while leaving us otherwise functional), qualifies as an “ecstatic experience”. That can include fighting or sex, but also some sports, various drugs and meditation techniques, induced trances, et pluribus al..
“I’m not even convinced there needs to be an anti-religious element to the mission of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens et al. I think a concerted effort to push reason alone will, as a potent side effect, undermine the fear and ignorance that nourishes superstition.”
Oh yeah? Maybe you’d like to step your punk ass outside, little man!
But seriously, I disagree. If there were time aplenty then I would be all for the purely positive approach, the way we keep science in science class pure. Advance rational, critical thinking and eventually religion will die from starvation and neglect quite naturally.
But we don’t have eventually. We have a concerted movement by religious fanatics to take over the country–like at Dover. (And like our President and several before him). They are also trying to get us all blown up in a self fulfilling Armageddon, and they quite possibly have the power to do it. And they will never be reasoned with. They despise reason as the domain of the devil. I think more drastic measures have to be taken than just waiting for them to see the light. People need to understand not only what reason is, but what it is not. And they very much need to understand the mechanics of religious thought.
To be sure, it is a tricky thing to pull off. If the “new atheist” movement becomes nothing more than a bunch of smarmy god bashing, the “new” religion, then the whole thing turns stupid and nothing really changes at all. That is a very worrying scenario and it would mean that we have failed. (It’s also worrying that if the true believers get riled enough, they will start killing.)
I would maintain that as long as we are absolutely honest in everything we say and do, we can push rational, critical thinking and point out the inconsistencies and failings of religion.
I also maintain–times a’wastin.
Sven DiMilo,
“Master of Puppets” is Metallica! ; )
…he sheepishly added that sometimes he too enjoyed the thrill of physical violence.
If he said that, he’s a psychopath who needs psychological evaluation.
Get rid of this so-called “friend”.
I’m a budding forensic psychologist, so this kind of thing is quite relevant to my interests.
The main difference between two guys who get into a bar brawl for the hell of it and a serial killer is that element of human empathy, of conscience. A psychopath views other humans as expendable commodities, to be used for personal gratification–if one makes him (or her) mad, he sees no problem, morally, with killing that person. And if killing people gives him sexual gratification, then he’s going to go on killing people without a real thought about it.
I’m a somewhat fighty girl–I love that feeling of just letting loose and kicking some ass, even inside my own head–but I’ve never actually gotten into a real fistfight. It’s not that I haven’t wanted to, it’s that I’ve never been in a situation where I felt it was worth it. So that’s when I go home and play God of War or something. I still have the experience of bashing the crap out of people without any real negative repercussions.
I’ve said to my friends that I love fake violence, but hate real violence. I think that’s the case with a lot of people.
““Master of Puppets” is Metallica!”
Ah. If I’m not mistaken, I believe that’s a band with neither a saxophone nor Jerry Garcia in it–so I’m not interested.
(I’m kidding)
(kind of)
Bingo. Yeah. I have a high tolerance for cinematic violence, up to the point where it starts to seem real. I hated the sound of those bullets quietly hissing through the air and thudding into human flesh as portrayed in the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan. Maybe knowing that D-Day really happened fed my sense of horror about that. I don’t know.
Watching Bruce Willis blow up a helicopter by throwing a can of whipped cream at it is another thing altogether, as is using a rocket launcher to blow my brothers into pot-roast in Unreal Tournament.
I gave up UT after my mother died, though. Dunno why exactly. FPS’s aren’t my thing, I guess. And I haven’t raised a real hand in real anger since I was in 8th grade, when I socked a guy in the shoulder for insulting one of my friends – an act about which I still feel pretty dumb.
The history of humanity is largely the story of us learning how to better control these parts of our personality. A desire or joy in violence isn’t in itself a bad thing or a good thing, anymore than a lion’s desire to eat a goat is good or bad. This is something that is natural to us; a feeling of urge that helped insure the survival and reproductive success of certain bloodlines for tens of thousands of years. There was a time when it was necessary, and now it’s not. That is where morality enters into this discussion; the civilized or moral or right thing to do is not to hate oneself for these impulses but to recognize that they are non-constructive in our current setting, largely pointless, mostly selfish, and very likely personally detrimental and, in realizing this, refuse to act on them. Society changes too fast for biology to keep up; luckily our capacity for adaptive abstraction is more than capable.
that should be feeling “or” urge not of
#57 Ramblin’ Dude
“But we don’t have eventually. We have a concerted movement by religious fanatics to take over the country–like at Dover.”
I can certainly see why there’s a new sense of urgency about it, what with recent events. But generally, over the centuries Christianity, in particular, has mellowed considerably, largely due to its more learned members embracing and assimilating reason.
It might be wishful thinking, but I see this resurgence in dogmatism to be the product of a fringe element, and seems indicative to me of a last, desperate stand. I concede that this is no reason not to take it seriously – A spiritual Battle of the Bulge could still potentially go badly for us – but I tend to take a more positive view of the implications of this resurgence. My own cautious attitude stems largely from the belief that this resurgence will more likely undo itself (ID quickly lost any grip that it had when it allowed the religious right to co-opt it and thus undermine any claim it had of being a secular hypothesis); but that if we confront it aggressively, as pointed out in this article in The Guardian, we might turn a brief resurgence into a broad and unified counterattack. For the price of one step forward… &c.
Hopefully, as reason continues to win out (touch wood), people will also lose their natural urge to appeal to authority generally, rather than just in spiritual matters. Although, I wonder just how ingrained that urge actually is, and whether it can ever be terminally unseated.
Now that I have broad band, I’ve been playing Unreal Tournament 2004 online and I can personally testify to the satisfaction of blowing up another player with a rocket launcher.
However, it’s not just about killing and mayhem. It’s the elegance of one’s strategy, the perfection of one’s timing, the efficiency of one’s moves resulting in a beautiful kill shot, that’s the exciting part. And the players online are really good. It’s inspiring.
Game play is the thing, not just killing, whether it is real life martial arts or James Bond grabbing a loaf of pumpernickel at the last moment and beaning a guy. Even in movies like “Saw” you can get caught up in the mind games being played.
There are lots of people who appreciate economy of motion and quick wits but are disgusted by violence just for the sake of violence.
So I think there are two different things going on here
Hunting big game for food, with a knife and a rope, like Tarzan, is one thing, but shooting everything that moves with a high powered rifle from the safety of a train is something else entirely.
And, of course, the hooligan approach, “me feeling good, me smash something” is something else, too.
I’m a southern wallflower pacifist, and was shocked at how good it felt to hit something when I started taking tae kwon do (it may have helped that I started taking classes two weeks before the Chimp’s re-election). It’s the only exercise I’ve every really enjoyed, so it may just be the workout, but despite years of cycling, hiking, and aerobics I’ve never experienced endorphins like I do after a TKD class.
And I’m not sure I’m glad about that – for myself, for my son, for the human race in general.
DSKS,
I think where I disagree with you is whether or not we are actually seeing a “last, desperate stand” with the fundamentalists. I don’t really see it as a fringe element. I look around and see people becoming fatter and stupider, and the mega-churches growing in membership. And they have lots of power to inspire people to vote for their candidates–as we have seen. And they lie!
I tend to want to slap the religious crowd and say, “Wake up!” And then when I have their attention, try to get them to see reason calmly and rationally.
I do appreciate your optimism though.
As for appeals to authority, it seems to me that people in general have an instinct to be submissive to some dominate alpha person (hence “God” in the first place), and it will be a huge step forward if humanity can reason it’s way out of that mindset.
Recognizing and then moving on to understanding the human propensity/lust/enjoyment of physical conflict, domination, and violence is a big step towards making a lasting peaceful society. I think you are correct, it is a lizard-brain lust. It has to be repressed, but in a clever way which recognizes it and even rejoices in it when redirected.
The real world fight-clubs are one version amoung many many examples of a more-or-less benign redirection. People have already listed a myriad of others. But the fight-club example is a good one because it explicitly acknowledges the lust for violence instead of pretending it doesn’t exists (unlike like a lot of violence on TV, jingoistic militarism, and other redirects).
My personal view is that reveling in controlled violence and conflict should be paired with a humanizing of the opponent after the ’bout’. That empathy (really putting yourself in their shoes at a neuro level) is the counterpoint which re-asserts a social brain over the lizard brain (also weeds out sociopaths).
I remember vividly moments sparring (martial arts training) when a damaging (or potentially) blow was landed. The mental shift was immediate from conflict to concern. Weirdly, the moment is almost as impactful and sharp when on the receiving end or even just observing as when I landed the blow. Cultivating that empathic tendency along side acknowledging and enjoying the violent/competitive seems critical.
Anyway, just some thoughts. I wonder if gambling and general risk taking are connected in as well.
As a student in Southampton, I quickly realised that the social dynamics of bar brawls – i.e. the townies who generally started them usually outnumbered us by at least 3:1 – meant that it was better to learn Parkour than kickboxing.
As Sgt. Oddball, from Kelly’s Heroes, said whilst he explained the modifications to his Sherman tank (it went faster backwards than forwards), “I like to get out of trouble faster than I get into it”
On a completely unrelated note: I need to put aside Death in the Afternoon when I put my books back in order.
DSKS, the argument here was never whether martial arts are good for self defence, but whether they are good for working out those primitive lizard brain tendencies of ours and shutting out depression and neuroses for a while, and to get the happy hormones pumping afterwards (as vigorous exercise of any form will).
(Personally I can envision scenarios in which parkour facilitates a quick getaway and scenarios in which knowing how to stand and fight is genuinely helpful, but frankly I doubt I’ll ever be in either type of scenario. Being somewhat better able to defend myself is nice in principle, sure, but this is not why I practice martial arts.)
DSKS, the argument here was never whether martial arts are good for self defence, but whether they are good for working out those primitive lizard brain tendencies of ours and shutting out depression and neuroses for a while, and to get the happy hormones pumping afterwards (as vigorous exercise of any form will).
(Personally I can envision scenarios in which parkour facilitates a quick getaway and scenarios in which knowing how to stand and fight is genuinely helpful, but frankly I doubt I’ll ever be in either type of scenario. Being somewhat better able to defend myself is nice in principle, sure, but this is not why I practice martial arts.)
Sorry, yes, this is a post by Katie. I noticed after I posted my comment.
In males, at least, isn’t the violent tendency instinctive? I mean, to a certain extent, the competitive edge will manifest itself through longing for physical dominance; fighting happens to be the most clear-cut way. While I definitely don’t condone random brawls, I can understand where your friend is coming from.
For me, its a full contact martial arts class twice a week that serves as my cathartic outlet. I think others can find similar releases; ones that don’t hinder society!
Violence for revenge is violence that is TOO LATE. I guarantee you that I will become exceptionally violent if I or a family member are threatened.
And every young man or woman should get into a scrap at some point. It can teach valuable lessons. The most important being that no matter how badass you are (yes, I grew up in the 1970s so I can say “badass”), there is always someone who can kick your butt. And if you’re the victor, you’ll understand that it’s not actually that thrilling to kick someone’s butt. Adrenaline rush? Sure. But ultimately, you’ve made a scene and you’re probably bleeding. And if you’re not, then you look like an ass for picking on the little guy.
In short, just pick some random puke and punch him. See what happens. You’ll learn something.
Without getting into the morals (which are hairy, and I do not present the following as a good thing), retributive violence is useful only as a deterrent—if you hurt me and I hurt you, it may prevent you from hurting me again; and of course there’s an aspect of “See what happens when you hurt me? Nobody better try that!” This sounds very brutal, but in essence, this is what a penal system is really about. Incarceration does not prevent crimes that have already happened, after all.
Without getting into the morals (which are hairy, and I do not present the following as a good thing), retributive violence is useful only as a deterrent—if you hurt me and I hurt you, it may prevent you from hurting me again; and of course there’s an aspect of “See what happens when you hurt me? Nobody better try that!” This sounds very brutal, but in essence, this is what a penal system is really about. Incarceration does not prevent crimes that have already happened, after all.