Violence: the causes and effects
Violence presents a problem throughout the gamut of
human existence, from the subtler strife of the domestic hearth to the
political and international arena. Far more study of how it operates between
individuals and between social groups needs to be carried out, and unless
we take it seriously and undertake more research, driven by a sense of
urgency, we shall suffer increasingly from its evil effects. The argument
that humans have always acted violently towards one another since the
beginning of tribal existence is no legitimate reason for not facing it
today.
Interpersonal violence and the factors that prompt
it are difficult to explain. An individual may suffer from a lack of self-esteem
and feel a sense of inadequacy that prompts him or her to take an arrogant
and antagonistic attitude to others who may be perceived as less disabled
in the struggle for existence. An unstable temperament that makes someone
unduly sensitive to criticism may induce the feeling that it is necessary
to boost self-assertion. Throughout history drug habits, notably abuse
of alcohol, have resulted in the removal of the self-critical factor and
balanced judgement that normally prevent people behaving antisocially.
In our own time we have to contend not only with
alcohol excess but with a host of more dangerous drug-induced effects.
Apart from the pharmacological factor, the drug culture involves people
in robbing and murdering in order to pay for their habit, and to maintain
the illicit commerce in psychoactive agents. Health care workers, schoolteachers
and ministers of religion all seem to be under threat of violence nowadays,
and there is no safety in the public places of our cities, or even our
villages.
Political violence, too, has made alarming strides
in recent years. It is said, with scant distinction, that violence may
be differentiated from force in general by being contrary to accepted
law, which permits a degree of violent restraint. Terrorism is held up
as the supreme example of political violence, but has never satisfactorily
been defined. It has been analysed as political killing of illegitimate
nature, directed at innocent persons instead of the creators of the situation
it seeks to redress. Alternatively it is regarded as low-level warfare
against harmless civilians. Political violence includes the use of force
against an existing establishment and against minorities unable to defend
themselves against vast majorities.
An editorial commentary in The Lancet for
3 November 2001 points out that "violence leads to death and disability,
no matter who the perpetrator", so that doctors must become involved in
the situations which foster violence. One social force that has political
implications may well be violent films or television programmes, which
reach large numbers of children as well as adults.
Indeed, the question of whether violent movies make
violent children features in The Lancet for 9 February. It has
been shown that watching wrestling matches, for example, is associated
with increased use of cigarettes, alcohol and other drugs, victimisation
and carrying weapons. Curiously enough, girls have been found to be more
affected in this respect than boys. Children watching wrestling, boxing
and other martial arts show greater disposition to violent behaviour in
school. However, personality and social influences of home and school
apparently play a more prominent role.
It is important to remember that amiable relationships
between humans are formed by adopting an outgoing attitude. An active
imagination inculcates the sterling virtue of compassion — feeling with
someone else — and powerfully inhibits the tendency to adopt an antagonistic
stance. Conversely, any lack of imagination, and therefore inability to
sympathise, disposes towards a confrontational attitude.
Back to Top
|
Silbury
Hill, that impressive mound north of the Bath road a mile south of Avebury
in Wiltshire, has a chequered history that shows no sign of ending. Its
diameter at the base is about 180m and at the summit some 30m, and it
stands some 40m high, with a flattened crest. Its angle of slope exceeds
30 degrees, and during periods of heavy rain the surrounding ditch becomes
a veritable moat. The curious thing about Silbury is that archaeologists
differ fundamentally over when it was raised, by whom, and for what purpose.
Was it a burial mound, the most obvious guess, or a celebratory monument
to an ancient battle? No one knows, for evidence of these functions is
lacking.