Rambles on Violence

Well, I finally got "The Adapted Mind". What a feast! It's gonna take a while to finish this high caloric meal!

Course that won't stop me from rambling…

I read about the recent "soccer hooligan" riots in France. Having read the somewhat disturbing book "Among the Thugs" by Bill Buford who records his involvement in such crowd violence as: "An experience of absolute completeness" and that, "Violence is one of the most intensely lived experiences and, for those capable of giving themselves over to it, is one of the most intense pleasures." Which leads me to wonder about group gene/behavior - sort of a critical mass. (Wrangham & Peterson in Demonic Males describe adolescent male chimps that gather together, work themselves to lynch-mob pitch, and then proceed to raid an adjoining territory for murderous purposes.)

It's hard to see the evolutionary value of such behavior, especially since most find it socially unacceptable (and this too may be an inherited preference). Usually violence (or wars) involve demonizing the "enemy". They are often characterized in cartoon fashion as having large (predatory) teeth. (They are Not drawn with large eyes and small noses!) But in the case of soccar type riots - destruction of social constraints seem to be the only motivation. Why is that? It does seem to be a male thing, what with testosterone and adrenaline. While our species has been around for a few million years, the selection process probably worked itself out through relatively small group numbers. Might the sheer magnitude of unrelated populations throw a wrench into the design?

It is interesting (though not surprising) how often we avoid thinking about things that might cause us emotional discomfort. For example, if we allow ourselves to identify or experience empathy with a creature, we are likely to treat it with a degree of kindness. Americans are somewhat shocked and chagrinned to learn that some Koreans include dogs in their diet. Yet we (Americans) suppress empathy when it comes to an equally intelligent mammal - the pig. Slavery was once considered acceptable (though I don't think the slaves themselves were ever poled). Now it has become universally recognized as unjust exploitation.

I tend to believe we inhabit an indifferent universe, without need of a deity or philosopher positing categorical imperatives. The fact that we Feel that certain behaviors are "good" and that others are "bad" would seem to indicate an internal arbiter that reacts to environment and events based on (I hesitate to use the phrase) "some sort of programming". We fear the dark - (those that didn't, are no longer around). The question becomes: "Will the Real human being please stand up?" Or is this an impossibility, the individual expression of "naturalness" forever being tainted or distorted by cultural constraints (e.g. patriotism) which may themselves be a reified version of something more basic? In other words, the biological can not be extricated from the environment - nature and nurture are inseparably linked.

Well, pardon my rambling. I'm trying to give up cigarettes as my fingers stutter on the keys to keep me from climbing the walls!

bill

• to bill by Mary Beth Coggins, 6/22/98
  • Thanks! by bill, 6/23/98
• Bill and His Butts by Mat Huff, 6/30/98
  • thanks (i think) by bill, 7/4/98