If Violence Is A Singular Human Action Why Are Some Cultures More Predisposed To Violence Than Others?

Question

Robert Adrey theorized in his book ‘The Killer Ape’ that during evolution early man fragmented into separate heredity types, with many developing aggressive genes and the rest retaining more passive genes. The fragmentation continued, he suggests, as like-minded sub-cultures developed and the different sub-cultures started distancing themselves from each other. And that these gene types were passed down from generation to generation, to the extent of explaining why some cultures and sub-cultures tend to be more aggressive than others.

How predominate a role do you think hereditary genes play into the more violent personality types? Collectively or individually? And if it's strictly an individual trait how would this account for certain cultures tending to be more aggressive than others?

Answer 1

In some cultures violence is more acceptable, and is viewed as a choice in maintaining control of the particular individual's life and surroundings.
As for a genetically predominate role, it is the nature vs. nurture question; and there are studies that support and disprove both theories. I support the nurture theory, as it gives a better explanation as to why some cultures are more aggressive than others.

Answer 2

I believe hereditary genes play a small part, but I believe that cultures throughout history are more predominant. It isn't an individual trait; it is collective. As I dimly recall from college days, both Robert Adrey (?) & Desmond Morris made some salient arguments/theories, yet centuries of environmental societies predispose the perpetuation of violence.
I honestly believe that "gene types" aren't the answer.
Also, what is the definition of violence? Whether suicide bombers or one country illegally attacking another, methods vary, but aren't they all "violent"?
I candidly admit I'm not sure which may have come first, the chicken or the egg; like-minded sub-cultures developing into "acceptable" environments, or envirornments creating aggressiveness. I would lean toward history & culture, as the US is very aggressive without any (known to me) "reason" to be so.
Excellent question. I look forward to scanning the answers.

Answer 3

I do not think that some cultures tend to be more violent then others, all races no matter who or what they are, depends on how they were raised, or if they had a family atmosphere, and above all else Love for the child. Some parents are at fault here, if you teach your kid violence or treating him like he is worth than an animal, he will grow up with that characteristic, and will be a violent person by Nature, because of how he was raised. If you teach your kid not to respect his elders and to get up into the world takes guts and violence to achieve it, he will be a violent person. Kids learn what they Live, and I believe that to be true. If we go as far back when the ******, were Slaves we all know how they suffered with the way they were treated, do we say that they are violent because of their Culture? no, I do not think so. Now we get to the American Indian, I know as you do that they were here first before any human being walked America, we know what happened to them all the atrocities they encountered for fighting what truly belonged to them, are we going to say, that their culture tends to be more aggressive than others? No, to that too. People in General no matter what culture they came from, are not at fault if some of their race are violent or not.

Answer 4

Is all to do with how those individuals were brought up and treated and their environment ( house of birth, neighbourhood etc ).
Split Enz were wrong with their song " History Never Repeats" because it sure has and forever will.
I would now say it is passed on collectively through that individual's generation but not all aggressive genes would be passed on to every generation.

Answer 5

it somewhat is genetic, yet this is to no longer say us men (and ladies persons (equivalent rights)) have not got a call. we do. some chosen undesirable. and good day carry on have been nevertheless animals. we expect of and function an apposing thumb yet that do no longer make us greater useful than different animals, apes, tigers even sharks do no longer dedicate genocide. no they way we act and bypass around this planet have been are very a lot primitive and killing this planet is outright stupid yet we nevertheless do it a while in the past i study a learn on African American male men incarcerated interior the states. 70% of them hand one greater x chromasome xxx meaning greater testosterone. so hightened levels of violence. yet like i mentioned we each and every have a call and a few merely supply that determination away, and a few blame the international or god or each and every thing yet themselves, inspite of a gun on your head you're able to nevertheless chosen to die honorably. in line with danger we are able to yet we would desire to settle for anybody and each thing, there is one actual god no remember what you call him her or it. we are ALL brothers and sisters and as long as one thought or one guy or woman is chastised we lose, particular which skill forgiving even hitler, saddam and osama. it skill loving and accepting all, to combat is to have a winner and a loser and no person feels good via dropping. this aint a sport there's no longer something to win , and those "undesirable" human beings in line with danger wouldnt be so undesirable if that they had extremely love. kia kaha and aroha, the revolution of the spirit is coming, 2012 we bypass up a vibration to the 4th point its like a 2nd coming is your love waiting, whoa yeah infant kia kaha and aroha to you all so which you're making the right determination xoxoxo

Answer 6

Certainly cultural fragmentation might explain much. But I blame potty training. And dominating parents. It's all in the mind and there's not enough of that. Which probably gets us back to religion, and culture. Sadly there's not enough distance between the aggressive ones and the passive ones who always seem to elect them as leaders.

Answer 7

I believe that in general the aggressiveness derives from the lack of necessities by some that desire to have what the others have . it is a normal behavior to want peace , but there always are going to be the ones that poses more envy than others , the ones with the envy are the aggressors , and the rest of the population has to take the penalties . If envy would not exist in the human behavior , peace would abound .

Answer 8

So called Holy Books are the main reason to accept the Violence without any consciousness of guilty or sin, for those groups who used to think that, they are following Divine Wordings.

The cast, creed, blood related groups or genetic or heredity are nothing to do with this human behavior of Violence.

Basically human is peace loving creature.

Answer 9

This smacks strongly of another nature-nurture questions. It's both and there doesn't seem to be a delineation that can be identified at the present time.

Answer 10

I do not think it has anything to do with genes. This is like looking at past cultures through the filter of the misconception of "the Noble Savage". There are great pastoral poems and paradys written about just such as this. The Passionate Shepard to his Love____
Come live with me and be my love,And we will all the pleasures prove That valleys, groves, hills and fields,
Woods, or steepie mountains yields.
And we will sit upon the rocks,
Seeing the shepherds feed their flock
By shallow rivers to whose falls
Melodious birds sing madrigals.
And I will made thee beds of roses and a thousand fragrant posies,
A cap of flowers, and a kirtyle
Embroidered all with leave soft myrtle
A gown made of the finest wool
which from our pretty lambs we pull
Fair lined slippers for the cold
With buckles of the purest gold;
A belt of straw and ivy buds,
With coral clasps and amber studs;
And if these pleasures may thee move
Come live with me and be my love.
The shepherds' swains shall dance and sing
For thy delight each May morning;
If these delights they mind may move,
Then live with me and be my love.

From England's Helicon 1600 as is Sir Raleigh's answer

Ezra Pound wrote a reply to the this typical pastoral poems of the Victorian Age:

"The Nymph's Reply to the Shepherd" by Sir Walter Raleigh
If all the world and love were young,
And truth in every shepherd's tongue,
These pretty pleasures might me move
To live with thee and be thy love.
Time drives the flocks from field to fold
When rivers rage and rocks grow cold,
And Philomel becometh dumb;
The rest complains of cares to come.
The flowers do fade, and wanton fields
To wayward winter reckoning yields;
A honey tongue, a heart of gall,
Is Fancy's spring, but sorrow's fall,
Thy gowns, thy shoes, thy beds of roses,
Thy cap, thy kirtle, and thy posies
Soon break, soon wither, soon forgotten--
In folly ripe, in reason rotten.
Thy belt of straw and ivy buds,
Thy coral claps and somber studs,
All these in me no means can move
To come to thee and be thy love.
But could youth last and love still breed,
Had joys no date nor age no need,
Then these delights my mind might move
To live with thee and be thy love.

you might ask what this has to do with anything? Well, it is all the idea of thinking that cultures in the past were more idyllic or the idea of A Garden of Eden if you will that idealize as a a place where the the problems and violence of today or this culture or this present time did not exist.
Cultures do breed violence what breeds violence more thorough then any culture or civilization could is social hierarchy . Humans are violent for many reasons, plain rage, the feeling overtakes them, in some cultures spirits are said to be the cause, plain meanness, perhaps they are evil, lack of empathy, boredom, to acquire money and riches they do not have access to, sadism, lust, plain recklessness, the violence of youth, from seeing others as not human or civilized or like you, or from not ascending (or descending however you look at it) properly through society's morality structure. I do not think that certain cultures were ever more aggressive then others. You should read a great book Guns, Germs, and Sterl which explains that the reason some cultures did not develop to over take others is because of a lack of access to protein and basic materials which would have given them the opportunity to over take and grow their population so that they could (and would)have. I know this all seems very simplistic but my basic message is that each person has a capacity for violence or benevolence as does each culture. There never was some great God in the sky who breed us to be like pit bulls or not. Humans have a choice. Most cultures rewarded violence as a means to sustenance of course. Those that rule over others do so by violence most often. And our culture rules most often by violence. That is what the definition of culture is violence to self and others. That is what society is, and has been forever. Show me one race that does not know cruelty & violence subtle or not so subtle and what I will show you is a false race created for the media or popular opinion like the "Gentle Tasaday." Even the gatherer bushmen knew violence.....it all depends on how many people there are and how many have to share the same territory....less humans less violence...more humans and it is a miracle we are all not rioting. It is a testament to our society's hold on us. Different occupations let you be more violent....policeman, politicians, and parents for example-- with less retribution. Bosses get a small reign over a group of employees, those with more power have the right of violence where those with less have little recourse when it comes down to it but to "kick the dog so to speak" . Some cultures allow or encourage violence more than others but I believe it is environmental and not hereditary for the most part. It is not a question of culture, genes or society it is a question of who has more power and how they choose to use or misuse it and that it that.