Modern attitudes to conflict

[pyraxis]

OMG.

He's taken the things I've been theorizing but thought I was alone and haven't been able to talk about, and he's put brilliant words to them. This is it!

Marc MacYoung, "Conflict: the 21st Century Taboo":
Current dogma is that conflict is bad. Physical violence is viewed as evil, abhorrent, traumatic, out of control and something that must socially engineered out of existence by policies, laws and legal retribution.

And yes we intentionally used the word 'dogma.' Much of what are being promoted as unquestionable 'truths' on these subjects are not only unproven, but in many instances demonstrably false (e.g. "Violence never solved anything"). Offering a different point of view is risky. Daring to question the veracity of popular 'truths' about violence is often an invitation to a tirade worthy of a religious fanatic.

At Conflict Communications we contend popular denial, condemnation and ignorance don't protect people from the trauma of conflict and violence. They instead leave people vulnerable and more traumatized. Simply stated, teaching abstinence does not instill coping skills regarding a normal human behavior.

(the rest of the article)

Just had to share that with somebody, while I'm sitting here all elated that anti-violence neurosis really, truly, is wrong. And there's a logical case for it.

Comments

[jaywalkermaybe.livejournal.com]

hmm. i agree with much of what the article says, but i'm having a hard time seeing that violence is taboo. i live in a world where large scale violence between nations is promoted at least as much as abhorred, and conflict is meant to be resolved by by an over-ritualised and prohibitively expensive process which exacerbates the problem by pretending that there are only 2 possible points-of-view, one of which must be right, and the other wrong. i live in a world where conflict is out-of-control, same as the authors, bit i think that "violence is taboo" is an over-simplistic analysis of the causes at best.

it perhaps might be said that violence has come under state ownership and control, and that interpersonal conflict is marginalised and, as the authors say, abhorred rather than addressed.

it can definitely be said that modern humans lack the rituals for containing violence within reasonable bounds that other animals have. an observation also made by Erich Fromm, some decades back in "The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness"

Do read that book. I think you'll love it. :)

i woyld say , along with Fromm, that the problem goes deeper than denial of violence. More fundamentally. our culture denies, marginalises and suppresses our life-affirming insrtincts, which are bound to turn to violence, though being continually frustrated.

No, i don't mean sex lol. Read the book.

[tigerweave.livejournal.com]

well well, good points! These dudes specialise in interpersonal violence, so that is pretty much the unspoken presumption they are making, that their audience realises that is what they are refering to. However, there are plenty on the Animal list that have been or are involved directly in international conflict. So if you do join the animal list, this sort of observation would be something they may really enjoy chewing up and pulling apart and examining from their own perspectives and learning from others.

As for that the book says, aw! I thought you *were* talking about sex :-P

- Leonie

(*giggles* I almost put memry's userpic up by accident. That woulda been soooooo funny!)