Human Aggression

Homo Sapiens is "the most aggressive creature on the planet" (next to army ants?). This statement is widely stated and mostly accepted. Human aggression is a complex subject, not easily understood. The word "victim" implies the word "bully": anintimidator.

Initial sociological and psychological studies have focused on basic instincts and social structure to try and research this phenomena. For example, if chimpanzees are given a soft doll, they will cuddle it - only if it possesses certain characteristics - two eyes, one nose, one mouth, two arms, two legs. If it doesn't, they will destroy it. These basic indicators have been called "social markers". Chimps will not accept any deviation from this, even one eyed dolls with all the other markers intact will be destroyed. Wolves will chase away or destroy cubs of the wrong colour. Such instinctual behaviour is attributed as a direct result of social structure, both chimps and wolves are hierarchically structured. Such social conditioning can be altered, for example, a kitten brought up with a rat that "could never afterwards be induced to pursue or kill rats".

Obviously, humanity has experimented with social organisation on huge scale in the past. Today, I think most people would agree that we are largely organised hierarchically. Looking at animal examples shows that many forms of social structure exist in the animal kingdom.

In human society, the same reaction to "social markers" applies due to the hierarchical structure of our society. As society changes, social markers adjust. They use social markers to delineate "us" from "not us". Individuals are pressured to join groups and can suffer when alone. Isolation is the weapon of the organisation of societies as groups and hierarchies form. However, sexual orientation, marital status, appearance, life styles, illness, poverty, political/religious orientation etc. still remain intimately connected to group cohesiveness. People form groups for survival purposes. Equally, there are many healthy rejections of such pressures, but the majority comply.

Humans are very social and need people to function and achieve fullfillment. In hierarchical structures members are embraced and drawn in, non members are excluded and chased away. This is not necessarily bad, but it has been used to form power bases and to control resources and to prevent freedom. It is a double edged sword. Hierarchies are very important in certain situations, but very detrimental in others. Human history is full of these examples. Humans do want to form into groups, but they also want to extend beyond them. Any structure is just a structure until bids for power and influence take precedence.

The consequences of this group formation has consequences for both members and non members. In extreme form, social collisions can be fatal. Where resources are tight, the groups become more exclusive as the struggle tightens. This is when racism and political groupings reinforce the hierarchical direction of society, creating extreme versions of "us" and "not us" ("haves" and "have nots" and many other splits). In individual lives, the consequences can be literally life threatening (religious freedom/ political freedom/family discord/social discord/unemployment etc. - right down to school suicides due to bullying).

Sue Young RSHom