Cultures of Violence - Advanced Essay #3

Acts of anger and violence are hard to miss in United States history. As it appears in American culture, through our entertainment and through our core values, is only enabled to be problematic via the environments it is cultivated in. It is often questioned whether this violence is by nature or nurture. However, because environments which systematically encourage it are entirely responsible, this answer will not have an impact. Looking at the human mind will be rendered insignificant if we fail to pick apart the systems that mind is processed through.

At an initial glance of the many scenarios in which violence occurs, it might be difficult to find a unifying factor between all of the variables at play. One article from Scientific American entitled Understanding Violence goes over some of the reasons violence plays a role in the human experience. Findings from research on our counterparts, monkeys, has explained how other species use violence more practically. “They do not start a fight to alienate themselves from another individual, but rather to renegotiate the terms of an ongoing relationship,” and goes on to say that “peacemaking, an important part of this negotiation, appears to be in part a learned skill.” Looking at how these observations relate to the way monkeys work, it is clear that the learned skill here is not the violence, but what it is used for. Regardless of how their brains impact their actions, the bulk of their decision making comes from their learned routines. Had they grown up around an environment in which violence was used for another purpose, that is the purpose they would use it for as well. In this instance, the violence utilised by individual monkeys is influenced by the culture cultivated by the group, and considering their relation to the human race, it can be inferred that a similar phenomenon might be at play in people.

Observing how monkeys express and deal with issues using violence is not the only way to understand how it relates to the human experience. Philip Zimbardo, an American Psychologist known for his work on the Stanford Prison experiment, often discusses the complexities of violence in the human mind. In a Ted Talk on this subject, he asks the question, “where do people go wrong?” heavily exploring the lines between learned violence and people that are, hypothetically, intrinsically violent. In his conversations regarding violence, Zimbardo outlines some reasons for the violence that comes out in people. More heavily, he blames “blind obedience to authority,” and “conformity to group norms.” Most notably, it is important to point out that this would obviously have an effect on people when their environmental context is that of violence, anger, etc. In his work, Zimbardo discusses the events at Abu Ghraib, in which American soldiers not only torture their prisoners, but documented their horrific endeavours, posing with a smile and thumbs up. These American soldiers were dropped into a world in which violence against the other was acceptable, and so that is the path they took. Along with the fact that these people had previously been functioning, normal members of society, this shows that their behavior was heavily influenced by the environment they were in, both in their peaceful and violence environments.

In 1968, third grade teacher Jane Elliot designed a social experiment to conduct on her students. She wanted to test how the students would react to dividing them up and assigning stereotypes to separate groups. After seperating the class into blue eyed and brown eyed students, she told the students with blue eyes of their intelligence, and brown eyed students that they had inferior traits. Within the day, she noticed brown eyed students becoming more anxious and less confident, in addition to their grades and comprehension dropping. Additionally, the blue eyed students would begin to bully the brown eyed students for their differences, and take advantage of the privileges they were given because of their blue eyes. The next week, the students were informed that they had been misinformed; those with brown eyes were in fact superior. Almost immediately the roles were reversed. This shows, that regardless of their actual intelligence, students based their actions and beliefs on that of the group; when students felt superior, they bullied those in the other group. This shows that the environment set out for a group of people, either by an authority or higher system, is entirely responsible for the way that they take out anger and violence on those around them.

Knowing the impacts of the environments people are placed in, not only in their development but throughout their life, is significant because it can help us to create a more peaceful environment, confident that it will create a peaceful outcome. Regardless of a person’s baseline mental state, they will end up going with the grain. In the end, realizing the impact of systems and environments as influences will help us shift the responsibility on the bigger picture, and come up with larger scale solutions to problems of violence in the world. This is important because it shows that the changes we make in the world should not be with the soldiers or the students, but in the government systems and in the schools.


Bibliography:

  1. https://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil?language=en

  2. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/understanding-violence/

  3. https://www.pbs.org/video/frontline-class-divided/

Comments