Universal characteristics of aggressive behaviour in humans

Universal characteristics of aggressive behaviour in military personnelIn what sense ar aggressive behaviors, i.e. scrap, rival, and ascendency, universal characteristics of valets? What is the designate that in some cultures aggressive behaviors be r arly observed and potently emboldened? How is such(prenominal) an outcome achieved?Humans are innately neighborly animals,whose existence depends on a continued complex transactionhip with other(a) compassionate beings. Expressed assault leave alone inevitably lead to an individualist or assort as the dominator, and an individual or assemblage as the dominated. Since military personnel origin, individuals and root words capture had continuous conflicts in search for the best frugal choices, the more or less fertile prop up, and the most sustainable reproductive neighborly convention. For this reason, gentlemans gentleman history is full of aggressive conflicts and sanctioned aggressive behaviors. This essay is a brief composition summarizing the outcomes of aggressive human behaviors, specifically focusing on whether dominance, competition, conflict, and fight are caused by personality, nurture, or both. This essay also presents grimace studies of rare amicable, non cutthroat societies and their achievements of love-in-idleness and human security.It is widely agreed among evolutionary anthropologists and sociobiologists that pugnacity is a biologically universal human characteristic (Dennen Falger 1990 Schmookler 1995 Wrangham Peterson 1996) however, numerous modern pagan anthropologists advocate that incursion is a ethnic force (Kropotkin 1914). Indeed, the historical debate between nature and nurture is vigorous, as the categories of human intrinsical, interactional, and environmental traits are blurred. Hobbes (ed. Tuck 1991) argued that war is a functional stop of human nature that maintains a balance of power and solidarity. Rousseau (Jonathan 2005) defended the p osition that war is independent from human nature, and is therefore a dysfunctional social work invented by states intended to hold dear societies. In contrast, Malthus (Pullen 1989) believed war to be a functional mechanism imparted by God to valet to reduce populations at necessary intervals through an innate pattern of aggression and a necessity for in-group cohesion to maintain a sustainable equilibrium.The nature-nurture debate continues still, from early philosophers to contemporary scholars with no definitive answer. The debate however has recently grown much complex with a great comprehension of biological predispositions that effect human behavior. The most compelling explanation is that m whatsoever biological predispositions, like aggression and competition, dope be luxurious from, however influenced by, the cultural environment (Renfrew 1997). every(prenominal) living organism, Ridley (2003, p. 236) argues, is an instrument for genes to grow, feed, thrive, rep licate, and die, but most importantly its primary excerpt function is reproduction. Reproduction undoubtedly catalyzes a competitive force to produce descendants. This essay reputes the position that biological factors influence the cultural, or as Ridley (2003) describes it nature via nurture. More specifically, reproduction and aggression biologically entail phe nonypic outcomes. on the whole earth feel the need to eliminate competitors, or the offspring of competitors to cheer reproductive capital such as territory and mates (Low 2000, p. 214). This support be achieved through aggressive non-violent dominance or aggressive violent conflicts. Anderson and Bushman (2002, p.28) defines human aggression as any behavior directed toward some other individual that is carried out with the proximate (immediate) intent to cause harm. This, however, does not consider that the individual has carried out the harmful conduct. It can be inferred then, that aggression is a means to create an inverse relation to achieve a coating through someone without the use of harm or force-out.The definition of violence, such as war, conflict, competition, and dominance is arbitrary. For example, violence in one culture can be very different to another culture, or even to individuals of the homogeneous culture. Anderson Bushman (2002, p.29) defines violence as aggression that has extreme harm as its rejectmination (e.g., death). When comparing the two definitions, it is clear that violence is aggressive expression but, conversely, aggression does not always lead to violence. These definitions lead to the conclusion that aggression is biological and universal among humans and further more(prenominal), violence is nature via nurture. In fact, human expression of violence is minimal compared to aggression. Aggression can be observed in almost every human interaction in the form of non-violent dominance and competition for social capital (Dennen Falger 1990).Culture arbitrate s in inverse relations with norms, mores, folkways, and taboos to prevent aggression turning into rampant violence. With the mediation of culture, aggression via violence serves multiple functions and dysfunctions within human societies (Dennen Falger 1990). Established in-out groups create and maintain group identity and boundary lines between societies. This stratification then creates reciprocal repulsion between groups and creates the need for social institutions. These institutions often act as social filters preventing impulsive social conflict between in-out groups (Dennen Falger 1990). These filters also act as a mobilization mechanism, unifying the energies of group members, thus increasing group cohesion or reaffirming state s everyplaceeignty (Dennen Falger 1990).Without group unification, powerful magnetized people cannot rally a society toward a collective interest. kind order is achieved through rules and commands issued by these powerful people to maintain a nor mative system of society and influence the weaker people to represent their go forth (Dennen Falger 1990). The example of aggression (nature) via dominance (nurture) complies with the impartialitys of usual aid and joint make do (Wrangham Peterson 1996 Kropotkin 1914 ). finished these two laws humans directly benefit from achieved power, status, and resources through competition however, as a extend, 60 percent of all human societies have in warfare at least yearly (Low 2000, p. 223). War would be inevitable if the genetic basis alone dictated human action.The above financial statements have uncovered that the universal character of human conflict, competition, and dominance is particular on biological aggressive behaviors. Ethnographic records and historical accounts tell a clear story of hominid catalyzed aggression (Carmen 1997). From primate pack raiding, to benignity habilis tribal skirmishes, to world erectus group battles, to Neandertal societal armed conflicts , to Homo sapien civilization wars (Schmookler 1995 p. 74-87 Otterbein 2004), humans have perpetually constructed cultural systems to solve the repeated problem of violent aggression via shared aid and mutual struggle.Through history, humans have been actively altering their environments through problem resolve to best suit intellectual development, which has caused an inevitable in-group/out-group competition (Schmookler 1995). The more humans mutually support each other, the more intellectual development occurs conversely, the more human intellect increases, the larger civilizations expire, and more blood is shed (Schmookler 1995). That is, greater levels of population pressure are associated with a greater likelihood of warfare. Furthermore, warfare is more likely in advanced horticultural and agrarian societies than it is in hunting-and-gathering and simple horticultural societies, and that it is also more likely in hunting-and-gathering and agrarian societies that have above -average population densities (Nolan2003). Thus, the denser human population becomes, the laws of mutual aid and mutual struggle become more imposed. This is evidence that culture can rise or suppress expressions of aggression. For the most part, however, culture has been unsuccessful at eliminating violence.Since mutual aid and mutual struggle has fai take to resolve the problem of universal conflict, sure enough something must provide a solution. Kropotkin (1914, p. 74) argues that, better conditions are created by the excreting of competition by means of mutual aid, thus establishing a cultural ecology of pacificism. This argument fails because, as presented above, innate aggression induces competition for optimum human extract. To completely eliminate competition, aggression must first be entirely suppressed. Complex human culture is unable to hinder aggression to the degree of elimination, but Kropotkin inadvertently made a good point. formerly competition is reduced, soci al disparities and meritocracy will also decrease, thus preventing the less overriding group from obtaining the subordinate position (Schmookler 1995). The latter part of this essay will draw upon case studies to argue that competition reduction has been the primary aim for many tribal societies and welfare states.Kropotkin (1914) uses numerous examples to argue that societies with intra-group cohesion rarely encounter intra or inter-group conflict. Among them is a Papuan tribe located in Geelwink Bay, studied by G.L. Blink (1888). Kropotkin (1914, p. 94) interprets Blinks account as, never having any quarrels worth speaking of and never had he any conflict to recoil of which is unsupported because Blink, in his field notes writes, war prisoners are sometimes eaten. Kropotkin does not completely overlook this statement of warfare, but this case study fails to come out his point that inter-group peace is achievable. Kropotkin, therefore, makes a detrimental mistake in his argument for exemplifying paramount sociability and inter-tribal peace. It seems Kropotkin was attempting to persuade readers through an anarchist schedule by centering on the Papuan peaceful in-group relations and describing the Papuan tribe as having a primitive communist system (Kropotkin 1914, p. 93-95).By using examples of Inuit tribes, Kropotkin once again glorifies in-group mutual aid, but abandons emphasis on inter-group conflict. In summarizing Veniaminoff, Kropotkin (1914, p. 100) writes, one murder only had been committed since the last carbon in a population of 60,000 people, irrespective of mass infanticide to maintain a sustainable population. In truth, Inuit tribes rely heavily on cooperation and reciprocity for intra-group survival however, they are not exempt from inter-group hostility as Kropotkin omits (1914, p. 95-104 Gat 1999, p. 26). Anthropologist Reynolds (1985, p. 24) asserts that, Eskimos had contain their aggressiveness in past fights with other Eskimos, but ha d been more brutish in fights with other North American Indian peoples. Although restrained and ritualized, Inuit did pursue combat against each other and engaged in inter-ethnic conflict (Gat 1999, p. 26). charge Veniaminoff, whom Kropotkin (1914, p. 99) quotes, writes that for Aleoutes it is considered shameful toask pardon from an enemy to die without ever having killed an enemy. erstwhile again, Kropotkin relates the primitive society with his anarchical communist agenda to prove in-group solidarity and peace is achievable, but avoids out-group enmity.Specifically, Kropotkin takes a Rousseauean social Darwinist stance on aggression and conflict by arguing that humans are innately peaceable and cooperative. Nevertheless, Kropotkin shares a commonality with Rousseau, Malthus, and Hobbes each has constructed two functional and universal explanations for aggression and conflict (Dawson 1996, p. 7). Firstly, interspecific aggression occurs when one group attempts to exclude anoth er group through competitiveness and dominance. This can be achieved with or without violence and is distinguished from predation, when an individual or group dominates the other for the economic gain of a food source. Secondly, group cohesion results in a synergistic in-group relationship, then producing an ethnocentric view of superiority toward other groups (Pope 2000, p. 161 Dawson 1996, p. 7). Although Kropotkin downplayed group ethnocentrism and rallying, he accomplished it is inevitable, as explained above. Indeed, the laws of mutual aid and mutual struggle universally keep back humans.As explained above, innate competition and group solidarity has, throughout the history of man, led to conflicts. With the rise of large-scale societies, these conflicts evolved into primitive warfare. During the early Paleolithic, H. s. sapiens began to spread apace across the earths surface (Dawson 1996, p. 26). Fissionings and fusions occurred often, and competition intensified because o f seasonal scarce resources. correspond to Dawson (1996, p. 26) all theories of primitive warfare have recognized that whether or not it war is innate it has to be triggered by competition. Warfare is certainly not innate, but it may account for the wide dispersal of early Paleolithic humanity. Conversely, it would have limited the possibilities for offensive/defensive competition because early humans most likely fought for land and resources and the winner would assume ownership, while the other group found new economic capital (Dawson 1996, p. 26). This method would prove legal until groups could no longer diffuse due to a limit of land and resources.At the beginning of the Neolithic culture, large groups could no longer comfortably avoid neighboring groups by seeking new land, therefore resource limitations compelled people to live in larger, more cohesive societies (Dawson 1996, p. 26-27). Dense populations compelled groups to become territorial, with semi-permanent settlemen ts. Human societies, consequently, were forced to create caches of food to survive. In order to protect these caches, defensible resources became a defensive strategy against raiding groups, especially for country societies (Dawson 1996, p. 26-27). Defensive logistics were designed to deter war but, according to the archeological evidence, war was more often and more brutal (Dawson 1996, p. 26-27). As a result of militarism, the individual became an expendable resource for the good of the group.The democratization of warfare among states is the menses solution to the consistent and universal competitive strive for dominance. The democratic pattern originated during the French Revolution, when states were not yet nation-states and nationalism had not yet certain as a significant policy-making force (Baylis, Smith, Owens 2008, p. 546). For the first time, humanity mustered an enormous and unprecedented amount of human energy into one single(a) national service and mutual protect ion (Schmookler 1995, p. 99-100, 287-288 Baylis et al. 2008, p. 546). When France democratically handed over this vast army to Napoleon, neighboring nations were compelled to enhance and enlarge their military to deter domination. However, Napoleon was able to dominate Europe because of the newly devised national political system, enabling him to conjure unequalled armies (Schmookler 1995, p. 99-100, 287-288 Baylis, et al. 2008, p. 546). Once again, the laws of mutual aid and mutual struggle intertwine.In conclusion, Hobbes, Malthus, Rousseau, and Kropotkin all had a static view of competition. contention inevitably leads to war and peace. The laws of mutual aid and mutual struggle are innate, universal, and are not mutually exclusive. They secure orderliness and allow humans to act freely to preserve their genes, however, the knowledge and values shared by a society influence and, to some degree, determine the thoughts and actions of an individual to impart synergistically and sym biotically (Schmookler 1995, p. 13).Through time, humanity has used solidarity, anarchy, fissioning, defense, militarism, social institutions, and democracy to sanction or repel conflict and violence with no prevail. In each case study presented, intra-group solidarity brought on inter-group competition and conversely, inter-group conflict caused intra-group solidarity. Because humans are social creatures and are dependent on each other for culture, conflicts are inevitable. The laws of mutual struggle and mutual aid operate within the law of natural selection gene survival of the fittest individual or group. In/out groups will always be present however, conflict and war are not innately biological. They are an outward expression of acculturation. That is, human biological aggression is stimulated by cultural norms, mores, folkways, and taboos. A groups cultural sanctions determine the social consequence for overt aggression.