Relationship between Inner and Outer Conflict and Violence - Assignment Example

An assessment on Relationship between inner and outer conflict and violence Under the Freudian perspective of inward aggression leading to outward violence Aggression is a form of behaviour that is characterised by verbal or physical attack. It can take several forms which include being appropriate, constructive, self-protective, destructive, inappropriate and even self-assertive. When aggression is directed inward, it is known as inward aggression, but when outward, it is known as outward aggression. Though it is not mandatory but outward aggression, more often than not, takes the form of violence. Sigmund Freud (1920) has postulated that aggression is a trait that all human beings have from birth which, in combination with sexual drive, develops a human being's personality. Personality determines the behaviour. Konrad Lorenz, the Austraian ethnologist, has added a befitting explanation to aggression in context of violent behaviour. He has remarked that human beings have an inherited and an innate fighting instinct, just as is found in animals. When these instincts are suppressed, which is again a common occurrence among human societies, they build up inwardly only to be released during explosive violent behaviour when they reach a tipping point. Even as many psychologists refute this hypothesis, John Dollard, seconded the same in 1930s. He compared inward aggression to a sort of frustration that when let loose outward manifested in an aggressive response (Archer and Gartner, 1984). Freud bases his theory of aggression on Id, Ego and Superego, and the conflict of death and life instincts. Life instinct is eros and death instinct is thanatos. It is important to understand that there is a significant relationship between inward and outward directed aggression; the association is both statistical and scientific within the same individual. Beyond this, several social, behavioural, cognitive and psychological mechanisms are responsible to lead inward aggression towards eruption of outward violence in individuals. Two major types of aggressive behaviours have been described. One is offensive and another defensive behaviour. Another behaviour that has been described is aggression of dominance. It is assumed more dominant individuals are more aggressive by nature. Many studies done so far on inward aggression-outward violence or only aggression in isolation are based on animals. Freud meant to say that each human being is born with equally powerful instincts towards thantatos and eros. When thantatos turns inward, it leads to self-punishment, which in extreme cases can take the form of suicide. But when it is directed outward, the resultant behaviour is hostile, which can manifest itself in anger, destructive behaviour, and even murder. Freud wanted to make an important observation. He stated that unless inward aggression is released outwards, the internal build-up can produce a serious mental affliction. The psychologists in the first quarter of the century were dominated with the idea of innate and biologically based instincts of aggression and were aided in their understanding of aggressive behaviour when brain mechanisms started being unravelled. The psychological theories of aggression have continued to be debated in the realm of whether an innate benign or brutal nature is attached to humans. Scientific thinkers and classical writers are broadly divided between two contrasting views. Thomas Hobbes stated in his famed Leviathan (1951) that being brutal was an innate human behaviour and that is why societal laws were required to be enforced to keep a check on this behaviour. Around a decade later there emerged this contrasting view from Jean-Jacques Rousseau that human beings were in reality happy, good and benign. It was the restrictions on their goodness and nobility that led to aggressive and violent behaviour. Hobbesian's theory, more or less, coincides with that of Sigmund Freud's, who developed psychoanalytical theories in 1920s. However, it is interesting to note that most of the theories on aggression and violence discussed till date relate the violent outcome of the same to a human being’s underlying biological processes. Lorenz (1966) and Wilson (1975) have spoken about human aggression's evolutionary perspective and remarked that it is common among all vertebrates. They state that it is more of a survival instinct because it helps to defend. Psychologists, almost universally, accept that aggression has a biological link but most of them have focussed on the role of external stimuli human beings use to elicit response. The aggression-violence hypothesis has, by far, been the most comprehensive systematic explanation in as far as human aggression is concerned. One, according to Dollard et al (1939) leads to another. There are a few exceptions though. Seligman (1975) refute the same. They say it leads to lethargy and depression. Berkowitz (1989) has argued that it is frustration that leads to anger, enough to instigate violence when aided by certain external factors. The paradox continues and one cannot be conclusive even now as both causes leading to aggressive and violence is still being uncovered layer by layer. Most contemporary analysts still find the concept of aggression and violence problematic and to some extent ill-defined. Many questions about the origin and nature of aggression are still to be answered. For example, on one hand outward violence is said to be an aftermath of inward aggression, the aggression itself s considered to be an instinctual drive; but on the other hand, an external stimuli pointed towards inward aggression is enough to flare it up to take an outward turn towards a violent behaviour. There are, however, several motivational systems at work to make aggression either a benign activity or a destructive force, which is darker and hostile. Inward aggression, at the same time, must not be considered as only an outward burst of violence. It can take other forms as well, both constructive and destructive. It can manifest into love, vengeance and mastery of an art form. It also plays great and meaningful role in the maintenance of psychic equilibrium, which serves the role of instinctual gratification in psychic organisation's stake of superego and ego function (Ralphing, 1998). Recent research has begun to emerge on the subject and the same is being focused on both behavioural and neurobiological characteristics as to how aggression is linked to violence. Two categories are being broadly discussed; one is defensive rage or affective defense and another is predatory attack (Siegel and Victoroff, 2009). This approach is supposed to address both behavioural outcomes of aggression and the neural substrates underlying the response. A threatening stimulus triggers defensive rage, while the stimulus could be both perceived and real. It is marked with a sympathetic output. This is in contrast with predatory rage, which is normally planned and can take anything from minutes to years to occur. When it does, it is generally directed at the intended target. An example could rioting and arson, which is a response to something that has occurred previously and which is something that is normally planned in retaliation. It is an outward reaction of an inward build-up of aggression and expressively it has cortical involvement in it. Freud has not only recognised human beings' capacities for violence directed outside of them; he has also detailed how aggressive, destructive and cruel can a human being be towards his own self. There is a mutual determination for both actions inwards and actions outwards and both are entwined. This is one reason why Freud's subtle theories pertaining to human desire have been reworked, digested and transformed in other humanities theories. In an exchange of letters that he has had with Albert Einstein he frequently speaks of domination - domination by one who possesses greatest powers and might. The mighty use brute violence to showcase their might and strength. Dominance is embedded in a destructive instinct. This, says Freud, is why dominant powers don’t shy away from their willingness for a war, which is a violent action. He disagrees with the postulation that men can be equated with being gentle; they are not. If the need be, they are ready to defend, something that shows that they have their own quantum of aggressiveness in them. One man's peer or a neighbour or a compatriot might not thus only be someone whom he can reach out to support or help, but that person can as well be the one whom he can exploit, to humiliate, to encroach upon his rights, cause him pain, torture him or even kill him. Freud seems to concur with the old dictum homo homini lupus, which means "man is a wolf to his fellow man". Sometimes it is even known as "man is man's wolf", which means that one man preys upon another. That attests the presence of aggressiveness of a man within him, waiting for the right moment to manifest in an outward gush of violence and vengeance. Freud argues that this cruel inward aggressiveness waits, as a rule, for some external provocation. If that is present, it generally manifests in the form of violence, but if that is absent, it would take some other route as explained above. That route might be a milder one, but it will be an escape anyway. It is this inclination to aggression, which is there in human beings, that helps them direct their wrath towards others. Freud makes an important observation that if restrictions are imposed on a man's inward aggressiveness, it might be difficult to find a happy man. Perhaps that implies that violence is a natural repercussion for inward aggression. References Archer, D and Gartner, R. (1984). Violence and Crime in Cross-National Perspective. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis: Examination and Reformulation. Psychological Bulletin 106, No. 1. 59-73. Dollard, J et al. (1939). Frustration and Aggressiveness. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Freud, S. (1984). Civilisation and its Discontents (1930). Trans. James Strachey. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Hobbes, T. (1951). Leviathan. Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin, 1986. Lorenz, K. (1966). On Aggression. New York: harcourt, Brace and World. Ralphing, D.L. (1998). Aggression: its relation to desire and self-interest. J Am Psychoanal Assoc., 46(3):797-811. Siegel, A and Victoroff , J. (2009). Understanding human aggression: New insights from neuroscience. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2009 Jul-Aug; 32(4):209-15. Seligman, M.E.P. (1975). Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death. San Fransisco: Freeman. Wilson, E.O. (1975). The New Syntheses. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Read More