Violence and Aggressive Behaviour - Anthropological Perspective

Perceived distinctions between aggressive and violent play in capoeira have brought me to believe that aggression (instinctive human characteristic) and violence cannot be equalled. Therefore, I will try to define and explain both concepts and differences between them. There is a certain inconsistency in the use of terms. Therefore, in lay and also in scientific discourse many times similar occurrences are addressed as both, aggression and violence. Geen (1998, p. 1) perceives violence carried out from purposes of coercion, punishment and profit, as a variety of aggression, similar to angry retaliation and self-defence. He uses Baron & Richardson’s definition of aggression as a reference [1] . In the context of differentiation between both phenomena we have to ask ourselves if the differentiation is solely terminological or if there exist important comprehensive differences between aggression and violence. We might also be interested to find out if aggressive behaviour is inevitably an element of violence and if any form of aggression behaviour is necessarily violent. 

Violence for example appears in family conflicts, in some business conflicts, in fights between youngster's gangs, between sport fans and members of different sub-cultural groups. In some cases, violence is even socially acceptable, an indispensable part of the media and political discourse. Violence is also an essential factor in film industry; therefore, violent content is a part of everyday media reality. There are also some sport disciplines with a high level of violence transmitted on television, such as ultimate fight, box, hockey, rugby, American football, wrestling, soccer… The application of violence is a legitimate method for the police and military troops and is present even in medicine (treatment of patients where rules are strictly followed, for example in psychiatric hospitals). As we can see, violence appears in various forms and many different areas or institutions of human social life. Mukherjee (2010, pp. 103-104) uses Strenski's division based on Durkheimian pragmatic view on violence and divides it into institutional violence and institutionalised violence. The first one refers to state institutions and can be expressed as physical violence or violence of regulations, laws, prohibitions and commands. On the other hand, the most typical representation of institutionalised violence is war, where the violent act has been institutionalised through enforcement of combat rules and laws. In the context of Strenski's division of violence, aggressive behaviour is not necessarily present in violent acts of social institutions. In medical institutions violence is latent and performed skilfully. Intimidation [2]  is used to force patients to follow the given institutional rules. Behaviour such as aggression is not needed to perform these forms of violence. Some therapists in Juliano Moréira Hospital also argued that intimidation is the most recurrent violent form performed on patients. One of them explained:

Patients are witness to violence every day. They have to eat, wash, sleep and wake up when they are told to. If they express their emotions, they might suffer consequences. Not obeying is punished with isolation, medication, electric shock or other repressive methods. Even if in reality these methods are used very rarely, there is a present fear between patients regarding consequences of electric shock (fear is based on perceptions constructed through history of method abuse). 

According to Foucault (1975), latent intimidation based on conceptions about consequences of punishment was developed in the 18^th century with the introduction of imprisonment and asylums for the "mentally disturbed", and as a consequence of the modified method of the ruling class’ demonstration of power. In the middle ages punishment, torture and executions were publicly performed to demonstrate sovereign's power and to evoke fear between masses, when people with mental problems were stigmatised as demonic and expelled from society. Probability of riots, crime and disobedience was diminished through public punishments. Yet through the introduction of imprisonment punishment, torture and executions became the institutional domain and therefore concealed from the public. In this case the effect of fear is different from the one caused by public demonstrations of horror. Since nobody except people who were imprisoned really knows what goes on behind the prison walls, the public believes that the consequences of punishment are constructed through stories and testimonials. Violence in the public sphere is therefore transmitted behind the institutional walls and deprived of transparent aggressive slaughter and torture. The institutionalisation of medicine on the other hand represents for Foucault (2009, pp. 54-58) the politicizing of the discipline and increased control over medical care and medicalization. Thus, there exists an increased possibility of violence in medical institutions. Foucault further writes: "18^th century debates, institutions, aphorisms and nosologies have limited medicine knowledge into defined space." (Foucault, 2009, p. 59).

I can note that aggressive behaviour is not necessary a stipulation for violence. If so, can we propose the same for vice versa? The answer might be found in some sport activities, art and even daily human relationships. For example, children can behave aggressively demanding certain actions or objects from the parents, yet that does not mean that they will use violence. Sportsmen will execute their task using aggression, but they will not perform violent acts; such practices are typical for individual sport arts. Even dance can be aggressive, yet not violent. In many cases, though, the general and even the professional public does not differentiate between aggression and violence, therefore aggression is mostly interpreted as violence and sanctioned. In the case when common citizens [3]  often react in an aggressive way, they are stigmatised as violent. An aggressive individual, perceived as violent, becomes the subject of the correctional or psychiatric bio-medical system. An excessively aggressive individual is in many cases diagnosed as mentally disturbed and therefore obliged to treat his illness in accordance to the prevalent medical doctrine.