Since violent phenomena began to be studied in the humanities in the mid-20th century, a question has arisen that has haunted all research on: Is human violence instinctive or learned?In this sense, many hypotheses have emerged, however, one thing is clear: all cultures, at all times, have shown aggressive behavior.
Concern about this problem has been growing in recent decades, world wars have shown that human ability to injure themselves is limitless, these facts and many others have led us to see ourselves even frightened.
Mahatma Gandhi?
Perhaps because of these historical facts, the concept of aggression has acquired a totally negative connotation, but it has not always been so. In fact, without the ability to attack or respond to aggression we would not have been able to survive as a species, however, human beings have taken violence far away and that is what concerns.
Sometimes we think aggression and violence are two realities equal, but not quite. Aggression is part of our instinctive capacity. We were born with it and have your brand printed physiologically, this involves a series of physical and chemical processes that occur automatically, without us nodding.
Aggression is biological. It is used to alert us in case of danger, also to defend yourself if necessary and adapt to the environment, it is normal and healthy, for example, react aggressively if someone tries to push us to fall. Our survival instinct. It means that, in the face of this threat, we respond with aggressive gestures or actions.
Violence, however, is cultural. It coincides with all behaviors intended to harm others, for reasons other than the objective preservation of our integrity. Only the human species has violent behavior, no other animal has this kind of behavior.
Violence is learned. Aggression is instinctive, but violence is symbolic, this means that we have come into the world with innate tools to react aggressively when it is necessary to preserve life and integrity, but it introduces desire and tendency to harm others, for different reasons, The good news is that it is also possible to unlearn.
Almost all violent people justify their behavior for a false reason; most say that it pains others to defend themselves, teach, or introduce something positive; it is also common to blame the victim for inciting such violence against him; and it is not uncommon for these to be higher principles. to be used, whether religious or political.
Behind these mistakes are complex ideological constructions as well as fraud. Violence is first symbolic (cultural) and then physical. For example, to enslave black people around the world, it was first argued that they had no soul, a whole catalogue has been drawn up about their inferior and vicious behaviors, so physical violence against them was already justified. happened to women, indigenous peoples, and now it’s happening with animals.
Is violence supposed to be self-defense? It can be admitted. However, there are many cases in history in which this defense is based on a non-existent threat, in several sacred books it is said that women are the scouring of men, in addition in many holy wars each side confronts their God against the other, and taking him off the face of the earth is a laudable mission. In different everyday situations, the other is symbolically disqualified from laying the groundwork for violating them with total “conviction. “
It is possible to silence weapons or stop blows, but if the other is not considered a worthy man, violence will return, it can take a non-physical form, such as harsh criticism, mockery or indifference, but it is always violence. There is no reason to fear aggressive feelings, because they are part of our vital defense. But yes, we must repudiate the violent impulses that, as we all know, only lead to injustice and more violence.