PART I: The Confluence Model--Roots Of Violence

II. REINFORCERS: MULTIPLE FACTORS INFLUENCING THE WILLINGNESS TO KILL
Multiple Factors Influencing the Willingness to Kill
Reinforcer #1: Group and Charismatic Leaders
Reinforcer #2: Distance
Reinforcer #3: Idealism, Extremism, Fanaticism, Terrorism
Reinforcer #4: Alcohol and other drugs
Reinforcer #5: Electronic Media
Reinforcer #6: Stratification--Structural, Economic, and Cultural Violence
Reinforcer #7: Environmental Violence
Reinforcer #8: Brain Development and Activity
Reinforcer #9: Mental States
Reinforcer #10: Access to Deadly Weapons
Conclusion, Part I: The Confluence Model of Violence

PART II: Transcending Violence--Seeds Of Hope

Appendix

Bibliography

Index

ENDNOTES

PART I: THE CONFLUENCE MODEL --ROOTS OF VIOLENCE

Overview: The Roots of Violence

Violence is complex. It comes in many shapes and sizes. It grows in almost any soil. Ethnic warfare, school shootings, crimes of passion and murder-for-hire seem to have little in common. One specialist blames overblown self-esteem while another points to deep-rooted shame. Some point to external pressures, while others champion individual choices as primary concerns. Criminologists, sociologists, police, peace activists, military historians and forensic psychologists bring contrasting perspectives to the table.

Simple, "silver-bullet" explanations may fall briefly into public favor, but ultimately they miss the mark. An obsession with finding only one cause - child abuse, guns, greed, drugs, shame, hatred - invariably falls short.

Competing theories often throw light on specific incidents but not on others. Their value is greatly enhanced, however, when intertwined.

Internal and External Forces

Reinforcement for violence can come from external sources - messages received from acquaintances, the media and the world around us -or from internal sources - thoughts and feelings which lead to violent behavior.

Peer pressure, charismatic leaders, media violence, child abuse, cultural norms or structural violence are some external forces that can, in tandem with internal forces, push someone over the edge. These "blame society" approaches have their detractors. Ruth Kornhauser refers to the emphasis on social control rather caustically as the "automaton conformist of cultural deviance theory." She suggested that such theories render people so "passive, docile, tractable, and plastic," that in order "to be willful, greedy, and cruel," they would have to somehow be taught. That may not be as far-fetched as she hoped it would sound. For example, infants are generally passive, docile, and entirely vulnerable to outside influences. The USMC takes pride in molding men into Marines, conditioning them to think and behave as instructed. Children make easy fodder for military forces worldwide precisely because they can be manipulated and shaped into killers. We are influenced by the world around us.

But Kornhauser has a point. People are capable of resisting outside influences and thinking freely. Most poor people do not turn to crime based solely on economic status, most park users do not attack citizens solely due to poor lighting, most video game players don't become mass murderers, and most gun owners don't shoot anybody. External influences can't shoulder the entire blame. Something more must come into play.

Placing Blame

Behind every violent incident lies a unique mix of internal and external forces. Sufficiently deranged, irate, greedy, terrified or ashamed human beings may push themselves over the edge with little provocation. They may have reached that frame of mind through past mistreatment, neurochemical imbalances, or many other misfortunes. They may lack empathy for others, be driven by selfishness or live in terror. They may perceive threats where none exist.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, peace-loving individuals may have violence thrust upon them. A home-invasion rob-bery, military assault or rape can provoke justifiable violence in self-defense. Relentless bullying, racist provocation or social injustice may provoke violent responses. The initial "cause" of the violence may be external, but this incites internal motivators which in turn lead to externalized responses. More succinctly: what goes around comes around.

Between these two extremes, violence can erupt based on a combination of the two - internal predispositions and external reinforcement. These forces, in tandem, lead to a convincing perception of either a threat of violence and/or a benefit from engaging in violence - a threat or payoff value.

Causation can be subjective. Although in many cases the perpetrators and victims are easily identified, in many more the relationships and causes are unclear. Each side claims the title of victim. Each claims to be fighting for survival. Each claims that the opposing party initiated hostilities. Demonizing only one party, or placing blame fully on only internal or external forces, may be unrealistic. So goes the endless debate: which is to blame, internal or external forces - the individual or society?

Thoughts, feelings, beliefs, neurochemistry and brain structure may lay the groundwork for violence, but they don't develop or operate in a vacuum. James Gilligan, former Medical Director for the Bridgewater State Hospital for the Criminally Insane, points out,

". . . even those biological factors that do correlate with increased rates of murder . . . are not primary determinants or independent causes of violent behavior. They do not spontaneously, in and of themselves, create violent impulses; they act only to increase the predisposition to engage in violence, when the individual is exposed to the social and psychological stimuli that do stimulate violent impulses. In the absence of those stimuli, these biological factors acting alone do not seem to stimulate or cause violence spontaneously or independently."

Interactive forces; Inclusive models

Violence is usually interactive. Internal and external factors reinforce each other. Neuroscientist Debra Niehoff writes,

"Events in the outside world, including social interactions, have lasting effects on the neurobiological processes that underlie behavior. Positive exchanges between the brain and the environment push the individual toward socially acceptable behavior. Negative interactions increase the perception of threat; over time, the process may develop into a Ôvicious circle' that leads to violence."

As part of the blame-placing debate, scholars periodically attempt to construct balanced explanations. Rational choice theory, for example, suggests that offenders take social control factors, as well as personal risks and consequences, into consideration when mulling over opportunities to commit crimes. They then choose courses of action delivering the least pain and greatest pleasure. This model is credible when applied to cold, calculated violence, such as carefully planned robberies or military maneuvers. But what happens when an individual engages in violence while in an irrational state of mind, in the heat of anger, while intoxicated, drugged or otherwise unable to think straight? What about the many killers who have no idea why they acted, and in fact tell us they lost their minds?

James Gilligan, after decades of working with the criminally insane, wrote,

"I am convinced that violent behavior, even at its most apparently senseless, incomprehensible, and psychotic, is an understandable response to an identifiable, specifiable set of conditions; and that even when it seems motivated by 'rational' self-interest, it is the end product of a series of irrational, self-destructive, and unconscious motives that can be studied, identified, and understood."

The Rational choice model has some merit, but the concept of "rational" thought needs to be generously stretched to embrace the seriously deranged.

Transcending Violence - the Confluence Model

Violence theories cover a lot of territory. Debates regarding internal and external forces, nature and nurture, self-responsibility and repressive cultures will most likely continue far into the future. Nevertheless, each perspective can be usefully applied today, helping make sense out of violence. Each can be drawn upon in designing violence reduction and peace building measures. These perspectives, interwoven, form the tapestry laid out in the first half of Transcending Violence.

Chapter two lays out the foundation of this book, drawing initially on concepts discussed by Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, author of On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, and criminologist Lonnie Athens, whose work is described by Richard Rhodes in, Why They Kill; the Discoveries of a Maverick Criminologist. Grossman's military model and Athens' violentization model surfaced independently, but are remarkably compatible. These models, in turn, are generally consistent with many other explanations for violence. Intertwined, they can be condensed into a five-step model for teaching people to kill, equally applicable to family quarrels, ethnic conflicts or international warfare. The five steps are:

1. Brutalization (desensitization to violence).
2. Conditioning to use violence in response to problems or threats.
3. Role models for violent behavior.
4. Testing.
5. Virulence.

These steps can be augmented with DeBecker's "JACA" risk assessment model: (1) justification, (2) alternatives, (3) consequences and (4) ability - as follows:

1. Justification: the degree to which individuals feel violence is justified,
2. Alternatives: whether they believe there are alternatives to using violence under the present circumstances,
3. Consequences: whether they are aware of, have considered, or care about consequences of using violence, and
4. Ability: whether they have the tools, skills and abilities necessary to use violence.

For purposes of this book, the JACA model has been folded into the brutal-ization and conditioning process as follows:

1. The overall process will justify violence, while
2. role models or charismatic leaders will dismiss alternatives, brush off consequences, and provide skills and abilities necessary to commit violent acts.

Chapter 3 examines "reinforcers" for homicidal behavior. Separating these reinforcers from the five primary steps helps to make the process of homicidal behavior more comprehensible. Reinforcers aren't usually powerful enough on their own to cause violence, but make it much easier, and more likely that human beings will engage in homicidal behavior. These reinforcers are:

1. Demands, absolution, and manipulation.
2. Physical and psychological distancing.
3. Idealism, extremism and fanaticism.
4. Alcohol and other drugs.
5. Electronic media portrayals and promotion of fear, hatred and violence.
6. Economic, cultural and structural violence.
   a. Globalization, corporatization, amorality and military economics.
   b. Oppression, gender and ethnic friction.
   c. Government and criminal justice system dysfunctions.
7. Environmental dysfunction, alienation and isolation.
8. Child abuse, related brain dysfunctions, and psychological disorders.
9. Mental states:
   a. Shame, terror, rage and hopelessness.
   b. Lack of self-control.
   c. Narcissism and inflated self-esteem.
10. Access to deadly weapons and the ability to use them.

Summary

The five-step model, enhanced by internal and external reinforcers, provides a useful framework within which to explore and address real-world violence. Individual steps or reinforcers within this model cannot be accurately called causes in isolation, but they do contribute to and correlate with violence. Woven together, they have a synergistic effect. Variations on the five steps, enhanced or inflamed by a varied mix of the listed reinforcers, produce individually tailored paths to violence.

Tod Schneider consults nationally on Confrontation Management, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), violence and hope building. He also serves full time as the senior crime prevention specialist for the Eugene, Oregon, Police Department. He sits on the board of the International Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Association (ICA), and is the senior author of Safe School Design (ERIC 2000) as well as Transcending Violence.

Click here to go back to previous page.