Running Head: RELATED DIFFICULTIES OF VIOLENCE

Related Difficulties of Violence Phillip Fentress Mobley Liberty University COUN 604 B02 201230

RELATED DIFFICULTIES OF VIOLENCE

Abstract Violence: primal in its origin, reactionary and purposeful in its vehemence. A behavioral state that is volatile and guttural. The societal norm is to view violence as a physical state of reactionary force by one person against another. Violence as it is defined is an act of forceful aggression against another person. However, violence can come in many shapes and forms. As this paper will show, violence is not just physical, but it is also, emotionally and psychologically oppressive in its sophistication and covertly menacing in its most eloquent forms. Poverty, racism, bigotry, hatred, prejudice all have been the source of violence in society since the dawn of civilization. Philosophers and scholars have all attempted to study the origin of violence in society. Many have concluded that violence is a base part of human nature and will always exist where there is intellectual opposition. Logically agreeing to disagree within societal context can and does often subdue the act of violent behavior; but when compromise is not viable, violence takes precedence over logic. Keywords: violence, violent, ferocity, vehemence, turbulence, volatility.

RELATED DIFFICULTIES OF VIOLENCE Related Difficulties of Violence One of the most misunderstood behavioral modalities of civilization is violence.

Violence is and has always been a part of the social fabric of human civilization. While it is true that humans are not the only violent creatures to inhabit the earth, violence permeates throughout human society like a bacteriological contagion. Why? Why do humans resort to baser primal instincts when there are opposing forces of aggression? How does violence emerge from a cocoon of calm into a whirlpool of chaotic turbulence? These questions and more will be answered in this composition. Violence emerges from a place within the human psyche that is instinctive and impulsive. Violence is not aggression. It has been misunderstood as aggression; however, aggression is not violence and violence is not always aggressive. What is understood empirically about violence is that it is a basal human emotive response. It is unpredictable and spontaneous. Aggression is not violence and violence is not always aggressive. The word aggression has roots in the Latin ad to and gradus which simply is a step. Aggression is stereotypically inset in deleterious terms, as an undesirable aspect of human behavior (Hawley & Vaughn, 2003; Smith, 2007) so much so that a totally new word, assertiveness, has been created for aggression which is implicitly approved (Ferguson & Dyck, 2012). According to Yakely and Meloy (2012), the definition of violence has been an area of confusion in the literature, with many authors not clearly distinguishing aggression from violence; other related nouns such as anger, rage, destructiveness, sadism, cruelty and brutality are also often poorly differentiated and defined. Following Glasser (1978) and others, we distinguish violence from aggression by specifying violence as a behavior that involves the body (p.231). The very nature of violence is primordial. Sigmund Freud believed that aggression and violence are

RELATED DIFFICULTIES OF VIOLENCE linked to the ego and super egos desire for sexual intimacy (EROS), thereby creating an uncontrollable urge for a collective unity in social culture (Yehoshua, 2005). Empirical studies are wrought with the inner-machinations of the brains function in processing violent or aggressive behavior. Keune, van der Heiden, Vrkuti, Konicar, Veit, & Birbaumer (2012) instituted a study of prefrontal brain asymmetry in violent offenders and found that, the same association has been observed for induced state anger [9] and recently the relation between frontal asymmetry and trait aggression was replicated in the beta band [11]. Peterson et al. [15] have reported that the neural activation pattern underlying greater relative right-frontal alpha

activity may be causally involved in aggressive behavior. In the latter study, the manipulation of alpha asymmetry at frontal and central sites through hand contractions produced a pattern congruent with approach motivation (Keune, van der Heiden, Vrkuti, Konicar, Veit, & Birbaumer, 2012, p. 191) In order to truly understand the nature of violence, this composition will examine different etiological modalities of violent behavior. Domestic or intimate partner violence (IPV), gender-based violence, interpersonal and prejudicial violence within societal context will be thoroughly examined as they relate to the difficulties of violence. Domestic or Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Intimate partner violence is a prolific societal epidemic of major proportion. McCloud, Muldoon and Hayes (2010) state that; IPV is the infliction of physical, sexual, and/ or emotional harm to a person by a current or former partner or spouse with the intention of establishing power and control over the abused partner (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2005a; Family Violence Prevention Fund, 1999) (p. 135). According to Frieze and McHugh (2005) estimates are that more than one-fourth of intimate relationships involve at least one incident of physical assault. Frieze and her colleagues found that 34% of a general

RELATED DIFFICULTIES OF VIOLENCE

community group of ever-married women reported being attacked at least once by a male partner (Frieze, Knoble, Washburn & Zomnir, 1980) (p. 123). Cultural empirical data shows that abuse differs among various ethnic groups. African American women experience intimate violence at a higher rate than European Americans (Cazenave & Straus, 1979) and are more likely to be killed by a partner or former partner (OCarroll & Mercy, 1986). Latina women also have a greater risk of partner abuse than Anglo women, but less risk than African American women (Neff, Holaman, & Schluter, 1995). Latina women are likely to experience violence for a longer duration and may feel cultural pressure to remain in a violent relationship (Gondolf, Fisher, & McFerron, 1991). Native Americans in urban areas have been found to have histories of family violence as high as 80% (Chester, Robin, Koss, Lopez, & Goldman 1994). While Asian women may have lower rates of intimate abuse than other ethnic groups (Koss, Goodman, Browne Fitzgerald, Keita,&Russo, 1994), some Asian women such as military wives and mail order brides may be particularly vulnerable to abuse (Jang, 1994) (McHugh & Frieze, 2006, p. 123). Zoucha (2006) In every culture, certain behaviors are considered acceptable or unacceptable to the overall cultural norm and value system Although it may be far-fetched to conclude that any culture condones violence, there are some that display levels of acceptance for acts of interpersonal violence or fail to offer deterrents and enforce consequences. (Zoucha, 2006, p. 195). Psychologist, Lenore Walker created the Cycle of Violence theory that is widely used for IPV intervention methods. According to Walker the cycle of violence theory measures intimate relationship intensity in phases. McCloud, Muldoon and Hayes (2010) list these phase in the following order: phase one the tension building phase; phase two the acute battering incident and phase three the honeymoon phase (p. 137). According to McCloud, Muldoon

RELATED DIFFICULTIES OF VIOLENCE and Hayes (2010) the tension- building phase of the cycle of violence is characterized by

mounting pressure and strain in the relationship. The abused partner walks on eggshells around the abusive partner, becoming compliant, nurturing, or whatever it takes to keep the abusive partners anger from escalating with minor battering incidents to follow (Walker, 1979). The second phase of the cycle of violence occurs when tensions build to the point of explosion in an acute battering incident. The acute battering incident is characterized by unpredictability, uncontrollable rage, brutality, and seriously damaging consequences (Walker, 1979). The third phase in the cycle of violence is characterized by loving and repentant behavior from the abusive partner. The abuser may shower the IPV survivor with gifts, beg for forgiveness, and promise never to be violent again. During the honeymoon phase, the abusive partner may also attempt to guilt the survivor into staying in the relationship with statements such as I would be lost without you and Dont make our kids grow up without me in their lives. The honeymoon phase results in the IPV survivor feeling needed and loved, leading to a renewed commitment to the relationship. (p. 138). Walkers methodology for the study of 400 women with Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome was propagated as a subcategory from her 1979 cycle of violence theory in battered women, leading to the classification of the Battered Womans Syndrome (Walker, 2006). Walker uses her methodology to understand why women return to the batterer or abuser and their intimate violent relationship. McCloud, Muldoon and Hayes (2010) explain that, the concept of learned helplessness originates from the research of Seligman (1975) in which dogs were locked in a cage and administered random electric shocks. The dogs quickly learned that none of their responses and attempts to escape was successful in eliminating the unwanted stimulus and therefore submitted passively to the shocks. Later the cages were opened, providing the dogs with an opportunity to escape, yet the dogs did not attempt to do so. In other words, the

RELATED DIFFICULTIES OF VIOLENCE

dogs learned to believe they were not in control of their situation so even when they actually had the opportunity to control their situation (i.e., avoid shocks by leaving the cage), the dogs responded with learned helplessness (p.139). According to Walker (2006) although Seligman theorized that he created a type of depression in the laboratory, a careful reading of his results today suggest [sic] he really elicited a PTSD response from his subjects. The original research on BWS hypothesized that the battered womans perception that she received random and variable aversive stimuli from the abuser, interspersed with some loving behavior, also caused her to develop a PTSD response (Walker, 1984/2000). In fact, the original findings were consistent with PTSD, although it was not used in the study as it had not yet appeared as a diagnosis in 1977 when the study was designed (p. 145). An analysis that critiques battered woman syndrome for categorizing the battered women's behavior as arbitrary relies on overriding gender-based experiences.

Gender-based Violence Gender-based violence is a global health and developmental issue. According to Russo and Pirlott (2006), gender shapes the meaning of violent acts differently for women and men, however, and that meaning varies widely depending on the situational and cultural context. For example, severity of specific physical acts will be rated differently depending on whether or not the perpetrator of the act is male or female (Marshall, 1992a, 1992b) (p. 179). Amar, Bess & Stockbridge (2008) applied a cultural theory model to their research on gender-based violence. Using an ecological approach to this study, they found that, cultural values are often held on an unconscious level and give individuals a sense of direction as well as meaning. Through socialization within families, communities, and cultures, common values and expected behaviors

RELATED DIFFICULTIES OF VIOLENCE

are imparted and individuals are shaped (Campinha-Bacote, 2003) (Amar, Bess & Stockbridge, 2008, p. 182). Amar et al. (2008) believe that scholars often apply an ecological model that takes into account the interplay of individual, interpersonal, societal, and sociocultural factors affecting behavior. At the individual and interpersonal levels, witnessing violence is associated with attitudes that are more accepting of violence (Markowitz, 2001; Pollack, 2004). On a societal level, social norms about victims of violence and gender roles can provide justification for violence. In many parts of the globe, cultures believe that men have the right to physically punish a woman who does not follow traditional gender roles or norms (Heise, Ellsberg, & Gottmoeller, 2002; Pan et al., 2006) (Amar, Bess & Stockbridge, 2008, p. 183). Russo and Pirlott (2006) believe that, reducing gender-based violence will require new theories that articulate how various aspects of gender mediate and moderate the effects of social, psychological, and biological factors over the life cycle and influence the risk, experience, and outcomes of interpersonal violence between women and men. One thing that can be concluded at present, however, is that the predictors, meanings, and outcomes of gender-based violence are multifaceted and differ for women and menas perpetrators and as victims (p. 181). Prejudicial Violence As this is a topic not yet empirically addressed, this composition will use a contemporary societal issue that has been prevalent in our society for many generations; hostility toward homosexuality. In examining the pluralistic culture within the homosexual community, there is evidence of covert prejudicial violence as quite, as it is kept. Much of what is known concerning this type of incongruous behavior has been elucidated through the global media. According to the review by Gadd (2010):

RELATED DIFFICULTIES OF VIOLENCE The book, Violence, Prejudice and Sexuality, by Stephen Tomsen explores the nexus between essentialist views of sexuality and an increasingly problematic understanding of homophobia as a wholly irrational and minority pathology (p. xiv). Tomsens analysis commences with a whistle-stop tour of the modern history of sexuality, the recasting of the sodomite as deviant within the Enlightenment Project and the enduring, if often underappreciated, insights of Foucault and Freud in terms of where this has left social reactions to sexuality (Gadd, 2010, pp. 985 986). Ignorance of humane civility and moral decency is no excuse for violence according to Gagg (2010) and his observation of Tomsens book. According to Tomsens book, not all incidents involve naked hatred. Victims are often known to their assailants. Assailants often express contradictory attitudes towards gay people. And, yet, as Tomsens analysis of anti-homosexual killings reveals, criminologists need to think seriously about why particular offenders felt so hateful if they wish to understand why homophobic violence is so frequently cruel and frenzied (Gadd, 2010). This type of violence is the result of ignorance and bigotry within the very fabric of society. Even non-violence by definition is violent due to its reactionary atmospheric correlation of spatial relativity. Resistance to violence becomes violent. Non-violence must coalesce with violence for it to become a repulsive reactionary force against its antithesis. In summation, the related difficulties of violence seem to morph with each new generation. Fine (2006) states, one of the enduring features of the modern age has been the contrast between the hopes and expectation of peace that have taken root in liberal and socialist traditions and the persistent reality of war and terror (Joas 2003: 1). This contrast has been present ever since Kant articulated his own hopes and expectations of perpetual peace whilst

RELATED DIFFICULTIES OF VIOLENCE

10

acknowledging that the actuality of relations between states was more like one of perpetual war (Kant 1991) (p. 49). Fine (2006) todays inheritors of this radical tradition speak of learning from catastrophe. By catastrophe they refer to the unprecedented violence that marked and marred the twentieth century. Jrgen Habermas writes of the gruesome features of a century that invented the gas chambers, total war, state-sponsored genocide, and extermination camps, brainwashing, state security apparatuses, and the panoptic surveillance of entire populations (Habermas 2001: 45). Fine (2006) learning from catastrophe means confronting the fact that the twentieth century generated more victims, more dead soldiers, more murdered civilians, more displaced minorities, more torture, more dead from cold, from hunger, from maltreatment, more political prisoners and refugees, than could ever have been imagined (Habermas 2001: 45) (pp. 49-50). The knowledge that has been garnered through the elucidation of the topic of violence by this composer is that violence is at its core primal and apart of the human behavioral modality. It is not predicated upon culture, but cultural mores sometimes are the catalyst for violent outburst in social settings. Ignorance of diversity and cultural intolerance and divergence of differing intellectual opinions make for a volatile recipe for violent eruptions in many social etiological contexts. Lawson & Rowe (2009) agree that, context is a key feature of violence. Context includes aggressor characteristics, culture, the setting in which the violence occurs, and systems designed to identify or prevent violence (Lawson & Rowe, 2009, p. 119). Since the first violent act ever recorded, the killing of Abel by his brother, Cane; history has seen its share of bloodshed and carnage due to impulsive outburst of violent chaotic outrage. It is the baser emotions that besiege the normally logical intellect with jealous rage and self-righteous indignation that causes the typically civil and humane superior creature to become like the less-

RELATED DIFFICULTIES OF VIOLENCE superior members of his taxonomic kingly domain. Just as most researchers have admitted, no

11

one truly understands violence within behavioral contexts or beyond its metaphysical and spatial construct; never knowing the noumenal and only hypothesizing its existence on the basis of perception (Burns, 2006). It has been empirically examined in ad nauseam by scholars from Freud to Jung. It was Jung who said, "Where love stops, power begins, and violence, and terror." The Bible teaches that violence has existed since the beginning of creation; ever present in the earth (Gen. 6:11). (KJV) God deplores those who revel in destructive violent behavior. God cares deeply for the victims of violence (Clinton, 2001). Yet, it was that same violent behavior that allowed the Israelites to take control of the land of Canaan in the Old Testament. Christians live in a world in constant turmoil; partly due to our own making. Recalling a 5,000 year old history of religious warfare, it must be acknowledged that most of the religious conflict between the children of two ancient brothers; Ishmael and Isaac has polarized most of the eastern world with hatred and disdain towards the west; each for the other. Each side Islamic or Christian needing to be righted; to appease the same God. Is this the world that God wanted for the seed of Abraham? Not likely. And yet there is constant conflict for thousands of years over who is heir to the birthright of the sons of Abraham. While the greatest hope for peace is the Son of God; who is also the progeny of Abraham. A man despised and rejected of men. A prophet not welcomed in His own home. He stands at the ready with open arms for anyone who will accept that He is the Son of the most-high God. Christ brings peace where there is turmoil and destruction. Within the turbulent storms of life, the one constant is His loving presence. Peace, in the midst of a violent raging sea of hatred and prejudice; the hope that Christ offers can bring healing to the whole world. If, the world is willing to acknowledge that He is its one and only

RELATED DIFFICULTIES OF VIOLENCE constant Light. Rev. 3:20, Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Rev 3:21 To

12

him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. Rev 3:22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.(KJV)

RELATED DIFFICULTIES OF VIOLENCE References Burns, Charlene P. E. (2006). A jungian perspective on religious violence and personal responsibility. Cross Currents, 56, 16-24,141.

13

Clinton, Tim (Ed.). (2001). The Soul Care Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Felson, Richard B., & Massoglia, Michael. (2012). When Is Violence Planned? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(4), 753-774. doi: 10.1177/0886260511423238

Fine, Robert. (2006). Cosmopolitanism and violence: Difficulties of judgment. The British Journal of Sociology, 57(1), 49-67. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2006.00093.x

Gadd, David. (2010). Violence, Prejudice and Sexuality. By S. Tomsen (New York: Routledge, 2009, 187pp. 70.00). British Journal of Criminology, 50(5), 985-987. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azq030

Keune, Philipp M., van der Heiden, Linda, Vrkuti, Blint, Konicar, Lilian, Veit, Ralf, & Birbaumer, Niels. (2012). Prefrontal brain asymmetry and aggression in imprisoned violent offenders. Neuroscience Letters, 515(2), 191-195. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.03.058

Lawson, L., & Rowe, S. (2009). Violence. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 5(3), 119-123. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-3938.2009.01044.x

RELATED DIFFICULTIES OF VIOLENCE

14

McLeod, Amy L., Muldoon, John, & Hays, Danica G. (2010). Intimate Partner Violence. In Lisa R. Jackson-Cherry (Ed.), Crisis Intervention and Prevention (1st ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.

Russo, Nancy Felipe, & Pirlott, Angela. (2006). Gender-based violence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1087(1), 178-205. doi: 10.1196/annals.1385.024

Yakeley, Jessica, & Meloy, J. Reid. (2012). Understanding violence: Does psychoanalytic thinking matter? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(3), 229-239. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2012.02.006

Walker, Lenore E. A. (2006). Battered Woman Syndrome. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1087(1), 142-157. doi: 10.1196/annals.1385.023

Yehoshua, A. B. (2005). Civilization and its discontents. Queen's Quarterly, 112, 168-181.

Zoucha, R. (2006). Considering culture in understanding interpersonal violence. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 2(4), 195-196.