Are humans inherntly violent?

A detailed Summary of Are humans inherntly violent?

It is arguable to say that humans are inherently violent. A look at the various definitions of violence and what it is presumed to be, a learned behaviour or an instinct, will give an insight into the connection between violence and humans. Various scholars seem to suggest that societal structures lead to violence and it cannot be part of the human system but a learned behaviour. Inherently suggests that it exists as an in separable part or is natural to humans.

The standard Oxford dictionary definition for violence is, use of physical force usually intended to cause injury or destruction: great force or strong in action, feeling or expression. Jamil Salmi defines violence in four categories. The first is direct violence that refers to acts of deliberate violence resulting in a direct attack on a person' s physical or psychological integrity. This includes such acts as homicides, torture, rape and assault. The second is indirect violence which causes harmful, sometimes deadly situations or actions caused by human intervention but without a direct relationship between the parties involved. This includes ignoring humans in danger or in need (violence by omission) and mediated violence, which is alterin

In the case of a test tube child, it will be difficult to prove that a child reared in conditions of no social contact will not be familiar to feelings of violence or aggression. If we are to take the theory of the individual as a social product, if we are to agree that a person comes into the world absolutely blank, then violence can be said to be a behaviour inherent with human culture and for it not to be there, there has to be a radical redirection of culture in societies. J Gunn in 'Violence in Human Society' links violence to frustration, which he said, was created by society. I f some sort of immunity to frustration was created, then humans can rid themselves of violence. This implies that humans have to avoid frustration so as not to be violent which is not possible as it is a condition and an emotion, which means that violence is part of human nature, and is inseparable. This argument though does not hold much water as violence can stem up in humans even in the absents of frustration as in as in war, a soldier can be motivated to be violent even in the absence of frustration.

Violence can be said to be violence when agree upon by society, it depends on what that certain society terms violent and it is inherent to humans as long as they are part of society. For it not to be part of human nature, its eradication will have to start from societal level. It can be agreed that there is a part of us that calls for aggressive behaviour but to prove it biologically still remains an area of debate.

From the given definitions we see that violence can be either be learned or be an instinct. In Man and Society, Sigmund Freud says, " a powerful measure of desire for aggression has to be reckoned as part of their (men) instinct endowment" (Manis Clark page133: 1960), Freud argues that this aggressive behavio

Some common words found in the essay are:
Manis Clark, Human Society', Jamil Salmi, Human Society, , Emile Durkheim, Conclusion Violence, Sigmund Freud, violence human, Violence Human, definitions violence, aggressive behaviour, violence violence, violence human society, leads frustration violence, suggests violence, human society', includes deprivation, gunn 'violence, 'violence human, 'violence human society', humans inherently violent, gunn 'violence human, violence includes,

Approximate Word count = 1225
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)

Category: History