CRUEL CREEDS, VIRTUOUS VIOLENCE Religious Violence across Culeure and History JACK DAVID ELLERPublished 2010 by Prometheus Books sion ofthe publisher, excep Amberst, New York 14228-2119 VOICE: 716-691-0133 FAX: 716-691-0137 EUSBOOKS.COM, 54321 Daa ous violence: religions violence ac re and hissoey by Jack GN495.2.B55 2010 306.609—de22 2010022136 Printed in che United Staces of America on acid-free paper CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Chapter 1: Understanding Violence ‘Whar Is Violence? ‘What Makes ‘A Model of Expanding Violence ‘Huurcing without Feeling Bad— Chapter 2: Understanding Religion ‘What Is Religion? Popul Beings, Forces, and "Types ‘The Diversity of Sacrifice Theories of Sacrifice: Girard and Burkere Toward a Better Understanding of Sa Chapter 4: Self-Injury Chapter 5: What Is Persecution? Persecution in che Ancient/Non-Christian World of Christians Persecution in Islam “The Persecution of u 2 16 18 a3 5 46 52 6 o 76 81 82 85 105 108 7 120 133 143, 149 158 161 162 168 170 173 184 1886 CONTENTS Persecution of Religion by Antireligion Persecution by the American Religious Right ‘The Vietues of Persecuting—and Being Persecuted Chapter 6: Ethnoreligious Conflict Ethnicity, Cu jon, and Conflict Ethnoteligious Conflict in the Modern World Why Ethnoreligious Conflict Now? Chapter 7: War ‘The Religion and the War in “Religious War Religious War among the Ancient Hebrews “Holy War” in Christianity: The Crusades “Holy Wac" in Christianity: The Buzopean Religious Wats Taiping “Rebellion” in China Islam and Jihad War in Hinduism “Fighting Orders”: Saintly Soldiers ‘The Mythology of War Chapter 8: Homicide and Abuse When Is Religious Crime “Religious” and Religious Homicide Religious Abuse: Women and Spouses Religious Abuse of Children But Religion Is Supposed to Make People “Good” and “Moral” Religions of Nonviolence ‘The Religious Contribution co Noaviolence NOTES BIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX 191 197 201 207 208 215 238 241 242 252 256 260 263 267 215 279 283 291 292 297 3LL 319 327 331 333 342 360 407 427 INTRODUCTION T. world is awash in books on religion and violence, but then the world is awash in religious violence. Why do we need another book on the subject? ‘The answer is that, while many of the previous books have made important contributions to our understanding of this essential phenomenon, none has ‘quite finished the job. There are two main reasons for this. The frst is the atti- tude that the authors tend to take coward religion as a possible source of vio- ceved, “They either exaggerate religion's role, religion Jence. As MeTernan has 0 denouncing it as the root cause of all conflict, ot they deny chat ‘re could be responsible in any way for indiscriminate violence.” That is, some give the impression chat religion is guilty ofall violence in the world, and others give the impression that religion is innocent of all violence in the world. James “Haught is one of the former, who, as an avowed atheist, delights in i the evils that religion has done, As he writes in Holy Horrors, “A grim pattern is visible in history: When religion is che ruling force in a society, it produces horror. The stronger the supernatural beliefs, che worse the inhumanity. A cul- ture dominated by intense faith invariably is cruel to people who don't share the faith—and sometimes to many who do."? ‘An example of the latter is Charles Kimball, who attempts to draw between “authentic” religion and “corrupted” religion. At the core of “all authentic, healthy, life-sustaining religions, one always finds this clear require- ment," he writes: to love and care for each other. When the behavior of believers “is violent and destructive, when it causes suffering among their neighbors, you can be sure the religion has been corrupted and reform is desperately needed. When religion becomes cvil, chese corruptions are always present.”> Although, as we will see, Kimball’ analysis of “warning signs” of violent religion is useful, ic will not do to assert that “ceal” religion lacks or suppresses violence while “alse” religion exhibits or promotes ie. That does not even represent the beliefs of the members of the religion, who are usually pretty sure that theirs is the true religion and that everyone else is deluded. “The study of religious violence does not need detractors or cheerleaders for serating,10 INTRODUCTION teligious traditions are violent, and some have made great achievemen promotion of nonviolence. Mose studies ofr in che jous violence do not discuss non- nce do nor discuss violence, but chout each other. > Feligion can produce violence, and i can produce nonviolence. ce, and it can produce nonviolence. The cor -quals nonvi- in human social, cul- lence, and most the two projects are likely and mote or I not be offering a utopian outlook for the future—that we @ better understanding of lence appears in us in its rel with ‘we are and why vio- ious as well as nonreligious guises. Whae we do revelation is up to us. CHAPTER 1 UNDERSTANDING VIOLENCE TT... are few things in life that people claim to understand better and to deplore more than violence. They are wrong on both counts. Violence is dra- ym complex than we recognize or perhaps want to recognize: we jeve that bed people do violence to good people for no particular her than the perpetrators’ badness. But this cannot be crue, as we Wi see. First of of us can, and many of some kind of we may do so with the noblest of intentions and ay go to war for our country or fight co defend lence. Some we censure, some we commit ambivalently, and some we openly celebrate Itisa neglected but essential fact that we cannot appreciate the relationship igion and violence unless we grasp the nacure and meaning of hip. Yet our understanding of both reli ther, we usually consider too few offspring of their ink only s terrorism. How- relat violence are inadequate troubled mariage: when we * we cend to ever, those are not the only types of lence of violence in general, nor are those types excl rorism. So we have two projects at the outset of our study: to explore che naeure re of religion, These projects will take us to and may not really want to go. ively religious: chere is also secular war and secular ter- of violence and co explore the places we may not hav’12. CRUEL CREEDS, VIRTUOUS VIOLENCE WHAT IS VIOLENCE? seem perfect for instance, that the language of violence c ists of many related and overlapping bue nonsynonymous terms, such a8 aggression, hasilty, compe sion, and conflict. Scholats wwe speak regularly of s to refrain from ry and to shake hands after the contest. Ei st not always equally violent; ‘Violence need not even be disecely interperson *t person. What has been that is, a clear case of one led sructural via nal or at least “invis- sical harm) caused by che ns of society. Paul Farmer takes the concept of jon “connotes antagonistic , even when consciously performed, is nonv within che human body another way, he sees po ‘an inner rendeny ject to teason or sense.” Put ms of aggression as referring to ion, both unrelenting and ubiquitor "a kind of Understanding Violence 13 I"? Violence, on the other 12a judgment, « label that drive of instince—separate from “the act hhand, he finds co be less a name for a ki people put on certain instances of acts the unaccepebilicy in chis usage, spective secver, For « is behavior that harms someone. ‘Asan “objective” account, that is probably necessarily erue. But there are many application of such a simple definition more In response, we might insist that variables and nuances that make 1¢ harm have to be? Ace a slap and a murder both violence? harm have to be? Are accidental and purposeful * How great docs + How physical does the harm hat al abuse, verbal abuse, and physical abuse + How undeserved does the ve acts both fow unwanted does che harm have to be? Are masochistic or self licted and other-directed injuries both violence? human does the victim or the perpetrator have to be? Is a tiger finicion or criterion of violence. The main poi cask—to determine scion is in the end a human ‘evaluation: by violence we tend to mean “harm that we do not approve of.”14 CRUEL CREEDS, VIRTUOUS VIOLENCE There is no escaping the fact chat the world isa violent place. I do not mean ‘merely the human or social world, although ic is eminently violent, Buc che nae- ural world itself shows its violence; ie i, as the saying goes, red in tooth and claw. At che same time, it also shows ies cooperation and peace. There are cases in nonhuman animals of individuals helping each other, caring for each othes, even risking injury and death for each other. There ate cases of two different species interacting symbiotically for the benefit of both, when one could easily Kell and cat the other. But there is no denying that organic life depends on organic death—that life eats life—and that nonliving forces (tornados, earth- quakes, and tsunamis) can bring destruction. We sometimes speak of a “violent storm,” but we mean chat metaphorically, since I assume that nobody thinks the storm hus violent passions or intentions Violence is ubiquicous. It is also relative, If there is such a thing as “justii- able homicide” or “just war,” then viol (according to certain people, from a cert «is relative: some violence is good perspective). The victim ofa justifi- able homicide is every bit as dead as the victim of an unjustifiable one, and a juse war can be even more lethal and brutal chan an unjustified one. There is no idene can be unjustified and a large incident can be justified. So the real issue appears to be not the damage that is inflicted by the behavior but the legitimacy of the behavior that caused the damage. Granted, the 3rm may be out ofall proportion to ehe cause for it, but then that is precisely what earns it the verdict of illegitimacy. But yy and che reality of legitimate and justified violence; except the most cotal pacifises allow for the possi nake my day” laws (which allow a person to use deadly force against intruders in his or her home) are one example, and they prove our point particulasly w. ce such laws did not exise until recent! ‘That is, the same behavior that was ¥ an ineruder) is now in some places legitimate and legal. Of course, we can only use “appropriate force” and only in particular ways (no shooting in the back), but that simply farther demonstrates that some kinds of force, even deadly force, are not just tolerable bue actually rule governed, and others are not—and we decide which In other words, violence is only a problem when it crosses a certain line, when it goes beyond the bounds of “acceptable violence.” And since we humans deter- ‘mine, based on ou values and beliefs, what is acceptable violence, chese bounds differ for differenc societies and historical periods and for different groups and individuals within a society or period, The Semai, a peaceful tribal people in legitimate and illegal a short time ago ( Understanding Violence 15 ‘Malaysia, believed that all violence was completely unacceptable and thar even bothering somebody with excessive demands was an unbearable disturbance of the peace (See chapter 9) ‘The Yanomamo, on the other hand, have been described as “fierce,” placing a high value on aggression, teaching it to their children, and practicing it on each other—men hitting women, pounding each other in various kinds of “duels,” and raiding each other's villages.* The ancient Spartans tossed weak or deformed male babies off of cliffs and raised the rest to be skilled and disciplined warriors, and che medieval Japanese developed a wat- rior ethos, known as busbido, thae glorified death as the vocation of the warrior or samurai—and not so much the death of the enemy as the death of the self The Hagakure, an eighteenth-cencury treatise on the warrior code, urged the samurai to become “as one already dead,” to meditate daily “on ineviable death” and on all the ways in which chat death fail one should consider himself as dead."? Beyond that, he was taught to take his own life willingly at ¢he order of or merely for the honor of his mastet. Thus even suicide was normal and noble. Presumably, che Japanese samurai would not have called war or suicide “violence"—or at least ifhe had, he would not have ight come: “And every day without meant it in a derogatory way. ‘The conclusion must be that vi violent” is not automatically a problem and cause for concern and lence is not only varied but variably valued. Simply bei condemnation—or not by the perpetrating party, at any race. Conceivably, « Yanomamo villager did not enjoy being raided, but he would have understood and accepted the place of raiding in his culture. Conceivably, a Japanese wacrior did not enjoy being killed, but he would have understood and accepted his appointed role in life, as long as he could So even the “victim's” point of view, which we tend ¢o privilege in thinking aboue violeace, is not always consistent and negative about che value of Finally, notice that we have not invoked religion so far to explain these types of violence, Argi jgious—particularly Confucian and Buddhist— concepts entered into the bushido code, such as the transitory nature of life and in battle and in hor beauty and the importance of duty to one’s superior. Presumably the supernatusal reason for their violence. But ‘Yanomamo had some spiritual religion is not a necessary or suffi folene with religior \¢ component in violence. People can be iad without i, Most imporcant of all, very rrdom and violent or no single form of religious violence—from war to servorism to persecution to mas self-injury to rime and abuse—bas its nonreligious correlate, There are nonreligious wars, nonreligious terrorists, nonreligious martyrs, nonreligious violent crimes,16 CRUEL CREEDS, VIRTUOUS VIOLENCE and so on, In other words, rel violence in the human condi indedly responsible for ‘WHAT MAKES VIOLENCE POSSIBLE— AND LIKELY? is perpetrated by vio- ood people do good, and bad people do bad. Violence, in this view, is possible and likely when bad and y" factors, especially the enemy, the outsider, even the “monster”; ‘2 myth precisely because it does noe scand up to the facts. As Cper- they ate pable of restraining it—all the evidence indicates that we and they are not so dif- ferent afterall, Psychologists and social scien violence is mostly /eernsd and situational. Unless the Semai and the Yanomamo/ Sparcans{Japanese are innately different, the source of their differences lies else- rardo, one of the leading psycholog- searchers on violence, conducted a famous experiment or simulation in which he assigned some participants to be “prison guards” and others to be “prisoners” and set them to play their parts in a mock prison. In the so-celled Stanford Prison Experiment, participants so quickly and completely fe Understanding Violence 17 their roles that che level of simulation early—and this despite the fact that che subjects were randomly ations they occupy as by their “personal of specific circumstances and roles and act accordingly when we ate in those ci- cumstances and roles, Ido not act like a prison guard most of the time, bue experiment.” Of course, chere was no learning exp. ly subjects of the experiment we it (nonexistent) victims. With eac 1a shock and cura up the voleage. To everyone's 0 covert emotional distress of some of the shockers—a full ewo-thirds of them gave what they believed co be fatal ld good people do such a bad thing? leting themselves other subjects. The yuld not see but could hear response the ee wrong ims.!° Buc why 1 experimenter, the off ly che looking lab coat who stood over the perpetrators and gave chem such ” or “The experimen requires that you con- hosity figure, people would che shockers were less obedient arrived at a set of conditions chat contribute to the incidence of violence. They include: * an ideology or set fying beliefs for the actions, which is presented by the authority;them as “animals” o “insects” or “dire”; * diffusion of responsibility, such that the actual perpetrator is not directly ately responsible for the actions or the consequences of the * providing mo means of escape from the sieuation—what we might call a ‘otalized” or “absolute” * deindividuarion, which wolves methods to remove or submerge the uniforms, and group of human cruelty and violence, has simi- sd four root causes of aggression: inserument egoism (especially threatened From these I we create the are met, then we y expect violence to flow from them. I read, we minimize chese conditions—which is noe impo: then we could expect at least a whatever its original source. One A MODEL OF EXPANDING VIOLENCE If we have seen anyching so far, itis chat v is not a simple 1. In fact, we can specify six inde- 0 propose but @ complex and multidimensional pendent bur related contribu independent, that Instead, it applies to Understanding Violence 19 these various areas, it be prone violence ing else—at to more violence and more excensive, intensive, and accept ‘The six dimensions or mechanisms of violence ate: Instinct or the 1 2. Integration 3. Identicy 4, Inseituti 5 Inter 6, Ideology Instinct or the Individual Humans are beings capable of committing violence. If we were not, we would rot have human violence. Part of our potential for destructiveness and aga uniquely human features, and another part comes from our gen- eral characteristics as natural creatures. Just as religion is hardly the only source che only agents of violence in the world lence cakes place at the individual level. another—or when one lion h sion comes fro of human violence, so humans are ‘Much nacural as well as social vi ‘When one gazelle or lion fights wi20 CRUEL CREEDS, VIRTUOUS VIOLENCE gazelle—individual or instinctual aggression is occurring. When one human fights with another human, this is also and usually I be see in a context of ot it fights another, ial violence). Living beings have the capacity for aggression or what is referred by ethologists (animal behaviorists) as agonistic behavior Some beings appear to be inherent ‘Hamsters are not very aggressive, but gri when one sol is not merely 8 agonistic than bears are. Some situations or causes than others: feeding and mating can be rea ce (in the case of feeding, both to the prey 0 surprise then that species and species that compete for mates would exhibie particular vi is usually constrained by ing. mechaniens. the death. At some red, the his victory; and to the competing predator wt in the contest, when the dominance of et will display a behavior that stops the wi 1e behavior in a fatal slash one has been establi from press that have “domi ll have more opport maybe all the male sexual comp. dead to che gene in fighting near to or to death. Als 101 anyhow, so thete is litele to lose those who win fights and mate tend co be And since most males may iey constitute a genetic surplus that can be expended in defense and other agonistic es. Primates peaceful even been known to kill babies, sometimes when the young are competing males and sometimes for no apparent reason at all. Inbil but at other times, unlike the vast Understanding Violence 21 species, their seem to have mans are known to scream, pound thei , and exposing one’s weakness often the best way £0 end the attack. Humans seem to sion of his psychoanalytic theory chat humans possess two opposing ins oward hate, Or to pur it better, one drive (ous, cegrating rela- ‘ious parts of the mind or , including mental operations binding mencal and social relations and social elements t (hanatas) that wants not so much to het. Confronting this unifying force is a death instinct I and destroy as to dis-integrate and return to a lower energy state. Ic is the f thes people apart or even uunbinds the elements of the mind. Patt the horrors of World War I suggested that these were darker things going on in the human psyche than instinetual thee le as well as a constructive ial. He was cosrect, ‘we have violent pocential as well as nonviolent po in recognizing chat humans are complex, ambiguous, and not entirely rational lence of individuals is ft Another possible factor in the vi chologists like22. CRUEL CREEDS, VIRTUOUS VIOLENCE wadictory. Any cheory or intervention chat does not recognize the natural capacity of humans to both help and harm misses the point and is doomed to fail. Integration into Groups Humans—and ¥y other beings—are violene as individuals; they have hos- .” However, in aggregates, this violence is mote common 1d more extreme. Everyone who has studied group or crowd behavior for the pase cencury or more has commented chat groups seem to have a mind of their s—but in groups, parties, peopl Toward Bloom have gone so far as to suggest that groups consti- tute a kind of “s erorganism” with its own life and naeute and characteristics, Whether or not we care to go that far, it is cerainly clear dl _groups either brings out something new or adds something new uals who compose che groups. ‘One of the first scholars usly as a topic of seudy was Gustav Le Bon, whose 1896 book The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind paints adi i picture of human mass behavior. In the fourth chapter of his book, which is with which they have been inspi rt and extreme sentim Understanding Violence 23 ‘a seligious sentiment.” expressed “by giving it che name ‘This sentiment has very simple characteristics, such as worship of a being supposed superior, fear of the power wich which the being is ezedited, blind submission to its command the desice to spread them, and a accepted, Whether rupemnatural and miraculous ously accord a ies essence always rom are found to be present to the same extent. Crowds uncon a or che victorious lea Finally he discovers the ready resort co “intolerance and fanaticism” in the mobi- lized group, which ves in possession of che ics are to be when they are inspized by a conviction of any blind sub he convictions of crowds assume those chara extirpate by fire and sword whoever faieh. The methods of the In uine and sturdy.” Subsequent researches buile on Le Bon’s wo to Brie Hoffer’ work on mass movements below, about doctrines and ideologies. However, he also makes some comments that ate point. One isthe need for “unifying agents” to keep gro’ ion, persuasion and coercion, leadership,24 CRUEL CREEDS, VIRTUOUS VIOLENCE action, and suspicion—most of them quite negative. Of these, he thinks chat hatred “is the mosc accessible and comprehensive of all de + Mass movements xe and spread without belief in a god, but never without belief in a * That is, a mobilized group or movement needs an enemy, a “them,” co fuel ies organization and motivation. Even worse, he ses a certain organizational advantage to doing harm to the opposition: “To wrong those we hate is to add fuel co our hasred. ... The most effective way to sileace our guiley c to convince ourselves and deed depraved creatures, deserving every punishment, even extermination.” In the end, “It is probably as true that violence breeds fanaticism as that fanaticism Another important aspect of group dynamics, one that contributes to vio- lence as we saw earlier, is the deindividuation that can occur only within the group. As Hoffer states: When we renounce the self and become part of a compact whole, we not only renounce personal advantage but are also rid of personal responsibilicy. There is no telling to what extremes of cruelty and ruthlessness a man will go when hae is freed from the fears, hesitations, doubts, and the vague stierings of the corporateness of a mass movement, we find a new freedom — freedom to hate, bully, lie, rorcure, murder, and betray without shame and An additional and critical component of group behavior that is absent in individual behavior is the role of leadership. This has even been called by others the “leadership principle” ot, more sinisterly, che Falbrer Princip after the Nazi experience. And Hoffer alarms us with the qualities of an effective movement leader, which are not the positive traits that we might hope for: ‘Exceptional intelligence, noble character, end originality seem neither indi ppensable nor perhaps desirable. The main requirements seem be: audaciey is in posses- mne and only truth; faith in his destiny and sionare hatred; contempr for the present; ac a del ks a capacity for pas- ining estimate of human nature; ceremonials); unbounded brazenness which finds expression in a disregard af consiscency and fairness; a reco that the innermost craving of a following is for communion and that there can jhe im symbols (spectacles a Understanding Vinlence 25 never be too much of i; a capacity for winning and holding che utmost loyalty of able lieutenants.” Surveying the decades of experience and research, Baumeister has distilled what he calls the “group effect,” tial. Components of the group effect include diffusion of responsibility, deindi- vviduation, a division of violent labor (such that no one person performs, of even. comprehends, che full scale and sequence of violence), and separation of the deci- sion maker from the hands-on perpetrator. All ehis seems true, but it does not yet answer the questions of why humans are so prone ¢o aggregate in the first place naman aggregates rake on such distinct and dangerous qualities. Other lines of research have suggested chat there is what I have come ¢o call, to differentiate” in h h exhibits several of the features of violent poten- mans as well as in related nonhuman species. Experiments by Henri Tajfel show precisely this, Tajfel assigned subjects to ‘groups wich insignificane names like “red” and 1d gave them tasks to perform. Individuals were provided with the results of their team members as ram seudy above, there nd was being fed bogus information. The heart of che experiment came afterward, when subjects were asked to evaluate the performance of their own and che other team and to indl- cate their atticude toward both, People consistently rated their own (imaginary) team higher in performance on the casks and expressed a preference for theits well as of che opposing team. However, as in the Mi were no groups or teams; each individual was alone over the other—even though they had never met of interacted with any actual clusion was that the _mete perception of membership in a group or category may be enough to initiate humans from either (since there were none). Tajfe’s c ‘group atcachment and group judgment. He called his resulting theory “social identification theory” and described the process of socal identification as occut- ring in three steps. Fisst, social categories exist—reds and blues, blacks and ‘whites, Christians and non-Christians, Americans and “terrorists,” and so on. As a sheer consequence of these categories and one’s place in them, people come co identify with their category, 10 think of themselves as “us” as opposed to ‘them”—"a red” versus “a blue.” Finally, members use their identification for social comparison; they judge themselves by che standard of cheir group, seeking, to minimize differences between themselves and their group—and, at least in some cases, to maximize differences between themselves and the other group.”* Allied work by other social scientists like Gordon Allport supports this, interpretation. In his influential 1979 book, The Nature of Prejudice, Allport also26 CRUEL CREEDS, VIRTUOUS VIOLENCE relates negative attitudes, stereotypes, and behavior to gi the process of categorization into groups in che first place. prejudice at the outset as a group phenomen« 1g8 to a group, simply because therefore presumed to have the objective qu ingly, in accord with Tajfel, this attitude may not be based on any actual experience with the other group; in fac, prejudice is probably easier dynamics and « fact, he defines stronger in intensity if there is no experience of the othet ts on this apparently universal human tendency, “Every where on earth we find a condition of separateness among groups.” Even worse, “Once this separation exists... the ground is laid forall sorts of psychological elaborations. ... And, pethaps most important of all, che separateness may lead to genuine conflicts .. as well as to many imagi ‘An equally universal, and equally problematic, tendency is attributing the (alleged) charac- of the categories ro the members of the categories. Categories, he asserts, are quick and handy guides for everyday life; we cannot process every isolated experien ot bit of information on its own, so we generalize. However, our categories tend to “assimilate” as much as they can, to bring as much of experience within their domain as possible, Even mot -ms (including human beings) in the same category tend to get “saturated” with the same empirical and emo that is, we think they are alike and we feel categories may be more or less rational, formation they are based on. And one of the ategories tend co be resistant co change, n which “contrary evi- aspects is that ‘ion and even opposition between groups iniquely human matter. Competition and con- flice beeween groups of the same species, known as intergroup agonistic behavior ot 1s been observed in dozens of species. Johan available data, finds thae there are sixty-four ing dolphins, wolves, by rn seen conducting virtual “ creatures that are known to practice IAB, inch ing seudy of aggres ‘multiple types of fish, as well as rats, chat will attack nonmembers of tl Understanding Violence 27 dramatic creation of groups; he even suggested the term prendaspeciation for divisions within a species.2 However, of the IAB 3 found among primates, the category that includes humans. Chimps in partic- ular, as mentioned above, have been observed to system: hunt down and off other groups—even when the two groups had only recently split apart. Tn other words, che enemies were former and recent friends and celatives. Van der Dennen goes so far as to ascribe humanlike qua 1 groups. And if nonhuman beings c ifty-fous have been such as ethnocentrism be so to these the groups are essentially fictional and imaginary king friends and ‘And even an imaginary group can have an identity of sorts, and the fli s—say, “red” in Tajfe’s studies—eppeats to have its consequences. And if Benedice Anderson, 2 scholar on nationalism, is correct, then many if not most 1g “American” identity, for instance, estimate the power of human ima, a sense: shat identities are imagined docs not require that a person know, like, and interact with every member of the ‘American group. That would be impossible. So tities are whac Andesson called “imagined communi no less effective and motivat rge-scale aggregates and iden- "but they are appar- Human groups probably always have at least minimal identity qualities. Even a crowd rioting in the streets after a sports championship may have a basic sugh chey do not know each other at contribute 10 a person's self-identity as well as to walking into the wzong bar or badmouthing the wrong opposing fan may get xx of international soccer, where cries may engage in and a fact that teams are associated wi you beaten up). This is even eruer in th fans or ceews from different cities or co neerparts conffontation with their cities, and even more so with countries, may be a key element of this identifica- tion and violence, ‘Membership in a group of category crosses into iden ‘group of category when it has four components: a28 CRUEL CREEDS, VIRTUOUS VIOLENCE symbols, and at least some interpersonal interaction. The name of the collec- tivity—whether it is “American,” “Christian,” “white,” “baby boomer,” of what have you—serves as a sort of banner of slogan; the very existence of the name makes the collectivity more real and more identifiable. One can now sa an X," where X changes from an adjective to a concrete entity. It creates a self- consciousness of group membership—and of group fate: “We X's are in this, together.” Social scientists refer to a group in which an individual is a member as his for her in-group; a group that one does not belong to is an out-group. However, ‘more significant still is one’s refrence group, the group to which one looks for standards of thought, behavior, and values and for identification. In most cases, € one’s reference group, although not invariably. ip may pose problems—conceprual and prac- ly if they identify strongly with their in-group. of course, one’s in-group will And the presence of an out duals, especi ‘The out-group at least differs from ‘may actually ineerfere with them (as we will discuss below). ‘A group hiscory can be a powerful cognitive and motivational factor. The history is what ehe collectivity has “gone 1 and its failures. In general (bue noc universal longer history have a greater authority, an extea layer of authenticity. They al cical—for in rem, sometimes disagrees wich them, and some manner, causing “conflicts of interest” ough” over time, its achievements by any means), groups with a have a collective memory, of success as well as of suffering. A history necessati refers to a past, but it tends to poine to a future: it may shape who the members are today and set a course of action for tomorrow—for instance, to right the wrong thac was done in the past, co avenge a loss or humiliation. In other words, so much chat che group has a history as ehae it has a der tiny, its imagined or ideal collective future. Syn what is important is Is are che meaningful public manifestations of che collectivity, its his- ‘ory, and its identity; they are where memory and identicy are deposited and dis- played. Tes name may be one of its most salient symbols, Other symbols can include flags, songs, key objects, places, designs, cloching styles, and so on, A {group can appropriate almost any part ofits culture ot history for symbolic elab- oration and deployment—its language, its religion, major battles (victories and defeats work equally well), customs, and anything else. The more symbols a ‘group has, and the more meaning is conveyed by them, the greacer the identity- ‘making and idencity-carrying capacity Finally, che more actual personal interaction, ideally face-to-face interaction, Understanding Violence 29 the stronger the bonds of community and identity may be. As we have seen, humans can identify measurably even when face-to-face impossible; the very mental impression of groupness, of category membership, ‘works powerfully on us. And we will never interact wich all the co-members of action is missing or larger and more dispersed aggregates. But the ones whom we do interact with certain sense, local identities are the most compelling ones, and group leaders in particular may take pains to have ‘members interact and boned. “Ac the same time, “local” is flexible and relative, and identity can be erans- and absteact tend to have the strongest pull on us. In ferred from the very most local and intimate level to more dist y loss of strength—in fact, with some ine ‘Americans do not feel as strongly about cheir neighborhood or their city as abouc their country; nobody would give his life for his homeowner's association. The ‘group identity and attachment is one of ies most remark- levels without fication. Most very mal able—and useable—features. And researchers on attachment have found that the derived from ic. We seem to want and need to attach by nature, and an attach- ‘ment can form and flourish in the absence of any real benefits from it or even in the presence of real disadvantages (which is one reason why punishment and per- fictions but steengthen them). Ir should be clear chat the first and most local collecti requirements of identity formation is che family. It is the ensity and duration of the atcachment has lictle to do with che rewards secution often do not weaken ity thae meets che cus of mast of the individual’ carly experiences and interactions; it gives him ot her a name, a set of related individuals, and basic habits, skills, and values. Because family is such 4 prominent factor and force in humans, other higher-level groups and cate- sgories tend to incorporate its sand idioms, portraying themselves as families weit large. This can take the form of literal appropriation of kinship ter- minology, as in the Foune ice of referring to all co-members as “brother” or “sister.” Races, ethnic ng Fathers of the United States or the African Amer- es, nations, and potentially any kind of higher-order collectivity can adopt kinship forms and portray themselves as a kind of hyperfamily. ‘We expect, and generally see, that aggression and violence within this core ived hae if collectivity is minimized or at least discouraged in most cultures. (The Sates is an odd exception: Richard Gelles and Murray Straus maincai you are an American, “you are more likely co be physic killed in your own home at the hands of a loved one th anyone else in our society.”)** The Semai, the no30 CRUEL CREEDS, VIRTUOUS VIOLENCE ‘consider all residents of their own to be kinfolk, who are crusted and well However, people from other villages, and especially people from other societies, are called mai and are not crusted. Even among the more violent sge and kin group, special lages and tribes. Accordingly, Marc Howard found that violence was much mote accept- able and frequent outside the local group than within ‘+ No societies valued internal violence, and sixty-one (71 percent) disapproved lence, and only ewenty- (35 percent) disapproved, ies (4.4 percent) experienced sed “high” local local conflict, and identity, extends beyond che most local rank and how many people it There is general agreement against an out-group chan the in-group. (One importan that former members of chat violence is kely and more severe ‘ome of this tren in-group—apostates, deserters, and traitors—are pat- targets of disapproval and retribution.) In an admittedly imperfece way, “out” che out-group is, the greater the potential for, and approval of, violence against it. We might imagine this trajectory as a series of concentric cir- cles, each sing a dimension of identity away fom one’s own. The innermost circle the neighborhood, nediate level of iden- ‘ity—a class of caste, an ethnic group or race, an occupation, and so on. The fifth ch is the species, all humaniey. A seventh, and ighbochoods is iolence becweet mal and acceptable than within a nation (notice our rat). And violence against other species is Understanding Viola 31. ‘This is certainly a mnemonic model, not a highly precise predictor of actual aggression. Many other factors mitigate its simple structure. For example, the -ernal violence. The society ‘ety may encourage or at least allow nity of neighborhood level, a “them” « (che Deep South of the United Stat would be one such case). In other words, there can be 5.” which a Finally, the presence or absence of cross-cutting ties is an important variable in this picture. No society is entirely incernally homogeneous; rather, chere are always multiple and contradictory terms of identicy. Any one person may be an, llenges any simple model. “ys-versus-them” pairs, In other words, our identities are multifaceted, wi! .d by one category to some people and is messy but also functional. As Max Gluckman, 1 good thing, since we are categories to other people. T cone of the first to repore t phenomenon, wrote, cross-cutting identities and loyalties make for groups chat can zerms of thei customary alle- sgiances, but ate resteained from violence through other conflicting ‘which are also enjoined on them by custom.” As he concluded, flicting loyale allegiance tend to inhibit open quarrelling, and ... the greater the division in one area of ‘greater is likely to be the cohesion in a wider range of rel that there is a general need for peace, and the recogni which this peace can flourish.” uarrel and divis Institutions and the moral order to which in che abstract. Groups and their beliefs, practices, and values Gluckman alluded—do embodied and preserved ieute the ongoing soc institution is a long-last and values, usually expressed in sets of roles and the rel jot and. cannot exi in real, enduring, and organized insticutions that con- ich people live and act. An got permanent standardized set of beliefs, beh ionshipe becweet arrangements wit32 CRUEL CREEDS, VIRTUOUS VIOLENCE roles. For example play” (ie., “husban: sometimes certain exp! tution and others in the socier legal requirements, and certain ne regard, a society is the sum and Which instieutions exi in a society and how they are organized signifi- that society, including but hardly con ‘a society's marsiage institution defines highly asym- jons between husbands and wives and sanctions hostility or even cantly shapes the character of n of pas ership spawn more general social arrangements as these, spousal regarded as “violenc and certainly not as “unacceptable violence” or as a “social problem,” bue rather as “discipline” of “tough love.” ons focus on the family, by « woman's family to hee consequences for the har- le the home (see chapters 4 and 8). How- ns ate set within much wider and more per- stitutions of gender, econo; ‘one such overarching. i lineal kin- xembership their father's and patrilocal residence rules (that married woman leave her family home and reside in the ever, chose intimate and family rel kin systems in which children belong to , Fequirements that a sme of her husband or his family). Such arrangements can lead to extreme and dangerous inequalitis no tights whatsoever. Everything in this society favors men, who aze raised to be violent and domineering; they learn early on “to devalue women es, to use violence to get whac at which cime that authoricy father cannot intervene to own sisters if hey dare to challenge the patriarchal system. Women are valued that, as one informant told, “When I was bora, the minute they told my -was a girl she began to cry bitcely."™ Eunice Uzodike tells an even more horrily consequences of insticutionalized patriarchy. Ici a tale ofa twelve-year-old giel who was mat- ch senior man (a Fulani pastoral ) and repeatedly ran sband was determined to fied toa away from husband, marriage hhusband.2* Lest the reader t itive” and “savage” societies, it is custom and law, specifically che inst the right of life and death over the husband rights over his wi children—the same rights he had over his other propert that such comporement is restricted to “prim- jutary to remind ourselves of ancient Roman slave ‘the familiar notion that “a man’s ities and hierarchies lence, cither as oppression oF ike slavery, which depends on a social a slave” theory, or mote modern 1g from nacure (e.g., Aristotle's “natu ideas) to history to economics to religion. Short of slavery, hierarchical and stratified relations are common between econ racial, ethnic, and other categ competition, and often motivator for ies, providing causes for grievan conflict. For instance, class ineq)34 CRUEL CREEDS, VIRTUOUS VIOLENCE ch violence. highest level of po jcal systems, including doms, have often been capable of violence because of the leader's ability to call ‘upon and even coerce followers to take up arms at his command: from the Zulus +o the Hawaiians, powerful chiefs could inspire or compel violent efforts of rations stem called the “state” achieved unprecedented ance of violence. In fact, the great sociolo- gise Max Weber defined stare precisely as “a human community that (success- monopoly ofthe legitimate use of physical force within a In other words, the main function if not the very essence of to control and perform violence. In the state, bue by no means exclusively i tions of violence,” such as the pol e, the and the prison system. Other society, for example, contained a set of “warrior soc the Crazy Dogs, each of es” like the Bowstring and ich was organized co conduct raids against other raids from other groups, to police the buffalo hunt, and so on. Elsewhere, societies have included age-based groups (technically known as age and as the aggressors against neighboring societies, Male init « were often commissioned as the protectors of the society 1 situals often functioned to harden young men against pain and to bolster their bravery and ‘tutions like the Spartan agoge served as literal training grounds for the next generation of fighters (and, not inconsequentially, ‘oppressors of the local enslaved bulor popu toughness. At che extreme, All chese sorts of institutions are no: of social concepts and values. One cruc Honor is some social ally set within a much wider context example of such a concepe is honor. conceived and socially relevant evaluation of and it is also often the ion of traditional and je Schwandner-Sievers. In 1 province of men. One illustration comes from the descr post-Communist Albania by Seeph effective national-level p ‘or traditional systems of rules and values. Kanu is fundamental honor—the honor of a man, his family, and absence of s, she found local Albanians turning to their kanun concerned with Understanding Violena 35 y- Much of anu moral “The soap of a man is flesh but eats the flesh of others.” Accord- age starts a conflict, especially aecacks are reasonable and required to restore young men may organize attacks on other: varantecing fe lence is noc only appropriate but prob ‘expressed in proverbs, such as “Blood for powder,” and “The wolf licks if another (out-gt is gun- _groups who have been so dishonored are fair targets for pt and assault. IF honor is lost, there are two main ways rieual of forgiveness, in which the dish ly or group must show extreme generosity. By making such a gesture or rises in the eyes of witnesses. , in which the dishonored party a member of another group during other psychological and cultural ly tied to honor is masculinity, espe ly associated with aggressiveness and s from the Yanomamo chest-pounding beauty of vio~ che Japanese samurai, in che human world, some of which are con- -e, some to violence. One last feature of institutions thae ‘once again, the role of leadership. Some xy also atcempe to lock indi- to each other and to36 CRUEL CREEDS, VIRTUOUS VIOLENCE auchority. WI coming acti nn these roles, and these authotities, call for violence, the forth- 's may not been taken as improper at all—not even as “violent.” Interests Individually, humans have a capacity for violence. Groups unleash or exacerbate chae capacity, and institut egulatize and legit lasgely what motivate it. Ie would be hard to imagine a human group that was ¢ it, But interests are not at least potentially if not actual fan interest group as well. An interact is some more or less specific and intentional goal or aim or pur- dual or group pursues. The mast primary of iacerests involve ends, such as food, money, land, and other resources, as well pose that an i practical, mater as mote abseract ical power. Ho also include symbolic rs rights, equality, “eruch,” and freedom to practice one's cu socially defined ones like jobs, access to education, and polit- et, interests need not necessarily be quite so concrete; they idual or group, such as b and culeure itself (that is, che survival of , language, religion, styles of dress, and ies dear to an indi other coms), When individuals—and more so groups—come into conflict prospect for violence is increased by another dimension. Groups seldom fight each other openly over mere groupness. Northern Irish Catholics and Protestants, for instance, have not warred for the last few decades over the sheer existence of 1 when one feels thae another is @ obstacle ¢o its interests, the ergent groups, nor even over doctrinal differences between the two sects of American Cathol jstianity. If chat were che case, we would expect , which they do nor (see chapter 6). Integrated groups, identity, and instieutions provide the parties and the organization for violence, bue ie is interests that provide the reasons and justifications —some desired outcomes and the barriers impeding them, namely, some otber group and its identity and institutions. In another social context, where either the interest-issues did not exist or were not associated with group mem- bership, we would expect that the difference between the groups would not esca- late into a conflict beeween them, In other words, group identity differences alone are not enough to account for conflict and merge with those identities to transform identity groups into interest groups and into conflict groups. Even more significant, the identity groups need not exist prior to and be s and Protestants to fight openly as wi lence; other factors must subseque constitutive of the interest groups. In the reverse, some collection of humans Understanding Violente 37 ray find themselves wich shared interests and assemble themselves into an iden~ tity group. Such was the hope and aim of Marx realize—literaly become conscious oftheir common interests as workers and in which workers would organize themselves accordingly. Marx said that other forms of identity, including nationality and ethni ot else a “false consciousness” perpetrated on them to divide them and disguise their “crue” identity as a class. It was “workers of the world” to whom Marx called, not to Englishmen or Americans or Germans. That most individuals never answered this call suggests that identities are not infinicely malleable, or at least that some sources of identity seem ro have more valence than others, iy, were either anachronisms in a modern world ‘At any rate, when interests enter the picture, the cleavages between groups become more concrete and sometimes more intractable. The out-group is not just differenc, not just strange, bur now “in our way.” Louis Kreisberg has pro- posed a model co explain how these kinds of issues can contribute to the escala- tion and/or resolution of group conflicts. In fact, he defines social conflict as the le objec- first phase of any such struggle isthe “basis for jon “when cwo or more parties believe they have incompati tives." In a cyclical fashion, ¢ conflict,” when the ewo parties “are likely co come to believe that they have con- ficting goals.” Dishearteningly but significantly, “almost any division of people into two or more sets can be the basis for collective identification and rt 1e groups need not be hentic” in any serious way. In many cases, the conflict creates the organization of conflice groups”: in other words, ‘group rather than vice versa, Thus, many different kinds of interest groups can coalesce and conflict, including class, race, ethnic, political, and religious ones. He notes that politi wal groups are particularly prone to such confronca- tions because of the instieutions they contain, especi ly their ceneral govern- ments and standing armies. Governments, he writes, “are ready-made adver- wal conflicts. Each claims absolute sovereignty, and each has fed subunits co conduct conflict. The cleavages, however, do not simply special pit each government against every other. Governments are linked together into cross-cutting alliances, which are based on ideology, economi ‘and military concerns If the bases of conflict are there, and che leaders and the members of the rel- certain ways, then the second phase of "emergence of con- «ails cheee factors: (1) self-consciousness as collectivities the part of one or both, evant groups act fice” follows. ‘This swith interests, (2) a grievance against the other group and (3) the determination that their grievance can be reduced or eliminated and38 CRUEL CREEDS, VIRTUOUS VIOLENCE their interests achieved through some change in the other, up to an its deseructio shere must b luding One key message is that for chere to be interest-based conflict, besides an interest, a claim and a grievance. The claim is what the ‘group wants and why it shoul we demand and of the group—its “authentic culeuse,” its “puri ‘morality” oF "good ly land), and so on. The griev- has deprived or blocked ie from its antiquity, 8 ptior possession of the resource (espec Wt inevitable. Kreisberg insists that there are including persuasion, reward, and ultimately ually settle their differences of coercion, Ironically, groups ideally if not with a third phase of “escalation of conflict” appears. The conflict turns v led qualicy: Once conflict jor has started, mecl Having expressed ho nisms are triggered that rend to + such circumscances, fewer alternative courses of action are considered than in periods chat ace not viewed as a time of he course of action already undertaken, on stereoryped images of analogies and to view possible outcomes in terms Fora variety of possible reasons, the conflice may eventually begin to deescalate. The goals of one or both groups may change, or one group may achieve its main goals. Leaders may adopt new policies, of m port from the struggle. Outside forces (e.g., other countries) may ‘warring groups may reach a compromise; or one of the sides may be liquidated. ‘The final phase is “termination,” in whi manently of problem, a momentary res; protracted struggle. or a fundamental shift Understanding Violence 39 in che cerms of the compe including the replacement of che leadership ot combatants or the disappearance of one or both. We wugh, chat a cease-fire is not the same thing as a true Ideology of individuals sharing some identicy 10 pursue interes Al groups of soci organized by it only human groups—add the sixth and most incendiary ingredient of ideology. sense, chat is, ofa false led to obscure the real tution However, not all groups—and ‘We do not mean here ideology in the negative or Marx and even deliberately misleading facade of ideas inte eure of society. Ideology is simply the “contents” of a worldview or belief system, the ideas and beliefs and values shared by a group or movernent. ot “falseness” of an ideology is not the issue here and often cannot ted, of rather does not apply at all, An ideology includes factual sand judgments and perspec fe are the master race” or “The tives thae are noc “truth claims” (for inseanc proletariat should control the means of produ members typically consider cheir ideology to be true, or at least and cannot be treated as ‘An ideology isa se of ideas, b sometimes if not usually an ostensibly complete “view of reality” ory of everything,” Jonathan Fox has listed five properties of ideologies: 1. They “provide a meaningful framework for understanding the world. Not all ideologies are religious by any means, and nonrel ‘can be just 28 productive of violence as religious ones, In the twentieth century,40 CRUEL CREEDS, VIRTUC 1S VIOLENCE Inderstanding Violence 41 ideologies have been the they are doing a good thing, indeed the best possible thing. They, the insiders, these systems had are the good people with the good intentions. Part ofthis moralism comes from of what was seal, good, necessary, and even inevitable, | and is propped up by the claim to be acting in the name of some and of the steps required co bring about certain desired ends. For instance, pet Robespierre would never al ¢ modem ideological struggle was the French Revolution, in which red not just over who would rule source of unprecedented aggression and desta own volition, Rather, the vanguard of the ideological movement is * or “in the name 1 belong to iders, are not just bad but immoral—“counter- revolutionaries,” “enemies of the people,” “infidel ‘demonic,” the very impediments to the perfect future. Nothi come from them, and nothing le to be used against them. The stakes are too hi the name of the nat society but over exactly what kind of society it would be. The goals of the most ideological of the revolution- ike Robespieste who oversaw the Terror in 1793-1794, were a sion, a total parfction, of sociery—what he 00 horri is sensible that the actors ings in which all base and cruel felings ate suppressed Ficent and generous «s makes the important poi jon of the by the continued con ‘win the respect of a great people. ss crush both the internal and foreign enemies of the Republic, or tuation, the first maxim of your policy should be nd and sublime titude, Na doctrine however prof presented as the embodiment ofthe one and only truth, ‘This sublime aspiration of the revolution and the attainment of perfect vireue of course required an instrument, and that instrument was the guillotine, invented ICE OF THE PEOPLE.” and social movements, from Marxist heir hearts and not theit has to be vague; and if neither and nat mali To be in possession of including some t struggles, bore the same marks as the French Revol guished by absolute certaincy in the rightness and ultimate success of the move- ‘ment and its leadership. The aims of the French and Soviet upheavals were not other groups is st Second, if the tions like “freedom through terror,” they tended to deny contradict ing overly simple and absolute answers idealism of this sore pechaps cannot exist without a supporting structure of moralism. In other words, the leaders and members of the group must feel thar42 CRUEL CREEDS, VIRTUOUS VIOLENCE chat certitude means more in the final analysis doctrine can make a huge difference Some of the most perilous items or themes of ideological doct c specifics of the doctrine, the purifying quality of violence, Ideological groups te tic, us-versus-them, terms. Dissenters are not , sometimes the very nized, espec ests of the people logical systems have an hey may be demonized and if “we” are really the people of are acting in the incer- must not be rary campaign, as opposed to the disorganized destruction of the French Revolution or the medieval Inquisition—when he demanded that the of the proletarian revolution must be “purely and simply acts of war; they have the value of military demonstrations, and serve to make the separation of classes. Everything in war is carried on without hatred and without the spirit of revenge.” Any other approa gentler methods and compromise, rep resents “not a little seupidiry. ‘When che fight is @ merely human and earthly one, the capacity for vic is high enough. Howev. 3 very fabric of reality—chen all weapons are unsheathed and all led off. Marxism makes conflict a part of society and nature, on can make it a pare of supernacure: th divided into a pair of armed camps, with humans th ‘uawilling) foot soldiers in a cosmic epi espe expressed this bese. For economics but, as jon of new men.”*" These new humans ie, which reap- people—or people at all. Some ideo- herent concept of war or desteuctive conflict as a tool Understanding Violence 43 ‘The violence which has ruled over the ordering of the colonial world ... will bbe claimed and taken over by tl ‘embody hi ‘The destruction of the ct of one zone [in 2 dus the depehs o xy” with the oppressive system. Instead, recommended violence as the method that would restore dignity a ticiey, even mental health: together is to allow as in a volcan es, imaginary mass murders—+ re undammed, and flow away with = eruption. Syml ings, fantastic must be brought out. The evil humor din as of lava. CONCLUSION: HURTING WITHOUT FEELING BAD—OR FEELING ANYTHING AT ALL Ie is evident now how the independent vs individual, integra ferests, and ideologies accumulate to lay how ideology provides a source for che others. If belief lated an theory of nature, society, or reality contains specific assertions or propositions, of the individual and group's existence. The interactions, history, and for ies identity; in fact, such ‘The beliefs and values of the group and seek to expand, at those items can become internalized in the person established as the basis for d cal group are raw materi symbols of the ide is the hope and plan of the movers of ideolog; the farthest extent to encompass the en The ideological group has its interests, from the mundane, such as more ving space, rights, and opportunities for itself to the abstract, such as 1, perpetuation, and triumph of the group as a group and a , while chere are certainly nonideological groups and identi- stitutionalize themselves society, perhaps the entire world, wealth, the preseevat movement. Th44 CRUEL CREEDS, VIRTUOUS VIOLENCE and interests, ideological ones mose thoroughly falfill and ualitics that suppore violence into an ef ‘The grounds of violence converge on a single point, which has also been by other observers and experimencers in the field of is the possi tive system, ry and the methodology for removing. tors of harmful actions. As hum rsubjec see you c or undermining the innate mature, ey cend that is, for understanding and sharing each other's experiences. I know that you are sad, since that is how I would feel if T were crying. And I would not like that feeling ‘myself, so Tam inclined to avoid caus you. IFT see you wince or hear you nce that is how I would feel if I were ike that feeling myself, so am inclined | scream, I know that you are in pain, wwincing or screaming. And I would not to avoid causing it in you. simple term for say in English that “I feel art me as much as it hurts you.” When this is true, giving injury. However, when it is not crue, one of the mose powerful restraints against violence has been withdeawn, Evidence suggests that a lack of empathy is a highly dangerous thing. One investigator of the most violent of criminal offenders, the psychopath, has devel- cs of psychopathy. Among these are several thac indi ‘of human empathy: lack of remorse or guilt, shallow affect emotion of any kind), callousness, and impulsivity. Brain scans of violent offenders have shown that the discomfort and is awareness is empathy, “feeling with” ehe other. We our pain,” that it is a powerful restraine le am not suggesting that all violent people, let alone people, ate psychopaths. The message is much more disturbi person does nat ave to be a psy ring—or to fe! ered is that a human needs acting for a good reason (even a “hi as a member of the individual can against someone w violent religious than that. A Rather, what we have discov- that teaches that he or she is cause”), under someone else's authority, in pursuit of interests, Along the way, if learn, by way of gradual escal worth less—or completely wor being—then violence becomes not only p