Chapter 6 Microcosmic Theories of Violent Conflict Su Chen Wen

Introduce Social scientists have turned increasingly toward motives, reasons, and causal factors that may be operative both in individual human beings and in social collective Even though people are not immediately aware of them and do not become consciously aware of them except as a result of scientific observation and methodical analysis

Why do individuals behave aggressively ? Why do states and other groups or actors wage wars ? Macrocosmic and Microcosmic Psychological Multiple explanatory factors

Biological and Psychological theories Conflict has an inside and an outside dimension. It arises out of the internal dimensions of internal dimensions of acting singly or in groups, and also out of external conditions and social structures. Sociobiology Sociobiologists

Socialization, Displacement, and Projection The frustration-aggression school has attempted to move from the individual to the social level more by logical inference than by experimentation. Frustration-aggression patterns are culture-bound, the socialization of aggression takes place in all human societies, attenuating hostile action among members of the in-group by directing aggressive impulses against out-groups.

Other Psychological Theories “Intolerance of ambiguity” “Nationalism” certainly contains strong and unmistakable psychological ingredients. “Escape from freedom”

Learned aggression and military training Bandura has shown that the conversion of socialized individual into effective military combatants requires a carefully conceived and executed training program Frustration-Aggression-Displacement syndrome.

Learning, Images, and International conflict Should not discount too much the role of psychological factors in the onset and conduct of war. Leaders and citizens alike form their attitude-friendly, hostile, or indifferent-about the world, foreigners, and other nations and cultures through a complex process of psychosocial development from youth to old age.

Kenneth Bouding, the behavior of complex political organizations is determined by decisions that are in turn the functions of the decision maker’s image. The images of decision makers are more important than the images of the masses. According to Boulding , the folk-image is a mass image, share by rules and ruled alike.

The notion of mirror images became popular during the Cold War and was based on the assumption the people of two countries involved in a prolonged hostile confrontation develop fixed, distorted attitude that are really quite similar.

Instinct theories of aggression The key microcosmic concept developed by biologists and psychologist for the explanation of conflict is aggression. Hostile aggression Instrumental aggression “Social labeling process”, that is , on social judgment that determine which injurious or destructive acts are to called “aggressive”.

LORENZ : Intraspecific aggression Konrad Lorenz, aggression is an instinct, which under natural conditions helps to ensure the survival of the individual and the species. The typical aggressive instinct, he says , occurs among members of the same species, not between members of different species. It is intraspecific rather than interspecific, and it is best illustrated by the tenacity with which a fish, mammal, or bird will defend its territory against others of its own species.

Frustration-Aggression Theory Most psychologists today trace individual aggression to some form of frustration. “Aggression is always a consequence of frustration” and that frustration always leads to some form of aggression. “Frustration-Aggression Theory” appeals to the common sense of most people, who know from personal experience that they have at time felt aggressive urges after being frustrated.

Aggression diversion and reduction Social psychologist often point out the expression of aggression within a society may be either covert or overt. Scientists may develop culturally acceptable ways of either reducing or working off aggressive impulses.

Conclusion: Microcosmic theories in perspective This chapter has shown how complex are the biological and psychosocial foundations of politics. However important first-image causes of war may be –and no one denies their important- we may never completely understand the factors that operate, consciously or unconsciously , and personal level.