Not sure about the 'innate will' bit, but one view of violence is
that violence is a communicative act, is therefore meaningful and
exists in an economy of violence i.e. it necessarily has moral
connotations dependent on the social ties of the parties involved and
those others (third-parties, researchers, politicians, generals etc)
who perceive it. In this way it is social rather than 'anti-social'
because it is, in a sense, never meaningless, it is meaningful and
potent, because we try to make sense of it.
For a handle on historical/ethnographical stuff try out:
'Sex and Violence: Issues in representation and experience'
Eds, Harvey and Gow (1994) Routledge
'Societies at Peace' Eds, Howell and Willis (1989)
Routledge
Elain Scarry 'The Body In Pain' Oxford
Other publications are also available!
> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:39:43 +1100
> Priority: normal
> Subject: Re: football and violence
> From: "Laurence Bathurst" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Reply-to: [log in to unmask]
> Hi all
>
> While endeavouring to think about how innate violence is in people. I
> needed to ask myself the post modern question "how violence?"
> Forgive the indulgence of this uninformed thinkpiece.
>
> If indeed violence, or a propensity toward it, is somehow innate then
> what IS violence? In the days before organised conflict (assuming
> that there was a time) what did people do to one another to assert
> power or dominance? *How* was the notion of 'violence'
> interpreted/constructed at anytime throughout history?
>
> Is it so that in different times and in different cultures there were
> different ideas on what constituted a violent act? Was there a time
> and place where poking one's tongue out at another was as
> affronting and 'violent' as chopping the head off another in a different
> time and place?
>
> If so then the cultural element seems to be located somewhere within
> the act, the interpretation of the act and the generalised values of the
> society toward that act. The propensity to be violent it would seem
> then, is more about an innate will to assert dominance, power (or
> revenge?) in order to get what one wants by causing pain or
> suffering to another person (for submission) or to extinguish them
> altogether.
>
> does this make sense to anybody?
>
> >
> >
> > > Snip<<<<<An "underlying issue"...? Namely, what, an innate tendency
> > > toward
> > > violence that is utterly unrelated to the cultural
> > > forces?>>>>>>>>>>>>Snip
> >
> > To attemp to answer your question Joan This is how I see it ,an intrinsic
> > innate; an inward propensity towards violence. Of course this may get us
> > into anthropological and theological views but I believe violence resides
> > in the individual and is stimulated by cultural forces not causation.
> > Henry
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Laurence Bathurst
> School of Occupation and Leisure Sciences
> Faculty of Health Sciences
> University of Sydney
> P.O. Box 170
> Lidcombe NSW 2141
> Australia
>
> Phone: (62 1) 9351 9509
> Fax: (62 1) 9351 9166
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
> Please visit the School's interim web site at
> http://www.ot.cchs.usyd.edu.au
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
Matthew Barnett
"I believe in surgery"
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|