If the world was a frog, would you kiss it?
*dude, dude - that is so way less deep than you thought. dude; common.
Arright; I'm outta 'ere. I used up all my writing last night on a stupid EOM paper that was due last day. It was all about the nature of violence. I took the stance that asking whether violence was learned or innate is a stupid question built on vague and moral presuppositions about an ambiguously defined term which at its essence describes not a moral but a bio-social phenomenon.
Since I didn't read it I can't be sure how it'll go over. I'm thinking good...
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
may i read it please?
ReplyDeleteI re-wrote this comment 6 times over the course of 30 minutes. In the end, I decided I need to see your paper before I attempt to add anything of substance.
ReplyDeleteHa.
ReplyDeleteAt least you're writing. I'll see if I can find it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete5. From the various presentations of this term, make a convincing case for violence as a
ReplyDeletea.) learned, or b) innate, genetic behavioral trait in humans. Use elements from the presentations by Felitti, Okun-Langlais, and/or Garvey to support your argument.
---
Violence is like language: it's potential is present at birth but its development is a learned behavior. There are two types of violence: 1) Those acts perpetrated in anger, and 2) those acts perpetrated in the absence of emotion. The first I will argue is innate. The second is learned.
Anger arrises when our desires are thwarted in some way. Most robbery, rape and abuse stem from anger and fall very much in line with our innate mechanisms of survival. These are each cultural taboos and morally reprehensible to be sure, but they lie on one extreme of a normal continuum. Like a newborn crying to make someone meet a physical need, so a mugger will threaten a couple to meet his monetary needs. Violence stemming from need, emotion and desire is not condonable, but it is natural. This is in essence Felitti's argument, except his focus is on the social learning that violence spawns. Garvey too affirms this idea of a continuum between non-violent and violent means of achieving ones goals.
The second category, violence perpetrated due to lack of emotion, extends beyond Felitti's and Garvey's arguments (Though they would say differently.). These acts are learned social behaviors which exist on a continuum of social exchange. Where one person shakes hands with a colleague, another high-fives her while still another punches her in the shoulder. The last of these – and possibly all three – could be considered an act of violence albeit a fairly benign and culturally accepted one. Moving further, we can find a parent who verbally taunts a child not in anger but in sport. Still further, we can find a husband who beats his partner with the same emotional indifference as a child pulling wings off a fly. These are not the means to an end we find in passionate violence; they are simply learned mechanisms of social interaction.
Our culture most commonly uses the term “violence” informally and in a moral context. This is why nearly all of us can rally behind Felitti's assertion that high ACE scores lead to poor adult health outcomes: Bad actions (violence) have bad effects (poor health). This fits our moral paradigm and our moral definition of violence. When Felitti goes on to say humans are innately violent and that we are preprogramed to learn from violence, we shudder. In the first argument, he is telling a morality tale. In the second, we don't instinctively know what he is doing.
Felitti in both his arguments is citing “violence” in a bio-social context. This is the linear context I describe as violence perpetrated in anger. Proponents of violence as a learned behavior, however, use the term in a moral context. Each proposes a theory for all violence based on the particular restrictive definition he or she is using. I chose to use a bio-social context in my argument because it has less flux than a moral one. To get at the root to the matter, though, we need adequate explanations of both. Or, like the nature::nurture debate, perhaps we are simply asking the wrong question.
NOTE: ACE = Adverse Childhood Experience
ReplyDeleteHigh ACE scores = bigger, badder, more numerous adverse childhood experiences.
The higher the number = worse the health outcomes.
Lemmi splain:
a.How would you define an “adverse childhood experience”?
--
An acute or chronic situation in which a child's feeling of emotional or physical security is disrupted on a profound level.
----------
b.Why, in your opinion, are these experiences able to do so much damage to a person, not just immediately, but later in life as well?
---
In childhood we build a neural network that is the foundation for all future processing. Throughout childhood the brain undergoes undulating periods of massive neural proliferation, dendritic growth and neural pruning. It is the period where we first and most significantly enforce certain neural pathways while terminating others. If this process is strongly colored by adverse experience, a person's neural architecture will reflect that experience by preparing for more of the same. In adulthood we bear the burden of a brain that has evolved to keep us alive by reinforcing networks which cope with adverse experiences. In childhood more than any other period, those coping mechanisms are likely to be faulty.
----------
(That was more from the paper. Sadly, I had to do a lot of editing to make it readable to post in the comments section of a blog after already turning it in for a doctor to grade... Good thing no one fails EOM!)
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, I know a little something about Felitti but have no idea about his stance on violence, and I've never even heard of Garvey. I'm just hoping my facilitator is equally poorly read on the subject and tired of reading papers by the time she gets to mine...