![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||
|
|
But what advantage is it to anyone to get into a fight? Why can't we find better ways to deal with disputes? These are more difficult questions than they seem. One kind of answer is that fighting/ aggression just is: as much a foundational action sequences in people as it is in animals, comparable to feeding, drinking or love-making. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to think of a bird or mammal that does not have fights with con-specifics. Nor are predators more aggressive than grazers, when it comes to fighting their own. Not only are fights part of our behavioural repertoire but at least one of our innate emotions--anger--presses us towards conflict, and another--fear--may sometimes press away from conflict and sometimes press towards it. Some would argue that, whilst conflicts are inescapable, they should not be allowed to lead to aggression or violence (we will assume that there is no qualitative difference between aggression and violence, only a difference in the seriousness of the outcome). All conflicts, so it is assumed, could be managed without recourse to aggression. If this were so, then we should be working towards a world without aggression. Furthermore, problematic conflict could be considered to be a consequence of an abnormal degree of aggression on the part of individuals. We might call this the biological approach to conflict. It is attractive because it leads to apparently simple solutions. But, it is not always the case that aggression is bad. One person may impose themselves on another, and unless that other summons some aggression, they may simply give in. Nor is it the case that conflicts that are not aggressive are unproblematic. Disputes may become as damaging and as destructive as aggressive conflict even though no blows are exchanged and no voices are raised (Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce) Unusually aggressive individuals easily slip into pre-conflict with others and may provoke them into aggressive conflict. This therefore may be a type of aggression that could be avoided or minimized by preventing individuals from becoming abnormally aggressive, by reducing the disposition to aggression in predisposed individuals, or by isolating aggressive individuals before they can precipitate conflict. However, not every party to a conflict is abnormally aggressive by any means. For example, recent studies have shown that terrorists are psychologically normal. We should not therefore assume that all aggression can be avoided or even that all aggression should be avoided. Consider the following thought experiment: you have a rifle and are an excellent shot. You see from some distance away that there is a man with a knife standing behind one of your children, and as you watch he raises it, with the obvious intention of plunging it into your child's back. Leaving aside all the doubts you may have about the consequences of shooting at the man--you may miss, you might hit your child, or an innocent bystander and so on--do you fire? If you say 'yes', you are agreeing that there are some circumstances when aggression is justified. You might say, but this is not a conflict. So, change the scenario slightly. The man has broken into your home. You retreat to a bedroom with your children, but he breaks down the door. He has a knife and tells you graphically what he is going to do to you and your children with it. There is no hope of rescue. You shout at him to leave, you threaten him with the police, then you pull out the gun that you have hidden in your bag, and threaten to kill him. He lunges at you with the knife. Do you shoot at him, or submit yourself and your children to his mercy? And if you submit, but he has no mercy, have you reduced or increased the total of aggression in the incident?
|
|
||||
This project
is funded by the Leonardo da Vinci programme, project number UK/01/B/F/PP/129_387,
2000-2003 |