The Cycle of Abuse

The cycle of abuse refers to the somewhat grim pattern that many people who were abused as children go on to abuse their own kids. This creates a depressing spiral wherein generation after generation of kids get hit, raped, belittled, neglected, etc.

Paradoxically enough, I see this as a source of hope. The key word in the above paragraph is 'many'. If many people who are abused (or otherwise traumatized) go on to abuse, this means that some do not. Furthermore, some others abuse less damagingly than they were abused.

Now, the interesting thing is to study the history of convicted child abusers. Studies of people who sexually molest children have shown that the vast majority of them (about 98%) were sexually molested themselves as children. I have not seen as clear a connection in the more general case of all child abusers. However, I consider it reasonable to suppose that most people who abuse their kids suffered some significant formative trauma. All research that I have read in the area supports such a supposition.

What conclusions can be drawn from this picture? Each person who abuses less than they were abused contributes to a generation which is collectively less traumatized than its predecessor. (There will be exceptions in this caused by external traumas: war, natural disaster etc.) I propose that this decrease in collective trauma level is one of the driving forces behind the change which I have been documenting in human nature.

A common theme is that of bequeathing a better world to ones children. I think that we have evidence that not only is this possible, but that it has been happening for millenia. Personally, as I struggle to teach my children better ways to manage their emotions than I was taught, I find this immensely reassuring.

The History of Prisons

I've been reading lately about the history of prisons in Medieval Europe.  Prisons (and lunatic asylums) have traditionally been where society places individuals who cannot or will not conform closely enough to societal norms.  It hadn't occurred to me independantly, but the whole concept of a prison has to have started somewhere. 

In Medieval Europe, prisons originated as places to confine prisoners awaiting trial, torture, or execution.  In short, the concept of detention as a form of punishment wasn't part of the general culture prior to 1000 AD.  That accords with my (limited) knowledge of prior civilizations as well.  There are no indications that Romans or Egyptians used imprisonment as anything other than a means of holding a prisoner until the "real" punishment would be administered.

This change in attitude (that imprisonment itself forms a type of punishment) actually requires a fair bit of insight.  At first glance, the idea of having a guaranteed roof over your head, meals provided, religeous needs attended to could even be appealing to members of the lower classes at least.  At the time, you had to pay for the priviledge of being imprisoned so it wasn't free but still...  Even today, you can sometimes see people referring to low-security prisons as having it "easy."  So the attitude that "time in jail" counts as a punishment and/or a deterrent requires quite a leap. 

Truly, what it requires, is an acknowledgement that basic needs such as food, shelter, and sex are not sufficient for happiness and satisfaction in life.  (Prostitutes frequented medieval prisons so imprisonment did not imply chastity.)  Imprisonment can only be viewed as a form of punishment once personal liberty is seen to be of value.  Thus the establishment of prisons as a deterrent reflects a basic change in the attitudes of society toward valuing liberty.

Ideallists today would prefer to see prisons as a place of reform rather than punishment.  This is reflected in terms such as 'department of corrections' and in the very concept of parole.  So we see a progression in the attitudes society shows toward criminals.  Initially, they were faceless beings upon whom vengence is warranted.  Then, they were recognized as human enough to suffer such abstractions as a loss of liberty.  Today, they are viewed (by some at least) as people who still have potential to contribute positively to society and to grow personally.  Somewhere along the way, vengence has been diluted by empathy.

So What?

 

Before I get too deep into documenting the changing face of violence in society, it's reasonable to ask why it matters.  As far as I'm concerned, 'because it's interesting' is a perfectly valid answer. I'm a supporter of pure research in all its various forms. However this particular line of inquiry could have more immediate impact. Specifically, it could lead to a change in our approach to various aspects    of social policy and even to metaphysics.

The most obvious effect would be on our approach to censoring violence in the media. On one hand, censors could argue that if less violence is the way of the future, then we should work to usher it in sooner. I would lean in the opposite direction though. I would say that to the extent violence in movies and video games is a problem, it's fixing itself and so we should leave it to take its course. Moreover, history seems to demonstrate a common human drive to witness violence and we should simply be glad that these days it's sublimated into fantasy worlds and no longer involves actual violence toward living beings. Either way, this investigation would certainly inform the debate.

The next obvious question is whether this effect is reflecting a change solely in Western culture or a deeper change in human nature itself. That could easily be addressed by cross-cultural historical comparisons. Unfortunately, my personal knowledge only extends to Western history. If, as I personally suspect, this effect extends across cultural boundaries, then we start discussing changes in human nature.

The trends that I have been documenting are changes in the amount of violence desirable or acceptable to the average citizen in a given time period. It is beyond question that there are always people who are far from average. In this case, on one side we get saints and on the other, psychopaths. If we can understand how and why society is changing, then perhaps we can apply that knowledge to help bring the psychopaths closer to the societal average. (I’m not particularly interested in finding a way to give saints a taste for blood.) Imagine how different our world would be if prisons became truly a place for reform rather than punishment or deterrence!

What about atrocities?

In my first post, I outlined a theory that humanity has been becoming more humane over time. The most obvious challenge is the history of the most recent history. The twentieth century is covered in examples of mass bloodshed. The most archetypical example being the Holocaust in which Nazi Germany exterminated over 10 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and members of other groups which they considered undesirable. If violence is truly becoming less socially acceptable, how can such a mass atrocity have occurred within the last 70 years?

I argue that the example of the Holocaust actually strengthens rather than weakens my argument. The Holocaust was an atrocity. With full respect to Jewish feelings, I will however point out that history is replete with atrocities. This one differs from many of its predecessors in that the perpetrators were not open about what they were doing. Hitler found it necessary to cloak his actions in euphemisms like “the Final Solution” and to keep the full horror of his plan from public view. During the course of World War II, neither the Allies nor (controversial point here) the German public were aware that Hitler was systematically exterminating entire populations. In fact, not one single concentration camp was on German soil. It wasn't until the final stages of the European conflict when the Nazis were losing territory that the concentration camps and gas chambers were discovered.

By contrast, the Spanish Inquisition had no compunctions about clearly stating their goals. They would publicly declare the “crimes” and decree punishment for heretics (including, of course, Jews). The victims who were condemned to death were turned over to the civil authorities and were often burned at the stake and otherwise tormented and killed in squares in the centres of towns. These civil authorities made a point of scheduling such events on feast days so that the local citizenry had the time free to come witness the executions.

In the centuries between the Inquisition and the Holocaust public acceptance of wholescale massacre seems to have declined significantly. Hopefully, in centuries to come, it will become utterly inacceptable to conduct such pogroms.

Violence for Entertainment through History

It's common to hear people bemoaning the morals of the next generation or the increasing violence in the media. The question is: are their comments valid? My answer is a resounding No! Specifically, I propose to demonstrate that violence in society and particularly in entertainment has been declining since the time of the Roman Empire.

Consider a citizen of the Roman Empire would have thought nothing of spending a rest day taking his family to the local Colosseum. There, he might watch races or athletic games but he might equally easily watch people being thrown to lions or gladiatorial combat. So he would sit there and watch a fight to the death close enough to smell the bloodshed and perhaps even be splattered by gore. This was commonly acceptable entertainment! The men condemned to provide this display had done nothing wrong beyond being born to a slave mother. Today, witnessing such a display would be considered traumatizing. Nonetheless, this is what Romans considered entertainment. Indeed, if one gladiator bested the other without killing him, he would look to the local leader for direction. It is said that the crowds would roar in approval if the decision were to kill the gladiator.

Later on, in the Middle Ages, the practice of killing and/or torturing people for pure entertainment seems to have become unacceptable. This, in itself, is a big step. Don't get me wrong: people were tortured and killed in great numbers during this time and such events were definitely considered entertaining to the masses. It's just that there had to be some sort of justification. The victim had to be accused (not convicted) of some sort of crime. The crime could have been something which we would consider to be utterly minor, but at least there would have to be some minimal justification. Given that justification though, the event would certainly be considered entertainment. People would bring their families and possibly a picnic lunch to watch heretics burn at the stake or the torture and maiming of petty thieves. If such a situation was not available, one could always torture or kill innocent animals for entertainment. It was not uncommon to tie a bear in place and set a pack of starving wolves to attack him. I understand that a popular form of comedy was to drop a cat on a raging fire. The poor animal`s yowls and attempts to escape were considered the height of humour.

Skip another few centuries. In Victorian England the death penalty still existed and was used as a matter of course. Executions were still public events but the element of entertainment had dimmed. An execution had become a solemn event which was expected to only follow a trial and conviction. The crime could still be quite petty: breaking and entering for instance, but at least the accused would have had the opportunity to prove his or her innocence. The practice of tormenting animals for entertainment still existed but it was no longer something one discussed in polite company and certainly was not considered a family event.

Comparatively, where are we at today? One could argue that through television and movies, we experience as much gore as Roman citizens did. However, we do so with the underlying knowledge that this display was created without harming a single being. Today, even animals are protected from harm during the creation of films. It is also worth noting that this last, protecting animals from harm during filming, was enacted as a response to popular demand. The film industry was not coerced by legislation: it responded voluntarily to popular outcry about the deathrate of horses during the filming of Westerns. Now, even movies which have nothing to do with animals carry a statement from the SPCA to the effect that this movie was created without harm to any animals.

With this history in mind, somehow the violence on television seems less of an outrage and more part of a positive progression to me. Opinions?