Aggression, Violence, Evil, and Peace

Abstract

The attainment of peace requires an understanding of aggression, violence, and evil, as well as a knowledge of the various paths that may lead to peace. This chapter begins by examining different ways to conceptualize and comprehend aggression and how it may be involved in peaceful as well as violent behavior. The chapter then reviews the extensive literature on many forms of direct (aggressive) and indirect (structural) violence. Violence is considered as a matter of fact. However, evil is considered as involving moral judgment. The literature describes how this judgment may be distorted by an attempt to distance evil from the self, how there are different ways to conceive of evil, and how religions attempt to contain it. Peace is considered as a goodness that is the opposite of evil. The literature on peace is described in terms of the advantages and disadvantages of four different paths towards peace. These may be characterized as involving: strength, negotiation, justice, and personal transformation. Each path may be considered as a way of developing peaceful cultures. Such cultures are described. The literature suggests that if cultures of peace are to develop in contemporary society, people must master different types of negotiation and nonviolent action.

Why peace? The taming of the aggressive instinct and the evolution of the capacity for cooperation. A review of The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined.

“…Pinker seems to advocate that we can better address violence and further peace by breaking both categories down, as there is no likely "one size fits all" solution. Such taxonomy fits nicely with the work of other scholars in the field (de Rivera, 2003) who have tried to disentangle different types of violence and different approaches to peace.…”

Trajectories of Adolescent Aggression and Family Cohesion: The Potential to Perpetuate or Ameliorate Political Conflict

“…The importance of finely tuning intervention programs for the most vulnerable young people also highlights the need to work in collaboration with community partners familiar with local dynamics (see Qouta & El-Sarraj, 2002). The findings from this study may inform future interventions with youth and their families that aim to reduce adolescent aggression, which in turn may prolong intergroup conflict, particularly in settings of political violence (de Rivera, 2003; Peltonen & Punamäki, 2010; Qouta et al, 2008). …”

“…Adolescence is a key period for understanding relations among aggression, experience with political violence, and participation in the continuation of societal conflict (de Rivera, 2003; Punamäki, 2009; Qouta et al, 2008). In this paper, aggression is defined as “those acts that inflict bodily or mental harm on others” (Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1998, p. 242).…”

“…Clinical-levels of violent and antisocial behavior, along with co-morbidity with other outcomes, such as delinquency, may also stem from this developmental period. In addition, adolescent aggression has societal implications; whether intentional or not, aggressive acts directed at out-group members may perpetuate political conflict (de Rivera, 2003; Jarman & O'Halloran, 2001). …”

¿Por qué Pegan los Niños? Creencias sobre la Agresividad Infantil en un Grupo de Profesoras de Educación Inicial

“…La psicología ha abordado el problema de la agresión de múltiples maneras. En efecto, los planteamientos para explicar el comportamiento agresivo han ido evolucionando desde teorías tales como la de Lorenz (1976), quien planteó que la agresión surge de un instinto de lucha heredado que los seres humanos comparten con otras especies, hasta concepciones más contemporáneas que conciben la agresividad como producto de diversos factores tanto sociales, culturales y situacionales como neuroquímicos y hormonales (Aronson, Wilson & Akket, 2002;De Rivera, 2003;Discroll, Zinkivskay, Evans & Campbell, 2006;Dodge, Coie & Lynam, 2006;Gil-Verona et al, 2002).…”