Another type of aggression seen in institutions is hazing which is a form of institutional bullying based on tradition within groups to discipline junior members which is aimed to make real men physically and mentally tough and to discipline them to obey their superiors. A study of over 11,000 US students involved in clubs and teams revealed that at lest half had experience hazing. However we have to take into account that it was conducted on US students so it is not representative of the whole population so we can not generalise it to other populations Nuwer also went on to show that out of the 60deaths due to hazing on 3 were women. This shows the cultural notions is related to what it takes to be specifically a man.
With aggression in general we must consider the problem with defining and operationalising aggression. It is difficult to define as many investigators or individuals will have a different view of what aggression is. With hazing it is difficult to investigate as many would see it as a bit of fun that benefits them in the long run. However we have seen hazing can get out of control and cause lasting physical and mental harm.
There are also problems with investigation. We have already seen it is difficult to define, but aggression is also difficult to investigate empirically because of the dehumanising nature. It is also difficult to determine what is and what dehumanising behaviour isn’t. There is also an ethical problem for researchers as it is ethically wrong to study people who have been subjected to dehumanising violence, but also to study people who are in psychiatric wards for example who are not capable of giving full consent.
There is also examples of violence between institutions and groups for example genocide which results from a difficult social condition to scapegoating the less powerful group which results in the dehumanisation of the target group. This causes moral values to become inapplicable and the killing begins. Dehumanisation is a key part in genocide and it is when members of the less powerful group are made to seem worthless and not worth of moral consideration. This dehumanisation of less powerful group can explain violence against immigrants and can be used as real-world application of aggression. Research has suggested that personality may play a role in dehumanising with reference to aggression. Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a personality variable that predicts the social and political attitudes of individuals. High SDO individuals tend to dehumanise out-group members for example foreign refugees. This is because they have lack of sympathy for the refugees. This SDO behaviour is rationalised by legitimising myths which seem to make it acceptable and suggests the refugees deserve this hostility as they are less human than others. This theory rationalises the behaviour. A strength of a theory that can be applied to the real-world is that it has application. It is true to real life. This also supports the biological approach which has many strengths such as being able to easily test and prove the theory. However it doesn’t take into account individuals emotions and own feelings.
Another form of institutional aggression between groups is obedience of authority. This is where individuals are forced to obey their leaders regardless of personal moral repugnance, for example Nazi soldiers being forced to obey their leaders regardless of their personal moral inhibitions. Milgram believe the holocaust was due to the pressures on the soldiers to obey leaders regardless of moral inhibitions. However Mandel rejects Milgram’s claim because Milgram’s study ignores other possible causes. One of these other causes was shown by Goldhagen who believed anti-Semitism was deeply entrenched in German people that they condoned elimination of Jews and so it was their choice to take part in Nazi activity.
With most explanations we have to consider if the individual has freewill. For example the Nazi soldiers did have freewill to choose to join the Nazi’s and take part in anti-Semitism activities. The soldiers did have choice to choose not to obey and to choose how to deal with the situations. However the soldiers may have believed they had no choice. Where as the study on the personality trait shows less freewill and follows the determinism debate as it states that because it is personality caused by genetics it is hard to choose not to behave in that way.
This explanation also follows the nature debate as part of the explanation suggests our aggressive behaviour is due to our personality and genes which are biological and are products of our genes. The importation model also follows the nature approach because it states for example prisoners are products of their own history and traits which are not learnt but are predisposed. However it also suggests it follows the nurture approach because aggressive behaviour can be triggered by media, for example the radio broadcasts encouraging Hutu listeners to murder Tutsi neighbours because they are ‘cockroaches’. The deprivation model is also nurture as it states aggression is the product of conditions such as overcrowding which shows it is a product of their environment.
Finally we have to consider ethics. It is hard to gain consent from psychiatric patients who are not capable of giving consent. It is also ethically wrong to study people who have been dehumanised as they are probably not in the right state of mind. We also have to consider psychical harm caused by aggression, hazing or research finding.
by
niralix (student)
