|
|
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.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Martin Tairo
As a very creative Architecture student at the University of Nairobi, i have had lots of interests in many forms of arts. These include performing arts, writing and drawing.
I have written many articles on issues ranging from humour, politics, religion and even the most controversial topics like human rights and abortion.
|
Comments
Language as violence,violence as language Francis Awinda | Aug 1st, 2005
I think this is a well researched write up with illustrations that significantly brings out the logic in the authors mind.
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
