But in the statistical model, the structural causes of political violence are sought; In simple words, this approach investigates and studies whether there is a relationship between structural factors and political violence; Such as the relationship between the level of gross national product and violence, or income inequality and violence, and other factors such as the nature of the land, population, ethnic and religious differences, and civil liberties. (In the language of statistics, factors such as the level of gross national product and other factors are considered independent variables and civil war, conflict and unrest are considered dependent variables). Writes Mohammad Reaza Bayati
Many political and ideological wars have started with the belief that if people can be forced to have certain beliefs or attitudes and behave in certain ways, an ideal world can be built; But the result has always been upside down and anger and aggression have cast a shadow on the world, and the gladiators of power have stopped fighting and bloodshed only when they had no patience and strength and sat down.
Human history is full of war and violence, however, researches about political violence are much less than expected – and disproportionate to the extent and importance of this phenomenon. From a macro perspective, two general models are used in the study of political violence; rational-logical choice model and statistical-structural model; The rational approach to violence assumes that the cause of violence is formed in a logical process; Individuals or social groups form and prioritize certain logical beliefs; For example, a person or group considers security as their first priority, revenge as their second priority, and self-esteem as their third priority; Now, if any of these priorities are under threat, it will react violently to defend them. (This model does not necessarily correspond to the famous model of Abraham Maslow).
But in the statistical model, the structural causes of political violence are sought; In simple words, this approach investigates and studies whether there is a relationship between structural factors and political violence; Such as the relationship between the level of gross national product and violence, or income inequality and violence, and other factors such as the nature of the land, population, ethnic and religious differences, and civil liberties. (In the language of statistics, factors such as the level of gross national product and other factors are considered independent variables and civil war, conflict and unrest are considered dependent variables).
The statistical and structural approach claims that research findings only show meaningful relationships between a few factors; That is, only between the level of the gross national product, the population, the nature of the land, on the one hand, and political violence, on the other hand, a significant relationship can be seen, but between ethnic and religious differences, social inequalities, and major political changes, this relationship and statistical correlation is not significant; To be more precise and clear, the structural approach to political violence claims that factors such as ethnic and religious differences and social inequalities cause conflict and political tensions, but – alone – do not lead to political revolution. Both views have been criticized; For this reason, new research approaches try to use integrated models to analyze political violence and consider rational and structural aspects at the same time. Therefore, in this note, without separating the theoretical models, the most important theories of the analysis of political violence are discussed, remembering that there is an important difference between anger and aggression, which has been ignored for greater simplicity; Aggression and violence are also not entirely compatible.
Failure theory – aggression and blocked goal
Perhaps the oldest valid theory about aggression and violence is the theory that failure causes aggression. Behavioral psychologists say that this anger is instinctive and unlearned, and if an obstacle is created in the way of the need or desire of an individual or society, it causes anger; Whether it is a physical or mental limitation; Experiments have shown that even 8-month-old children get angry when they fail. Cognitive psychologists – despite differences in some aspects – generally agree with behaviorists about failure and believe that any frustrating event that creates negative emotions and emotions can cause aggression and violence; Whether that event is physical pain and discomfort or economic-social-political stress; Cognitivists use the term blocked goal to describe the frustrating event that provokes anger and violence. The bigger, more unjustified, chronic and dense the scope and intensity of the failure and blocking of goals, the more explosive the risk of provoking anger and violence. One of the concrete examples of the blocked goal in our society is the restriction of the Internet and the protection plan. The failure of users when the Internet becomes a blocked target produces anger to the extent and frequency of the failure, while the blocked target is against common sense and wisdom and the moral conscience of the society.
Institutive prosecutor
This term is used in psychology to describe the effect of emotions on decision-making, and – here – it means that people make biased decisions when they are angry and want to attribute the blame to someone; For example, if the meaning of a behavior is ambiguous, they interpret it as hostile and try to punish him. In other words, in the phenomenon of intuitive prosecutors, the threshold of attribution is lowered and it becomes easy and fast to attribute a bad motive to another and demand punishment. Intuitive prosecutor is a term that has a negative meaning and refers to a perceptual and cognitive error, but in unjust situations, it seems justified for those who resort to violence because they have come to believe that the perpetrators and perpetrators of violence and injustice have gone unpunished. Trampled by anger and violence, they become intuitive prosecutors of the society to make possible what they consider unattainable through legal litigation and legal prosecutors with intuitive prosecution. It seems that hardness or hardening of identity is also effective in the formation of intuitive prosecution.
Identity hardening, with the formation of an oppressive blocked goal, anger is provoked, and one of the consequences of anger is the hardening or hardening of identities; That is, any individual or social identity will find a zero and hundred thinking and a template in relation to other identities. These stereotyped thoughts about the other’s identity lead to extreme violence and cruelty. Cruelty also strengthens the desire for revenge more determined and deeper and the cycle of anger and violence.
Self-esteem is one of the main causes of provoking anger and violence, harming self-esteem or human dignity. Research and experimental findings show that even threatening and humiliating the self-esteem of large social groups, based on ethnicity, religion, gender and any other common collective characteristic, can lead to waves of collective anger and aggression.
Aggression to defend the territory territorial aggression, as its name suggests, is one of the types of aggression to defend the territory; Home, land, workplace and anything that falls under the concept of territory can lead to aggression or violence if threatened or attacked. The deepest sense of the concept of the realm of the human body is that’s why those who are sexually assaulted experience certain psycho-mental and behavioral states that are very similar to the states of some traumatized soldiers returning from war (PTSD).
Coercive action theory
According to this theory, coercive action only happens when the agent of force realizes that the behavior of others is not in line with his wishes and expectations, so he uses force to return the behavior to his desired state; The theory of using force is actually done with the purpose of re-obeying and it usually works at the level of relationships such as parent-child relationship, but at the level of social relationships, the anger of social groups or society is not always like interpersonal relationships and does not lead to obedience. As a result, the use of force – for several reasons – can lead to rebellion and aggression; One of the reasons and factors for disobeying obedience and inciting anger and violence is injustice.
Aggression and justice
The decision to use force and the issue of justice have a strong and inverse correlation with each other; That is, the more unjust the belief or behavior for which force is used, the more unjustified, unacceptable and anti-obedient the force becomes, and the more likely that the reaction to force is accompanied by anger and aggression. Believing that it is fair or not is a discursive and historical matter, and severe, extensive and chronic anger is a sign of a discursive gap about justice, and it cannot be attributed to temporary and deceptive propaganda. For example, if in America the right to abortion is considered a just right for a large group of society, but the law wants to prohibit it by using force, a discourse gap will be created about abortion, which will either lead to the change of the law or to disobeying it.
Anger and violence will be drawn; In this regard, in general, three types of justice can be mentioned; First, distributive justice, which is about the allocation of resources; That is, if people in the society come to the conclusion that the resources are not fairly distributed, they will be angry and the possibility of aggression will increase. Second, procedural justice, which is about the conflict resolution process; For example, resolving the issue of conflict of interest will be considered fair when both sides of the dispute reach a conclusion under equal conditions in the presence of an impartial arbitrator. Otherwise, anger and aggression against the use of force is the most likely option. Third, interactional justice, which is about mutual respect for other people, or the golden principle of ethics that what you like for yourself, like for others. In interactional justice, respecting the other does not mean confirming the content of the other’s point of view, but it is based on the belief that inner coexistence with other members of the society and good neighborliness with other countries and societies is not possible without this principle, because without interactive justice, the other can also From his own point of view, he will consider you invalid and make a mistake, and the result is nothing but eternal war. Therefore, if the acts of force are not fair in these three senses, every act of force is pregnant with anger and violence. In fact, in societies that are prone to widespread violence, none of the three distributive, procedural and interactive justices are paid attention to, but only retributive criminal justice is the standard that considers any deviation from the official norms to be blameworthy and punishable until it brings people back to to compel obedience.
The most important point about the psychological connection between justice and anger and aggression is that when individuals or groups are faced with injustice, they feel that their human self-worth is directly attacked, and their reaction is exactly the same when human survival is threatened and destroyed. It means extreme impulsive behavior and anger and aggression towards the threat agent; Cruelty in violence also induces the same meaning and means a direct attack on personal identity and value, remembering that individual identities have a close relationship with social groups, and the injury of an individual can create a sense of revenge and malice in the group to which the individual belongs.
Power and control
In the traditional definition of aggression and violence, the main concept is the intention to harm another, but in the modern definition, aggression is related to power and the desire to control. In fact, in all modern research, this common theme is repeated that those in power – or those who think they are powerful – tend to impose their will on others and believe that they have the right to control others, even by violent means, in order to maintain their power. Therefore, one of the reasons for anger and violence is the conflict between those in power and those in power; On the one hand insisting on imposing will and control and on the other hand trying to get rid of control.
There are other theories for the analysis of anger and violence, which I will omit to avoid the length of the note; Wise governments take remedial measures to reduce anger and violence, according to scientific and experimental findings; From apologizing in the shortest time and trying to compensate for the damage to paying compensation and a series of actions that are called transitional justice, but the first step of this process is accepting and expressing the truth. Reality and reality are not the same. When an accident occurs, the perspective of each observer can create a different interpretation of the reality, but the principle of the accident is not interpretable, because it is a fact, and denying it is like saying that the sun in the desert is dark.
