Human Nature Is Not Naturally Violent Feat. Alfie Kohn & Paul K. Chappell

Among all the faulty claims I’ve heard people spout, the notion that human beings are naturally violent is perhaps the most prominent and frequently referenced. This claim, however widespread, is backed up by reasoning that is supported with little to no scientific or psychological research. In other words, claiming that we are inherently violent is nothing more than pure conjectures and myths fabricated and passed down to generations as a means to excuse peaceful efforts aiming to dismantle or disrupt power structures.

Applying the scientific method to this debate, I am not going to prove anything, but rather, disprove the claim that humans are inherently or naturally violent.

For those not familiar with the scientific method, what this means is just like if at any point someone jumps up and their feet do not touch the ground (disproving the theory of gravity), if I am able to throw one piece of tangible, observational evidence that humans are not inherently violent, the theory of intrinsic violence has been disproven. At the very least, this theory would require some tweaking.

The evidence I am presenting is mostly from psychological sources that have been endorsed by the American Psychological Association and the American Anthropological Association, among other organizations

Biological Determinism?

The first and most common reasoning to support this claim is that humans have always been violent and at constant war with each other, so violence must be part of our nature. This is the biological determinism argument. While it is undeniably true that human history is largely filled with cruelty and war, here are four reasons from psychological researcher Alfie Kohn that explain why our tales of aggressive behavior are not innate:

1. Just because a given behavior is found to be universal doesn’t mean it is rooted in biological nature. “All known cultures may produce pottery, but that does not mean there is a gene for pottery-making.”
2. Aggression is far from universal. “Many hunter-gatherer societies in particular are entirely peaceful.” This even includes savages and barbarians — as outlined in anarchist Peter Kropotkin’s book Mutual Aid.
3. Even though countless wars and conflicts have been fought violently, “the fact that they seem to dominate history may say more about how history is presented than about what actually happened.” We are taught all about Robert E. Lee, Napoleon, and Ulysses S. Grant in school but nothing of Emily Balch, Jodi Williams, or Mairead Corrigan.
4. People tend to group together “a wide range of emotions and behaviors under the label of aggression.” Cannibalism, for instance, may be perceived as aggressive behavior when it may also reflect a religious or spiritual ritual.

I’d also like to mention that New York City used to report around 1,000 homicides a year, but that number is now down to about 100, and New York City is now safer statistically than the U.S. as a whole. This is proof that environments that were once violent can improve dramatically, and it is much more likely to be a result of social and political factors than anything biological.

Catharsis?

Many opponents of peace also like to cite Freud’s theory of catharsis which claims that at any point in time, we have stored aggressive energy that must be constantly vented — by competing in sports, for example — to ensure our rooted violence is not projected onto others.

Though a convenient model, it has also been proven false. Behaviorist John Paul Scott of Bowling Green State University wrote: “All of our present data indicate fighting behavior among higher mammals…originates in external stimulation…there is no evidence of spontaneous internal stimulation.” For more daily evidence, I’m sure we can all recall several groups of people and cultures that get along just fine without aggressive behavior.

Study after study concludes that aggressive behavior reinforces more aggressive behavior. Psychologist Leonard Berkowitz elaborates that “engaging in aggressive play just strengthens the disposition to react aggressively.”

Animals?

Another claim I’ve heard is that man cannot escape the history of our evolutionary animal ancestors.

A word of caution on the human-animal comparison argument: We should be skeptical of any connections drawn between humans and animals given our complex cultures and daily choices as well as our capacity for reflection, improvement, respect, and love. Kohn describes this human tendency as our “mediating force of culture” that other species lack.

“There is no more reason to believe that man fights wars because fish or beavers are territorial than to think that man can fly because bats have wings.” — Richard G. van Gelder

Furthermore, animals are not nearly as aggressive as we make them out to be, unless the term aggression is synonymous for killing and eating other animals so that they can survive. Kohn writes that “organized group aggression is rare in other species, and the aggression that does exist is typically a function of the environment in which animals find themselves.” In experiments, scientists are actually able to alter the amount of aggression in species by changing the animals’ environmental conditions.

Animals have also demonstrated that they cooperate and work with their own species as well as other species much more than what we may see on nature documentaries. Numerous species of insects, mammals, reptiles, and sea creatures help members of their same species find food and shelter.

Our Brains Are Wired?

The last claim that I’ll touch on is that certain areas of our brain and certain hormones are directly linked to aggression, indicating that humans are meant to inflict violence unto others. The link between our brain parts and violence is not exactly true, however. K.E. Moyer, a physiologist from Carnegie-Mellon University stresses that “aggressive behavior is stimulus-bound.” This means that even though our neural system triggers some form of aggression, the aggressive behavior is not activated unless there is a suitable target available. Even then, Moyer says, aggression can be inhibited.

The point here is that just because something is said to be biological does not mean that it is also automatically unavoidable. Some individuals, and even cultures, voluntarily fast and remain celibate, which means that even our hunger and sex drives can be overridden by choice.

Of course, all of these claims are relatively small in scale. A faultier claim is that war is biologically determined, and we’ll explore that next.

Paul K. Chappell

Iraq veteran and peace activist Paul K. Chappell makes a stellar point in his lectures about the advancement of human beings that should transcend our doubts for peace. Imagine trying to explain that the earth revolves around the sun to people 2,000 years ago. Sounds pretty tough, right? Imagine trying to convince people 200 years ago that women and African Americans should vote and that slavery should be abolished. Also, pretty difficult, right? But today it is a scientific fact that the Earth revolves around the sun, and we know that women and blacks can vote today and that slavery is cruel and inhumane. Now imagine trying to convince people today that we should have world peace. Again, this is also a very difficult idea to instill in people. The status quo of constant violence and warfare may seem comfortable but we should always be asking ourselves, what will the people living hundreds and hundreds of years in the future think about our actions and beliefs today that will inevitably be deemed horrendous?

With all the historical evidence indicating that war does not keep us safe, I see no reason why the human race will not tread in the direction of peace, if even at a snail’s pace.

Another terrific point Chappell makes is that if humans were naturally violent, soldiers would come back healthier. The more you go to war, the healthier your mind becomes, right? But we demonstrably know that people do not come back from war in a healthier state; in fact, they become traumatized. War drives people insane.

Chappell even mentions in his talks and books that psychiatrists Roy Swank and Walter Marchand conducted a study after WWII that concluded that 98% of soldiers were driven insane once they returned home from war, and the other 2% were already insane before they even went to war. The 2% was composed of aggressive psychopaths.

Chappell learned both from his experience in the army and from studying the literature of war generals that the greatest problem every army in human history has is to learn to not run away from combat. Our flight response is a lot stronger and sensitive than our fight response, which explains why we flee when we sense trouble and why fighting is often our last resort.

This is why armies focus strongly on building a sense of comradery and brotherhood among troops — so that they will feel more inclined to fight for — or die for — their brother or family member. Furthermore, it could be argued that the more instinctual behavior humans possess is protection of our loved ones.

General George Patton said that anyone who isn’t afraid of combat is a liar. Combat, as a general term, is automatically an environment that is toxic to the human brain. Soldiers, police officers, and martial arts experts all require some level of training to function in a serious life-or-death environment.

I, too, have raised the question Joan Baez once asked — if humans are naturally violent, then why do people have to learn how to kill? Wouldn’t all the work and training to kill be unnecessary if it’s in our nature to kill?

Often, I’m met with unconvinced remarks when I ask this question. “Yes, soldiers are trained to kill, but they’re trained to kill efficiently. I could kill you right now.” Then, why don’t you? What is holding you back from killing me, and what is holding me back from killing you right now as we have this discussion? Could it be that some level of love, decency, and respect is overriding my urge to kill? (Let’s be honest, the law is not the only thing preventing me from killing everyone who has ever wronged me.)

The point here isn’t that we can be trained to kill more efficiently. That would be like saying we need training to breathe efficiently. After all, I think we can all agree that it’s human nature to breathe and thus requires no additional conditioning. The point here is that most people go through their whole lives having never killed another human being. How can that be if it’s in our nature to kill? And yes, I suppose I could go up to you and start strangling you and beating you to the point where you lose consciousness and die, thus proving your point that we all know how to kill others. Except that doesn’t prove this point. Even something as small as an action movie we saw when we were seven years old can influence and teach us that the neck is a sensitive area and by applying pressure there, we are able to kill someone. The media is certainly a force of violent influence.

Training

15% of soldiers in WWII actually shot at the enemy when they had the chance. 90% of soldiers in the Vietnam War actually shot at the enemy when they had the chance. What caused this 75% increase in just a few decades? Most people would probably think those percentages would be the other way around since America was fighting the Nazis, and Japan attacked America on their own soil. What did the Vietnamese, a race of people whom Americans knew very little about prior to the Vietnam War, ever do to us?

The training changed. Since Hollywood gets it wrong, and it’s actually very difficult to kill another human being, the general public is relatively unaware of reflex training — the training responsible for 90% of American soldiers firing at Vietnamese soldiers. Our natural reaction is to flinch when someone tries to punch our face when we have no martial arts or defense training. Reflex training changes our reflexes such that our natural reaction is to now counterattack. American soldiers were trained to fire at dummies that looked like people during the Vietnam War, so this became their conditioned reflex. Reflex training is used in police officer training too.

Dehumanization And The Three Forms Of Distance

Another universal catalyst for war is dehumanization, which is the process of each country portraying their enemy as sub-human, or less than human. Dehumanization has been used by every country involved in war with no exceptions; no war has been fought where one side perceived the other side as human.

Other animal species have a natural aversion to killing their own kind as well. Deer don’t attack other deer; sharks don’t kill sharks; buffaloes don’t harm other buffaloes — they attack head on, which is the least lethal form of combat. A bear rolls on its backs to signal that they give up when fighting another bear. Rattlesnakes don’t bite each other; they wrestle. This is preservation of the species to ensure they don’t go extinct. It makes sense that the same is true for humans.

“When one country attacks another country, this doesn’t happen because people in the country feel aggressive toward those in the other. If it were true, we wouldn’t need propaganda or a draft: All those aggressive people would sign up right away.” — Biologist Richard Lewontin

Furthermore, Chappell outlines lieutenant Dave Grossman’s three forms of distance that propel dehumanization to take effect.

Psychological distance — This is projecting people as sub-human through derogatory name-calling. We called the Germans, “krauts,” the Japanese, “Japs,” the Vietnamese, “gooks”, and African Americans, “niggers,” to name a few. These words also play into oppressing, exploiting, and enslaving groups of people.

Moral distance — This says that I’m good, and you’re evil; I’m right, and you’re wrong; God is on my side. This is common in civil wars because everyone looks the same as you, but you’re convinced that you’re expelling evil from the world by taking some people out of the world.

Mechanical distance — The farther away you are from someone, the easier it is to kill them. It’s easier to drop a bomb on someone at 10,000 feet than it is to shoot them at 300 yards, and it’s easier to shoot someone at 300 yards than it is to stab them in the face at close range. This is one reason why Obama preferred to kill people in the middle east with drones — people look like ants, not someone’s brother, sister, son, or daughter. This is also why Nazis switched from firing squads to gas chambers as a means to kill people. Nazis were becoming traumatized from killing men, women, and children at close distance. Lastly, this is why the executioner is protected; when someone is executed via firing squad, electric chair, or hanging, the executioner’s face is covered to make their job easier. Similarly, gangsters shoot people in the back of the head so that they don’t have to look at a face during death.

The holocaust is a prime example of all three forms of distance being used to achieve mass genocide.

Without dehumanization, it would be much harder for soldiers to kill. If we see people as people and not sub-human, and if we see people as people with dreams, hopes, aspirations, and families like the rest of us, it’s much harder to kill them. There is no point to dehumanize, create distance, and tell others to see people as monsters if human beings are, in fact, naturally violent.

And don’t think liberals get off the hook when I bring up dehumanization. Liberals dehumanize conservatives as a bunch of morons, idiots, and cavemen. Power structures control us by dividing us; they want liberals and conservatives to see each other as the enemy. Furthermore, peace activists can be aggressive and people in the military can be peaceful.

Conclusion

I can see why the notion of humans being more naturally peaceful than violent is hard to accept because the prevalence of violence in new reports, media, and Hollywood is so widely accepted as the convenient option for conflict resolution. But as Temple University psychologist Jeffrey Goldstein said, “when we don’t have wars, we call it the ‘interwar years.’ It’s a matter of selective reporting.” Or Kohn, yet again: “It is difficult to reconcile a theory of innate human aggressiveness with the simple fact that most people around us seem quite peaceful.”

The point of all this is that the nature of war requires conditioning people to fight for people they are trained to see as family. Nothing of violence comes naturally to us. And if nothing of violence comes naturally to us, then there is a glimmer of hope for peace.

iMemberTimes is the digital newsprint of iMemberMedia. We are open to submissions and new writers.