This is the argument always used to justify the heinous violence so many engage in. Social forces, and cultural evolution are both tools to use to temper this tendency in us. The level of violence especially done by males varies around the world, from some very violent cultures to others where it still happens but not to the extent, for …
This is the argument always used to justify the heinous violence so many engage in. Social forces, and cultural evolution are both tools to use to temper this tendency in us. The level of violence especially done by males varies around the world, from some very violent cultures to others where it still happens but not to the extent, for example that it occurs in the US. When we raise boys through shaming if they exhibit any behaviors thought to be feminine, then we ensure that violence against women persists. When we dichotomize the sexes with strict gender silos and squelch all behaviors that might not be congruent with one sex or another, we ensure the hatred of women persists. When we tolerate making the "other" as threatening or bad, then we encourage this violence. While we may not erase these violent impulses, we can do more to shape those energies into something more prosocial.
"This is the argument always used to justify the heinous violence so many engage in"
I didn't make an argument that either aggression or violence was justified, but rather that it comes from something quite ancient buried in our genes, an inclination that was once absolutely necessary to our primate ancestors, which is why it remains so powerful. Without it, we would not have survived to become human. Nor did I suggest that it was something we could not now control if we truly wished to do so. We do not gain anything, however, by ignoring what we brought with us across the boundaries from reptile to mammal to primate to Homo. To be human is not some special class of being apart from any other and thus devoid of heritage, but rather an animal essence overlaid with another kind of essence that we are still struggling to define with anything like precision. And I'm not sure we ever will so define it, or even should. As the poet Robert Browning once noted, "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for."
Yes, I agree that we are part of the animal kingdom and have tendencies for cooperation and competition, both of which helped the species be so successful, along with the huge brain and our bipedalism. But, as you say there is a lot more we could do to control or at least reduce the tendency to hurt and kill, since now both of these no longer serve us all that well. And of course we are shaped by our genes, as well as our environment. But, most of our neurodevelopment happens after birth and is shaped by our environments to a large extent. So we are strongly influenced by social cues and culture. That so many cultures are still male dominated, and celebrate violence and see war as a viable option for solving problems , doesn't speak well for us, since because we have this large brain we are capable of doing about it. We are just as strongly wired for cooperation as we are for competition, but most of the cultures still seem to emphasize one over the other. Women and children then pay the biggest price for this.
"Women and children then pay the biggest price for this."
Yes, as they have for over four millennia.
There is a reason, of course (and quite a part from their youth and burgeoning strength), why armies depend on young males who are the most susceptible to the idea of proving their manhood with violence and domination, the same urge that makes contact sports so inviting for so many boys and young men, (and why it's so important that boys and young men are given lots of opportunity for that kind of sport - to help bleed off some of that natural aggression). And there is, too, the fact that there is no hard and fast sign of passage from boy to man, unlike the menses that clearly mark a girl's physical maturity. So boys are left with a great deal of uncertainty about that boundary and when and how exactly they cross it. There is and has been for some time now a good deal of controversy about just how to fashion a definition of manhood that is as acceptable to that yearning for manhood as the older version which has always had sheer physical strength, aggression, and domination as its primary manifestation. But such a definition has to include some sort of concession to what is buried so deeply within us, and that, to me, is the primary problem. I'm an older guy now (78), and I was never very physically aggressive, but I have not forgotten the ancient urges. So how to accept and use those in useful and positive ways and not just try to bury them, because that is simply not going to work.
I agree with you. There was a good reason why more traditional cultures would have distinct "manhood" rituals to help the boy traverse from child to adult. Jews have the Bar Mitzva, and some cultures have a series of tests the boy must pass, or particular celebrations that the whole community has when a boy enters manhood. More traditional definitions of both maleness and femaleness are too simplistic, and don't acknowledge that both are more complex than those gender silos would suggest. I agree that we need better ways to help boys channel their energies into more prosocial avenues, and not just leave it up to the boy to try to navigate the cultural messages about what it means to be a man. Some of the problem may lie in how, at least in the recent past, fathers weren't very involved with boys in their early life, so the boy had to use cultural and social signs to help him create a male identity for himself. The more boys can have good solid, relationships with their fathers, allowing room for both the competitive tendencies as well as the emotional aspects of both people, the less likely the boy will grow into a destructive, self-loathing adult.
There is a good deal to be said for your thoughts. Unfortunately a substantial segment of our current political culture isn't exactly the kind of model we need.
This is the argument always used to justify the heinous violence so many engage in. Social forces, and cultural evolution are both tools to use to temper this tendency in us. The level of violence especially done by males varies around the world, from some very violent cultures to others where it still happens but not to the extent, for example that it occurs in the US. When we raise boys through shaming if they exhibit any behaviors thought to be feminine, then we ensure that violence against women persists. When we dichotomize the sexes with strict gender silos and squelch all behaviors that might not be congruent with one sex or another, we ensure the hatred of women persists. When we tolerate making the "other" as threatening or bad, then we encourage this violence. While we may not erase these violent impulses, we can do more to shape those energies into something more prosocial.
"This is the argument always used to justify the heinous violence so many engage in"
I didn't make an argument that either aggression or violence was justified, but rather that it comes from something quite ancient buried in our genes, an inclination that was once absolutely necessary to our primate ancestors, which is why it remains so powerful. Without it, we would not have survived to become human. Nor did I suggest that it was something we could not now control if we truly wished to do so. We do not gain anything, however, by ignoring what we brought with us across the boundaries from reptile to mammal to primate to Homo. To be human is not some special class of being apart from any other and thus devoid of heritage, but rather an animal essence overlaid with another kind of essence that we are still struggling to define with anything like precision. And I'm not sure we ever will so define it, or even should. As the poet Robert Browning once noted, "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for."
Yes, I agree that we are part of the animal kingdom and have tendencies for cooperation and competition, both of which helped the species be so successful, along with the huge brain and our bipedalism. But, as you say there is a lot more we could do to control or at least reduce the tendency to hurt and kill, since now both of these no longer serve us all that well. And of course we are shaped by our genes, as well as our environment. But, most of our neurodevelopment happens after birth and is shaped by our environments to a large extent. So we are strongly influenced by social cues and culture. That so many cultures are still male dominated, and celebrate violence and see war as a viable option for solving problems , doesn't speak well for us, since because we have this large brain we are capable of doing about it. We are just as strongly wired for cooperation as we are for competition, but most of the cultures still seem to emphasize one over the other. Women and children then pay the biggest price for this.
"Women and children then pay the biggest price for this."
Yes, as they have for over four millennia.
There is a reason, of course (and quite a part from their youth and burgeoning strength), why armies depend on young males who are the most susceptible to the idea of proving their manhood with violence and domination, the same urge that makes contact sports so inviting for so many boys and young men, (and why it's so important that boys and young men are given lots of opportunity for that kind of sport - to help bleed off some of that natural aggression). And there is, too, the fact that there is no hard and fast sign of passage from boy to man, unlike the menses that clearly mark a girl's physical maturity. So boys are left with a great deal of uncertainty about that boundary and when and how exactly they cross it. There is and has been for some time now a good deal of controversy about just how to fashion a definition of manhood that is as acceptable to that yearning for manhood as the older version which has always had sheer physical strength, aggression, and domination as its primary manifestation. But such a definition has to include some sort of concession to what is buried so deeply within us, and that, to me, is the primary problem. I'm an older guy now (78), and I was never very physically aggressive, but I have not forgotten the ancient urges. So how to accept and use those in useful and positive ways and not just try to bury them, because that is simply not going to work.
I agree with you. There was a good reason why more traditional cultures would have distinct "manhood" rituals to help the boy traverse from child to adult. Jews have the Bar Mitzva, and some cultures have a series of tests the boy must pass, or particular celebrations that the whole community has when a boy enters manhood. More traditional definitions of both maleness and femaleness are too simplistic, and don't acknowledge that both are more complex than those gender silos would suggest. I agree that we need better ways to help boys channel their energies into more prosocial avenues, and not just leave it up to the boy to try to navigate the cultural messages about what it means to be a man. Some of the problem may lie in how, at least in the recent past, fathers weren't very involved with boys in their early life, so the boy had to use cultural and social signs to help him create a male identity for himself. The more boys can have good solid, relationships with their fathers, allowing room for both the competitive tendencies as well as the emotional aspects of both people, the less likely the boy will grow into a destructive, self-loathing adult.
There is a good deal to be said for your thoughts. Unfortunately a substantial segment of our current political culture isn't exactly the kind of model we need.