Frustration and Aggression: Strive for Satisfaction Essay

Instinctivist theories on human aggressiveness often promote the notion that warfare is in the nature of humankind and therefore cannot be prevented. However Margaret Mead eloquently refuted this idea in her renowned essay Warfare: an Invention – Not a Biological Necessity. Mead states, “War is inevitable unless we change our social system and outlaw classes, the struggle for power, and possessions; and in the event of our success warfare would disappear, as a symptom vanishes when the disease is cured.” Through this statement Mead makes it clear that because aggression and subsequently warfare is a learned invention, it can be avoided. For the purposes of this essay, aggression will be defined as “a response that delivers noxious stimuli to another organism.” This essay will outline how and why aggression, and thus warfare, is not biological and is rather a behaviour that is learned as a reaction to social stimuli. Furthermore, it will be explained that violence is used by societies as a political weapon to achieve ostensible objectives.

Social Psychological Theories of Aggression Social learning theorists propose that behaviour, such as aggression is learnt through observation, imitation and behaviour shaping. This behaviour is learnt automatically through observation of male and female role models, for example parents, peers and media characters. Whether or not this behaviour is imitated depends on the type of reinforcement that the role model receives. Vicarious reinforcement involves the outcome of a role models behaviour, for example if a child observes a parent acting aggressively and receiving positive rewards for they are more like to be imitate this behaviour in the future, than they would be if the role model

In war, what sets one side apart from the other is innovation. How one side utilizes resources as well as how they think about a given situation both play a huge role in determining the outcome of a conflict. Humanity’s unique ability to think critically and manipulate available resources is what gives us the edge in innovative combat. Historically, each innovation branches off of the last, up until the original human innovation. Wayne Lee argues in the introduction of his book, Waging War: Conflict, Culture and Innovation in World History, that human evolution was in fact this first innovation. Human warfare began with our original biologic desire for resources, and continued as human’s social evolution and innovations grew to support the

War is an inescapable pattern in history. The world is constantly in a state of war. In America, we see a war amongst ourselves with racism, discrimination, and hate crime. These wars seem meaningless, and reveal that humans have an ingrained yearning for violence. While reading the novels Beowulf, told from the perspective of a hero, and Grendel, told from the perspective of the monster, the innately violent nature of humans becomes apparent.

Ever since the days of Mesopotamia from the agricultural revolution, war has been a constant and important part of human life. Over time though, humans have evolved and gotten stronger and smarter which lead to more competition. War from its beginning, has consistently stemmed from the innate sense of evolutionary survival and subsequent competition, thus securing it’s inevitable perpetuation.

There are two sides to many things, one could argue that there are two sides to everything. Violence is not excluded from this argument. The two possible sides, or viewpoints, that are a result of violence can easily be seen as extremes of either side. One side could argue that violence is something that is necessary and the other argue that violence is only a tool for destruction. People who insist that violence is necessary in order to move forward view it as a way to sway the outcome to their benefit. For those who see violence as a cowardly tactic to control people, violence is a useless display of power and dominance. Yet violence has also been a way to defend oneself from people who pose a threat. This can lead people who have good

This theory has played a significant role in helping mankind in the formation of social movements especially within contemporary society. It is imperative to note that Social movements are organized and sustained collective efforts that focus on some aspect of social change, and tend to persist over time in a more aggressive way compared to other forms of collective behaviour. Social movements may include actions that protect environments, defend the rights of the minority or promote social justice. The frustration- aggression theory argues that social movements are formed when frustration results in collective aggressive behaviour.

In 1986, the Seville Statement on Violence was convened by The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Part of this statement says that “it is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behavior is genetically programmed into our human nature”. Though this may be a widely accepted idea, it is quite obvious that Glover rejects it. He does not let our species off easily; he specifically says that, “We need to look hard and clearly at some monsters inside us. But this is part of the project of caging

Violence is an issue in human nature. Everyone has their own definition and their own interpretations of violence. The big question is if the world is still growing in its violent nature, or is it finally reaching its solemn, peaceful generation. The evolution of violence has grown in many different paths from survival of the fittest, genocide, slavery, etc. According to Steven Pinker’s article “Violence Vanquished,” he explains how the world is entering an era of peace because we do not deal with the same violence our ancestors did in the past. That is true. We abolished slavery, stopped brutal wars, and revolutionized with strategies such as commerce. Pinker analyzes his arguments very well, but negates common issues of violence that we still

Was war important for the progression of human civilization? Progression can be measured in many different ways; architectural, technological, agricultural, political, and how a society functions. In modern times, war can be defined as “state level activity in which pitched battles, skirmishes, sieges, easily identifiable sides, clear goals, and even rules are all present” (John Keegan).

In the book Our Kind Dr. Harris mentions the theory of evolution by Charles Darwin. He went to great details about our closest living relative the chimpanzees, and how their survival was base on they will to fight. Therefore, our willingness to fight wars and kill each other for nonsense reasons is simply our nature.

Throughout the history of mankind there has come to be two factors that are seen as inevitable. The first is progress, humans are naturally competitive creatures who not only want to insure their own safety but also get one up on their neighbours. Progress has led to huge leaps forward, not only technologically but also socially. However, aside from progress there is another factor, war. Time and time again throughout history humans have fought and killed each other for their own selfish reasons and security. And according to political theorists such as Hobbes this is simply the state of nature, a perpetual state of ‘war of all against all’, further surmising that it is due to this that mankind is fundamentally selfish. However, just because so far, mankind’s history has consisted of an endless cycle of wars, does that mean that it must continue to be this way? Political Philosopher Immanuel Kant outlines a number of articles that he hypothesises could lead towards a perpetual peace. There are many criticisms of Kant’s perpetual peace, many argue that it is to idealistic and utopian. However, Kant doesn’t deny these claims. Instead Kant argues that if this ‘perpetual peace’ is even a remote possibility then for the good of mankind, we have a duty to try make it a reality.

Philosophers since the beginning of time have debated over the source and cause of violent tendencies in humans that in turn produce global conflicts, to solve the age old question, man or beast? Global conflict can with out a doubt be completely accredited to the human race, but what are the particular reasons for humans to cause such conflicts? There are many topics that have been argued by philosophers and historians over the connection between the reasons the human race and global conflict. One such topic is the gender based theories and sexual differences of men and women. Others believe that religion, with particular emphasis on monotheistic beliefs, is the major basis of

2. There are different theories that seek to explain why humans still fight in war. Some of the individual, state and global level theories of conflict are based on: Human Nature or Individual Leaders, States’ Internal characteristics, and Global Level System (Turetzky lec 11). Human Nature arguments for the causes of war are based in Sigmund Freud idea that “aggression is simply part of human nature that stems from humans’ genetic programming and psychological makeup.” Realists also “argue that violence is a product of bad human nature” and that there is not anything to eliminate this bad human habit. I believe that it is true that humans’ nature is composed with an instinct of violence (War). However, society has a lot to do with the expansion of this bad habit. Today aggression is embedded in everything, which enforces our acceptance and practice of violence. Obviously, as realists argue, it is almost impossible to eliminate this bad habit from human nature. In contrast, the individual Leader arguments blame the state leaders for wars. However, we can’t blame a country’s leader for war. The author Stoessinger, stated in his book that a state head’s perceptions are decisive in war (Stoessinger 65). I believe that a leader’s

Conflict is rooted in the desire for power, and control over resources. Yet it is the willingness of people to be divided and see others as inherently different that allows for war and conflict. People exploit these divisions, and this often leads to armed conflict. If we eliminated the mindset of difference and division, and promoted one of unity, then the minority of people in this world who seek to conquer resources would not have the ability to do so. The factors that enable them to manipulate and use others would simply not be present. This does not