Human Aggression Essay, Research Paper

Genetically inherited or environmentally learned? The question has been asked

for years. Is human aggression genetically linked or is it the environment that

determines our aggressive nature? Over the years there have been many theories

proposed supporting the idea that aggression has a genetic link in humans.

"A century ago, Italian physician Cesare Lombroso claimed that sloping

foreheads, jutting chins and long arms were signs of born criminals" (Toufexis

52). More recently, claims have been made that "Man is a predator whose

natural instinct is to kill with a weapon"(Leakey 23). Again, there have

been quit a few ideas presented proclaiming mans’ genetic link to aggression.

Some, looking in hindsight, have been ridiculous while others have been more

thought provoking but all have lacked sufficient proof. Likewise, there have

been several theories suggesting that the environment is what determines our

aggressive nature. One psychologist expressed that behavior is changed by

learning. It is not genetic in humans to be aggressive (Montagu 183). Many

studies have shown this to be true. When humans are subjected to aggressive

environments they are significantly more likely to be aggressive themselves. In

addition, when these studies were put under scrutiny they were verified. In

light of this only one obvious conclusion remains. Human aggression is a learned

trait resulting from the environment. It is not an embedded characteristic

lurking deep within the genetic make-up of all humans. A large portion of the

science and psychological community would like us to believe that humans are

inescapably aggressive. Psychologist Sigmund Freud expressed that humans are not

loving creatures rather they are creatures who wish to engage in aggression

(Donahue). This statement refers to underlying instinctive urges that he

believed motivated aggressive behavior. That has yet to be proven. Some other

scientist have looked to the past attempting to explain the present human state

by using our so-called "violent history" as a basis for their claims.

Claiming that, man has killed in all forms throughout history. Violence and

aggression are as much a part of today as they were hundreds of years ago (Dubos

42). "The sombre fact is that we are the cruelest and most ruthless species

that has ever walked the earth" (Storr 17). These concepts and statements

best represent this type of thinking. This segment of the science community has

continued to use this fallacy explain mans’ behavior. The writers who presented

it this way expressed it best; man is a killer because man kills or man kills

because he is a killer. It is circular reasoning with no basis in fact (Parens

13). "There is no genetic coding that inevitably results in

aggressiveness┘" (Dubos 42). Other theories, though more scientific,

still fail to justify the hypothesis that humans are innately aggressive.

"In the 1960’s scientists advanced the now discounted notion that men who

carry an XXY chromosome pattern rather than the normal XY pattern, were

predisposed to become violent criminals" (Toufexis 52). It seems that every

theory concerning mans genetic link to aggression has been disproved or left

unproven. They simply just do not have the evidence to back the idea. Perhaps

they are victims of their own beliefs. Psychologist Ashley Montagu sums this up

best. He expressed that when discussing the cause of human violence we might

find that most people do not look at the facts and then make their decisions but

rather they choose the facts that best support what they already believe (23).

"It’s tempting to make excuses for violence" (Toufexis 52). Certainly

no one will accept responsibility for thousands of years of human aggression.

Rightly, no one should be asked to do so. However, we do need to be willing to

accept responsibility for ourselves as well as our actions. That is why it is

imperative that we no longer attempt to use the genetic crutch to justify

aggression. In other words, "behavioral genetics is the same old stuff in

new clothes… It’s another way for a violent, racist society to say people’s

problems are not their own fault, because they carry ‘bad’ genes" (Parens

13). We must look for a more suitable and consistent way of thinking. Because,

while it is true that many humans are killers, it is equally true that many are

not (Dubos 42). The best explanations of man’s aggressive behavior have been

those presented by Scientists and Psychologists looking for answers in the

environments we live in. Studies of violent crimes in different cultures have

given insight about whether or not the environment influences aggressive

behavior. In one study, it was found that America has more killings per year

than any other country by far, suggesting that there are environmental factors

working which influence aggressive behavior (Toufexis 52). In addition, the

study found that murder among the African-American community was significantly

higher than any other ethnic community in America. In fact, murder was the

number one cause of death among black men and women between the ages of fifteen

and twenty-four (Toufexis 52). Attempting to explain these facts using the

genetic attribution seems almost silly. Are you willing to accept the idea that

Americans are more genetically inclined towards aggression than people in other

countries? Those other countries from which we all, but the Americans Indians,

immigrated from. Furthermore, since African-Americans have a higher violent

crime rate than other Americans, does that mean African-Americans have genes

more strongly programmed for aggression. Again, it sounds silly. The answer lies

in the environment and culture we are raised in. How a person is brought up and

what type of stimuli is present is what determines how they will behave (Storr

19). Africa for instance has a very low violent crime rate when compared to

America yet native Africans and African-Americans share the same genes. Why

then, does the level of aggression differ so much? The answer again, is in the

environment and what we learn from it. Aggression is a learned characteristic

that is influenced and sometimes even nurtured by the environments we are raised

in. "One learns to be unaggressive simply by not being aggressive" (Montagu

183). In conclusion, science has not proven humans to be genetically inclined

towards aggression. In fact, many of the theories presented concerning innate

human aggression have been disproved. Leading one to believe that the genetic

link to aggression is, at best, a scapegoat for a long history of violence. On

the other hand, there have been many studies performed concerning the effects of

environment on aggressive behavior and the results proved that the environment

does influence aggressive behavior. Also, when this research was scrutinized the

outcome was the same. The results were repeatable and the research was proven.

If the facts speak for anything it is that human aggression is a learned trait

influenced by the environment, not a characteristic embedded in our genetic

make-up.