Jeremy ([info]_fustian) wrote,
@ 2008-06-15 16:30:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Natural is not always Good
Current Music: Stunned silence

I've just read an April New Yorker article by Collapse's Jared Diamond. (Coincidentally, I'd heard part of a radio interview with Diamond about this very article a month ago, in Perth, without getting the gist of it.) It's about vengeance, and is mostly concerned with describing the absurd and horrifying cycle of tit-for-tat revenge killing which plagues New Guinea to this day. What I found incomprehensibly bizarre—and the reason I'm blogging this—is that Diamond concludes the article with the story of his uncle, who chose not to avenge the murder of the uncle's mother, sister and niece during WWII and, Diamond claims, regretted that decision for the rest of his life. Diamond concludes by arguing from this observation that we shouldn't define vengeful feelings as bad; that instead we should encourage the acknowledgment of those feelings, and indeed attempt as far as possible—within the confines of State control—to satisfy them.

As I see it, the desire for revenge is a wholly negative emotion. Sure, it may be "natural" in that it has been bred into us by millennia as wandering barbarians, but then so are a lot of other unwelcome behavioural traits we're struggling to eliminate from our collective psyche. The lust for vengeance is a social wrong, pure and simple—and those who indulge it are acting from weakness. I'd have thought this was a fairly uncontroversial opinion, though. Isn't it?

Advertisement

(Post a new comment)


[info]kremmen
2008-06-15 11:09 am UTC (link)
This is partly one of those questions of practice vs theory. Even if we all agree that a behavioural trait is unwelcome, which we might not, that doesn't mean that actual individuals can simply choose not to act on it or, if they do make that choice, not be miserable about it afterwards. That fact that you may call it a weakness doesn't make it any less real.

However, I believe the issue for the tribes and the issue for the Polish soldier are, essentially, at quite different points along a path. If the Polish government had executed the murderer or put him in jail for life, Jozef would presumably have been content. The real problem there was that the state failed to do what it should have done. Jozef did the "right" thing and the government let the killer go. Beyond the issue of revenge, someone who murders people because they might possibly have some money is an unacceptable risk to society and society should be protected from such a person.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]_fustian
2008-06-15 12:54 pm UTC (link)
This is partly one of those questions of practice vs theory.

I agree, but that's true of any negative behavioural trait we try to moderate memetically. There are cultures who overcome violent tendencies in their children by using humour and gentle mockery in response to violent outbursts, for example. If a society tells itself that something is bad and harmful (or conversely, good and beneficial), that provides a strong incentive for individuals to moderate their instincts. Thus, it seems to me important for cultures to decide these things collectively and then to actively propagate those memes. As such, it matters a great deal how we choose to view issues like the desire for revenge.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2008-06-25 03:13 am UTC (link)
Sometimes a good kick in the pants is what is appropriate.

Some cultures believe in 'an eye for eye' - it is what they are comfortable with and very much a part of who they are. It is somewhat pious and pointless to judge them by a standard that they have no understanding or appreciation of.

I think a good kick in the pants would do wonders for some evil cretins in our society - sadly we seem to have lost that art.

Kate

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]_fustian
2008-06-29 04:35 am UTC (link)
Sometimes a good kick in the pants is what is appropriate.

I have to disagree. Violence is almost never an appropriate response (the exception being self-defense against an implacable assailant).

Some cultures believe in 'an eye for eye'

And they are inherently less civilised.

Civilisation is about developing mechanisms by which large, heterogeneous groups of people can live together effectively, to their maximal mutual benefit—ie. it's about creating a truly "love thy neighbour" situation. Promoting fear and the use of force as valid social tools will necessarily increase tension and decrease coherence within such groups, because it is inevitable that misunderstandings and human frailty will lead to conflict. Like all good relationships, civilisations can only thrive on genuinely valuing the other for themselves. If we're only tolerating one another for mutual benefit, our relationship is much more fragile than if we genuinely desire one another's advancement and happiness. Traditions and legal systems based around punishment and vengeance create inherently weak societies because they betray a lack of true empathy and goodwill. A society that deliberately sets out to hurt its members clearly demonstrates that it is not fully civilised; you can never really want to hurt someone you love.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2008-06-30 09:04 am UTC (link)
I agree that some societies may not present as developed as we'd like to think *we are - due to the role violence plays in them.

However, I think that violence is a part of human nature and to completely erradicate it from our race is just an ideal. (After all - 'Terminator' and other such movies just wouldn't make sense without it)

I don't think I can accept violence as a mainstream form of discipline for a society - it is not appropriate to cut off hands for avoiding tax or speeding. However I do think violence is effective and warranted in certain cases of pure evil.

The sort of people who repeatedly torture and dismember animals for fun, or kill all their children just to get back at their partner, or take an axe to their wife, daughter and grandchilren really ought to die a slow and painful death.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]_fustian
2008-06-30 09:38 am UTC (link)
as developed as we'd like to think *we are

I'm certainly not suggesting "Western culture" is "developed" as far as eschewing violence goes. Far from it. We don't even pretend to be (although some parts of it are better than others). I think the Diamond article exemplifies that: many of us are still heavily into revenge.

I think that violence is a part of human nature

What is "human nature", though? Rape and murder are part of "human nature" too, and yet we have decided that they're not acceptable in our societies any more. The title of this post is intended to make that point: "human nature" is in many ways irrelevant to civilisation. We can and do redefine ourselves based on what we decide is good for us; if we decide violence is a bad idea, we can and should eliminate it (as far as possible; insane people are always going to be unpredictable) from our memepool.

I do think violence is effective and warranted in certain cases of pure evil.

To what end, though? Surely "pure evil" isn't likely to be altered by a bit of corporal punishment? And the message we give by applying that kind of punishment—ie. that violence and the use of power is in some sense a valid solution that the State is prepared to apply against its members—is likely to do harm. What possible value does violence (other than self-defensive violence) have?

The sort of people who repeatedly torture and dismember animals for fun, or kill all their children just to get back at their partner, or take an axe to their wife, daughter and grandchilren really ought to die a slow and painful death.

I cannot agree. They ought to be isolated from society if they represent an ongoing danger to it, sure. But you seem to be arguing around in circles when you say that they should be tortured. Why? What purpose could it serve? We know that people like this aren't deterred from their crimes by the existence of capital punishment: they either act on the spur of the moment or don't believe they'll be caught. And as I say, the lessons about acceptability that torturing people teaches are seriously harmful.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2008-07-08 01:11 pm UTC (link)
I am perfectly fine with those who engage in torture experiencing it to it's full extent. Only problem is - the sickos may well enjoy it!

I don't think many people would get too upset if Dennis Ferguson or The Burnies had a baseball bat shoved up their rear end until they stopped breathing. Afterall - they are not really isolated from our community if they are merely locked up for a few years only to be released at a later date.

I think they should be removed from the gene pool permanently. Not because it might deter others - but because the rest of us shouldn't have to put up with them.

K

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]_fustian
2008-07-17 08:38 am UTC (link)
I am perfectly fine with those who engage in torture experiencing it to it's full extent.

The problems with this are that a) it would be unlikely to do anything to make them remorseful, or to change their behaviour for the better (in fact, likely the reverse), and b) it would set a very bad precedent, which would be likely to lead others to consider torture a more normal part of society, and thus put everyone at greater risk.

I don't think many people would get too upset if Dennis Ferguson or The Burnies had a baseball bat shoved up their rear end

David Birnie had what's known as a "barbed-wire enema" during his early years in prison, and lived with a colostomy bag until he hanged himself in 2005. And it seems unlikely that Ferguson will ever get to enjoy his life again, either. Paedophiles are unfortunate creatures who deserve our pity as well as our fear; after all, it's often no more their choice that they're attracted to children than it is that some people are attracted to people of the same gender. Of course, anyone who is unable to recognise that it is completely unacceptable to indulge that predilection (unlike, say, Lewis Carroll, who appears to have had the willpower and moral sense to able to channel his paraphilia exclusively in a creative direction) is a criminal who needs to be isolated from society, and probably subjected to some kind of chemical or psychological modification to render them harmless. Nevertheless, I don't think they should be tortured, for the reasons mentioned above.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…