Domestic Violence, Warfare, & Salt

[H2O Man]

"The truth is that all human passions, both the ‘good’ and the ‘evil,’ can be understood only as a person’s attempt to make sense of his life and transcend banal, merely life-sustaining existence. Change of personality is possible only if he is able to ‘convert himself’ to a new way of making sense of life by mobilizing his life-furthering passions and thus experience a superior sense of vitality and integration to the one he had before. Unless this happens he can be domesticated, but he cannot be cured. But even though the life-furthering passions are conductive to a greater sense of strength, joy, integration, and vitality than destructiveness and cruelty, the latter are as much an answer to the problem of human existence as the former. Even the most sadistic and destructive man is human, as human as the saint. He can be called a warped and sick man who has failed to achieve a better answer to the challenge of having been born human, and this is true; he can also be called a man who took the wrong way in search of his salvation."
--Erich Fromm; The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness; 1973; page 31.

(1) Recently, there have been a number of interesting OPs/threads on the Democratic Underground about violence in our society. Some have focused on domestic abuse, others on individuals who explode and kill people in their community, and some on issues such as the Cheney death squads and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Violence is tearing at the seams of our society, and it is not a stretch to say that the violent individuals represent a rot which warns of the decomposition of our social order.

In the above quote, Fromm is not speaking of "salvation" in a religious sense. The word comes the Latin root "sal," he explains, which translates to "salt." Those who speak Spanish will recognize the related "salud," or "health." And this is what Fromm speaks of – the need of the individual to protect his health and well-being, and for society to protect against decomposition.

I thought it might be interesting to take a look at some of the issues that connect domestic abuse, community violence, and war. In part, I’m going to use some thoughts from Fromm’s book – I just got a copy of it this week – as well as some other resources. If this essay appears to the reader to "ramble," that is because it is not organized. My wife is sleeping, and there is no one else around for me to talk to. This is the price DUers pay for my being a member of this community.

When we examine issues relating to violence, there are a number of approaches. For example, for domestic and community violence, one viewpoint is from the legal system: police, lawyers, and judges. Also, in general terms, there is psychiatry, which looks at the individual, and sociology, which looks at groups of people. There is also the media, which can either be used in a positive manner, such as True TV’s coverage of trials; or the negative way that the media tends to sensationalize cases of violence to sell their product. And there are concerned community members, which I believe includes most members of DU.

There are, as mentioned, different types of violence. Family, or domestic violence, includes all of the types of violence that happens within a home. It can be physical, sexual, and/or psychological violence. There is child neglect and abuse; spouse/ SO assaults; and violence against the elderly.

Community violence includes people such as the gunman who murdered nine people in Alabama this week; school shootings; gang members; as well as people who use their positions of authority to abuse others.

Violence on a national level includes warfare, and this, as Martin Luther King, Jr., noted in the last two years of his life, is intimately connected to the focus of a disproportionate amount of a nation’s resources in the industries that produce weapons for military use.


(2) At the time that Fromm wrote "The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness," there was a popular book by Konrad Lorenz titled "On Aggression" (1966). Lorenz, who had a background in the study of fish and birds, attempted to apply from studies of fish and bird behavior, to human beings. Although he had no formal educational background in human behavior, he combined his experiences with his family, in his community, and in the military – including being a POW in WW2 – with his knowledge of fish and birds, and concluded that violence was a human instinct.

Lorenz did not distinguish between types of violence. He believed in a theory that violence built-up within individuals, and would always be engaged in, in one manner or another. Unfortunately, as Fromm explains, Lorenz’s theories found fertile ground in that period, and resulted in many people accepting that violence in some form was inevitable, because it was "human nature." At least in fish and birds.

Fromm believed that there were two general types of violence. The first type is what he called "benign aggression." It was the biologically adaptive, evolutionary-developed impulse that we associate with the "fight" in "fight or flight." It is usually defensive, and used to protect oneself, family (especially children), and community. This is the type of violence which, along with obtaining food, is instinctive.

The second type is what he called "malignant aggression." It is not biologically adaptive, Fromm believed, and does not appear to have been part of our ancestors’ evolutionary journey. It is what we recognize as destructive, and involves cruelty, torture, and sadism. He noted that it is not human instinct, but rather, learned behavior.

In order to protect ourselves, our families, friends, and communities, I think it is important that we focus on the type of salvation Fromm spoke of. I remember that Malcolm X used to say that you can prevent crime by the actions you take when a person is in a high chair, better than you can by placing a person in the electric chair. None of us are going to have "the" answer, but as concerned members of the larger society, we should be educating ourselves (and others0, and doing what we can to confront the violence that is a decay on our society.

This can and should involve many of us having a specific focus. For example, every community needs child advocates. And, in terms of spousal violence, it makes sense that many people will focus on men battering women. Yet, we should not allow ourselves to limit our thinking in such a way that we react negatively when others bring up other types of domestic violence. As a retired social worker, I can say that without any question, both men and women, and young and old people, can be violent – and can be the victims of violence.

I’ll end with this thought: I am convinced that Martin Luther King, Jr., was absolutely correct in his identifying the direct relationship between all forms of violence. There is no way that we can have non-violent homes and communities, but still have a military-industrial complex and a malignant-aggressive foreign policy.

Thank you for reading this. I hope it makes sense, and provokes thought. I also would enjoy reading responses to this essay.

Peace,
H2O Man

[suede1]

1. K&R. Thanks.

[H2O Man]

2. Thank you. n/t

[20score]

3. Food for thought. Appreciate the post! K&R

[H2O Man]

12. Thanks.

It appears that more people are adding their thoughts to this thread. Maybe we can keep it positive, and have a nice meal.

[ourbluenation]

4. as a dv advocate I found the double standard about female batterers

on DU remarkable. I thought we were further along as progressives. We had the rihanna story and the GOP'r today who's wife battered him. The double standard was profound and an eye opener for me, I guess because we advocates live and breathe this stuff where everyday is a lesson on who can be a batterer....men, women, the young and the old, rich and poor.

Violence is violence.

Use your words. Not your fists.

no. more. war.

[H2O Man]

13. I thought it was

interesting, and that it showed some of the stumbling blocks that make the forming of a united front more difficult.

I appreciate the frustration that some DUers feel when, in any case involving domestic violence, one group of people respond with, "Yes, but how about _______?" There are situations that deserve our focus, in and of themselves, and issues of men battering women provide frequent examples.

In the case that you mention, there were rumors that the young couple's relationship involved co-battering. I should start by saying that I was unaware of either of the people involved before the assault became "news." My interest, therefore, wasn't based upon personalities, but rather, on the topic of domestic abuse in general. Also, as a father of both young sons and daughters, it concerns me that abusive behaviors in relationships seems to be all too common, despite the efforts of those who have worked to institute changes in this area.

I retired in 2003. At the time, among the work I did at our mental health clinic was to co-facilitate an "inmate group" at the county jail, and one of the two "batterers' groups" from the clinic. Management at the clinic believed in using the Duluth Model for dealing with domestic violence. It is a popular model, in large part because it provides insight and a method for dealing with DV.

However, it focuses on men as being batterers, and not women. So, when the police, DA, and county judge were intent upon our providing DV services for women who battered. The woman I co-facilitated groups with, a psychologist, brought some studies to one of our staff meetings, that documented the issues involving both co-battering and women who batter spouses/SOs. Eventually, we ran a group with female batterers who were court-ordered to participate. There was no shortage of referrals.

When I attended the Duluth Model training, it was run by two intelligent, dedicated presenters. One day, during a Q&A period, someone asked if the model could be applied to female batterers? One of the presenters said no, that only men battered. The person asked about violence in lesbian relationships? The presenter said that wasn't a good question, and she was not going to answer it.

During the next break, a few of us were talking, and the other presenter came over. She told the questioner that she was right, and that women can and do batter. She said that this model focused on male battering, and wasn't set up with the goal of addressing all of the problems with domestic violence in our society. Although I wished she had said that in front of the entire group at the training, I still preferred it to the other approach. As a general rule, I believe that the only "bad" question is, to paraphrase Malcolm X, the one that remains unasked. In light of the complicated issues involved in domestic violence, I think that there is a need for many more questions, even those that make us uncomfortable.

[NYC_SKP]

5. Yes, Sir.

And, I would similarly associate these forms of violence to our society's embrace and administration of the death penalty.

Recommended.

[H2O Man]

14. I agree.

Although there are a number of reasons that I oppose the death penalty, one of them is the result of having had one of my best friends convicted on a charge that the prosecutor was hoping would result in a death penalty. He barely escaped the electric chair. After serving 20 years, his conviction was over-turned in federal court; the federal judge noted that not only was he denied a fair trial due to the police and prosecutor abusing the system, but that he was innocent of the charges against him.

[EFerrari]

6. Our culture is so militarized, it seems as though many of us don't recognize that any more.

And I'd disagree with Lorenz about sadism. A baby working its mouth as aggressively as possible while nursing to draw milk is likely experiencing what we'd call "sadistic pleasure" -- where there is no thought about the consequences of aggression.

[H2O Man]

15. Right.

I remember another example I think is on target. Malcolm X used to say that if a thug breaks into your home with a weapon, and you run him out of your home with a weapon, that doesn't make you a thug. Of course, he was right.

Fromm uses another example, that of a parent who spanks a child. While I am not in favor of spanking children, I recognize that Fromm raised a valid point. A parent who loves their child, but who is seeking to make an impression for the sake of the child's safety, is distinct from the parent who hates the child, and who poses a threat to the child's safety.

Motivation is important, and needs to be recognized.

[mopinko]

7. i have a very different point of view on this.

you should read 'the moral animal' by steven wright. a very interesting book on evolutionary psychology. one of the things that struck me is the understanding of violence as an adaptation to difficult times.
you see, altruism is a risky business. we think, these days, that to be "good" is the norm, and that to be "bad" is to fall from this norm. but really, to be altruistic in violent times is to have a short life. we have developed a complex system to adapt to the life we will have.

a fetus in the womb constantly interrogates it's environment. it does this by testing the adrenaline level of it's mother's blood. if the levels are low, it is safe to be "soft", and development is focused on the higher brain functions. if the levels are high, the fetus toughens up. development is shifted to fast reflexes and strong muscles. i find this to be incredibly interesting. nature does not judge evil or good. nature just adapts to what is.
i see the elegance in this. and i look at violent youth as likely to need those adaptations, to be taking a sensible path. and of course this continues in the adaptation to the world that they find after they are born. are they beaten as children? it seems foolish to meet that with anything but hard hearts and hard bodies.
violence was not always looked down on. after all, what really raised us up from our primate relatives was not language, or tool making, but war. for how many generations has war served us as a species? it has been rewarded in many ways, not the smallest of which is the hero worship that makes sure the warrior's orphans live. killing has served us well.

the way to fight violence is to make sure that no mother wants. that no mother goes hungry. that no mother is beaten. that no mother lives in fear. it is a tall order. but in a generation, we will live in a different world. hopefully one that will replicate itself, generation after generation. perhaps we face a crisis that will not be cured by killing. our planet is crashing around us. no war will stop that. unless we put all our resources into a peaceful future, we will not survive.
let's hope we figure that out in time.

[NYC_SKP]

17. That is very interesting.

I hadn't read of heard of that fetal development phenomena.

However, your view and H2O_Man's are not mutually exclusive; both sets of observations are enlightening and suggestive of ways we might evolve socially and, it appears, biologically.

:donut:

[mopinko]

19. evolve is certainly the word that i use.

just not sure how to go about that in a non-violent way. i wish we could end the hero worship, but don't see that happening. even folks here would be appalled if i posted that i would like to end the practice of giving medals to soldiers for killing people. but i think that is the kind of shift we need. ditto if i posted that climate change is going to be the kind of disaster that is going to push us up or out.
evolution seems inextricably linked to death.

i think that our president is a highly evolved fellow, tho, and hope that we are moving in the right direction.

[NYC_SKP]

27. We think alike, you and I.

A very interesting film by Werner Herzog, "Little Dieter Needs to Fly", features a German-born American pilot who says speaks to the subject of heroes with great humility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Dengler

I'm frankly embarrassed by our culture in the context of others, what we prize and celebrate and the things we fail to value.
I'm saddened by what pass as roll models in our society and the popularity of violent sports.

I won't even start on television and US movies.

As to climate change, yes, taking the longest view possible I think the biggest "adjustment" the human race will see will come from this or some biological disaster or pandemic, or even combinations of these.

The question for you and I, however, is what can we each do in the present and how we can leave the world a better place, even if it's going to end tomorrow.

Best weekend wishes to you.

NYC_SKP

[H2O Man]

23. Interesting.

One of the things that seems common among groups of people is that levels of violence increase as populations increase. Thus, when small groups of people have relatively large areas of land, with plenty of resources, there are generally lower levels of violence. This isn't a view intent upon "remembering" a "Golden Age," but rather, recognizing that the context necessary for true warfare, for example, wouldn't exist.

As populations begin to increase, and groups become attached to certain boundries, then there is the forms of violence known as raiding, and territorial feuds. This is as true for matriarchal societies as for patriarchal societyies, which is important to note in regard to some of the other issues discussed on this thread.

When societies become larger, larger battles begin, and these eventually reach the level known as warfare.

Defensive violence -- protecting one's family/community and vital resources -- can happen in most cultures that reach a certain population density, with neighboring groups of various sizes. I think that most of us would recognize that in a competative world, that the ability to defend oneself will tend to add to one's life expectancy. Not only is an "enemy" more likely to seek a weak and defenseless victim, than someone who can and will defend themselves, but even in the case of a stranger, unaware of the status of the targetet person/group, will meet with a surprise.

This type of self-defense includes violence, but it is adaptive to circumstances, and tends to add to group survival.

At issue today, among many other things, is the ability of a select group in an empire, to manipulate a large segment of the population, and convince them that malignant aggression is "self-defense." The obvious example, I'm confident that you are thinking, would be something in the news yet again -- the claim that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, had a collection of WMD, and was intent -- to use Ari Fleischer's words from Harball earlier this week -- to "strike us again."

I'm in favor of people being trong enough to defend themselves. Absolutely. Even Gandhi said violence before cowardice (see Merton's book on Gandhi). And, as Malcolm X used to say, sometimes turning the other cheek means breaking the other fellow's jaw. I do not advocate being the victims of violence. But I think that it is important to be informed about what forms of violence there are, and to be involved in efforts to reduce malignant violence in homes, communities, and nationally.

[Me.]

8. So True

"There is no way that we can have non-violent homes and communities, but still have a military-industrial complex and a malignant-aggressive foreign policy"

Nor can we have non-violence when 'leaders' of this country direct assassination squads in other countries, with impunity. Aside from the addition to the melting pot of violence this country has become it begs a response from those countries, or allies, upon whose land and lives we trespassed.

When I saw 'salt' in your subject line, I thought you might be referring to the new Christian salt. Which, upon thought, however ludicrous it struck me, might also be a symptom of what adds to the violence. My religion versus yours, your God is false and needs to be destroyed. A viewpoint not limited to this country when you consider Gaza, Shite vs. Sunni and how the Chinese have treated the Tibetans.

[H2O Man]

28. Yes, I do think that

the use of the word "salt" has a bit of humor. But, usually the things that I think are funny, do not strike anyone else as particularly humorous.

The extent of the criminal violence that took place in the OVP in the past eight years will shock many citizens of this country. I suspect that while a number of DUers understood the deal, that many others felt it wasn't "that bad." People in other countries appear to have grasped that it was indeed that bad, and even worse.

[Threedifferentones]

9. Violence is a conundrum indeed

"Violent individuals represent a rot which warns of the decomposition of our social order."

Well, ya, but violence is also the very base of every big society. Do something wrong, the police come for you. The only reason you or I do not have to worry about engaging in violence every day is because our government has such a monopoly on it at the moment we often do not have to.

Although cruel behavior is indeed learned, it is also very dominant. I base that statement on the fact that the civilizations which have grown and thrived in the past have all been exceptional at dishing out violence, relative to their peers. Hence, we may say there is a "natural" tendency for societies to become violent, as a way to survive and expand. Note that this is not the same as saying people are, as individuals, naturally violent. It is merely to say that, unlike peace, violence is often thrust upon us. Peace, on the other hand, cannot be forced on us, but rather must be accepted and nurtured by all in order to succeed.

The peace we all enjoy then is not true peace. It is the peace of people who pay taxes for big city walls and lots of guards. It is the peace of knowing that we can call tremendous violence to our aid should the need arise, ie should a burglar assault our home or terrorists pour into our streets.

As a tradeoff, however, we worry whether our guards may seek to dominate us, so that they seem more like masters than officers or judges, and their protection is no longer worth it.

Of course none of what I have described here must continue to be true. Rather, it is only a picture of our past and an educated guess as to what will come.

[dalaigh lllama]

16. This sentence in your post seems all too depressingly true

...the civilizations which have grown and thrived in the past have all been exceptional at dishing out violence, relative to their peers...

I've just been mulling over this very point after reading a series of books set in Ireland during the seventh century. At the time, Ireland used a legal system that had been in place for centuries, where murderers made restitution to their victim's survivors and women had more rights in that society than we were to see again until just a few decades ago. The Irish of the time were not overly impressed with the customs of the Saxons and the Christian customs of Rome, both of which seemed more concerned with killing transgressors than rehabilitating them by making them make restitution, and both of which treated women as secondary citizens with few rights.

As I read these and thought of Ireland's later history subject to Britain, I was thinking just what you wrote in your post -- civilizations that are the most vicious seem to come out on top. So the question becomes: will this pattern continue with humanity, or will we ever reach a point in our evolution where we say, "Enough."

[hfojvt]

33. the natural tendency for societies to become violent

is similar to what Schmookler wrote in "The Parable of the Tribes".

[WhiteTara]

10. Alice Miller wrote on the abused child

in a work called "For Your Own Good" and explored the effects on a personality such as Hitler. It has fascinating information for our time in history. Another work that should be examined is a work called The Crone: Woman of Age, Wisdom, and Power by Barbara G. Walker. In addition, Walker collaborated with Monica Sjoo in a herstorical work (The Great Cosmic Mother) on the changing of world view through violence.

Most archaeological work is done by men who see the world differently then women and some of the most important work done by a woman was Marija Gimbutas who studied the Steppe culture. What male archaeologists called "figurines", Marija recognized as religious relics of Goddess and the incursions over time that changed the culture to a male dominated society. Goddess centered societies chose city sites for the most beautiful and scenic; God centered cities were sited in the most defensible places.

The history of what we are living through today is the apex (or perhaps the penumbra of the past several millennium.) I am not suggesting that you need to embrace feminism or the acknowledge the seeming male of the urge to kill the source of life.

I appreciate your search of the impulse to kill and I believe it can be found in the roots of modern religion--christianity, islam, Judaism, hinduism and all other patriarchal religions that I can't remember in the moment.

In the Biblical declaration of MAN'S dominion over the earth and all the creatures who live there is an open invitation for corruption. "When God Was a Woman" Merlin Stone offers deep insights to society from before we said God the Father.

Until the early 20th century women were considered chattel and subject to their husband's whims and demands. "Beat your wife for her own moral soul" was preached from the pulpits of the churches up until the 1920's. This was a few centuries after the Inquisition. This horror conjured up the most terrible acts of violence and a new word was created. Torture. The aftermath of the Burning Times left society with the degradation of the moral beatings to the killings of today. The numbers and horror is staggering. In India during the year 2001, 163000 women died by burning to death.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5832650.ece

Recently a 75 year old Iraqi widow was sentenced to 40 lashes of the whip and jail time for having someone come and bring her food who wasn't her dead husband. We could include the Taleban herding women into the stadium and shooting them in the back of the head for whatever. And don't forget the Sudan where women are hunted for weekend sport to be gang raped so savagely that they can not hold their bladder or bowels and are shunned by society...sort of doubly damned. And mildly the vatican rebuked the society that helped a 9 year old child abort twins gotten on her by her father.

The point is this. The roots of this violence is much deeper than the last several years. It is just being exacerbated during this time; movies and video games and gangsta rap and tv and commercials degrade the life givers (women) to objects for use in anyway some man sees fit.

No, I'm not a lesbian. I have been in a committed relationship with a man that I love deeply for over 20 years and I enjoy the company of men and women equally but in different ways.

I hope you will read some of these books I have suggested. Seeing the world through different eyes can lead to an epiphany. Nameste

[Me.]

11. Your Point Is Made Most Amply

By the fact that you felt a need to say you weren't a lesbian, that too close an association with the feminine would invalidate the credibility of your thought

[WhiteTara]

24. now isn't that a revelation

It's hard to shake thousands of years of subjugation.

[H2O Man]

30. Very interesting

and valuable response. I thank you for this. There are a number of points I'd enjoy discussing, and I will try my best not to ramble, or carry on and on .... though it is tempting!

By no coincidence, Fromm's book focuses a lot on Hitler, and the things that made him a violent person. He also covers information on the lives of a couple of other infamous violent figures in recent history. There is a lot to be learned from studying their lives.

I consider myself a humanist. Included in this is recognizing individuals as humans first. From the time that we are little children, the first "identity" we consider when looking at "new" people is if they are male or female. Surely, there are differences between the sexes, and as a humanist I recognize this. It includes a rather large range in differences in the way we process and interpret information from the world around us, and so just as in order to process and interpret today's world, one needs to appreciate both male and female perspectives, the same holds true with history.

One of the good points about Fromm's book, in my opinion, is that he strongly recommends that people read other perspectives, including those he disagrees with. For example, he recommends a book by Noam Chomsky, in which he says the author expresses his thoughts "brilliantly" -- even though he strongly disagrees with him. At the same time, he does not suggest every viewpoint has equal validity. Thus, I think we all benefit when we read and consider a wide range of viewpoints, though I would not suggest that anyone waste time by watching trash such as Fox News.

Thus, in regard to the range of ideas that are known as "feminism," I attempt to keep as open a mind as possible, all the while remembering that I am male. But I have a wife and daughters, who are huge influences upon me, and have grown up with numerous female role models, from Clan Mothers to co-workers in the decades I was employed in human services. I've also done a significant amount of reading on topics from archaeology, anthropology, religion, etc, from a wide range of opinions.

This doesn't mean that I'm particularly bright or insightful, of course. The more a person learns, the more they should realize how little they know. But I have learned to, to use the example of a lesbian from your post, to view them as a human first, a female second, and then recognize a wide range of personal qualities (including sexuality) that add up to the way that individual processes and interprets the world. These other things include many of the things that Fromm describes as "character." Hence, I would expect that a large group of people, including women, and among women, many lesbians, would hold feminist viewpoints. And that's a good thing.

Now, briefly regarding the Goddess figurines: often these are asociated with early cultures that had the basic religions based upon nature. Included in the world-view that includes recognition of the female aspect of "the Great Mystery" is a ceremonial relationship with an unseen animal force. The people hunted (for example, bison), and the hunt was in itself part of the ceremony. There were rituals to be done before the hunt, and after killing the source of the people's food. The unseen animal force, being properly thanked by the ceremony, insured a continued supply of the bison.

Different people in different parts of the world had such relationships with a variety of animals. When herding animals became part of a people's culture, their religion changed: one can look at the Sami and reindeer, the post Al Adam cultures near the Nile and cattle, or the shepherds of the Middle East and see this. More, agriculture brought about a different awareness: a seed alone is nothing, but if it dies and is buried, it brings forth life.

In terms of violence, however, both patriarchal and matriarchal societies have had plenty of blood on their hands. One of the most significant factors is population density, and competition for resources. In human history, these factors have led to violence many, many times, in both matriarchal and patriarchal societies.

In the context of our current culture, I worked too many years dealing with domestic abuse, especially child abuse, to think that men have a monopoly on violence. There are, obviously, a huge range of factors that lead to people being violent, and so it's important to have a wide range of people considering options for dealing with it. Certainly, that includes feminist philosophy, as without question such a large amount of family violence is men battering women. And the three religions you mentioned play a large role in that.

Anyhow, I ramble. Again, thank you for your contribution. It is much appreciated.

[BlooInBloo]

18. Nice, but I don't think 1000 words counts as an "essay".

[H2O Man]

22. Essay:

an analytical or interpretative composition dealing with a subject from a personal point of view. I accept, however, that some DUers are inclined to view my ramblings as decompositions, rather than essays.

[Me.]

26. Rocks Should Be Made Into Garden Walls

Not thrown

[EFerrari]

38. Sure does. When my profs wanted me to cut out the bs,

they'd make me do it in 500, the bastiches. :)

[cliffordu]

20. K&R. Excellent.

[H2O Man]

36. Thanks. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. Excellent. Especially the Malcom X quote.

We can do more to prevent violence by helping to place boundaries on aggression. Deal with it at the high chair stage. I see lots of high chair aggression on du that is only constrained from escalation by physical boundaries. The conventional wisdom at DU clearly accepts that some kinds of violence are okay, even funny, depending on the gender, skin color and politics of the victim.

Not all aggression is is bad, in fact I'd argue that aggression is inseparable from advocacy, but aggression which escalates into violence is.

[H2O Man]

37. I agree.

I think that a computer screen has the potential to depersonalize, much in the manner a tv screen does. I'm struck by some of the "prison joke" humor, for example.

[bulldogge]

25. Question

I have read over this a few times, with great interest I may add. I am certainly not pretending to be an expert on the subject and may either be reading this incorrectly or material I have read in the past. My question is with this in particular

"The second type is what he called "malignant aggression." It is not biologically adaptive, Fromm believed, and does not appear to have been part of our ancestors’ evolutionary journey. It is what we recognize as destructive, and involves cruelty, torture, and sadism. He noted that it is not human instinct, but rather, learned behavior."

When I read that I think about the R-Complex and the idea that it is the "oldest" part of the brain. If I am correct in memory it is associated with the aggressive impulse in us? Obviously there are so many different forms of violence. I feel that sometimes it is looked at in a very clinical sense and really at the root is an unharnessed emotion of sorts. A blind rage would certainly involve some sort of cruelty...would that be the R-Complex at work? And if so would that not be part of our ancestors evolutionary journey? As I said I may be interpreting this passage incorrectly. A characteristic does not necessarily have to be a beneficial trait to be evolutionary does it and secondly why does it seem so taboo to say that malignant aggression is at the core of our animal self as much as love?

Also the comment about violence being human nature and people accepting it I am under the impression that that is part of the goal of being what others may call enlightened, the ability to counter such negative responses with constructive positive reaction.

This is a really interesting piece. It actually helps me out with some situations I have been dealing with at work. Violence covers such a wide spectrum and is available on so many levels. Everything from a circumcision to an Atomic Bomb.

[H2O Man]

39. The R-Complex

"MacLean has shown that the R-complex plays an important role in aggressive behavior, territoriality, ritual and the establishment of social hierachies."
--Carl Sagan; The Dragons of Eden; page 65.

Those may be behaviors that generally fit into what Fromm described as benign aggression, in that they are biologically adaptive. One of the things that separates benign and malignant aggression is that the first type is found in other animals, where malignant aggression belongs to humans alone. Yet there can be characteristics of the R-complex that are found in malignant aggression; perhaps an easuly identified example would be that police detectives will look for clues in the pattern of ritual that a mass murderer has.

[Hannah Bell]

29. i'd go you one better: no way to have non-violent communities when economic survival is predicated

on competition & profiting from someone else.

[lumberjack_jeff]

32. Certainly aggression is necessary in those communities.

I'm not sure I'd agree that violence is a prerequisite, though.

[hfojvt]

31. we seem to have different editions

I find that quote on page 9 of my 1st edition. Page 31 is sorta interesting as the header to the section says "Idolatry of Evolution".


I might recommend "The Fall of the Prison" although it is written from a Christian POV. That book I have actually read, unlike Fromm's. I think it points out the way the prison system and the prison attitude reinforce violence as a solution. Revenge-theme movies are the same way. The answer to violence is more and bigger violence. Violence can only be stopped with violence.

It shows up in our answer to crime. Person A hurts person B (although in some cases, society stands for person B in otherwise victimless crimes), and our response is basically to beat the crap out of person A (or otherwise hurt him/her with fines and prison, etc.) Often Person A is villified as a sub-human, some type of scumbag that even God, and certainly every right-thinking decent person is supposed to hate.

It seems to me that the berserkers are taking that to a logical conclusion. They feel like certain people, if not society itself has hurt them, so they hate them back and sometimes make plans to hurt them back. They take the law into their own hands.

[H2O Man]

40. Human factories ......

My friend Rubin, who was innocent of the charges that caused him to be incarcerated for 20 years, says that there came a point when he decided to engage in an experiment in the un-natural laboratory of the human spirit that we call "prison." Among other sources of influence, he was impressed by the writings of Viktor Frankl, who survived the Nazi death camps. It is interesting to compare Frankl's insights to those of Lorenz, who was a POW during WW2.

Lorenz believed that violence was, in effect, hydrolic, and followed a cycle -- which is certaioly true in many cases of domestic violence. But he saw this as the only option. He believed that, among the group of POWs, aggression/violence was merely postponed, because the group needed to get along in order to survive. (Again, one can see there is some truth to that, and apply it to society in general.) Yet he believed that, once freed from the POW status, it was natural that aggression/violence would play out.

Frankl believed that missed the point, and cut one off from another very real potential outcome. He recognized that "existence is not only intentional but also transcendent. Self-transcendence is the essence of existence." (The Will to Meaning; page 50) He found meaning in his experience, not because of the horrors of the death camps, but despite them. Among those lessons was that violence was not necessary, and that the failure to control violent impulses posed as much a threat to the larger community, as it did to Lorenz's group of POWs.

Yet human factories tend to produce far more dehumanized humans, than they produce people such as Frankl. The US prison system tends to produce more violent criminals, who upon release, are like Lorenz in that they find some avenue to release the built-up aggression and violence.

My younger son got a job, a couple years ago, at a youth detention facility. Itwas an eye-opening experience for him. He found out that his supervisors expected (and, indeed, encouraged) him to intimidate the young teens housed there. More, from time to time, regardless of their official policies, they expected him to use violence to deal with angry, frustrated youth who acted out. My son is a big, strong young man, and a Golden Gloves boxer. Other staff members expected him to "make an example" out of some kids who were misbehaving. He tried to address his concerns with "higher-ups," but found that this was the way the factory ran. He decided not to stay.

Without exception, the young people housed in that institution will be released into society at some point in time. It is, of course, obvious that they will be candidates to graduate to the jails and prisons that are one of the few booming businesses in our culture.

[Me.]

41. KICK

[Kurovski]

34. Kick. (nt)

[Raksha]

35. K & R - there's a lot to think about on this thread.

[H2O Man]

42. Thanks. n/t