At the first meeting in May philosophical (May 6, 2010), in Rastignano (BO), on "the aggression animals to the violence of men "intervened Giorgio Celli,
known to most as a presenter of documentaries for RAI, but especially ethologist and a man of great culture.
The topic was challenging, as well as his observations, in addition to being well-documented that they had the great honor of translating such a complex issue in a fun story-telling, rich in anecdotes, in many ways enlightening.
Celli first drew a distinction, often not found in the documentation of the social sciences, between aggression and predation. Usually the distinction is between use: intraspecific aggression (ie, between members of the same species) and interspecific aggression (ie, between members of different species). Celli now consider only the aggression which, in the second distinction, is called intraspecific aggression. The so-called aggression Interspecific predation is for him (such as that of the lion with the gazelle). Cell is not Predation to aggressiveness, simply because it responds to the need to survive and feed themselves, as well as for us not aggressiveness buy the meat from the butcher and eat it (it is his example). The only difference, as he wryly noted, is that we commissioned to kill the murderers!
cleared away this first mistake, the question is: How is it then that aggression? Aggressiveness is precisely what occurs between members of the same species. Well! Because naturally occurring aggression?
Worldwide animal aggression plays basically certain tasks: there is aggression between males to ensure mating and reproducing their genetic heritage; aggression aimed to establish hierarchies in the pack (as in wolves), the aggression that is to circumscribe an area which provides valuable resources for survival.
the first case of aggression, the example is the fight against ritual among the deer, to the sound of horns. A hard fight, but without bloodshed. It is precisely ritualized combat, which is not intended to kill the other male (recalled an incident in which, during the struggle, a deer has exposed the other side, taking precisely the opposite to a possible fatal attack, the other deer, however, he simply expected that he would recover in the front to continue the struggle with blows of horns!).
Among wolves, dogs and their descendants, the fight has only ever intended to establish a hierarchy, never to kill the opponent. The loser in the battle, in fact, puts his back and shows its weakest point, namely the jugular. In any case, in nature, the winning advantage of the situation to launch the fatal attack, indeed, the winner is taken to provide care at that point to the loser, treating it like a puppy that is perfect for cleaning, and very often licks so benevolent. Only dogs
deviated from the "cure" human, dogs trained for fighting, they come to kill your opponent!
Regarding the other function, that relating to demarcate a territory, Celli took an example from his observation: the case of a robin that once settled in a tree, react aggressively to all those birds who had a red spot in the breast (ie other robin). The case is similar to that reported by Tinbergen about the sticklebacks, minnows with a red spot that alienate other sticklebacks, recognizing only the red spot (Tinbergen has made experiments playing rough outlines of a fish with a red spot clearly visible, demonstrating that this was the signal that triggers the aggression of the stickleback).
Now in all these cases the aggression plays an adaptive, that is useful for the survival of the species: the former is the strongest that can pass on its genes, making the species more adapted to competition for life in the case of wolves, the hierarchy is dependent upon the life of the flock, in the latter case, the removal of rivals from a given territory, it is useful because in this way, individuals who lose the fight, they are forced to occupy new territories, thus spreading the species, which will have more chance of survival. We now
man. There is aggression in humans? Ethological studies of Lorenz (in particular the so-called evil was quoted in 1963, of which Celli wrote the introduction in the Italian edition) offer a decisive answer in the affirmative. Lorenz
In this paper argues that aggression, like other instincts such as sexuality or territoriality, is an innate behavior, and as such spontaneous and irrepressible, impossible to be derived only from environmental stimuli. As an instinct, aggression is in itself "beyond good and evil," structural component of all living things and engaged in a major role in evolutionary processes and thus the survival of the species. Lorenz also argues that the same instincts "good", those which are gregarious and love, evolutionarily derived from the same aggressiveness, being selective amendment of this directed to different purposes, so that would suppress the aggressiveness away life itself. The book provoked violent controversy, as Lorenz did not limit its scope thinking animal, but also extended to the human and socio-historical. Allegations abound and the controversy, the scientific ground on which it intended to continue Lorenz, slipped, as expected, on the political and ideological: they gave him the racist and warmonger. In reality the purpose of the text was to criticize the current behaviorist and behaviorists, then much in vogue, that all behavior is ultimately derived from and influenced by environmental stimuli, which could be modified to change the same behaviors, including aggression. For behaviorists, therefore, there is nothing innate. Lorenz, to the contrary, the instinct for an original gift, genetically conditioned: as such, it has a life of self, no necessary link to the action of those environmental influences which act as stimuli triggers. Indeed, according to Lorenz more than an instinct is not at tripping, the higher the probability that it eventually discharges into an even more disruptive, even in the absence of appropriate stimuli. Far from being an apology of violence and war, the work of Lorenz sought above all to warn against any position utopian about human coexistence and conflict management, resolution, to be realistic and anthropologically based, could not disregard by data and analysis that he considered incontrovertible. On the contrary, a lack of knowledge of the functioning of innate behavior could lead to results contrary to those desired, only to promote their the onset of conduct detrimental to the peaceful co-existence. By supporting the impermeability of the bottom of the environmental constraints of the basic instincts of man as all animal species, as Lorenz wants to highlight the illusions inherent in the belief that education and socio-political transformation of itself would be sufficient to change and shape human behavior. It's not that he denies any value to the culture or the spiritual dimension of man, as if wanting to reduce an animal among many and therefore bound only to his instincts. Critical Anthropology of each buckled under the myth that Rousseau's "noble savage" he emphasized rather as the "cultural pseudospeciazione" typical of the human species has led groups of people - be they clans, tribes, ethnic or modern nations - once reached a certain degree of differentiation between them, to relate in a very similar to that of more evolved species, including species, as mentioned above, the intraspecific conflict plays a key role in adaptive processes. Lorenz shows that different behaviors dating back to cultural factors reveal a phenomenology strikingly similar to those of genetic origin, thus bringing out a certain convergence between the animal and the human dynamics, convergence not only aggression, but also phenomena such as territoriality, imprinting, play and rituals. Even Eibensfeldt
studies (Love and Hate 1971) lead to the same conclusion: there is an innate aggressive drive in those people identified as particularly myths from anthropological studies.
It seems useful to make a brief to make a distinction between drive and instinct to talk about instinct in human behavior is, in fact, probably more correct. Galimberti reminds us in his Dictionary of Psychology, taking the distinction made by Freud: "The instinct is conceived by Freud as an animal behavior determined by heredity, characteristic of the species, preformed in its development and adapted to its object, but the drive has a constituent that produces a mental state of arousal which pushes the body activity, which is also genetically determined but likely to be modified in the individual .
In other words, when we speak of man must always consider the dialectic of nature and culture, where culture has become second nature in a position to shape, at least in part, the instincts.
Eibensfeldt, in fact, reminds us of anthropological studies of Margaret Mead (Sex and temperament 1967) in which the researcher has studied various societies of New Guinea, noting that the aggression in these societies manifested itself in very different ways: the Arapesh, for example, appeared to be particularly mild, while the Mundugumor showed very aggressive behavior and cruel. Eibensfeldt note that this character of Arapesh, in fact, does not indicate the absence of aggression, but a different "management" of aggression in that culture: "As an example of devotion to peace are often culturally determined indicated Arapesh of New Guinea, but they (who, it says it is never in the hands) are not devoid of aggressiveness: Margaret Mead writes that boys are educated arapesh download the anger on other children but not on objects: If two guys, while they play, they come to fight, now an adult intervenes and separates them: the offender is removed from the place of play and held, then he can stomp in anger, screaming, rolling in the dirt, throw in ground stones and logs, but can not touch other boys. "
These observations suggest some considerations relating to education: a culture, el 'education that follows, can affect how to manage aggression and channel it differently, making it difficult to discharge in violent form on other human beings.
Now, once established the presence of aggression in human hands (statement that Freud subscribe!), What makes it different from events that we have briefly described about animals?
The key difference is that the man arrived, as we know, to kill other men! That is, unlike animals, comes to inflict irreparable damage (based on this consideration we can not boast of our superiority as a species, homo sapiens!).
How did this degenerate into violence aggression? One explanation, that of Celli called "historic" but perhaps we should define "old-technology" would be one that sees the invention of new weapons, instruments of death ever that allow more refined 'killing the enemy from a distance increasing, the factor that has blown up the natural mechanisms of inhibition, probably present in the primitive infighting. Would be created, thus increasing irresponsibility of the man who uses weapons to strike more distant people: those who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as having strong ideological motivations, would be "facilitated" by the fact that traveling to few thousand feet and had to simply press a button.
This explanation certainly captures aspects of truth. It occurs to me that, for the simple "predation," we had to kill our hands to eat the animals, probably would increase the number of vegetarians!
A different point is about cultural diversity in dealing with aggression and its degeneration into violence: there are cultures that emphasize competition and violence at the expense of empathy and cooperation, forces also deeply human, without which our society would not exist!
Celli's speech, with a jump seemingly arbitrary, it was concluded with comments on the media and advertising. But the last point made about the cultural influence on certain drives (you can probably forget how tickle constantly advertising the sex drive?) gives us the key to explain the jump: the media and advertising are legendary micronarratives where sexual and aggressive impulses are continually stressed.
If aggression is an ineradicable human instinct, we must seriously question how this instinct can be managed in a non-destructive, as we teach our family pets!
0 comments:
Post a Comment