Is violence part of human nature?
Violence is everywhere. It is an unfortunate characteristic resulting from a disturbed society that has shaped what mankind is today. However, while many would suggest that it is a natural part of human nature, the idea of violence should be deemed more of a socially constructed idea, as opposed to genetics. While violence has been a part of mankind since its dawn, there fails to be proven, factual evidence of why violence happens without the intrusion of a social variable. This is essay will support the idea that violence is not of human nature, but instead is an idea that is learned.
“War is inevitable unless we change our social system and outlaw classes, the struggle for power, and possessions; and in the event of our success warfare would disappear, as a symptom vanishes when the disease is cured.” a quote from Margaret Mead (1940). She makes clear argument that because aggression and the concept of “warfare” is a learned social invention, it can be avoided. Aggression is not biological but rather a behavior that is learned to become a reaction in our social vocabulary (2015, March). Mead explains very well that violence/conflict varies from culture to culture. There are some cultures who feel more compelled to commit acts of war because of the large amount of power they may have (and to use as a political weapon), whereas other culture may view war as something to avoid unless they absolutely need to defend themselves. Example; The Sikkim and Lepchas cultures, who avoid warfare, turn away the idea of organizing against each other to act in war (1940). Mead suggests this is logical due to the lack of social classes within the society that could potentially trigger the initiation of war with groups outside the culture. Therefore, if these cultures continuously live without the urge for violence, then how could violence be of human nature?
By viewing the opposing side of this debate from an evolutionary stance, ancient human culture shares habits with Ape culture, who incorporated violence into much of their anthropologic lifestyles (2016, October). We descend from the same common ancestor and share 99% of our DNA with Apes. Chimps, who formed groups based on different roles, would attack predators and were known to fight to the death with each other on various situations (2018, June). But are humans just as brutal? By observing the facial structure of primates, researchers found that the jaw and cheekbones of male primates grew larger and more dense over time, hypothesising that ancient primate faces evolved to be better apt to violence (2017, December). Essentially, it’s possible that males look the way they do now because violence is engrained with human genetics.
Going against this theory, while observing differences between male and female primates, it’s noticed that female primates did not evolve the same heavy bone structure as males, and noting that the muscles of the male jaw are 34% stronger than females, which researchers believed this is all to hold the face together better (2014, June). If violence is suggested to be evolutionary like this theory claims, then why wouldn't ancient female primates also have such adaptations (despite the fact that male’s engaged in violence more)? And if violence is such an ingrained, unremovable natural trait, then why do current humans not have nearly similar physical features? There are no physical adaptations that would suggest that humans were “built” for violence.
Conflict Resolution
To attempt to define the definition of Conflict Resolution is not simple as one would imagine. The idea of Conflict Resolution is a highly complex concept with many grey lines, however in a straightforward attempt to describe it, is the process (either informal or formal) of two or more parties to find an agreeable result to a problem. Conflict resolution not only manages just “conflict”, it also observes the methods in which parties try to work with a variety of conflicts (2018, September). This simplistic view of conflict resolution leaves out the level of involvement of power dynamisms that denotes resolutions of conflict as violent and competitive or nonviolent and cooperative. The field of conflict resolution today is studied and sought out by using institutions, a variety of organizations, and individual consultants who specialize in resolving conflicts. Conflict also has ties with everyday interpersonal and organizational skills, all the way to international relations, which is why information on conflict resolution has such a broad range.
In this broad range of study, it features different subsets of Conflict resolution, such as Conflict Transformation, Conflict Management and Peacebuilding. Each pertaining to the fundamentals of Conflict resolution, but act as either a branch of the original definition or as a newer, more innovative approach to the concept. Taking Conflict transformation for example, this conflict concept seeks and allows one to be involved more with constructive change (2017, February). Lederach’s article, “Conflict Transformation?” explained how Conflict transformation is able provide a more clear and specific vision because it focuses on two factoring realities; Conflict is normal and human relationships, and Conflict is a motor of change (2003). In short, this conflict goal requires real change in our current way of how we relate, and has a stronger emphasis on building of healthy relationships on a local and global level. Conflict Transformation is different from Conflict resolution because it seeks to supersede the standard goals of Resolution by focusing on creating and sustaining healthier relationships between individuals and communities: Essentially it’s more direct than Resolution.
With Conflict peacebuilding, which works more on a larger scale, seeks to completely eliminate violence in all forms including helping people in the recovery stage. This is a higher function form of resolution because Peacebuilding also works to create and sustain relationships at all levels of society in their environment. Schirch’s article, “Defining Strategic Peacebulding”, elaborated on how Peacebuilding can be approached in a variety of ways, but is primarily utilized as a psychological process that correlates with the conflict transformation concept (2004). The relationship between conflict resolution and peacebuilding together seeks to elevate social unity and empowers global communities to become self-supporting and resistant to internal or external conflicts (2018). These two concepts work together by focusing on the primary state institutions and strengthening them so that they may effectively steer the country away from possible conflicts. However, Peacebuilding is not the same as conflict transformation. While Transformation is a skill set of constructing relationships and addressing the causes of conflict through direct interaction approach, Peacebuilding includes a larger variety of resolution processes (2009).
Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict
In Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict, Chenoweth and Stephan concluded that successful nonviolent resistance brings in more sustainable and harmonious democracies, in which these democracies are less probable to fall into a civil war. By using strong evidence based arguments, they are able to compare the results from multiple violent and nonviolent conclusions in different time periods and regions, to disprove the impression that violence happens because it is necessary in order to achieve practically all political objectives. Where now, it is pointed out that violent acts are seldom a good reason to use as a strategy for political attainment.
Chenoweth and Stephan reveal how nonviolent resistance shows less complications with both moral and physical involvement and commitment, that can result in higher levels of participation. Those higher numbers can add on to stronger resilience, better opportunities for organized civil movements, and gaining more loyalty among the opponents of the original opponents (The enemy of the enemy), which could possibly include members of a military force. And from gaining more interest and support from citizens, activism can start to take the form of boycotts, civil disobedience, and protests. The fundamental goal of these civil action are to separate governments from their main sources of power. And by committing to the nonviolent actions, it strengthens its legitimacy (on both domestic and international level) and attracts more international involvement in the movement, which can increase even more pressure on the targeted government.
This changes the way civil resistance is thought of because it incorporates more logic and statistic based evidence to support that nonviolent protests are the more effective. Society can now feel more comfortable knowing that nonviolent resistance is a better alternative to violent protests, and how it can show more effective results against non-democratic opponents. These views are convincing because of the consistent positive outcomes that non-violence generate. If a variable is more consistent, then it’s mathematically more effective. Therefore, with the data in support of nonviolent civil resistance showing a higher chance of gaining political goals, this explains why Chenoweth and Stephan’s views on nonviolent civil resistance are convincing.