Meditation on Violence

People are really uncomfortable with the subject of violence, to the point where it is almost taboo to point out to them that violence is normal and natural, serves a useful function, and resides in each of us, ready to be put into effect if and when the need arises. When it comes to chimpanzees, people's attitude toward violence colors their view of the species.  I have encountered the following groupings:

1. People who like chimpanzees and therefore think they are non-violent.

2. People who don't like chimpanzees because they know they are violent.

3. People who like chimpanzees and know they are violent, but think that's okay because they are wild animals, and there is a special dispensation for wild animals to be violent.

What I haven't met too many of are people like me, who like chimpanzees, know that violence is a part of their behavioral repertoire and think that's okay. It's also part of my behavioral repertoire and yours and of most human beings.

I've had people tell me that they know that violence in wild chimpanzees has been documented, but they believe that it's only the encroachment of man that drove them to it, and by nature chimpanzees have no violent tendencies. These people belong to group one, and they subscribe to the noble savage view of chimpanzees. They probably think that about aboriginal human beings, too.

I've had people tell me that chimpanzees are dangerous because they kill and maim, and so they should be kept far, far away from us. Some of those people belong to group two and some belong to group three, because those two groups have a lot in common. Let's face it: saying you like chimpanzees but you want them to be kept separate from humans at all times is a lot like saying that you like Finns as long as they stay in Finland among their own kind and far, far away from you.

Do chimpanzees kill and maim? Definitely, but so do humans.

And what about Bow? He can be violent and he can be sweet, and it varies. Sweetness is met with sweetness, and to the extent that the violence cannot be met with violence, it is met with a retreat.
I recognize that I cannot match Bow blow for blow, so I excercise caution and discretion, but it's not because I think it would be bad to do otherwise. I just have to be realistic about my own personal resources.

Recently, in a discussion of violence in the schools, someone said to me that violence in children is always a result of bad parenting. I had to bite my tongue not to give them my full opinion about this. Can violent behavior be one of the results of bad parenting? Sure. But it need not be. That would be like saying that Bow's dominance displays are entirely due to the way he was brought up. I can assure you he never saw a dominance display once the whole time he was growing up. He didn't learn it from me, and he's not doing it because he's bad or because I'm bad. He's doing it because it comes naturally.

I think it comes naturally to a lot of human adolescents, too. Not everyone is equally aggressive, and not everyone uses it to hurt others. Violence, after all, can be channeled into good uses: gangs of teens roaming the streets preserving the law instead of breaking it. But if we tell the young that it's violence that is wrong, instead of unfairness towards others, then we will leave those with aggressive instincts with only one choice: illicit violence.

So what about Bow? Well, just to reassure you that everything is fine, here is a video from today.

As a parent, of course, I don't want my children engaging in violent acts against innocent people. But at the same time, trying to place a complete moratorium on displays of aggression isn't any different from trying to eliminate all displays of affection. Affection and aggression are both natural and necessary. So the issue that I grapple with on a daily basis now is how to allow Bow an appropriate outlet for his more aggressive tendencies. This is probably what many other parents of adolescents are also grappling with.



Everyone wants to eat.

Yesterday, I was hard at work on hub about dominance. Dominance is not my favorite topic, because I am still struggling with it, but it certainly comes up a lot when dealing with a chimpanzee. The truth of the matter is that it's a tricky thing, and that all is not as it appears. I do have to stand up to Bow and not let him walk all over me, but at the same time, he lets me know in all sorts of subtle and not so subtle ways that when he does cooperate with me, it's because he chooses to, and not because he has to.

Even when Bow gets in trouble and has to be disciplined, the only reason I can stick to my plan of discipline is that Bow allows it. He respects me, and he demands that I respect him, and it's just not that easy to explain to outsiders. People who pick up on it and instinctively understand this concept, like Lawrence, get to have a fine relationship with Bow. But others, some who are too soft and others who are too harsh, just don't make it in the program.

Meanwhile, on Hubpages, all sorts of people have been sounding out about dominance. Some of the things they said were so bizarre! For instance, that one person can "give" dominance to another person. So I went and wrote a hub about it. And in  the process of writing the hub, I watched a video clip from Capra's Meet John Doe. In that scene, Gary Cooper is an unemployed, homeless man on the verge of starvation, and Barbara Stanwyck, a savvy newspaperwoman, hires him to perpetrate a fraud on the public, in order to sell newspapers. Watching the scene, I wondered: "Who is dominant?" After all, Gary Cooper is bigger and stronger than Barabara Stanwyck, and he could just take what he wanted from her, rather than making a deal. But somehow he doesn't. He defers to her power and her position. Does he do this because he has to or because he wants to?

Bow watched the scene with me. So I asked him: "Bow, who is dominant in that scene?"

He spelled: "Everyone wants to eat."