Ginger and Richard Rhodes
A Vicious Cycle
By Ginger Rhodes
Posted Wednesday, May 16, 2001, at 11:13 AM ETRhodeman,
Good morning to you.
Your last e-mail yesterday introduced how people learn to use violence, or violent socialization. Common to violent people, the socialization encompasses 1) brutalization (being forced by violence or threat of violence to submit to an authority figure; witnessing the same treatment to an intimate; being coached to resolve any differences through violence), 2) belligerency (heeding the coaching by trying violence in an attempt to prevent further subjugation), 3) violent performances (trying defensive violence), and finally 4) virulency (when others show respect and fear, expanding the violence to include offensive domination).
I have been working with that model of violent socialization the last couple of years in a couple of prisons. The men who joined anger management groups and those seeking individual counseling did so for a number of reasons, including escaping the boredom of their cells and improving their chances for early parole. But many of the men talked about wanting a different life for their children. When offered violent socialization as an explanation of the way they came to be as they are today, some were surprised at their personal responsibility in the training of their kids. I remember one prisoner in particular who reported in a group session that during the past week he had realized his 5-year-old son was beating on his toys the same way he beat on his son. Not one of those men, though, thought of themselves as having been "abused." Abuse is a normative term. They said: "I was a bad kid, I deserved it. ... My old man was tough, he expected a lot out of me. ... You gotta take care of yourself. ... " Again, I am not so naive that I think people change just because they find insight into their motivations, but people who have strong reasons to change can, with hard work and meaningful support. Nonviolent coaching. Alternative choices. We could go a long way toward reducing violence by minimizing the brutalization of all children, offering credible alternatives for handling disputes, and understanding that mentors matter.
You mentioned that my last research study was to begin the statistical validation of the violent socialization model. My next study is to collect more information from violent people, this time looking at people who no longer use violence in their lives. What happens during the change process? We have data that indicates violent people become less violent as they grow older. How do they change? Does something happen to encourage that change? Are there important people involved?
Today McVeigh would have died. At some point in Timothy McVeigh's life he was brutalized by some credible authority figure (perhaps via his family or his peer group or during his military experience), and he learned that he could get his way through violent action. Whether there is any hope for change from the McVeighs of the world, I don't know. But I do think we can prevent the development of future McVeighs by concentrating on those things I mentioned. We are all responsible.
Whew!
G
P.S.: Thanks for saving me a piece of that pie. And that coyote is back, eating the rejected cat food I put out for the crows. Interesting, I don't hear the crows complaining.
A Vicious Cycle
By Ginger Rhodes
Posted Wednesday, May 16, 2001, at 11:13 AM ETReader Comments From The Fray:
[Notes from the Fray Editor: This week's "Breakfast Table"-ers did a terrific job of summarizing the Fray entries, taking up their points and answering them in the column--Fray industry workers could have taken the week off. As new star Mangar put it: "Richard Rhodes was very gracious in his willingness to directly address comments from the Fray. It's a brave thing to do, and I wish more authors had the guts. Thanks to Richard, and I'll try to reply with that respect in mind." Though Mr Rhodes' claim that Fraymanians "blow off while hiding behind the anonymity of your nicknames" did not go down well. Several posters gently and politely defended their right to Fraynames, for example here.
An interesting discussion on Mr Rhodes theories, and of his comments on The Fray (Fraymers didn't like the bit about "can't read very well" either), started here, with the splendid title "An attempted ex post facto clarity?"--if there's one thing Fraysters are going to catch you out on, it is that. Some of the Fray's finest pitched in. A brave and honest (and not anonymous) post about brutalization in schools came from Roy Jaruk, here.
Violence was the overwhelming topic of choice, but there are a few posts on verity, fawns ("fauns are those things that have afternoons, unless your woods are much more interesting than mine"), lekking, and other matters. Use the Fray Editor's Picks button, or just look for the checkmarks and stars. And Claude Scales took up the question of what we should call Fraypersons here.]
What sociologists and psychologists try to do is find a reason for a behavior or pattern of behavior. They don't use these reasons as "excuses" to pardon criminals, just as a way to understand the root of criminal action. These reasons have been badly skewed in courts as they have become excuses for heinous crimes--true to history, people have used science irresponsibly for ridiculous and damaging profit. (By the way I am a biologist and no, this has nothing to do with cloning). So take it to heart and realize behavioral scientists are simply trying to find explanation for such actions to end this pattern in the future.
--Mel
(To reply, click here.)
You don't have to delve very deeply into the human psyche to find out why some people are violent. It's not some strange perversion or disease that needs an explanation from genetics or childhood trauma or sociological circumstance. Put quite simply, it works. It's an efficient and effective way of acquiring immediate power over people, and of gaining their enduring fear, if not their respect. Someone who stands to gain more than he loses from using violence is going to be quite tempted to use it. So in order to combat violence, we need have an ongoing legal, social, and moral campaign against it, to make sure most people who commit violent acts lose more (in terms of money, respect, and social approval) than they gain.
--Jane Grey
(To reply, click here.)
My personal belief (and so it is only opinion based on observation) is that we are not teaching children (males in particular) how to channel aggressiveness positively or when certain levels of violence are a reasonable response (and which are not). We are simply condemning aggressiveness and violence but the children in learning that things are not that simple are making up their own rules.
--Michael Murray
(To reply, click here.)
[People] talk about "violence" as if it were a simple and agreed upon quality, like the flavor vanilla, and could be discussed as a single unified thing. In point of fact, though, soldiers jumping out of trenches into machine-gun fire, cold-blooded poisoners, domestic batterers, schoolyard bullies, and generals who order airstrikes, although they are all engaging in "violence" of one sort or another, have nothing else in common, and it's disingenuous (at best) to discuss them as if their actions were interchangeable.
The "problem of violence" is an illusion. It is not tuberculosis. It is not vanilla. And it does not have a "cure".
--Thrasymachus
(To reply, click here.)
(5/17)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Can Death Row Convicts Have Whatever They Want for Their Last Meal?
It's a Bad Idea for the Government To Cap Malpractice Awards
Mad Men: Will Sally Draper Ever Forgive Her Father?
The Weirdly Sexual New Ad for Halls Lozenges
Obama's Moving Fort Hood Speech
Supporters of Health Reform Give Democrats a Big, Wet, Expensive Kiss
Reader Comments From The Fray:
[Notes from the Fray Editor: This week's "Breakfast Table"-ers did a terrific job of summarizing the Fray entries, taking up their points and answering them in the column--Fray industry workers could have taken the week off. As new star Mangar put it: "Richard Rhodes was very gracious in his willingness to directly address comments from the Fray. It's a brave thing to do, and I wish more authors had the guts. Thanks to Richard, and I'll try to reply with that respect in mind." Though Mr Rhodes' claim that Fraymanians "blow off while hiding behind the anonymity of your nicknames" did not go down well. Several posters gently and politely defended their right to Fraynames, for example here.
An interesting discussion on Mr Rhodes theories, and of his comments on The Fray (Fraymers didn't like the bit about "can't read very well" either), started here, with the splendid title "An attempted ex post facto clarity?"--if there's one thing Fraysters are going to catch you out on, it is that. Some of the Fray's finest pitched in. A brave and honest (and not anonymous) post about brutalization in schools came from Roy Jaruk, here.
Violence was the overwhelming topic of choice, but there are a few posts on verity, fawns ("fauns are those things that have afternoons, unless your woods are much more interesting than mine"), lekking, and other matters. Use the Fray Editor's Picks button, or just look for the checkmarks and stars. And Claude Scales took up the question of what we should call Fraypersons here.]
What sociologists and psychologists try to do is find a reason for a behavior or pattern of behavior. They don't use these reasons as "excuses" to pardon criminals, just as a way to understand the root of criminal action. These reasons have been badly skewed in courts as they have become excuses for heinous crimes--true to history, people have used science irresponsibly for ridiculous and damaging profit. (By the way I am a biologist and no, this has nothing to do with cloning). So take it to heart and realize behavioral scientists are simply trying to find explanation for such actions to end this pattern in the future.
--Mel
(To reply, click here.)
You don't have to delve very deeply into the human psyche to find out why some people are violent. It's not some strange perversion or disease that needs an explanation from genetics or childhood trauma or sociological circumstance. Put quite simply, it works. It's an efficient and effective way of acquiring immediate power over people, and of gaining their enduring fear, if not their respect. Someone who stands to gain more than he loses from using violence is going to be quite tempted to use it. So in order to combat violence, we need have an ongoing legal, social, and moral campaign against it, to make sure most people who commit violent acts lose more (in terms of money, respect, and social approval) than they gain.
--Jane Grey
(To reply, click here.)
My personal belief (and so it is only opinion based on observation) is that we are not teaching children (males in particular) how to channel aggressiveness positively or when certain levels of violence are a reasonable response (and which are not). We are simply condemning aggressiveness and violence but the children in learning that things are not that simple are making up their own rules.
--Michael Murray
(To reply, click here.)
[People] talk about "violence" as if it were a simple and agreed upon quality, like the flavor vanilla, and could be discussed as a single unified thing. In point of fact, though, soldiers jumping out of trenches into machine-gun fire, cold-blooded poisoners, domestic batterers, schoolyard bullies, and generals who order airstrikes, although they are all engaging in "violence" of one sort or another, have nothing else in common, and it's disingenuous (at best) to discuss them as if their actions were interchangeable.
The "problem of violence" is an illusion. It is not tuberculosis. It is not vanilla. And it does not have a "cure".
--Thrasymachus
(To reply, click here.)
(5/17)