|
Below is a draft excerpt
from
The Politics of Universal Compassion
by Joel Federman
One
of the most pernicious presuppositions about the human potential--one
so widely held it is very rarely debated--is the assumption that violence
is an inevitable part of social life. As long as people believe in the
inevitability of violence, they will never have faith that compassion
can become the predominant ethos of social and political life. However,
there is strong evidence to suggest that the prevalence of violence can
be--if not decreased to zero--drastically reduced.
During the last several decades, there has been increased scientific attention
given to the causes of violence and how they might be prevented. Research
on the causes of violence, as reviewed by the American Psychological Association
(Eron, 1994: passim) and the National Academy of Science (Reiss and Roth,
1993: passim), shows that violence is in large part a learned behavior,
and is, in roughly equal measure, preventable. Though anger, frustration,
and conflict are universal aspects of human experience, and aggressive
impulses are in part biologically determined, by addressing the social
contributors to violence, its occurrence can be dramatically reduced.
Violence has begun to be understood by scientists, public policymakers,
and the medical community as a public health phenomenon, with increasing
attention being given to addressing the "risk factors" that contribute
to its occurrence, and the way that such risk factors interact with each
other to increase or decrease the resulting likelihood of aggressive behavior.
(Reiss and Roth, 1993: 33-34)
To be sure, identifying those factors that increase or decrease the likelihood
of violence is not a simple, one-dimensional, task. The contributors to
violent attitudes and behaviors are myriad, and include socioeconomic
pressures, exposure to glamorized and trivialized media violence, antisocial
family and peer influences, and the easy availability of guns. Nonetheless,
there is evidence that demonstrates the possibility of dramatically reducing
the rate of violent behavior.
Consider, for example, that rates of homicide differ dramatically from
state to state, and more dramatically from country to country. According
to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an average of 2.6 out
of every 100,000 Americans under the age of 15 die violently each year,
compared to an average of 0.51 per 100,000 in 25 other industrialized
countries included in their survey; that's five times the violent death
rate. U.S. child-aged deaths caused by firearms average 1.66 out of every
100,000 children; in other countries the rate is 0.14 per 100,000. These
astonishing statistics do not mean that Americans are more violent by
nature than people in other countries. To the contrary, they tell us that
the social cues and habits that disinhibit and encourage violence differ
from place to place. In turn, it can be concluded that by changing the
factors that contribute to violent attitudes and behaviors, it is possible
to reduce the level of violence in a society. Since there exist and have
existed cultures which are much more peaceful than our own (most other
industrialized nations), it is therefore possible to reform our culture
to make it less violent, and potentially to reform global culture along
the same lines. The short form of this argument, offered by Kenneth Boulding,
is: "Anything that exists is possible."
A second set of evidence for the possibility of reducing violence exists
in studies of educational efforts to affect aggressive behaviors and attitudes.
For example, Grossman and colleagues found that elementary school children
in Washington state exposed to lessons in anger management, impulse control
and empathy training engaged in less physically aggressive behavior and
more prosocial behavior in school. (Grossman, 1997: 1605) Another study
found that students exposed to a long-term program aimed at reducing risky
behaviors were 19 percent less likely to have committed violent acts by
age 18 than their peers who did not receive the program. (Brody, 1999:
16)
International
Violence
In the spheres of inter-ethnic and international politics, the question
of the inevitability of violence is, of course, more complex. But, a parallel
argument to the one stated above regarding intra-national violence rates
can be made, namely that proof of the possibility of global peace can
be found in the successful establishment of peaceful inter-ethnic and
international relations of smaller scale.
More specifically, it can be found in instances of international relations
which have the character of what Kenneth Boulding called "stable peace."
Boulding defined stable peace as "a situation in which the probability
of war is so small that it does not really enter into the calculations
of any of the people involved." (Boulding, 1978: 13) An example of stable
peace in the international sphere might be the current relations between
the United States, Canada, Japan, or Britain. If one examines history,
one finds that the areas that today enjoy stable peace did not always
do so. Boulding notes, for example, that Sweden and Denmark fought each
other for hundreds of years before gradually evolving a state of stable
peace beginning around 1815. (Boulding, 1985: 124)
Likewise, consider the relations between the United States and Canada,
understood as a near-ideal model for peaceful international relations.
If all international borders were maintained as the one between the United
States and Canada--completely demilitarized, with passport-free access
to cross-border travel--most people would agree that world peace was close
to being achieved. But the stable peace between the United States and
Canada was not always a fact. As Boulding notes: (Stable peace between
the U.S. and Canada) certainly did not exist in 1812, when Britain and
the United States were at war on the Canadian boundary....In 1817 came
the Rush-Bagot Agreement, which disarmed the Great Lakes as a frontier
between the United States and Canada, at that time a British dependency.....There
was a dangerous episode in the early 1840s about the Canadian-American
frontier in the Northwest...as the British and the Canadians wanted what
they called 'Cascadia,' which is now Washington and Oregon....(It was
not until 1871 that) the Canadian boundary was finally settled and disarmed.
(Boulding, 1985: 124-5)
The notion and practice of stable peace in limited areas of the world
provides a model that allows us to imagine the creation of similar inter-ethnic
and international relations on a global basis. Certainly, the creation
and continuing development of the European Union among countries that
in this century alone were the principal parties to two world wars can
be considered a stunning indicator of the potential for the creation of
stable peace among larger numbers of diverse nations and cultures. On
the principle that "anything that exists is possible," it should not be
that large a leap of logic to imagine extending stable peace to the planet
as a whole.
All of the above is not meant to underestimate the enormous undertaking
that would be required to achieve something approximating world peace
or the relative elimination of violence. But, it should be recognized
that a world-wide effort of this sort is possible. Consider the example
of slavery, which, for most of history was considered to be "inevitable."
There was an extensive global slave trade, and many moral and religious
codes justified slavery--or simply assumed it to be a natural part of
social life. It was only in the late 1700s to early 1800s that the institution
of slavery was challenged by a significant social movement, with the establishment
in 1787 of the "Society for the Abolition of the African Slavetrade" in
London (Joyce, 1978: 14) and the creation in 1780 of a similar society
by the Society of Friends in New England (Cooney and Michalowski, 1977:
28) It took the abolition movement almost two hundred years to eventually
succeed in deligitimating slavery on a nearly global basis, as well as
abolishing the legal international slave trade. Though slavery can still
be found in pockets around the world, it is largely dead as a social institution.
Violence, as a largely-learned and socially constructed behavior, can
similarly be deligitimated, unlearned and de-institutionalized.
As evidence
has shown, violence is a largely learned behavior and nonviolent attitudes
and behaviors can be learned and encouraged as well. In addition, areas
of stable peace currently exist within and between many cultures. World
peace, therefore, need not be created out of whole cloth. Instead, we
need "only" to expand the already-existing zones of peace to encompass
the planet as a whole. So, the issue is not whether it is possible to
move human social experience further and further in the direction of total
peace. While human conflict is inevitable, violent resolution of conflicts
is not. A relatively nonviolent world is possible.
©
2002 Joel Federman
Back
to Top
|
|