Thoghts on how the inherrently violent impulse is actually rare in people – the need for ‘prerequisites for violence’

I have always felt that there is a great myth about violence, that people are inherently violent.  By this, I mean that there is a belief that people want to kill or do acts of violence because of some innate need.  Humanity is often described as having a ‘violent nature’.  My observation, though, is that people generally do not display an inherently violent impulse.  I don’t just see people ‘acting violently’, not even in my historical investigations.

THE ‘PREREQUISITES FOR VIOLENCE’

A lot of violent acts requires something that can be described as ‘prerequisites for violence’.  These are things that are required for a violent impulse to be displayed and manifested.  These include things such as:

• A set of events and condition.  In fact, what is often required is not one condition but multiple conditions.  Seldom is it just one.  As a result, we are generally looking at combinations of conditions.  These can be a personal crisis, arguments, stress, losing ones job, etc.
• Many acts of violence have to be ‘justified’ in some way.  In other words, there must be a logic or belief that makes it ‘right’.  Without this logic or belief no violent act would take place.  This shows that many acts of violence must have an “approval”, of sorts, and that people just don’t ‘want to kill cause they want to’.  A good example of this is war.  Contrary to popular belief, war is not necessarily reflective of an inherently violent impulse, of a ‘need to kill’.  Most  war is based on some sort of a ‘principle’ or belief that must first justify the action, not because of a desire to kill.  Even many violent acts committed by criminals and murderers must be ‘justified’ in some way, even if it is a ‘twisted’ and ‘absurd’ reasoning, which many are.  If one looks closely, one will find that violent people usually have some sort of justification of their violence, at least that is acceptable in their minds.
• Some acts of violence is a result of conditioning.  That is to say, many people are in a situation where violence is used, justified, and seen, making it almost commonplace.  The effect of this is to ‘condition’ a person to violence, that its OK to do it.  This can even go so far as to make violent behaviour and attitudes part of ones world conception and how the world works.  One see’s violence as ‘the way it is’.  Being brought up in an abusive home can create this point of view.  Living in a violent war-like time can create this.  Its even reflective of some cultures character. Typically, conditioning makes one more susceptible to violent acts and more easy to perform them.  One could say that violence is “learned” in many of these cases. 
• Many acts of violence are caused by a “drug” of some sort.  These can be some forms of drugs and alcohol but also includes other forms of “drugs” such as politics, religion, and certain beliefs.  These “drugs” as if put people in another state of mind, doing things they otherwise would not to.  Perhaps we could say that people are “intoxicated with a violent-causing element”? 
• A small minority of people are violent by nature.  Some people are violent inherently.  I feel, though, that this is rarer than what it seems. 
• Mental illness.  Violence is a symptom of some forms of mental illness.  This can be so bad that some people must be restrained or kept away from other people.  Even this, though, is not that common.
• Sometimes, violence is a matter of necessity, it just has to be done.  People may find themselves in situations where violent acts have to be done.  War, attacks upon ones person, etc. are good examples.  In some cultures, violence is often required to preserve ones honor or ‘sense of right’ even.

It seems that the great bulk of violent acts have some form of ‘prerequisite for violence’ in order for it to take place.  Most violence doesn’t just come from a ‘violent impulse we must obey’. 

If people were truly inherently violent it would be a horrible world to live in as there would be death, murder, war, and violence everywhere.  People would be killing each other, left and right . . . but this is not the case.  In fact, my observation is that there is a stronger impulse to not be violent than to be violent.  It seems that people are more likely to restrain themselves than to let a violent impulse go.  And if they do not restrain themselves the violent act is usually an instantaneous act, such as hitting someone, and seldom goes much further.  In that sense, it’s just a form of ‘quick venting’, so to speak. 

In many ways, the ‘prerequisites of violence’ shows that the tendency to NOT be violent must be overcome in order for violence to take place.  It’s just different forms of ways to say “yup, it’s OK to be violent now”, almost like opening a door, which is normally closed, which allows violence to come out.  It’s almost as if the violent impulse needs a ‘permission’ to come out.  I’ve seen many examples of this in my life where I’ve sat and watched a number of guys sit and try to think of a way to make a violent response “acceptable”. 

THE MYTH OF THE VIOLENT NATURE OF HUMANITY

Over the years, a great myth has appeared about the violent nature of humanity which have even become quite elaborate.  A number of things create this myth of the violent nature in humanity and make it seem that the violent impulse is strong in people.  These include:

• Christianity.  A lot of Christian belief is based in the ‘inherent bad’ in humanity, of our tendency to ‘sin’.  It often makes a life out of a continual forgiveness of these qualities in humanity.  As a result, the Christian point-of-view tends to exaggerate the human ‘bad’, often making it worse than it really is.  One of these is our tendency to be violent and other qualities associated with it, such as hate.  As a result, it places much emphasis on ‘love’ and ‘peace’.  But, in so doing, it tends to put too much emphasis on violence and hate as ‘inherently bad’, making it out as if humanity can’t “help it”.  This gives the illusion that we are all naturally violent and hating people by nature, as a result of our tendency to ‘sin’.  It makes it appear as if humanity is nothing but violent and hateful.  This, of course, is not true. 
• The cold war.  Recently, the threat of nuclear annihilation and the effectiveness of machines of war has caused great myths about violence, as well as hate.  Taking the Christian example, it generally emphasized the ‘warlike’ and ‘violent’ nature of humanity to extremes.  As a result, it tended to portray humanity as something that was innately bloodthirsty, full of  hate, and wanting death.
• Various bad events.   An increase in crime, poor economy, loosing ones job, etc. can create feelings of the ‘violent’ nature in humanity.  Often, this is more a result of worry and uncertainty than anything.  It’s interesting that these feelings often appear even when there is no violent acts being performed at all!  It seems to show that worry and uncertainty can be sometimes be perceived as a form of ‘violence’. 

All these have contributed to this myth that humanity is inherently violent and desiring of violence. 

MALE VIOLENCE

Generally, males are often described as being violent or having a violent nature.  This, to me, only appears to be true for a minority of males.  Most males need definite ‘prerequisites for violence’ to become violent or display their supposed ‘violent nature’.  My experience is that most males are non-violent and tend to preach a peacefulness.  It would take a lot to get most males to become violent.  Even males that are in potentially violent professions (such as policeman, soldiers, security guards, etc.) may find it hard to become violent even when physically attacked.  Some may even struggle with guilt, and other problems, for years after committing a physically violent act, particularly if it entails a death.  Many males, who like to think that they are great ‘warriors’, often find that they are not. 

There are a group of guys, though, that seem to make violence part of their identity and way of life.  These types of guys are often described as ‘thugs’ or ‘bruts’ or ‘bullys’, showing how they are perceived as being out-of-the-norm.  Many of these guys are known as trouble-makers and tend to create problems for people more than anything else.  They are guys you generally want to avoid.  They are not the typical male and are a minority.

When males do become violent, though, it can become very extreme, physical, and deadly.  It generally takes a lot to get most males to this point though.  I often compare most male violence to trying to open a rusty water tap.  Because of this it has traits such as:

• It’s hard to open – it takes a lot for the violence to appear.
• Once the tap is open the water (violence) comes out in great quantities.
• Once the water (violence) comes out it quickly disappears unless there is something to keep it there (that is, they easily forget it).

Often, when male violence is allowed to come out it is often tragic in its consequences.  It can also go quickly out-of-control and can affect many people, particularly if it entails modern weaponry and things.  This is one of the things that has given the illusion that males are ‘very violent’.

FEMALE VIOLENCE

Generally, females are described as being non-violent.  My experience is that this is not necessarily true.  As with males, most females tend to be non-violent but it seems that females are more likely to display violent qualities than the males and more often.  Some differences with male violence include:

• Females tend to display more ‘little acts of violence’ than do the males.  These are generally mild and can consist of things like getting mad, hitting someone on the arm, belittling people, or calling someone names. 
• Females tend to not be as physically violent as the males (and when they do, it’s generally mild in comparison) but they display more ‘psychological attacks’ on people. Females seem to do a lot of psychological abuse and belittling, which is like a non-physical violence.  Often, some females become physically violent when the ‘psychological attack’ doesn’t work as well as they want.
• Females often don’t necessarily need a ‘prerequisites for violence’ to become violent.  Some females will often just get violent, sometimes at the drop of the hat, for no apparent reason.  This makes female violence have a quality of being uninhibited, unrestrained, or have an out-of-control quality as well as something that can happen at any time.  I’ve heard many females say that this is a result of ‘hormones’, and there is probably truth to this, but male violence has also been described as being a result of ‘hormones’ (namely, testosterone) as well.  It would be more accurate to say that this is just a quality seen in the female form of violence. 

Female violence, when it appears, seldom gets as extreme as males.  It tends to be mild, seldom becoming deadly.  Often, it doesn’t even injur anyone physically, and is often more psychological.  It’s also seems more common in their life.  This is why I often describe female violence as generally being like a tube of toothpaste and that it has qualities such as: 

• It’s easier to open – it’s easier for violence to happen.
• When it comes out the toothpaste (violence) is not that forceful and seldom does any damage. 
• But, once the toothpaste (violence) is out, it tends to stick to everything (that is, they are often unwilling to forget an insult or harm done to them). 

The more mild, non-physical, and psychological form of female violence tends to give the illusion that females aren’t violent.

AFTERTHOUGHT

All in all, I find that humanity, as a whole, tends to not be that violent.  It is not “violent by nature”, as I’ve heard so many times before.  Certainly, there is a violent streak in humanity but it, in no way, defines humanity (as if often claimed during the Cold War or by Christianity).  When humanity does become violent this is usually in response to some situation or condition.  That is to say, it doesn’t just appear out-of-nowhere like some inner need.