But my philosophy lecturer has always said in class that hardly 10% of a message is usually passed in words. He goes ahead to proportion the modes in which a message may be passed across; 30% facial expression, 30% tone of speech and 30% based on the perception that the recipient of the message has of you.
Personally, I have seen messages being passed accross in a different way. Where I go to school, at the University of Nairobi in Kenya, we have a unique way of passing across messages. In an environment where there is hardly anything that works, channels of communication have been broken. Students have therefore been forced to resort to violence in order to pass their messages across.
This is how the students defend themselves. Since the acts of violence will be covered by the media, they will take that opportunity to air their grievances; and hopefully, the society at large will sympathize with them. This may trigger the administration into taking action to solve their problems.
Though I personally do not support the thought of resorting to violence as a way of passing on a message to the authorities, I have always found myself in trouble when I am asked to give my opinion on how students at the university can pass their grievances across to the university administration. How do we communicate with people who dont want to listen to us? This is the challenge we are facing as we look for an alternative language to violence.
Away from universities and matters dealing with students, violence has been used to communicate in very many areas. When a husband batters his wife or vice versa, there is a message that is being passed across. It could be that either of them thinks that the marriage can no longer work.
When school children turn to violent behaviour, their teachers should try to find out the message they are trying to pass. It could be as a result of violence in their homes, which could cause restlessness, loss of concentration and worse, the aforementioned violent behaviour.
If the crime rate increases and the criminals are exhibiting a lot of violence in their acts, they certainly are trying to communicate. It could be frustrations, poverty or even a reflection of the upbringing of the criminal.
I took my time to examine the theories behind aggression and more so, violence.
Discussions of violence often produce a definition that complements a particular theory. For example, psychologists tend to explain violence within a scheme of psychological causes, whereas ethologists will advocate a more biological foundation. Mackintosh (1990), in his exploration of this problem, stated that attempts at describing violence are both diverse and often influenced by the professional discipline of the protagonist offering the explanation. He also described a lack of agreed meaning in much of the related terminology. This means that discussion is further hindered by semantic difficulties. He also claimed that many of the views held result more from advocacy than evidence, a suggestion that implies that most of these theories are described as being mutually exclusive.
Some biologists believe that violence is 'shaped by the brain' (Bylinsky 1982). Examples of biological studies of the origins of violence are those involving genetic factors, endocrine influences and examination of brain structures (Lanza 1983). Siann (1985) discussed the fact that neurotransmitters, 'brain messengers' noradrenalin, dopamine and serotonin, have all been found in increased concentration in the limbic system in the brain, and have been associated with fighting behaviour in animals.
Serotonin levels and the relationship to emotional and aggressive behaviour was also noted by Valzelli (1981). But while some studies implicate serotonin with aggression, this is not supported in other studies (Bioulac et al 1980).
Siann (1985) evaluated the range of investigations into specific biological processes and functions that control aggression and violence. These are included:
The limbic system
Epilepsy-related disorders
Head injuries
Autonomic nervous system and skin conductance level
Biochemistry
Genetics.
She concluded that there was a lack of firm evidence to support a clear link between any one of these substrates and aggression. She proposed that a number of studies designed to look at this relationship should be 'carefully and rigorously carried out'.
Boelkins and Heiser (1970) argued that to adhere strictly to a biological causation of aggression is inadequate because the neurological control of aggression is complex and incompletely understood.
Klopfer (1974) defined ethology as the study of behaviour from a biological viewpoint. According to Lefkowitz et al (1977), ethology applies the method of biology to behavioural phenomena, examining similarities and differences between species by both naturalistic observation and experimentation. Margargee (1969) stated that this is done with the notion that hypotheses derived from the study of organisms below humans on the evolutionary scale will provide insights into human behaviour as well.
When ethologists consider any class of behaviour, they are, according to Hinde (1982), concerned with four issues, which are:
What immediately causes it – this includes specific stimuli called releasers which trigger instinctive patterns of behaviour, and some of these are known as 'fixed action patterns' (FAPs); how such behaviour has developed over the animal's lifecycle (ontogeny); what the useful consequences of such behaviour are (its function); and how the behaviour has evolved within the species (phylogeny).
Lorenz (1966), based on his study of fish, birds and certain mammalian species, described aggression as being a drive common to most animals and to man. It was described as an accumulating force which needed to be discharged, usually in response to a specific stimulus. He argued that Homo sapiens are more aggressive than any other animal because of 'intra specific aggression' (killing of own species) (Lorenz 1966).
Fox (1982) described aggression as being 'as natural as copulation or eating'. And Morris (1967) studied aggressive behaviour in primates and concluded that animals fight among themselves for two reasons: to establish their dominance in social hierarchy or to express their territorial rights over a particular piece of ground. Humans have hierarchies on their territories and have to contend with both forms of aggression (Morris 1967).
Just as Lorenz's name dominates the ethological theory on aggression, Freud is seen as the first and most popular, if controversial, name associated with the psycho- analytical explanation of aggression. Although apparently less important today than some of the other explanations of aggression, it is worth briefly summarising the psychoanalytical view.
Freud considered aggression to be instinctual and inevitable. According to Freud, the aim of all instincts is to reduce tension or excitation to a minimum and eventually to its total elimination (Gross 1992); thus, allowing humans to return to the idyllic state previously enjoyed within the womb. The only way of achieving this is through a state of nothingness from which it had emerged (Buss 1961), in other words death.
Bandura et al (1963) and other social learning theorists believed in the value of observational learning or modelling as an introduction to aggression and violence. The authors also believed that children show a high degree of imitation of both aggression and violence. Bandura was concerned with how people learn to be aggressive in any particular situation and what makes them continue to be aggressive (Siann 1985). He divided his theory into three separate parts, which are:
The origins of aggression
The instigators of aggression
Reinforcers of aggression.
Invariably, the role of television and its influence on aggression – vicarious aggression, aggression through watching violence on television (Atkinson et al 1987) – is debated within this perspective. Gross examined two mechanisms that may be involved in the influence of televised aggression on behaviour. These are:
The reduction of inhibitions against behaving aggressively by coming to believe that this is a typical or permissible way of solving problems or attaining goals
Desensitisation, whereby the greater the frequency of witnessing aggression and violence, the less disturbing they become.
Gunter and McAlear (1990) claimed that the evidence from studying TV and its influence on violence is very inconclusive. The most consistent finding is that the overall amount of viewing of TV violence is related to self-reports of aggressive behaviour.
In the 1960s, psychologists such as Fesbach (1964) and Buss (1961) explored the type of goal that the aggressor was aiming for. In this case, there was no attempt to distinguish between the motivational factors that underpinned the aggression.
Two main areas were considered:
Where the sole intention was to cause suffering to the victim; and occasions when any suffering to the victim was caused not primarily out of a desire to cause pain or damage, but in a bid to obtain another goal (Baron 1977). For example, a man who attacks another after an argument over political views could be described as showing hostile aggression. But a woman who pushes her husband over the edge of a cliff to obtain access to his fortune could be described as displaying instrumental aggression. Again, this explanation seeks to provide an analysis of aggression by observing the effect rather than its cause.
And so, as we attempt to solve this problem of violence and forge ahead with a new and better alternative language to violence, I think it will be proper for us to know that the concept of aggression, due to the fact that it is often such a subjective judgement, is difficult to define satisfactorily. It appears to be a mathematical equation; aggression is the answer, the challenge is working out how that answer is arrived at. It is not just about discovering possible impelling factors, it is also about the value, function and meaning of that answer to the aggressor and the victim.
As we wait for psychologists and philosophers to come up with proper ways of inhibiting violence and aggression, we should attempt to the best of our abilities to solve the problem that faces us. Its time we improved communication, in speech and not violence, between people. Improving the communication channels and creating some where they were missing will be a great hurdle crossed.
The only alternative language to violence is speaking out. Let us speak.
« return.