the social psychology of violence
If
we take a critical look at violence, we can expose some of the underlying
issues behind it. This can help in our efforts to move beyond the ‘catalysts’
of violent actions and states of mind. Violence is a complex phenomenon, but it
can be understood on several levels. What needs to be considered are both the environment behind the violent act (who,
what, when, where, and why) and the aggressor’s
state of mind (taking into account environmental influence).
Our habit of
categorizing and separating people into groups is useful. It helps us organize
our thoughts and make sense of the world. But if these mental short-cuts have
negative ‘connotations’ against particular ‘groups’ of people, it can lead to
scape-goating (blaming certain people for society’s problems), stereotyping
(thinking that everyone in that group is the same), and discrimination (acting
on those thoughts). These ‘mental shortcuts’ also contribute towards sexism,
ego-centrism, ageism, ethno-centrism, and other forms of perceived separation.
When we rely on
stereotypes and negative representations of people, we are more likely to feel
superior to a person (or group of people) (Aronson et al, 2002). Feelings of
superiority will not lead to violence, per se. It may, however, make a person
more ‘susceptible’ to violence within certain situations (discussed later on)
and may increase the amount of situations that a person will resort to
violence. This is why it’s important to know how the ‘aggressor’ views the ‘recipient’
of their violence.
In war,
genocide, and other acts against specific groups, the aggressor’s empathy is
lowered because they view their ‘target’ as sub-human (or as an object). This
includes ignoring their thoughts and feelings and seeing them as barriers to
their goals (Baron-Cohen, 2011). This mental mechanism lowers the threshold to
act violently on those ‘types’ of people. It can also be a reason behind high
crimes rates in big cities; big cities can be impersonal, which can disconnect
people and corrode empathy for one another.
Think about how
we view ‘criminals’. We blame them for society’s problems (scape-goating). We
don’t take the individual’s story into account and instead lump them into a
category (stereotype). We refer to them as ‘evil’, ‘monsters’ or ‘psychopaths’
and place them a category below the one that we fit ourselves into
(de-humanizing). We then have the criminal justice system punish them.
The alternate
view is that crime is a symptom of a larger social problem. It is very likely
that this ‘criminal’s’ actions have a logical trace from childhood to their
‘criminal act’. Alcohol, poverty, population density, and past victimization
are all correlated with crime (Reiss and Roth). Not taking the reasons why someone commits a crime is the first
step to missing the problem in the first place. I’m not saying that we should
empty out the prisons and treat people who commit crimes as victims, but
violence will persist if it is misunderstood and dealt with through more
violence.
It’s important
to recognize how popular media contributes toward the fear of crime as well.
For the sake of entertainment and sensationalism, the media distorts people’s
understanding of crime. People over-estimate crime and have an over-exaggerated
fear of it. We often rely on the emotional reactions to what we see in the
media. But by falsely reacting, we fail to question the institutions that were
put in place to deal with the ‘crime problem’.
The crime and
war examples were given to show how our minds can create illusions of
difference between people. Whether violence manifests in a terrorist attack,
gang war, or genocide, it seems that common mechanisms are at work. Let’s now
consider some other influences on violent behavior
In many cases,
the ultimate goal behind an act of violence is not necessarily the victim’s
death or injury, but rather money, sexual gratification, respect, attention, or
the humiliation and domination of the victim (Widom, 1989). Violence is the
means to an end in many cases.
The acceptability
of violence in one’s culture is a precursor for violence as well. This is why
media violence can be dangerous. Media violence: a) models violent behavior
(how we might go about it), b) primes aggressive thinking (makes it more likely
to be an option), and c) desensitizes us (reduce our sense of shock towards
violence and decreases sympathy for the victims) (Aronson et al, 2003.). Media
violence, therefore, can not only teach violence, but it can help justify and
normalize it.
If a person
grows up in a violent household (or society), violent behaviors are also being
learned. If an individual learns from a role model that violence is an
acceptable way of dealing with conflict or venting frustrations, they are more
likely to use violence in their lives. Violence can also be a way of re-gaining
a lost sense of power or control in an individual. This ‘loss’ of power or
control can be economic, emotional, or the result of being the recipient of
violence in the past. The person may act out violently in order to regain their
sense of control (Widom, 1989). This does not mean that all children who have
been abused or neglected will be violent, but they are at higher risk for
violent behavior later in life, especially if they don’t learn more acceptable
ways to deal with conflict.
It’s important
to consider the influence of obedience to authority and group-think as well.
People will do things that they would not normally do in situations if they are
coerced, feel threatened, have collective morality, or follow a charismatic
leader (Beau, 2004). For a great example on how authority can influence
aggression, see Stanley Milgrim’s ‘shocking’ experiments in the ‘70’s.
Guns
bring an especially unique and dangerous formula to the equation of violence.
They provide a more impersonal, emotionally remote act and allow the aggressor
to bypass their inhibitions against close contact with their victims. This
allows serious crimes to be committed by individuals who may otherwise be too
timid or squeamish to come into contact with their victims (Kleck, 221).
The
last point I would like to share is the idea of ‘rituals of violence’. Rituals
of violence are socially built ideas of when (in what situations) violence can
be expected or acceptable (Barak, 2005). Rituals of violence can be as diverse
as a boxing match, revenge, war, and criminal justice violence (police
violence, capital punishment, imprisonment). Basically, rituals of violence
provide ‘scripts’ to make sense of violence in situations. They transcend the
idea that ‘violence is wrong’ and place violence into some situations where it
can be used. The hope is that the amount of situations that allow or expect violence
are lessening instead of increasing in our society.
It’s
important to know how our experiences shape how we make sense of violence. If
we gain insights into the social, cultural, cognitive, and situational
influences of violence, we can be more mindful of how to move beyond violent
actions and states of mind. As we have
seen, violence can be caused by a combinations of: a) mental shortcuts that
lead to de-humanization and loss of empathy in the ‘recipient’, b) past
victimization (and loss of power or control), c) social influence and
acceptability d) learned behavior and e)
rituals of violence (situations that accept or expect violence, such as war).
These factors are further amplified by situations that involve firearms, group
dynamics, and obedience.
It is hoped that understanding the psychology and social influence behind violence can help us move beyond it. I think it’s time to look past the ‘aggressor’ and gain a broader understanding of how our society as a whole is perpetuating the acceptance and motivations behind violence.
It is hoped that understanding the psychology and social influence behind violence can help us move beyond it. I think it’s time to look past the ‘aggressor’ and gain a broader understanding of how our society as a whole is perpetuating the acceptance and motivations behind violence.