Meaning from erik erikson article on psychoanalysis and ongoing history

Question

The recent book by Konrad Lorenz, DasSogenannte Boese( 10), summarizes whatis known of intraspecies aggression amongsome of the higher animals and correctsthe easy conviction that our “animal nature”explains or justifies human forms of aggression.Lorenz describes, of course, boththreatening and murderous behavior on thepart of animals who are hungry and gohunting; who must settle competitivequestions of territorial occupation or utilization;or who are cornered by a superiorenemy. The question is, under what conditionshatred and murder make their appearanceamong animals, and whetherviolence of the total kind, that is, of thekind characterized by irrational rage, wildriot or systematic extermination, can betraced to our animal nature.Within the social species closest to man(wolves, deer and primates), Lorenz describesritualized threatening behaviorwhich, in fact, prevents murder, for suchmutual threats usually suffice to establishan equal distribution of territory governed,as it were, by instinctive convention. Outin the wild, so he claims, such threateningbehavior only rarely escalates intoinjurious attack; and one may well sayasis, indeed, the case with some humanprimitives who share the institution ofhighly ritualized warfare-that some “aggressivebehavior” prevents war.this whole text i get some of it but totally as its quite confusing. somebody please describe it in a short simple english or any other way to simplify it. tnks in advance

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

OmidazxcxThe recent book by Konrad Lorenz, DasSogenannte Boese( 10), summarizes whatis known of intraspecies aggression amongsome of the higher animals and correctsthe easy conviction that our “animal nature”explains or justifies human forms of aggression.

The book On Aggression was published in 1966. Konrad Lorenz looked at animal behavior and tied it to human behavior. People had long considered violence among humans to come from our animal nature as opposed to our spiritual side. They either accept the violence as a normal behavior for the spiritually weak human or simply explain it as a product of our earthliness.

OmidazxcxLorenz describes, of course, boththreatening and murderous behavior on thepart of animals who are hungry and gohunting; who must settle competitivequestions of territorial occupation or utilization;or who are cornered by a superiorenemy.

Animals become violent under certain circumstances. Predators, of course, must kill to eat. They also have to keep other predators off their hunting grounds. All animals will defend themselves.

OmidazxcxThe question is, under what conditionshatred and murder make their appearanceamong animals, and whetherviolence of the total kind, that is, of thekind characterized by irrational rage, wildriot or systematic extermination, can betraced to our animal nature.

Exactly what circumstances make animals violent? Can we compare those circumstances to the ones that make humans turn violent?

OmidazxcxWithin the social species closest to man(wolves, deer and primates), Lorenz describesritualized threatening behaviorwhich, in fact, prevents murder, for suchmutual threats usually suffice to establishan equal distribution of territory governed,as it were, by instinctive convention.

Among the higher mammals studied by Lorenz were wolves, deer and primates. He discovered that instead of becoming immediately violent when defending themselves or their territory, animals make threatening displays. The wolf snarls, the deer stomps and snorts, the gorilla thumps his chest. This display usually is enough to settle the dispute, and one animal or the other backs down.

OmidazxcxOutin the wild, so he claims, such threateningbehavior only rarely escalates intoinjurious attack; and one may well sayasis, indeed, the case with some humanprimitives who share the institution ofhighly ritualized warfare-that some “aggressivebehavior” prevents war.

Not only wild animals avoid violence with display. Among tribal peoples you often see ritual warfare that does not involve actual killing. For example, I once saw film of two tribes somewhere meeting for a battle, and all they did was form opposing lines and shoot arrows into the ground at the feet of their enemy, threatening and shouting the while. Among some American Indian tribes it was considered bad form to kill your enemy in battle. Merely touching him with your tomahawk or spear was insult enough—you are not even afraid of him enough to kill him—and he would retire shamed from the field.

Meaning from erik erikson article on psychoanalysis and ongoing history

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions