A Study in Human Nature - Assignment Example

Is it reasonable to conclude that aggression is an inevitable and inescapable part of our lives? Discuss with reference to psychological theory and research.] The aggressiveness of man is one of the main subjects of the philosophical and theological attempts at explaining human nature. There are psychologists, Sigmund Freud among them, who maintain that aggression is a human instinct and that to be aggressive is natural. This paper will explore this proposition and finally answer the question whether it is reasonable to conclude that aggression is indeed inevitable and inescapable part of human life. Theoretical Basis Thomas Hobbes, in his classic political philosophy Leviathan, described the earliest state of nature, particularly in primitive societies before the government and laws ever existed, as a war of everyman against everyman. (cited in Angell and Banks, 1984, p. 115) This argument follows the line of thinking that men, left to their natural state, will be at each other’s throats, and life will be nasty, brutish and short. For Hobbes, this constant conflict stemmed from the nature of man which is characterized by selfishness, greed and a perpetual concern with satisfying his own desires. Religion reinforces this thought as it emphasizes that the aggressive nature of man is a consequence of his falling from divine grace in the Garden of Eden. It was St. Augustine who explored this aspect immensely, taking particular note on man’s capacity for mayhem and slaughter. On psychological perspective, there are numerous theories that seek to explain the incidence – the origins and triggers – of human aggression. Foremost of these are the instinct theories, which treat aggression as one of the human instincts or that innate tendency to behave in a certain way. Freud, for one, argued that we are born with two opposing instincts: the life instinct and the death instinct; and that the latter leads us to be aggressive. (Cashman, 1999, p. 15) For Freud, aggressiveness is linked to how life instinct counters death instinct and that the drive created by the conflict of these instincts is channeled away from the self and toward others. Overt aggression is hence an outcome of internal aggressive drives and that a person drives satisfaction by releasing or venting it to other people. (Zillmann, 1979, p. 116) Freudian analogy places the release of aggression drives as a human need though not necessarily overt aggression or aggression towards other people. Another psychological school which believes that aggression is part of human nature is ethology or the study of the animal behavior. In the ethological perspective, humans evolved with a fighting instinct and that it occurred through natural selection. For instance, Matt Jarvis (1999) wrote that “aggression must (historically at least) have been survival trait, i. e. a characteristic that increases the likelihood of survival.” (p. 51) It is the main thesis of the ethological school that man is a product of two million years of biological evolution. Ethologists see aggression as an innate drive that once helped to ensure survival of the individual and the species. As such, it was passed down from generation to generation as part of our hereditary makeup. The most extreme argument of the ethologist perspective is the concept suggesting that man is a direct descendant of the killer ape, Australopithecus Africanus. Ethologists point to the fact that this ape is not only carnivorous but cannibalistic as well – an instinctual killer who may have killed for the enjoyment of it. (Cashman, p. 16) Cashman cited several functions species-preserving functions of aggression: 1. It keeps a balance in the territory between resources and the number of individuals. 2. It aids in the defense of the young. 3. It contributes to the survival of the fittest through the process of sexual selection. 4. It contributes to the establishment of stable social relations through the creation of dominant-subordinant systems. (p. 17) Ethology and Freud are in consonance with each other by arguing that aggression is inherent in human beings and that it is a drive that must seek release; in other words, man has innate need for aggression. Some have referred to this conception of aggression as the drive-discharge model – aggression seen as a drive that seeks release or discharge, thus impelling man toward aggressive activities while others call it the hydraulic model – analogous to the pressure created by water. (Cashman, p. 18) Sociological perspective on aggression adopt a more cynical approach as to whether it is a basic instinct, a need and an inescapable natural incident as argued by most psychological theories. In a radical alternative to instinct theory, social learning theory proposed that all human aggression. Like other social behavior, is learned by imitation and reinforcement. (Jarvis, p. 52) One of the most popular demonstrations of this theory is a study done by Bandura (1965) that showed children copying adults that are behaving aggressively in the “bobo doll experiment’. (p. 589-595) Here, children observed an adult beating a large inflatable doll. Invariably watching child imitated the behavior and also beat the bobo doll. The degree of aggression in the child was increased when such aggressive act was rewarded or when he witnessed the adult being rewarded for the act. Helen Bee (2000) also explored this aspect extensively in her book, The Developing Child. In a social learning analysis, she underscored that children’s aggressiveness are reinforced by the environment. (p. 286) In order to further understand aggression it is important to study the existing literature on the subject, particularly in the studies and research on shame, guilt as well as the constructive and destructive responses to anger. There are the factors that often trigger aggression. For instance, June Tangney and Ronda Dearing (2002) drew the line between anger and aggression, which people and even psychologists often use interchangeably: Anger is a negative affective state – an emotion that involves an attribution of blame. Aggression (verbal or physical) is a behavioral response aimed at causing harm or distress to another. Although it is often assumed that feelings of anger typically result in aggressive responses of one sort or another… research indicates that overt aggression is by no means a dominant response to anger. (p. 98) This statement by Tangney and Dearing underscores our point that aggressive behavior, though inevitable, is manageable. Here we can conclude that not all angry episodes involve subsequent aggressive behaviors or that there are situations where people can choose to be aggressive or not. Or, if not, then anger is but a component in aggressive behavior and must not necessarily be present in its manifestation. In this line of thought, human aggression is portrayed as the negative outcome of anger as opposed to the positive consequences such as the idea that although, anger feels uncomfortable, there are instances when a new understanding or a new positive change in behavior occurs. On one hand, following the social learning line of thinking we are also reminded to focus on the child learning stage of human development. This stage is crucial especially in terms of the self-concept development wherein a child begins to develop a view of themselves within a context of a family and a wider community. Kaplan (1991) listed several factors that encourage aggressive behavior in childhood – the same factors that contribute to a negative self-concept. Self-concept is significant in this area because children absorb repeated messages that form their beliefs, values and behavior which if inappropriate may lead to destructive behaviors and aggression. Control Most of the arguments cited in this paper posited that aggression can be managed and controlled. Human being must counter their nasty nature by introducing artificial controls. For example, people make contracts, agreements ultimately buttressed by force. People make ultimate contract: they trade their freedom for order, which is necessary for survival. They accept the rule of someone else in order to protect themselves for against others. In line with this, Freud believed that aggression is relatively uncontrolled but with the development of the Ego and Superego it becomes channeled into socially acceptable behavior. (Hardy & Heyes, 1999, p. 183) An interesting proposition in regard to combating the deep-rooted aggressive drives of individuals and societies is not by suppressing them but redirecting and diverting them into activities that involve similar challenges and exertions. William James (1902) called this some semblance to moral equivalent of war or aggression. (p.367) For instance, youths may be conscripted to clean streets, build dams or engage in competitive sports rather than kill young men of other societies. This is expected to cultivate in them the same energy and instincts as that of aggression for positive and productive endeavors not those that cause destruction to life and property. On the part of the social learning theory, the emphasis on control rests on early childhood development stage and in molding an individual’s self image. Methodologies such as reinforcement and punishment come into play in improving a child’s behavior and minimizing his or her tendency to be aggressive toward other people. According to Kathryn Geldard and David Geldard (2002), in order for aggression to be minimized, children should see themselves more positively and this achieved when they absorb and adapt to positive ideas and beliefs from adults as well as the other children around them. (p. 115) Conclusion In primitive days, aggression maybe inevitable and inescapable part of human life but, today it is no longer applicable at all times and situations. We are now in the stage of human evolution where motivations have increased and became complicated. In the past, motivation is merely by guided by survival. While in our time it is still the case, there are now additional and equally strong factors that guide human actions. As previously mentioned, there are now existing social contracts that mandates specific behaviors among individuals. In a way, modern survival is no longer seen in the perspective of cutthroat and violent competition where aggression is both an instinct and a tool. The instinctual mechanisms passed own through genetic imprinting has been weakened in its significance in the modern times. Men were forced to rely today on other measures such as morality, religion, ethics and cultural prohibitions to govern their behavior and relationship with others, and specifically on how aggressive tendencies are dealt with or whether they are inescapable. The issue of whether aggression is instinctive still remains a controversy in psychology. There is a lack of direct evidence for or against these lines of thinking. For instance, there is no research or study yet that proves the universality of aggression. Unfortunately, this is very important evidence to support the instinctive theory. Matt Jarvis drives home the point with these words: Lore and Schultz (1993) have pointed out that all vertebrates display aggression, thus it must be a survival trait, as suggested by Lorenz. On the other hand, cross cultural studies have found wide variations in human aggression. There appears to be human cultures such as the Arapesh of New Guinea, where there is very little aggression by European and American standards. (p. 51) What these facts tell us is that there must be external influences as well as an instinctive component to aggression. As to what degree or if this degree could be quantified is yet to be extensively researched and supported by empirical evidence. That is why the alternative given by the social learning theory is very significant. Here, we are given a notion that a person is not entirely born with an instinct to kill or born to be aggressive towards others. This aggressive tendency is not considered a drive but instead an acquired behavior bred by the environment, particularly in the childhood stage where self-concept is formed. In a way the instinctive, psychological and social theories complement each other and are not individually exclusive. When evaluated, each of their arguments have their own respective merits and that these merits do not necessarily reject the claims of those made by other theories. One can say that aggression is a part of human life as there are evidences that say its incidence could be genetic. But this factor could not hold itself on its own as the environment plays a major role on whether aggression will be reinforced or suppressed or as what Freud put it, redirected or channeled towards more positive endeavors. All in all, aggression is an inevitable and inescapable part of our lives in the sense that we experience it one way or another in our lifetime. Although it is not established whether aggression is a need, much less a basic instinct, as we interact with people and our environment we have no control over situations and phenomena that could trigger aggression. References Angell, J. and Banks, P. (1984). Images of Man: Studies in Religion and Anthropology. Mercer University Press. Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of personality and social psychology. 1, 589 - 595. Bee, H. (2000). Developing Child. London: Allyn & Bacon, Incorporated. Cashman, G. (1999). What Causes War? Lexington Books. Geldard, K. and Geldard, D. (2002). Counselling Children: A Practical Introduction. London: Sage Publications. Hardy, M. and Heyes, S. (1999). Beginning Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. James, W. (1902). The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature. The Modern Library. Jarvis, M. (1999). Sport Psychology. New York: Routledge. Kaplan, P.S. (2000). A Childs Odyssey: Child and Adolescent Development. Wadsworth: Thompson Learning. Tangney, J. and Dearing, R. (2002). Shame and Guilt. Guilford Press. Zillmann, D. (1979). Hostility and Aggression. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Read More