subject: Violence As A Defense Against Intimacy - Part One [print this page] History is replete with evidence that aggression, leading to acts of violence and assassinations, has always been part of the human experience. As weaponry becomes ever more destructive to even larger populations than possible in the past, there is an urgency to better understand and modify our propensity toward violence.
Early Freudian concepts focused on two human drives: aggression and sexuality. A sophisticated psychology of sexuality was developed but one for aggression was left wanting. The identification of the chimpanzee as our closest relative, sharing some 98 1/2 percent of the same genes, lead to an increased interest in studying these animals and their behavior, a field called animality.
But more puzzling data came from such studies. While one species demonstrates a pattern of male dominance, along with highly aggressive, violent behaviors, another chimpanzee, the bonobo, organizes its social interactions on a female dominant, highly sexual basis. This group uses sex to calm, soothe, greet, and play regardless of the genders or ages of the animals.
That the human is a highly social being who requires prolonged post- natal care because of an extended length of time to reach full maturity is obvious. During this period of time he or she learns a broad repertory of ways of relating, including sex and aggression. If the nurturing process is successful, that child develops a level of basic trust and acquires a feeling of safety sufficient to allow for authentic and intimate relationships with others. However, to the extent that abuse or neglect is present, mistrust of others occurs and that person adopts alienation and guardedness to protect against the anticipated threat that closeness and intimate involvement might present.
A perception develops that maintaining the status quo is essential to assure that change from the predictable and familiar does not occur, even if such change is desired, lest safety is lost and ever present danger threatens. Challenges to the status quo represent the possibility the safety afforded by distancing alienation will be lost.
A benign example of this phenomenon is the commonly experienced ignorance of ones neighbors, even after years of living in the same community. When next entering an elevator, observe how often the people avoid eye contact or simple greetings as though there is an eleventh commandment: Thou shall not converse with strangers. Regrettably, because of larger communities and the prevalence of pedophilic behaviors, it has become imperative to teach children this commandment. Avoiding the stranger avoids danger! This edict often obscures the fact that the sexual abuse of children more often occurs with adults known to the child, notwithstanding the dramatic and sad examples in the news that does occur.
More malignant illustrations of this alienation reach our attention by the news of a man removed from a subway by force and robbed while six people sat and watched; a man struck by a hit and run driver, dragged some distance, and then other vehicles going around his body without stopping; the gang rape of a high school girl while many others were passive observers; or the Genovese murder where it was alleged that 39 people heard her screams for help and did nothing to respond. These are but just a few examples.
We read of these accounts with shock and horror. That they represent a well-ingrained, rigidly reinforced code of social behavior is less well acknowledged. That code demands maintaining a defensive alienation for fear our care, concern, and involvement with strangers might invite our own danger. Sadly, there are elements of reality that must be recognized in some of such situations. But the danger of remaining aloof is not without its own toll.
