Suicide and genocide in the light of Girard's mimetic theory (original) (raw)
Related papers
Medical Hypotheses, 2009
According to a widespread opinion shared by the vast majority of historians, instances of aggression using pathogen weapons constitute extremely rare events in human history. Similarly, students of human behaviour tend to believe that their science plays no role in explaining this phenomenon, which is held to be exceptional and abnormal. Contrary to this dominant view, I argue that Hamiltonian spite -like Hamiltonian altruism -is an inherent part of the human behavioural repertoire and it includes the use of pathogens for spiteful purposes. This paradigm is supported by the following observations. The use of pathogens as weapons emerged far before the scientific understanding of the nature of infections and epidemics, though it has been underrepresented in written history ever since. It is also present in our expectations concerning the likely behaviour of an enemy and it is also a frequent component of threats. Several languages appear to bear linguistic references to our motivation for biological aggression in profanity. Finally, given that wartime epidemics kill people at a rate comparable to (or exceeding) that of mechanical weapons, all wars fought in recorded history incorporated an element of aggression through biological means. On the basis of these arguments, I claim that the motivation for biological aggression is an inherent and common aspect of past and present human behaviour.
This article aims to revisit neo-instinctivism, socio-biological and behavioral theories account of human aggression. Humans apparently have a long history of violence. It is customary in many social psychology textbooks contain chapters on aggression. One of the explanations about the subject usually has a section on the “instinct theory of aggression” that usually associated to the ethologist Konrad Lorenz who aims to examine aggression with a class of biological explanations. Aggressive energy is an instinctual drive that enhance until it explodes. It may be released by external stimuli. Sociobiological perspective contributes a more complicated interactionist model for contemplating the origins of human aggression. Wilson’s ideas combine ethological studies with other biological factors to explain human aggression and war as a consequence of the interaction between the cultural environment and genes. In order to understand human aggression, there are the dichotomies between biology and environment, nature and nurture, or instincts and learning. It is interesting to point out that the radical behaviorists Skinner is as much an evolutionist as Konrad Lorenz both of whom believe the nature of the mechanisms designed by natural selection. The objective of this study is to describe different definitions and causes of aggression in humans. It is important to present different explanations of aggression ranging from neo-instinctivism, socio-biological, and behavioral analysis. In the first part of the paper, after the definition of aggression, it entails a close look to Lorenz’s neo-instintivism approach. The second part focuses on Wilson’s sociobiological idea of the aggression. The third section emphasizes Skinner’s behavioralism. The conclusion gives a summary of all perspectives.
The Biology of Failure, the Forms of Rage, and the Equity of Revenge
corrected 13 February 2014] Ellen Spolsky, Bar-Ilan University Erwin Schrödinger, in 1944, described life as open to what he called forcings, embodied in genes, and open, also, to feeding. Life is sustained by a contextualized,
An implausible model and evolutionary explanation of the revenge motive
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2013
Minimizing the costs that others impose upon oneself and upon those in whom one has a fitness stake, such as kin and allies, is a key adaptive problem for many organisms. Our ancestors regularly faced such adaptive problems (including homicide, bodily harm, theft, mate poaching, cuckoldry, reputational damage, sexual aggression, and the infliction of these costs on one's offspring, mates, coalition partners, or friends). One solution to this problem is to impose retaliatory costs on an aggressor so that the aggressor and other observers will lower their estimates of the net benefits to be gained from exploiting the retaliator in the future. We posit that humans have an evolved cognitive system that implements this strategydeterrencewhich we conceptualize as a revenge system. The revenge system produces a second adaptive problem: losing downstream gains from the individual on whom retaliatory costs have been imposed. We posit, consequently, a subsidiary computational system designed to restore particular relationships after cost-imposing interactions by inhibiting revenge and motivating behaviors that signal benevolence for the harmdoer. The operation of these systems depends on estimating the risk of future exploitation by the harmdoer and the expected future value of the relationship with the harmdoer. We review empirical evidence regarding the operation of these systems, discuss the causes of cultural and individual differences in their outputs, and sketch their computational architecture.
Imitation, Rivalry and Violence. Today and in the Past
In this article on imitation and violence I wish to interpret violent relations between human beings as founded on imitation of each other desires. (A desire for what other people desire.) Imitation, the desire to have what other people desire, is both the root to success and the root to violence. The article is inspired by the French philosopher, René Girard's (b. 1923) theory on imitative desire. In my view societies are continually threatened by violent imitation, and, at the same time, imitation is the factor which creates dynamic societies and cultures. Human beings are driven by desiring what other people desire, by wanting what others want.