Human Aggression
Genetically inherited or environmentally
learned? The question has been asked
for years. Is human aggression
genetically linked or is it the environment that
determines our aggressive
nature? Over the years there have been many theories
proposed supporting the
idea that aggression has a genetic link in humans.
"A century ago, Italian
physician Cesare Lombroso claimed that sloping
foreheads, jutting chins and
long arms were signs of born criminals" (Toufexis
52). More recently,
claims have been made that "Man is a predator whose
natural instinct is to
kill with a weapon"(Leakey 23). Again, there have
been quit a few ideas
presented proclaiming mans' genetic link to aggression.
Some, looking in
hindsight, have been ridiculous while others have been more
thought provoking
but all have lacked sufficient proof. Likewise, there have
been several
theories suggesting that the environment is what determines our
aggressive
nature. One psychologist expressed that behavior is changed by
learning. It
is not genetic in humans to be aggressive (Montagu 183). Many
studies have
shown this to be true. When humans are subjected to aggressive
environments
they are significantly more likely to be aggressive themselves. In
addition,
when these studies were put under scrutiny they were verified. In
light of
this only one obvious conclusion remains. Human aggression is a learned
trait
resulting from the environment. It is not an embedded characteristic
lurking
deep within the genetic make-up of all humans. A large portion of the
science
and psychological community would like us to believe that humans
are
inescapably aggressive. Psychologist Sigmund Freud expressed that humans
are not
loving creatures rather they are creatures who wish to engage in
aggression
(Donahue). This statement refers to underlying instinctive urges
that he
believed motivated aggressive behavior. That has yet to be proven.
Some other
scientist have looked to the past attempting to explain the
present human state
by using our so-called "violent history" as a basis for
their claims.
Claiming that, man has killed in all forms throughout
history. Violence and
aggression are as much a part of today as they were
hundreds of years ago (Dubos
42). "The sombre fact is that we are the
cruelest and most ruthless species
that has ever walked the earth" (Storr
17). These concepts and statements
best represent this type of thinking. This
segment of the science community has
continued to use this fallacy explain
mans' behavior. The writers who presented
it this way expressed it best; man
is a killer because man kills or man kills
because he is a killer. It is
circular reasoning with no basis in fact (Parens
13). "There is no
genetic coding that inevitably results in
aggressiveness+" (Dubos 42). Other
theories, though more scientific,
still fail to justify the hypothesis that
humans are innately aggressive.
"In the 1960's scientists advanced the now
discounted notion that men who
carry an XXY chromosome pattern rather than
the normal XY pattern, were
predisposed to become violent criminals"
(Toufexis 52). It seems that every
theory concerning mans genetic link to
aggression has been disproved or left
unproven. They simply just do not have
the evidence to back the idea. Perhaps
they are victims of their own beliefs.
Psychologist Ashley Montagu sums this up
best. He expressed that when
discussing the cause of human violence we might
find that most people do not
look at the facts and then make their decisions but
rather they choose the
facts that best support what they already believe (23).
"It's tempting to
make excuses for violence" (Toufexis 52). Certainly
no one will accept
responsibility for thousands of years of human aggression.
Rightly, no
one should be asked to do so. However, we do need to be willing to
accept
responsibility for ourselves as well as our actions. That is why it
is
imperative that we no longer attempt to use the genetic crutch to
justify
aggression. In other words, "behavioral genetics is the same old
stuff in
new clothes... It's another way for a violent, racist society to say
people's
problems are not their own fault, because they carry 'bad' genes"
(Parens
13). We must look for a more suitable and consistent way of
thinking. Because,
while it is true that many humans are killers, it is
equally true that many are
not (Dubos 42). The best explanations of man's
aggressive behavior have been
those presented by Scientists and Psychologists
looking for answers in the
environments we live in. Studies of violent crimes
in different cultures have
given insight about whether or not the environment
influences aggressive
behavior. In one study, it was found that America has
more killings per year
than any other country by far, suggesting that there
are environmental factors
working which influence aggressive behavior
(Toufexis 52). In addition, the
study found that murder among the
African-American community was significantly
higher than any other ethnic
community in America. In fact, murder was the
number one cause of death among
black men and women between the ages of fifteen
and twenty-four (Toufexis
52). Attempting to explain these facts using the
genetic attribution seems
almost silly. Are you willing to accept the idea that
Americans are more
genetically inclined towards aggression than people in other
countries? Those
other countries from which we all, but the Americans Indians,
immigrated
from. Furthermore, since African-Americans have a higher violent
crime rate
than other Americans, does that mean African-Americans have genes
more
strongly programmed for aggression. Again, it sounds silly. The answer
lies
in the environment and culture we are raised in. How a person is brought
up and
what type of stimuli is present is what determines how they will
behave (Storr
19). Africa for instance has a very low violent crime rate
when compared to
America yet native Africans and African-Americans share
the same genes. Why
then, does the level of aggression differ so much? The
answer again, is in the
environment and what we learn from it. Aggression is
a learned characteristic
that is influenced and sometimes even nurtured by
the environments we are raised
in. "One learns to be unaggressive simply by
not being aggressive" (Montagu
183). In conclusion, science has not
proven humans to be genetically inclined
towards aggression. In fact, many of
the theories presented concerning innate
human aggression have been
disproved. Leading one to believe that the genetic
link to aggression is, at
best, a scapegoat for a long history of violence. On
the other hand, there
have been many studies performed concerning the effects of
environment on
aggressive behavior and the results proved that the environment
does
influence aggressive behavior. Also, when this research was scrutinized
the
outcome was the same. The results were repeatable and the research was
proven.
If the facts speak for anything it is that human aggression is a
learned trait
influenced by the environment, not a characteristic embedded in
our genetic
make-up.