Theoretical Considerations on Conflict and Aggression

More documents

Recommendations

Info

26 BlorkqvislThere are rwo basically different views on rhe necessiry or inevitabiliry, ofconflicr. According ro one view, conflict is an aberration in sociery a kind of socia[parhology (Parsons, 1951; Smelser, 1962). Conflicts can be elinrinated by giving allpeople involved what they need. Conflict is, in accordance with this view, alwaysdysfunctional and does not facilitate evolution or improvement, neicher of socieryas a whole nor of relations between individuals. Conflicr is nor an inevitableingredient of human life.According to the other point of view, conflicts are inevitable by-products ofhuman interaction (Coser, 1956). Conflicrs are consequences of the impossibiliryof always giving all people involved what they want.Desire and needs are not identical, and rhe facr that people cannot get all rheywanr does not automatically and in all cases inrply that they do not get what cheyneed. Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim (1994, p. 5) accordingly described conflicr in morecareful terms, as "perceived divergence of incerest, or a belief that rhe parties'current aspirations cannor be achieved simultaneously."Coser ( 1956) is of the opinion rhac conflicr, alrhough inevitable, is not inherentlypathological or always necessarily dysfunctional. On a short-cerm basis, a conflictnlay seem dysfunctional, but on a long-term basis, it nray be functional and lead toimprovement of a sociecy in question. Lyons (1993) also suggested thar confiictoften can be a consrructive force in social life. The issue offunctionaliry though,is epistenrologically problematic, and based on post hoc analysis.Levi-Strauss (1958) suggesred char conflicrs ofdifferenr kinds are latent in everyculture, and the reason why norms are formed is to prevent latent and potentialconflicts. Norms are ritualized ways of handling conflicr. Nornrs wirh respect toclothing may serve as an example: For instance, by concealing genitals, sexualexcitation caused by visual srimulation is reduced, and sexual conflict ro a greatextent is avoided.There are norms for how to dress in a large variery of societal roles, a factfacilitating the preservation of these roles. Human speech also is highty ritualizedand regulated by norms; in fact, every aspect of communication and social life hasnorms of its own. Individuals who do not follow nornls are regarded as deviant and,if central and important norms are violared, rhe individual in question may bepunished. Every sociery has rules of eciquecte, rhe neglect of which leads tosanctions. Preliterate people have sysrems of social control, although they do notperhaps have a wricren law.l-evi-Srrauss' view may be compared to Freud's (19]0/1948) opinion on normsand culture, presented in his book Das lJnbehagen in der Kultur lCivilization and itsDiscontents]: According to Freud, the internalization of norms into an intrapsychicsuperego is the result ofthe clash between the pleasure-principle and the realiryprinciple.Humans cannot get everyching they want. Taken as a whole, culturefacilitates human well-being, but culture also puts limitadons on the individual.The position raken in this chapter is rhat conflicts really are inevirable. However,rhey should not in all cases be regarded as dysfunctional, or as a kind of socialpathology. Conflicts are of many different rypes, some functional, some dysfunc-
3. Invevifobilitv of Confllcf Bul Not ol Vlolence 27rional. Some confliccs are harmful, but, in some cases, conflicts may improve societyand social relations on a long-ternr basis.AGGRESSION AND ANGERViolence and aggression are related concepts, often used synonymously in everydaylanguage; they are not, however, identical but rather partly overlapping concepts,violence being only one form of aggression. The emorion of anger also is oftenmistakenly used as a synonym ofaggression. Aggression is an act, not an inner stare.The emotion ofanger is often (bur not always) a precursor ofaggression.Buss (1961, p. 1) defined aggression as "a response that delivers noxious sdmuliro anorher organism." That definition does not exclude harm delivered to anotherperson or organism unintentionally. IfBuss'definition is taken literally, hitting andinjuring another person accidentally by car would be an aggressive act.Authors ofa behaviorist orientation have rried to avoid references to inner statesor inrentions, bur rhey use instead ternrs such as goal'direcrion. Dollard, Doob,Miller, Mowrer, and Sears (1939, p.7) defined aggression as "an act whosegoal-response is injury to an organism (or organism-surrogate)." Baron (1977' p. 7)defined aggression as "any form ofbehavior directed toward the goal ofharming orinjuring another living being who is nrotivated to avoid such fieatment."Aggression here is defined as an incencional act, carried out with the purpose ofcausing physical or mental pain to another individual or organisn (see alsoBjorkqvisr & Nienreld, 1992). In order to be regarded as painful, the act must be ofa kind that the object is motivated to avoid. If the perperaror does not succeed inhis or her intentions, and no injury occurs, the act may still be regarded as aggressive.There is experimental evidence (Holm, 1985; Bjorkqvist, Lindstrcjm, Pehrsson,1989) that people pay attention !o at least the following four facrors when theyattribute aggressiveness to an act: 1) its intentionaliry, Z) the extenc of injury orharm, 3) the reason (e.g., offensive attack vs. defense), and 4) the method.While aggression is a kind of behavior or an act, aggressiveness is the inclinationto inrenrionally behave in a harmful way. One may distinguish becween situationallydetermined'state aggressiveness' and the more profound'crait aggressiveness,' thatis, the inclination to behave aggressively in a variery of situadons, a personalirytrait).Ic is noteworthy that intentional harmful behavior may be carried out withoucany feeling of anger whatsoever, so to say, in cold blood. It is common practice todifferentiate between emotionally determined agressbn, originating from anger, andinstrumental aggression.ln the latter case, the aggressive behavior is only an instrumentfor the accomplishment of a speci{ic goal. Feshbach (1964), who was the firstto make the distinction between rhese two, used the label hosole aggression for theemotionally determined category whereas Fraczek (1989) referred to it as emo[o-[enic aggression These rwo rypes of aggression do noc necessarily exclude oneanother, and aggressive acts are, indeed, in many cases, a mixrure ofboth. But, as
Page 1: InCultural Variation in Conflict Re
Page 5 and 6: 3. Invevilobilltv of Conflict Buf N
Page 7 and 8: 3. Invevilobillly of Conltlct But N
Page 10 and 11: 34 giorkqvisfpanzees living in the
Page 12: BlorkqvisfFreud, S. (1940). Csamruh

Theoretical Considerations on Conflict and Aggression

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?