How many of man's natural tendencies are we supposed to accommodate?
All of them, as long as civilized order can be maintained. Channeling and controlling our natural instincts is both the source and the result of great social progress... but nothing good comes from attempting to deny them. What causes neuroses in an individual can cause far greater dysfunctions in a society.
The best society is not the one in which the human least expresses his animal drives, but the one in which the expression of those drives promotes the most societal good.
Should we start allowing the 30 year old man to, legally, date the 17 year old? Only recently has the old-marrying-the-young become a social taboo.
I have been arguing in the affirmative for a long time-- starting when I was closer to seventeen than I am to thirty.
I am not disenfranchising your sources Korimyr, but what do you have when it comes to the most violent being the best mannered (I guess if we can conceive of a "best manner".) I'm genuinely interested.
Don't have a specific source, but I have seen several mentions of the theory that the intricate social rituals and multilayered of Japanese society were developed as a response to the brutal internecine warfare that they experienced until well into the modern era. edit: And Jerry pointed out that similar forces were at work in shaping the social graces of the Victorian era.
I'm not arguing that their manners are "better" than ours, but I don't think it's controversial to claim that they have a much greater care for public decorum than we do.
As for our own history, it may be another issue of causation versus correlation, but look at the last two centuries and the progressively less exacting standards of public behavior. It seems to follow neatly the progression from the prohibition of dueling to the slow decline of the practice, into the modern era with the increasing enforcement and stricter penalties of laws against fistfighting. As a smaller and smaller portion of young men have ever experiencing being punched in the mouth, they appear to be growing mouthier and mouthier.
And it's not just the younger generation. A woman who appeared to be in her seventies called me a "mother****er" in public a couple of months ago. Rolled down her car window and shouted it at me.
Where does "hierarchical aggression" end and bullying begin?
When the little monkey stops fighting back. Do you really think that this new attitude towards schoolyard fights is reducing the incidence of bullying? If anything, it appears to me to be encouraging it, because the victims must add fear of punishment to their fear of whatever punishment the bully is going to inflict upon them.
Even if you get your ass handed to you afterwards, punching a bully is a much more effective way of stopping him than telling on him. Fighting back establishes that you are not a soft target; all of the "conflict resolution" methods that they teach children in school are only effective while the adults are still watching.
Especially considering that bullies are rarely if ever punished as a result of "conflict resolution."
"Safe violence" is an oxymoron. Ask Ray "Boom Boom" Mancini about it. A school is putting themselves at a liability for endorsing this as a policy of conflict resolution.
Yes, they are, which is why this case is so shocking. But that is not evidence that it is the wrong policy, only that it is incompatible with our litigation-happy and irresponsible culture.
The steroid freaks would rule society. The Wild West was hardly more civilized than society today.
In most cases, losing a fight still hurts-- and it is the risk of defeat more than defeat itself which encourages courtesy. And while the Wild West may have been more violent-- and more disorderly-- than modern society, I would argue that it was on the whole more polite.
If a drunk driver hits my parked car. I am going to be mad. I could beat him up. This is no guarantee that he won't drive drunk again. It won't fix my car. It won't increase the resale value of my car when I sell it thus making me angry again.
Neither will accepting your anger and the fact that the other man's drunkenness is out of your control. That is what the law, the small claims court, and insurance policies are for.
On the other hand, beating him up-- or even landing a couple good shots on him-- will make you feel better, and it will leave you in a better emotional space for dealing with your anger when you see him swerving down the road again or when you get the bill from the repair shop.
