|
In the previous chapter I argued that violence is promoted. Now I will discuss its consumption and replication. I have discussed its larger manifestations, how the brutality consciousness finds structural expression by seeping into those institutions that are supposed to safeguard our security. Now I will look at violence on a smaller scale. I will look at how it affects individuals. There is a structure to conflict between two people or two groups. I will talk about the nature of that structure and its internal consequences. Most importantly, I will argue that bonding the entire cycle of promotion, consumption and expression of violence is something that can only be understood as addiction. As I draw out the nature of that addiction and its relationship to the phenomena I will have completed the entire formula for the dysfunction known as violence.
As I draw some distinctions between violence and brutality it will be tempting to engage with the subject emotionally, as most of us, unfortunately, have some experience with the phenomena. I will be drawing these distinctions in order to answer some important questions. For instance, why? Why do children engage in violence if it is destructive? Why do some human beings find it so difficult to refrain from brutality? To answer these mysteries we must be on guard against our experiences. It would be detrimental to the construction of the argument if I were unable to maintain the capital premise that violence is a symptom of a greater disease, not the disease itself. It is understandable why such a danger exists. Every illness is made insufferable by the presence of its symptoms. As I begin to dig deeper into the structural and physiological realities of violence I beg you to remember that inequality is the disease, and that violence is nothing other than proof of infection.
The word violence shares its root with the word violate. The Latin word for violence most closely resembles vehemence. So our understanding of violence is something akin to a passionate infliction of harm or violation. According to this semantic understanding we are dealing, when discussing violence, with a wrongdoing. That is an undeniable interpretation of the text concordant with the laws of language. There are, in spite of these linguistic parameters, many justifications for the violence that occurs. And, surprisingly, language is used to support this vehement violation of human beings, very often without any awareness of the innate contradictory character of such a thing. Many argue that violations are of a size, that there is proportionality to harm. That might be true, that one’s violations can be measured, but our use of violence for the purposes of lessening violence is a far different science than the one that simply measures the levels of harm. To take that leap requires an additional argument that I have yet to hear expressed. In other words, measuring the electrical force of a lightning bolt is a far different science than harnessing that force for use in one’s home. The distinction depends upon how the conscious use of violence affects the experiment. Psychologically it is quite difficult, after taking that leap, to make any quantification of the harm. Suffice it to say that the measurement of violence is a difficult enough task in itself and to rely on such numerology for the justification of further violence is a questionable endeavor. It begs the question then of why? Why would some be so compelled to do such harm? Are they that convinced that the proposed violence is the only means to achieve their ends? How could they be, given the impossibility of harnessing such a force? Or, do they have other motives?
We find answers to these questions as we begin to look at the nature of a violent act. By nature I mean how violence affects reality as well as its form and structure and how these parts relate.
If violence is the vehement infliction of harm or violation, what is it to harm someone? Well, harm is something that quickens our eventual return to non-existence or death. Harm, violation and brutality are what the laws of self-preservation work to avoid. So these things take away from us our powers of essence, our life force. As we are harmed we work to repair ourselves, to recover from the violation. It is this repair, the healing, that uses up our personal power.
Due to the laws of self-preservation – the tendency of things to seek their continued existence – violence most often is expressed in an environment of assumed inequality. It is the stronger person or group acting out violently against a weaker group or individual. Very rarely does a weaker group or individual seek to exercise violence on a superior force unless they have somehow convinced themselves of an advantage. Occasionally a human being or group of human beings will sacrifice themselves to a brutal force but it is important to acknowledge that it is always done in order to cease any further violation. This kind of martyrdom is not without a relationship to power. It seems somewhat illogical that stronger entities would express their power only to weaker ones. It seems to contradict the old maxim; that a position of strength needs no defense. However, we human beings are charged with balancing the two mammoth forces of instinct and reason. The maintenance of that balance is a function of physiology and there we will find certain phenomena during violent exchange to explain the paradox of brutality.
Why does the violation of weaker individuals occur? For this one must acknowledge that power is distributed in differing amounts. The regulation and protection from those differences is what society is charged with. However, there is, for those born to power, whether it be in physical, political, spiritual or intellectual form, a temptation. The temptation is to express that power in order to have a sensual experience of it. As we are all subject to the laws of self-preservation the safest way to express that power, to get at that pleasure, is to do so against a weaker individual. This provides both a reprieve from the impatience of desire and a momentary feeling of elation. It is far inferior to the self-esteem that comes from the suppression of such urges. Nonetheless, it is a faster way to the heightened experience. It is an escape from the effort, the responsibility of power whereby we are asked merely to serve with our gifts from the center of our conscience.
If, in this expression of power, a person has been harmed then that power is lost and lost in a particular way. It is lost into the growing vacuum of shame and disorder that come from a violent incident. This is because it takes more power to make peace than it does to make the initial harm. That first awareness of the vacuous effect of inflicting harm often produces shame, as personal power has been lost, someone has been hurt, and worse yet, more power will be lost in the mending of that harm. The effort required to mend broken trust and hurt feelings are so above and beyond that expelled in the injury that some people can be overwhelmed by what they have done. In a supportive and reasonable environment a person will learn at an early age the nature of this, that violence is destructive to our gifts, our personal power and to others, and this lesson will cost relatively very little. But in an environment like the one we have been describing where violence is celebrated, justified, advertised, we will have a much more difficult time convincing a young person of the value of exchange for healing. When individuals habitualize themselves to the expression of inequality for the purposes of pleasure we have entered the realm of brutality.
I go inward now, as I dissect violence and its affects upon and within the individual, to begin drawing the distinction between violence and brutality. Violence is an act, a harm done, a violation; it is an incident. Brutality differs in that it is an inward manifestation of violence, an internal chaos. It is an attitude toward violence that is somewhat perverse, regressive, and animalistic. Brutality is that which confuses inequality with pleasure. Brutality is the enjoyment of destruction. It is humanity at its acute stage of moral corruption.
That sensual experience has physiological roots. As I said earlier violence excites the idea of destruction. Death looms near violent exchange and death is the most physiological extrapolation. In a mortally charged environment the body responds by releasing adrenalin, a chemical that increases our sensitivity and provides a very short period of heightened performance. The addiction to violence is nothing more than a dependence upon the rush of adrenalin. As one loses more and more power due to violent ways of coping with conflict the desire for that momentary rush of performance becomes stronger while the levels of performance decrease at an alarming rate. One becomes weaker as a result of this downward spiral, because of this pointless release of one’s life force. The need for even weaker victims of society becomes greater in order to satisfy the desires of a brutal populace. Thus are the mechanics of our destruction. Violence, that poisonous fruit that blooms on the branches of inequity, is destroying us, and our addiction to it is dissipating our power.
To live with brutal human beings is to know the reality of possession. The great moral fall is comforted and secured by many addictions. It might be prudent to see violence and brutality, warfare and daily cruelty, as having priority. That is the main point of this segment, to prioritize this symptom as the most debilitating aspect of inequality. As I discuss other addictions such as food, sex, drugs, etc. it might make sense to see them as stemming from violence. Developing priorities is a great way to simplify the complexity of social healing. The mathematics of destruction may be more symbolic than scientific but they are useful and practical nonetheless. They can be calculated in ways that uplift communities. If a violent act causes harm to the power of 10, then one night’s abuse of a drug might be seen as causing harm to the power of one. Both things are harmful to the individual and his/her community but perspective is much needed in our time. This is my attempt at providing it. I will not digress here to provide a list of calculations for I am not formulating any laws that I wish to enforce. I am merely trying to underscore the power of this addiction to violence and the role it plays in the degradation of the community.
Addictions of all forms have similar characteristics. They are destructive; they lend to the quickening of an individual’s inevitable death. They are ways of avoiding shame or fear. And, they replicate a feeling that can only be achieved continuously in the body of a physically and mentally healthy individual. They all reproduce a feeling of equality, if only for ever-decreasing amounts of time. Luckily some addicts hit a bottom when that period of time is so short that the reality of inequality becomes undeniable and their means of coping lose their efficacy. The choice of sanity requires that they seek help.
Unfortunately, the addiction to violence has different consequences. The damage done to others is so severe that often times to begin a road to recovery would mean the end of any hopes of happiness for the perpetrator. This is a reality that one must accept if they are to work toward progress with any perspective. However, as violence is a life force that grows logarithmically, I cannot let this act as the law of uncertainty. Remember the over-arching theme of this description of the problem; that these aspects, violence and brutality, are merely branches on the tree of inequality, that the great magnification and perversion of human violence springs from arbitrary rules that act as threats against the equal distribution of resources. If this remains central then we will not be impeded by the hopelessness of human violence. It is very sad, to be sure, that we must witness so much destruction and human misery but it would be sadder to allow bitterness to absorb us into the complicit mass of apathetic onlookers. The voyeurs are active participants in the problem; receiving their own fix as they watch in hiding; taking with their passive complicity the life force that protects us from the ravages of nature.
The science of living is an attempt at mediation between the two polarities of this phenomenon. Just as medicine disrupts the relationship between the illness and the host so does the following system of thought nourish that part of our intuitive centers that long for a solution. My attempt to dissect the manifestation of violence into its promotional and consumptive halves, for the purposes of further providing evidence of their origin, without exciting any further promotion of the hopelessness that leads us to such conflict is an example of how this science may be applied. This and the previous chapter act as a metaphor for the scientific confrontation with life where we are challenged to find patterns among the seeming chaos.
|
|
|
|
I would like to make one digression at the end of this description of the problem to address one of the topographical manifestations of the problem. For those insulated from direct contact with daily violence, although that number gets smaller every day, there are, at the edge of the problem, symptoms that can be traced back to the acute areas of despair. The rise of the unfriendly is an answer to those who wonder why the unwise and the cruel are able to rise to positions of authority and maintain that position while the kind and gentle remain victims.
Every human interaction takes place within a context. Living in a world of rampant violence and brutality affects greatly the tone of this context. Our social interactions are mostly competitive, moments whereby comparative work is done or discussed, and in that context the tone of a person’s engagement has profound affects. Even in moments where we are meeting acquaintances, at a party or in a friend’s home, we are infused with the context of violence; it saturates our subconscious. In these moments an unfriendly response to a friendly gesture awakens this context. To be cold or dismissive to another human being is to trigger the adversarial worldview that grows greater every day. Worse more is that our society rewards such behavior. Harshness in relationships is now seen as discipline. Ambition has become the penultimate virtue; once seen as unattractive willfulness. Service to the community and a spirit of the greater good have been sacrificed to these new principles of aggression. These changes lend to an environment where friendliness and community concern are considered weaknesses. If one is to rise in my society one arouses fear in one’s fellows, thus manipulating the violent inequality that is at the root of our problems. This explains those bosses we have had that abused their employees. They exist in authority because nobody dares to confront their abuse. Those people in our lives that we are afraid of remain in their positions of dominance because of our fear of pointing out their unfriendly ways. This is the rise of the unfriendly; it is a mechanism of neglect whereby our institutions of leadership are taken because of a fear of friendly leadership. Also contributing to this is an undue idolatry of leadership. In this context of competitive engagement we have come to see dominance as justice and therefore we project upon our leaders wisdom that has not been earned. The opposite of the rise of the friendly is kindly reminding our leaders of their role. We must remember that compliance is an expression of belief. Resistance to unfriendly and dominating leadership is the daily revolution that has ties to the very root of the illness.
The unfriendly engage in the dark force of social destruction in order to escape the responsibility of intimacy that we are charged with as social creatures. They want to be alone, isolated, except for the company of submissive servants. Those in leadership are there because they are feared. This is common to times of great corruption; it is what is meant by the word. By developing a sophisticated understanding of the problem we are more capable of safely asserting ourselves in ways that uplift our relationships and communities. Here, in the moment where a friendly person is treated in an unfriendly way, there is an opportunity for courage and resistance. By understanding where the fear comes from, the desire for self-preservation, one can estimate the reality of the threat and, if one finds there to be no mortal danger, refuse to accept the unfriendly behavior and thus augment equality by affirming one’s right to fair treatment.
|
|
|
