|
Aswad -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (4/30/2013 10:23:22 PM)
|
tweakabelle,
I had a different reply for you, but I'm holding off on it (it's here in another window for later, if you want it), because I think it will be more productive if I come at this from a different angle. Lay a bit more of a foundation for understanding what I'm saying, so we can see more eye to eye before we get into the question of whether I'm crazy or whether I have a point. I hope you will go along with that.
I have a concept in mind for which I don't know the appropriate English word. The concept is clear. The word is not. You may have a proper word for it. If you do, just include it in your reply, and I'll use that instead. For now, however, since I'll be talking about a specific thing for which I lack a word, I will invent one that isn't in use, for the sake of unambiguous reference and avoiding terms like "X-factor" or whatever.
The new word is violentality, and I'll- shortly- point at the concept I'll be denoting with that word. I know it has a rather akward sound to it, but the alternatives I could come up with were worse. If you have a more euphonic alternative, I will be happy to use that. We may disagree on whether there is such a thing as "violentality" or not, and we may disagree on whether the analogy I'll use to illustrate it is apt, but it's a starting point.
The analogy is sexuality. Human sexuality is a natural, integral part of us, and it's a very encompassing one, far more than just plug meets hole, in meets out, sperm meets ova. Violentality is similarly natural, integral and encompassing. Violence, we can agree for convenience, is like fucking in this regard, a small part of the greater whole. Nobody has a solid definition of the entirety of human sexuality, but everyone knows what fucking is, and everyone has an instinctive grasp of sexuality. Similarly, nobody has a solid definition of the entirety of human violentality, but everyone knows (as you point out; the everyday use of the word) what violence is, and everyone has an instinctive grasp of violentality¹. Just as sexuality has some differences between the genders (but more similarities than differences), violentality has some (and, again, the similarities are greater than the differences).
Violentality, like sexuality, can be perverted into something quite different from nature, and cultures that repress a side of humanity will see more perversions of that aspect of humanity than a culture that is accepting of it and teaches the place it has in our lives, providing a context for it.
A woman is, from nature, honed to have sex and make babies. With a partner she cares about, this can be an extremely positive experience, and it's been proposed to border on a vital necessity of life. But then we have rape and breeding by force, which can be an extremely negative experience that can cause much mental harm through primary and secondary trauma, even in the absence of physical trauma (which can also happen, and often does). An extended history of it can also cause all manner of maladaptive behaviors that make things worse, such as PTSD. This doesn't invalidate sexuality, nor does it imply that a woman is unsuited to having sex or unsuited to making babies.
Similarly, a soldier (not a warrior, for we must keep those terms distinct) engages in a perversion of violentality, and it can cause a great deal of harm through primary and secondary trauma, even in the absence of physical trauma (which can also happen, and often does). An extended history of it, well, you know the rest from the preceding paragraph. But this also doesn't invalidate violentality, nor does it imply that humans are unsuited to violence. We are indeed honed for it.
A known difference between the genders in both sexuality and violentality is risk assessment and risk willingness.
In both departments, according to the SSB (Statistics and Census Bureau of Norway, which draws on an immense amount of centrally registered data about our population, spanning a huge amount of time and several cohort studies; notably, it has all medical records, criminal records and "session" data ("session" is the evaluation the military performs on all men when they turn 18, in anticipation of the general draft / conscription, and from 2015 also all women)), women assess the risk of an adverse outcome in most categories as about three times as high as the actual risk of an adverse outcome, while men assess it as about equal to the actual risk. This doesn't imply men are necessarily more accurate in how they determine risk, but it does seem to imply that risks "seem bigger than they are" to women, relative to men, which makes perfect evolutionary sense (this trend has not changed for the past 70 years).
Risk willingness is the other side of that. Men are, overall, more willing to take risks, including risks they shouldn't take. This is most evident in the 18 to 24 interval, though perhaps it would be better to say 14 to 24, I don't know (the bracket here is 18 to 24, so I would have to extrapolate). This is reflected in sex, driving, drinking, violence and so forth. Here, the trend is changing in all areas, and the change is accelerating, but so far a gap still remains. As far as I can tell, this adequately accounts for the difference in violence.
Note that the increase in violence among women follows the pattern I've been warning against, which I'm tempted to put down to differences in rearing, because I also see it in men that have been socialized to repress their violentality, rather than learning to put it in a healthy context. Also note that non-assault rape has been on the decrease since we started teaching young men to put sex and consent in a healthy context.
Note also that we have seen a decrease in trauma among our veterans after we started the layover programme. Veterans are first rotated out of the combat zone into a military environment at home, where they continue to serve on active duty (but not combat duty). After a while, they are discharged into the civilian population with a follow-up programme. This controlled environment avoids secondary trauma from interaction with the civilian environment. The adaptations to the combat environment are allowed to relax without the friction of an environment in which they're a maladaptation. Lets people focus on one change at a time. It doesn't alleviate the primary trauma, but it does substantially reduce the problem we're seeing (and we're seeing less of it than the US for troops deployed into similar situations). Also, we provide more of a feeling of consent, in that our troops come from a solid background with good prospects.
Nobody is honed by nature to become a "good modern soldier", just like nobody is honed by nature to become a "good rape victim".
Context matters. A healthy instinct can be perverted into an unhealthy behavior.
That's what I propose my approach avoids, and yours fosters.
We agree that modern warfare is awful, and I have submitted here that it is a perversion of the natural aspect of humans I've called violentality. A warrior (not a soldier), is someone who has a certain disposition as regards violentality, and who abides by certain codes. An armed thug is what I call someone that doesn't have a code. A soldier occupies a sort of middle ground, still a perversion of violentality, but with some adherence to a code (and, sadly, usually one that is externally provided and often not explained well). There are some parallells to sex work that I can delve into later.
I have more to say on the subject, but I'd like to see first if any of this is making sense to you, then later making the key points.
Except one: examining violence seperately from "violentality" won't give us a complete picture.
ETA: Not asking you to agree, just wondering if you get the premise so I can use it as a frame of reference to explain more about my views and where ours diverge.
IWYW,
— Aswad.
¹ Edited.
|
|
|
|
