Violence:
- direct personal violence, consisting of:
o identifiable person(s) committing
o an action which causes
o psychological/emotional/physical harm done to
o (an)other identifiable person(s)
-
structural violence
Peace:
- negative peace (to take out or eliminate direct personal violence – used by North
America)
- positive peace (can be thought of as eliminating structural violence, but usually
thought of as creating a constructive system/society/structure in which everyone
realizes their full potential, or a utopia)
Aggression:
- Type 1: merely meaning “energetic”. For example, she plays tennis aggressively.
- Type 2: direct personal violence among 2 or more of the same species – shooting,
etc
- Type 3: direct personal violence among 2 or more of different species. (i.e. hunter
and prey)
- Type 4: illegitimate or unjust attack/violation of someone else’s right. Can be type
2 aggression but can also be non-violent. i.e. One nation occupying land of
another without any type 2 aggression. This type is violent more in the sense of
structural violence.
*note: a soldier is a professional killer, thus the type of aggression for a soldier can also
be type 3 – more out of necessity – though it is technically a type 2...so there is a relation
between the two.
Conflict: actual or perceived existence of two or more incompatible interests, activities,
beliefs, values, or goals. Not necessarily bad. Inevitable. Whether acting rightly towards
each other or not – but not always somebody is wrong. Could just be interests that
interfere. Peace is how people RESOLVE conflict (constructively/productively), not a
lack thereof.
- Incompatible: cannot both be pursued or realized by both parties. The pursuit of
one interest interferes with the pursuit of another.
- Intrapersonal: two conflicting desires, etc. within the person. Interpersonal –
between people, groups, nations.
- Perceived – there might not actually be any conflict, but the parties involved
believe there to be conflict. It is nevertheless a real conflict. More difficult to
resolve. Parties’ perceptions are the problem – but they don’t like to admit this.
Conflict leads to creative new ways of life. i.e. technological advancement is often a
solution to conflict. Many games have conflicts built into them to provide recreation/fun.
Social conflicts can also be ‘fun’ if kept within boundaries. A society without conflict is a
cemetery!
War
Kenneth Waltz
1. First image of war: the key to understanding why wars occur lies in
understanding human behaviour. Nature of people, why they do the things they do
etc...
1. First image optimists: war is a result of behaviour patterns, but this can
be fixed. Model: War is a result of bad education, bad society. We have
learned these behaviour patterns and we can unlearn them. The desire for
war will vanish when people realize it’s unnecessary.
 Examples. Liberal pacifists.
 Liberal religious pacifists (Christian optimists.)
 Conservative religious pacifists (Roman Catholics – they agree
more with pessimists, that not every1 is redeemed from the sin of
war. Can’t expect war to be eliminated.)
 Moral individualists: if politicians are educated to be peaceful, they
would not lead countries into war.
 Behavioural scientists/liberal psychologists: desire for violence and
aggression can be redirected to productive behaviour. William
James believed that we can find moral equivalence to war – an
alternative outlet to our aggressive energies.
2. First image pessimists: the nature that pushes humans towards war is not
changeable. We can limit them but not totally eliminate.
 Original sin pessimists: (widely-held Christian view) effect of
original sin on humanity can’t be removed. It will always lead
them into war.
 Political realists: a study of history shows we are all driven
towards war because of resources. Two reasons:
1. limited resources
2. desire for power
2. Second image of war: war is caused by the internal structure of nations that go to
war. Nature of states instead of individuals. The primary solution of war is in the
reform of political/economic structures within states.
1. Liberal: Power is with people. More free trade, more likely they see
the benefits of peace. They believe that people are drawn into war
by authoritarian nations.
2. Marxist/socialist: Power is with some economic elites who cause war.
3.

third image of war: international state of anarchy between
countries, which adopt policies to defend themselves. i.e. hobbes’
state of nature. Solution? World government (hobbes) but waltz
says it’s a utopia. Solution 2: balance of power: keep forming
alliances (invisible hand theory). But this is too risky now because
it can break down, and too risky because of nukes.
First two images (human behaviour and nation structure) pressure countries to go to
war, but the third image (international state) is “permissive”. It’s what allows war to
happen (but can also prevent it – obviously it’s very permissive now).
CONDITIONS

No cause for human behaviour, there are conditions or influences.

Necessary condition: effect can’t occur without it, but it can be there without effect
occurring.

Sufficient condition: effect will occur if it’s present, but CAN occur if it’s NOT
present.

Necessary and sufficient: effect will occur if it’s present, and can’t occur without it.

If we located and remove a necessary condition for war (i.e. weapons), we will
eliminate it (like germ model in medicine) – BUT – is it possible? Practical?
Desirable?

We can also find a sufficient condition for peace – i.e. world government.

Contributory condition: something that increases the probability of an effect. It’s
more realistic to decrease the frequency+magnitude of war than to eliminate it.
Aggression as Pathology:

Says that aggression is an abnormality in humans, or a disease, that can be cured by
removing its necessary condition.

Parts of the brain are aggression centres: hypothalamus and amyglada. Other parts
are inhibitory centres, such as the neocortex and caudate nucleus.

Messing with these parts to cure aggression doesn’t give same results all the time –
it depends on environmental/social factors.

Other explanations: genetic factors (XYY syndrome), hormone imbalance,
noaggressatol pill

BUT – curing aggression with pathology is bad – not all kinds of aggression are bad,
and by removing the necessary condition of a type 2 or type 4, we remove NC’s of
type 1 and 3 too. i.e. a B-52 bomber pilot has a perfectly normal physiology

So this approach is only useful for a handful of people with problems, i.e. tumors or
drugs. It doesn’t help the typical, mainstream problem of violence, and even less as
a group or system.
AGRESSION AS HUMAN NATURE (Psychology)

Studies human behaviour

Environmentalist theories: we learn these behaviours from envinronment.

Nativist theories say that aggression is native to us..it’s human nature. Two types of
theories here:




















Action theories: there are internal driving forces or instincts that make us express
aggression
Reaction theories: i.e. frustration/aggression theory, these say that the effect is
triggered by external stimuli
Freud’s theory: there are aggressive instincts. All human behaviour is controlled by
Eros instinct (survival) and Thanatos (death). Since they’re in conflict, people
usually direct death away from themselves. This is the “redirection” of a drive or
going from the natural goal to a substitute one. This is too broad and doesn’t
distinguish between aggressions.
His theory can get absurd, like how a baby crying for its bottle is evidence for
aggressive instinct.
PROS: this means aggression can be redirected to more productive channels. i.e. the
moral equivalence of war. i.e. chatharsis: punching the wall, chopping wood, etc.
Ethological theory of aggression
Views it as natural selection: that our ancestors needed aggression to survive, i.e.
protection of young, “the fittest survive”, love and sex, etc
Peacemaking instincts? Actions like handshakes, smiles, etc. but technology of
weapons makes it much easier to kill. Peacemaking instinct is a reaction instinct –
there is no build-up of peacemaking energy.
Other notes: aggression’s difficult to provide evidence for in the case of animals,
and much more in the case of humans. So aggression as an instinct in humans is
over-ruled by the effect of enviro, culture, etc.
Frustration/aggression theory
Classical: all aggression is due to frustration, and all frustration leads to aggression
(is a necessary and sufficient cause for aggression).
Modified: frustration leads to an EMOTIONAL reaction, and not necessarily results
in aggression.
Congnitive labelling: frustration doesn’t lead to any aggressive energy, and how a
person acts is totally up to their perspective (cognitive factors).
These all point to the fact that aggression is more and more influenced by the
environment, so it is “learned”
Nativist hydraulic model:
Build-up of water in a tank then suddenly released.
Instinct theory (action): natural build-up of aggressive energy, released as
aggression. The more it’s held back, the more explosive it’ll be.
Classical f/a (reaction): build-up of aggressive energy is a natural reaction to
frustration, released as aggression. If it’s held back, frustration increases and
therefore more explosive.
Modified f/a(reaction): build-up of emotional energy due to frustration, the
‘explosion’ depends on how person has learned to deal with anger. Becomes more
explosive if blocked.
Congnitive labelling(reaction): emotional build-up due to frustration, can be any
emotion and can release in non-aggressive ways too (flight, aggression, or nonviolent responses)













-







Catharsis: classical reaches it by release of aggression, modified by release of
emotion (anger, rage), and cognitive by any emotion.
Environmental
Learning theory: behaviour depends on positive reinforcement (rewards) or
negative reinforcement (removing unpleasant stimulus), punishments, the
experience of success or failure.
Aggression is learnt: it pays, while non-violence doesn’t pay.
Stimulus generalization: something can trigger the same behaviour over again.
Response generalization: the same behaviour isn’t always triggered, it can be
slightly different. i.e. verbal to physical aggression, playing with military action
figures to interpersonal aggression.
According to learning theory, releasing energy by catharsis only reduces aggression
in short-term but increases it in long-term.
Yay, more psychology:
Attitudes mediate between stimulus and response:
Cognitive factors (perceptions and beliefs
Affective factors: emotional reactions towards things
Conative factors: a tendency to behave a certain way in that environment
Conditioning of perceptions: we tend to perceive what we want to, expect to, and
are accustomed to perceiving
response disposition: we tend to perceive better what we’ve already experienced
rather than new things
response salience: how one’s present state of mind or emotions affect perception
complementary projection: justifying your emotions by perceiving characteristics
in other people which make yours appropriate.
Cognitive factors: ideas, beliefs, theories, values
Stereotypes: categorizing groups of people. They refuse to see counter-examples.
Ingroup/outgroup stereotyping, i.e. hun, gook, imperialist pg, commie horde
Personality types: authoritarian is black and white, loyal to his outgroup,
militarism. Non-authoritarian, other way around. People are usually a mix of these.
Attribution of intention and blame: we tend to aggress more someone who we
believe deserves to suffer. “blaming the victim” syndrome = “he deserved it”, you
think the harm you’re doing is the “right thing to do”
Social factors in aggression
Cooperative vs competitive environments. i.e. competitive economic, educational
and sports bring about aggression in our society.
Prisonner’s dilemma game (rapoport)
Always cooperate – militant – tit for tat strategies
Conformity factor: ingroup and outgroup: i.e. others don’t share my “norms”, I tend
to see their differences more than our similarities. Sanctions: people who deviate
from group norms, this creates pressure to stay in. non-conforming: others see you
not as independent, but that you must be conforming to another group.
Milgram’s first exp – how indivs changed their opinions to go along with group.
Obedience factor









milgram’s second exp – experimenter told them to shock the learner
the few people who refuse to obey authority on aggression, do so by higher morals.
Kohlberg’s six moral stages:
Stage 1: punishment and obedience
Stage 2: naive hedonism
Stage 3: Good-boy morality
Stage 4: Authority maintaining morality
Stage 5: democratic law orientation
Stage 6: principle of conscience
Zimbardo prison experiment

Shows that people fulfil the expectations of their roles , which are defined by a set
of rules.
Structural theories of violence and war (more for civil disorder than war?)





Groups are considered as a collective
Study patterns and correlations between group behaviour
galtung’s structural theory of aggression (rank disequilibrium):
there are three actors: individuals, groups, nations.
Top dog and underdog: wealth, ed, rel, ethn, race, sex. Any mix of T/U is rank
diseq.
 Conditions for violent revolution: universities, few jobs, mass education.
Economic boom followed by depression, , ideology, good leader, and mixing
different ranks also does this.
 Relative deprivation theory
 How much people have relative to how much they think they should have, or
what others have. (expectation vs reality graphs. More difference between the two
means more violence, J-curve situation)
Systems theories:
 Under what types of conditions certain events happen, focuses on the interests of
roles and their dynamic relations. Fundamental elements are social roles. Roles
are created by rules. They’re connected in social structure which is in a process, a
pattern of events taking place, which is a system, which is in an environment.
 Every system wants to maintain steady state, by negative feedback mechanism
(countering change).
 “how has violence been built into the system”?
Marx’s dialectical materialism
 Di – because there are two classes which work to overthrow one another over
material issues.
Rapoport’s theory:
Two environments: physical/biological (plants etc) and man-made (technology etc)
Language: signals (obvious stuff), symbols (refer beyond themselves).
Cultures
In biology, there is inevitable progress but not in the man-made environment.
Institutions can maladapt because they’re not constrained by environment. if enviro
maladapts, then institutions in it maladapt with pos feedback mechanism.
Internalization of conflict: in nature, conflict stops when conditions stop. In symbolic,
conflicts can continue regardless.
Professionalization of conflict: law enforcement, military, diplomats etc. these
institutions become dependant on continuation of conflict. The system seek a steady state.
His solution: reduce weaps, more power to UN, making war abnormal
Strategic theories:
Rational action: individual (selfish reasons) and overall (group benefit) utility
maximization.
Clausewitz: war is not a last resort and there should be total war, but can’t be because of
friction (unforeseen). Not going to war means others going to war against you.
Neo version are more realistic to today’s world, including nukes.
Schelling said that (unlike clausewitz) you need to coerce your opponent into doing what
you want by threats of force. Threats are better than real war. Kissinger also believes this.
After early 90’s = regional wars (ppl fighting eachother in nationstates or fighting the
nationstate itself)
Civic nationalism is nation-statism: by political, economic and religious ideology.
- patriotic nationalism: political
- ratial-ethnic: religion, culture, etc. thing’s you’re born with. (ignatieff)
- doctrinal: believe they should have their own nation-state
Game theory
- making mathematical models of strategic models, i.e. PD
- interdependence assumption: your payoff will depend on what others choose to do
- quantification assumption: assuming quantities for payoffs in real life. Hard to do.
- Exhaustiveness assumption: each player is aware of all possible choices and
outcomes, which is untrue.
- Maximization assumption: that each nation wants to maximize its own payoff,
while in RL satisfactory or compromise might do.
- In a 2-person game, it’s most rational to defect
- In N-person, a group of people can cooperate and reap more benefits.
TFT is the best strategy, a forgiving strategy. Better even to be less firm.
Game theory conflicts with hobbestian because in state of nature, there is no cooperation
or trust and the greater power rules all.
Terrorism:
- political goals
- uses innocent people as victims
- primary means is to instil fear
- unpredictable
- very public
- non-state
- caused by rising expectations and frustration, unresponsive states to their
demands, advanced technology
- state terrorism is for terrorizing societies or gov’
- ts with nukes, bombing etc.
ideologies of violence
- it is a system of thought
- theory becomes ideology when it is at the level of dogma – “no questions asked”.
- Arendt: violence is the essence of political power, but if people don’t care about
the threat of violence, then the ideology loses its power.
- Social power though, needs cooperation.
- Violence can only destroy other people’s power, so it’s NOT power, it’s the
opposite
- The more powerful a nation, the less violence it needs to use to get the
cooperation of the governed.
- “going down fighting” is perceived as dignifying as not fighting at all – arendt
wants to show and discourage this
- Violence is not a good strategy because it decreases social cooperation, it is shortterm effects, creates more violence in the long-term.