Is aggressiveness inherent to humans?
Nowadays we may feel like people are becoming more and more aggressive and hostile. We see violent acts performed seemingly out of nowhere; we hear terrifying stories of unthinkable acts; the honking of the angry cars wake us up in the middle of the night; a neighbor beats the wall in blind outrage over a loss in an online game.
We notice our loved ones growing impatient; coworkers having shorter tempers; children being unnecessarily cruel to each other.
We may wonder if we, humans, are inherently programmed for violence, be it blind rage, or cold-hearted malice. I have given the Machiavellian view a fair enough hearing; and was personally not at all convinced in its plausibility bearing in mind its adherence to cold, calculating cruelty and self-serving manipulation. I have seen too much altruism in my life, even though I have not been placed in the circumstances deemed by the Western world as safe and stimulating. Nonetheless, so much kindness has been displayed to me, that even after doubting and fearing human nature for most of my childhood and adolescence, I was shown that viciousness and rage were conditioned, and NOT predisposed.
Reading Erich Fromm’s The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness has given me an immensely helpful view on aggression. On one hand, the pseudo-Darwinist, instinctivist view insists on the importance of aggression’s role in evolution, the inheritance of aggressive energy, the supposed “need” for species to fight and compete; on the other, all of the animal studies that point to lack of evidence of true “ferocity” of animals, instead uncovering how captivity breeds antagonism; and how when observed in their natural habitat, most animals lead what humans may perceive as a “peaceful” communal lifestyle. For example, “All the chimpanzees I observed were cautious, hesitant creatures. This is one of the major impressions one carries away from studying chimpanzees at close range in the wild. Behind their lively, searching eyes one senses a doubting, contemplative' personality, always trying to make sense out of a puzzling world. It is as if the certainty of instinct has been replaced in chimpanzees by the uncertainty of intellect-but without the determination and decisiveness that characterize man. (A. Kortlandt, 1962.)” (Fromm 111). Or, “On gorillas observed in the wild, G. B. Schaller reports that on the whole “interaction” between groups was peaceful. Aggressive bluff charges were made by one male as noted above, and “I once observed weak aggressiveness in the form of incipient charges towards intruders from another group by a female, a juvenile and an infant. Most intergroup aggressiveness was confined to staring and snapping.” Serious aggressive attacks among gorillas were not witnessed by Schaller. This is all the more remarkable because the gorilla group home ranges not only overlapped, but seem to have been commonly shared amongst the gorilla population. Hence there would be ample occasion for friction. (G. B. Schaller, 1963, 1965.)” (Fromm 113).
Prof. Fromm gives us many more illustrative examples of animal interaction; most of which point to a thesis: “And further on Scott states: Under natural conditions hostility and aggression in the sense of destructive and maladaptive (italics added) agonistic behavior are hard to find in animal societies” (Fromm 119).
This is not to say, that defensive aggressiveness is not an observable phenomenon, because it absolutely is. The distinction between protecting one's vital interests and intentional (or even unconscious) drive to harm another is so glaringly apparent, that one has to be deep in the throes of denial to object to it.
We see more fascinating conclusions supported by data in observable animal life in Pyotr Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid as a Factor of Evolution: “While he (Darwin) himself was chiefly using the term (struggle for existence) in its narrow sense for his own special purpose, he warned his followers against committing the error (which he seems once to have committed himself) of overrating its narrow meaning. In The Descent of Man he gave some powerful pages to illustrate its proper, wide sense. He pointed out how, in numberless animal societies, the struggle between separate individuals for the means of existence disappears, how struggle is replaced by co-operation, and how that substitution results in the development of intellectual and moral faculties which secure to the species the best conditions for survival. He intimated that in such cases the fittest are not the physically strongest, nor the cunningest, but those who learn to combine so as mutually to support each other, strong and weak alike, for the welfare of the community. “Those communities,” he wrote, “which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring” (2nd edit., p. 163). The term, which originated from the narrow Malthusian conception of competition between each and all, thus lost its narrowness in the mind of one who knew Nature…
Kropotkin, just as Fromm, has employed the works of many of his predecessors and contemporaries; neither Kropotkin’s, nor can Fromm’s work be viewed as isolationist and individualistic.
“Professor Kessler concluded as follows: —
I obviously do not deny the struggle for existence, but I maintain that the progressive development of the animal kingdom, and especially of mankind, is favoured much more by mutual support than by mutual struggle.... All organic beings have two essential needs: that of nutrition, and that of propagating the species. The former brings them to a struggle and to mutual extermination, while the needs of maintaining the species bring them to approach one another and to support one another. But I am inclined to think that in the evolution of the organic world — in the progressive modification of organic beings — mutual support among individuals plays a much more important part than their mutual struggle.” (Kropotkin).
I have found immense reassurance in these kind comrades extensive research, and have realized that the belief in the “survival of the fittest” is a convenient invention, according to Fromm: “…the instinctivist movement based on Darwin's teaching reflects the basic assumption of nineteenth-century capitalism. Capitalism as a system in which harmony is created by ruthless competition between all individuals would appear to be a natural order if one could prove that the most complex and remarkable phenomenon, man, is a product of the ruthless competition among all living beings since the emergence of life. The development of life from monocellular organisms to man would seem to be the most splendid example of free enterprise, in which the best win through competition and those who are not fit to survive in the progressing economic system are eliminated” (Fromm 74).
Isn’t it peculiar how one may assign meaning to randomness of evolution? Genetic programming, “the application of the principles of Darwinian evolution to the construction of algorithms, programs and various objects of the real world, which engineers can also develop” (Nikitin, Mikhail A Blind Watchmaker vs. Intelligent Design: A Short Course of an Evolution Denier), shows how when an AI is given circumstances to “create freely” so to speak, the results are astoundingly similar to what we get in accordance with our knowledge of evolutionary biology, in terms of randomness and surprising inconsistency. When Adrian Thompson worked on the Evolutionary Gate Matrix Programming project, and created microcircuits, consisting of many identical blocks that could be connected in different order, “…these strange illogical connections [were created]; the use of interference and induction to perform the target function – this is exactly what biologists who study gene regulatory networks face…” (Nikitin).
I have come across a simple metaphor of evolution as if “throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks”, and found it to be surprisingly helpful in realizing that there is no set purpose, necessary rhyme or reason to the adaptations. This realization can be a symbolic first step in a journey of conscious learning and awareness. The notion of aggression being a “necessary evil”, an evolutionary advantage, has set generations of people to fail to see the complexity of interaction among species; for example, excluding knowledge of mutualism and commensalism when discussing species' life.
Fromm continues to combine his knowledge of Marxist economic theory with empirical evidence gained from years of his own clinical collaborative work, and gives us yet another brilliant analysis of how modern day false equation of “survival of the fittest” to actual knowledge on evolution lead to propaganda of erroneous and harmful notions:
“Nineteenth-century capitalism was one of fierce competition among capitalists which led to the elimination of the weaker and less efficient among them. In twentieth-century capitalism the element of competition has to some extent given way to cooperation among the big enterprises. Hence the proof that fierce competition corresponded to a law of nature was no longer needed. Another important point of difference lies in the change of the method of control. In nineteenth-century capitalism control was largely based on the exercise of strict patriarchal principles, morally supported by the authority of God and king. Cybernetic capitalism, with its gigantic centralized enterprises and its capacity to provide the workers with amusements and bread, is able to maintain control by psychological manipulation and human engineering. It needs a man who is very malleable and easily influenced, rather than one whose “instincts” are controlled by fear of authority. Finally, contemporary industrial society has a different vision of the aim of life than that of the last century. At that time the ideal at least for the middle classes – was independence, private initiative, to be “the captain of my ship.” The contemporary vision, however, is that of unlimited consumption and unlimited control over nature.” (Fromm 74).
Isn’t it astounding how the economic powers that be influence the perception of science, the seemingly objective force of gaining insight from the observable world? When it was convenient, the belief of the ruthless, highly competitive, “all or nothing”, “the ends justify the means” individual was perpetuated. When it lost its usefulness, the thesis, the forced “universal truth” was swapped, in the manner most nonchalant, to yet another half-truth: the individualist entrepreneur, “hustling” the right way, will achieve the dream of independent freedom!
Yet many still cling to the “naturalistic” arguments, ignoring the glaring reality of how economic production dictates not only our lifestyles, but interferes with our perception of the material world.
Marx has much to say considering this: “In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness” (Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy).
Doesn’t it follow, that we are shaped by our surroundings; that our very “nature” is conditional; that what is “natural” to us is but an illusion, accidental more often than not, even though sometimes purposefully insidious?
“We know little as yet about the direct influence of the environment on the development of the brain. Fortunately we know a great deal more about the role of social factors on the development of character (although all affective processes have, of course, a substrate in brain processes). It would seem that at this point we have joined the main stream of thought in the social sciences-the thesis that man's character is formed by the society in which he lives, or, in behavioristic terms, by the social conditioning to which he is exposed. However, there is a fundamental difference between this view and the one proposed here. The environmentalist view of the social sciences is essentially relativistic; according to it, man is a blank sheet of paper on which the culture writes its text. He is molded by his society for better or worse, “better” or “worse” being considered value judgments from an ethical or religious standpoint. The position taken here assumes that man has an immanent goal, that man's biological constitution is the source of norms for living. He has the possibility for full development and growth, provided the external conditions that are given are conducive to this aim. This means that there are specific environmental conditions conducive to the optimal growth of man and, if our previous assumptions are correct, to the development of the life-furthering syndrome. On the other hand, to the extent these conditions are lacking, he will become a crippled, stunted man, characterized by the presence of the life thwarting syndrome” (Fromm 260-261).
Why do we even want to continue engaging into the “nature vs nurture” debate? Isn’t it more helpful to focus on what we can influence, can change; which is always, always going to be the “nurture” part? We cannot precipitate our nature into the desired directions, at least not ethically at the moment; but we can and we must change our conditions, shape them thus that no blind chance decides upon the lives and deaths of fellow humans.
We can create safe conditions in which solidarity, not competitiveness thrives.
We can provide basics for all so that no one is afraid of destitution; thus, few would be hoarding in the face of impending scarcity.
We can teach our children camaraderie, not xenophobia; show them that diversity is neither a hindrance, nor an advantage; and all can share in the common joy together.
We can slowly, but surely eliminate the underlying causes of aggression and hostility: by providing people with sensible work conditions; plenty of leisure time; assurance that their inherent value would not be ripped away from them when an unmerciful disaster finds them, leaving them dependent on the fellow loving providers.
We can build together such safety nets, that no vice will overcome the warm embrace of communal care.
And if you say I am but another pathetic idealist, I say in return, that empirical evidence speaks louder than my words. Moreover, introspection on the human psyche, provided by many dear comrades, such as already mentioned Fromm, alongside with many others, gives us a glimpse at the human potential; studies of economic prosperity of communities who have chosen people over profit; all of this is enough for me to say: if you have it left in you, comrade, join forces with us, and together, let’s build, out of the ruins of dreams of individual achievement, fame and riches, a true bridge between our human potential and the world of tomorrow!