Violence and Aggressive Behaviour - Anthropological Perspective

"The function or ultimate cause of aggression is to acquire or defend resources that are important in conferring reproductive or survival benefit." (Campbell, 2005, p. 630).

"O problema filosófico central, que responde pela agressividade humana, é o conflito dos contrários. (The main philosophical problem that responds to human aggression is the conflict of oppositions ; author's translation)" (Gaiarsa, 1993, p. 19).

 The above citations indicate the possible origin and function of human aggression, yet it would be a rather difficult task to pass an unequivocal, simple, and all-embracing definition of aggression. There are many definitions that correspond to the philosophical, sociological, psychological and anthropological theories. We must also add all psychiatric, religious and even lay theories. Geen (1998, p. 1) argues that there is too much literature in the field of human aggression for a consistent and functional overview. Yet he is convinced that there is a ready line on which the united theory of human aggression could be founded. The Dictionary of Slovene Language (2005) define aggression as assaulting, violent behaviour, an unprovoked attack, political aggression, or attack of one country on some other country. Similarly describes aggression The English Dictionary (2003) as attack, violent hostility or encroachment or unprovoked violation by one country of the territory of another. Yet such definitions are very general and exclude many important factors. Hacker (1985, p. 35) thinks that dictionary definitions stem in behaviouristic views on aggression that are result of experimental observations and exclude at least lay, everyday views on aggression. Hacker continues that from the humanities’ point of view, aggression could not be described as a universal behaviour model. 

Evolutionist psychology understands aggression as a way to achieve a certain goal; Darwin has already described it as one of the evolutionary solutions for the competition for goods. Geen (1998, p. 1) claims that the term aggression is not a scientific one but rather describes many different functional behaviours with the common intention to harm, to cause damage, pain or suffering to another person. Hacker (1985, p. 36) writes about intentional and unintentional aggression, where the latter is further divided into pushed aggression, personal-instrumental and instrumental aggression. The last one is the result of planned action of the group to achieve certain goals, benefits or social recognition using aggression. Gaiarsa (1993, p. 19) perceives the fundamental problem for appearance of aggressive tensions in the opposition of interests. In his discussion he looks at the oppositions between different economic classes, the sexes, between different ages, races and cultural groups of modern urban environment. Conflito dos contrários (conflicts of oppositions) for him are the consequence of globalisation and economic or political inequality (ibid.). With his theory, which is closer to evolutionist theory, only that he is more concerned with cultural factors of the human society, he explains an extensive set of reasons for aggressive tensions of the modern man. However, aggression is not an exclusive attribute of human society and is not always the result of conflicts between different interests. Aggressive tensions, regardless if they are a resource gathering technique or consequence of conflicts between individuals or groups, are to be found amongst humans and animals. Lorenz (1963, pp. 55-57) agrees that aggression can be understood as the evolutionary adaptation for a species’ survival and instinct functioning, as understood by Freud. He questions if aggression is still an effective survival technique with humans that have invented weapons for mass destruction. He sees the danger of aggression in its instinctive characteristic. Hacker (1985, pp. 77-79) claims that aggression should not be seen as an instinct or drive but rather as a motivation. In the brain we do not have a centre or module that would control the appearance of aggression, but other brain centres or modules are activated in the case of aggressive tensions. Aggression is not hormonally motivated; its appearance is dependent on the individual's symbolic notions about information from the environment. Therefore aggressive tensions, similar to sexual tensions, could be ascribed to factors of arousal and the appetite for aggression. Hacker argues that aggression is a repeatable action-reaction mode of the human body’s behaviour, which is motivated when aroused. Expressing aggressive tensions is in many cases connected with the cause of physical, psychological or material damage. Hacker (1985, p.36) describes aggression as a certain behaviour of a living being, whose aim is to cause damage to other living being who opposes such behaviour. 

In what follows I will address aggression expressed in a form that can cause mental, physical or material damage, i.e. violence.