Theoretical Considerations on Conflict and Aggression

More documents

Recommendations

Info

28 EiorkovisiLagerspetz (1984) suggested, rhe mosr common emotion of soldiers in war is nocanger, but fear. Anger is noc a prerequisite for aggressron.Accordingly, it is important ro keep in mind that anger and aggression areconceptually different. This distinction is of special imporrance when we discusswhether violence is an inevitable outcome of conflict. Although anger may lead roaggressive behavior, it does not necessarily do so in every case. Anger is a natural,invigorating emotion, biologically geared from the lin'rbic system, especially fromthe hypothalamus and the amygdala (Herbert, 1989); it is an emorion everyone hasexperienced and will experience, perhaps on a daily basis. The well-known crossculturalsrudy on nonverbal expressions ofemorions by Ekman and Friesen (1971)suggesthat rhe emotion of anger is similarly displayed in different cultures in analmost universal fashion. How we deal with our anger, however, whether we willutilize its lorce for aggressive or consrrucrive purposes, is learned.THE ORIGIN OF AGGRESSIONThe history of psycl-rology has wirnessed three nrain theories about rhe origin ofaggression: 1) instinct rheory, claiming that aggression is an innare drive, Z) thefrustrarion-aggression hypothesis, and 3) the social learning rlleory of aggresskn. Idiscuss rheir advantagcs-and problems----one by onc.Instinct TheoryThe nrost well-known proponents of the theory (Signrund Freud, and KonradLorenz) have written ir-r Gernran, and the so callcd instinct theoni accordingly,should rather be labeled the Tiieb-theory because there is a vasr differcncc berweenthe Cerman Tneb and the English instinct (Cerrnan: Instinftt). \Vhen Freud's workwas translated into English, the rranslators wrongly chose the word insrinct ir-rsteadof drive, which would have been the erynrologically correcr equivalenr. This misrakehas caused enornlous confusion wirhin the field of psychology of nrotivarion, andthe damage cannot bc undone.The closest way ro describe whar Tileb really nreans is rhar ic implies an innatc(Latin in natus: present ar birrh) drive, funcrioning in accordance wirh rhe so cailedreservoir model. The drivc is triggered by internal rarher rhan external srimuli,examples being the hunger, thirst, and sexual drives. Tl're internal pressure plays amore central and imporranr role than external stimulation, and it determines thestrength of rhe drive, although external stimuli may contribute. The reservoir nrodelsuggests rhar in the same way as a reservoir slowly fills wirh water, increasing thepressure in the rank, drive srrer-rgth also continuously increases over tinre, if theneed is nor fulfilled. Tl-re longer rhe rime since lasr fulfillment, rhe greater rhepressure.lf the theory were correcr and aggression really is a ?reb in the suggested scnse,then humans would feel an evcr-increasing drive toward being aggressive, alsowithout exrernal frustration. The pressure would sooner or lacer force each one ofus to carry our acrs of aggression.
3. Invevilobilltv of Conflict Buf Nol of Vlolence 29Freud originally stated rhat there existed only one basic drive in humans, thetibido or Eroi, fto* which other morivarion is derived (Freud, 1920/1940). Later'after experiencing rhe horrors of\0orld \var I, he canre to che conclusion that therealso must e*ist *iihin man an opposite, desructive drive, which he labeled Thanatosafter rhe Greek god ofdearh (Freud, 1910/1948). The English-language literaturehas labeled this drive the death instinct.Freud was involved in correspondence with Albert Einstein, in which theydiscussed whether tl-ris proposed destructive drive really existed, and ifit did, woutdrhis drive explain *hy humar.r, so easily ger involved in warfare (Einstein& Freud,l933llg7z). Emsrein denied the existence of Thanatos, but Freud held a morepessimistic view According to him, hunrans have indeed an innate drive towarddestruction, and therefore, warfare cannot be avoided'A circumstance lirtle known or at least seldonr described in the literature is thatFreud was of the opinion rhat the death ?ieb, Thanatos, primarily is self-descructive'directed inwards io*ard people themselves, and rhat outward aggression o.ly is achan1rele derivarion front ic. Eros a1d Thar-ratosymboli;ed to him the ongoingstruggle berween thc wish for life and the wish fbr death, within eacl'r individual'ir1,.hor,.,"lyrt, afrer Freud found rhe idea of an innate self-destructive drivedifficulr to reconcile and Hartmann, Kris, and Loewenstein (1949) suggested thatthere is, indeed, a drive roward destrucrion rvithin humans, but the primarydirecCion of ti.ris drive is outward aggression, uot inward self-destruction. Thrsviewpoint has been commonly accepted within psychoanalysis ever since' That is'the notion of ar.r innate aggressive drive stems, in a strict settse, frotn Hartmann,Kris, and l-,oewensreiu, l'Iot frotn Freud.Erhologist Konrad Lorenz also suggested the existence of an innare' aggressivedrive in hii book On Aggression ( 1966). The exacc ftanslation of the German originalname Das Sogenon,l,. Bor. (Lorenz, 1963) woutd be "The So-Catled Evi[," revealingLorenz's viewpoinr that aggression is not necessarily bad. It is obvious from Lorenz'spresentarion ihat he rhoughr this drive to function in accordance with the pre'viously menrioned reservoir moclel. Monragu (1976, p. 92) describes it as a "hydraulicnrodel." Lorenz (1966) suggested that the best way for hunankind to avoidviolence is ro find vicarious ourlets for this drive, such as the viewing of aggressivesporrs-a kind of catharsis hypothesis (Feschbach, 1955). The serious problenr ofulol"n." antong soccer fx15-;se6sg1 hooliganism"-is a real-life refutation of thishypothesis, n, *. th" findings ofincreased aggressiveness after violent film viewing(e.g., Goranson, 1970; Huesmann & Eron, 1986).Tl.re instincr, or Trieb rheory, should thus be regarded as refuted: The need toaggress is not an innate drive comparable to hunger, thirst' or sex, functioning inaccordance with the reservoir model. If tltat were the case, everyone of us wouldfee[, wirhout exrernal stinruli or frustration, an ever-incteasing drive to beconleaggressive, perhaps a need to go out and hit someone about once a week, in orderto have the drive fulfilled' This is certainly not the case.There is, however, at least one circuntstance ofbiological nature that may havea strong tenclency to lead nten and wonren intO interpersonal conflict: the naturalemorion of angcr, cxperienced when one is frrrstrated. The abiliry to get angry has
Page 1 and 2: InCultural Variation in Conflict Re
Page 3: 3. Invevifobilitv of Confllcf Bul 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?