Futility of aggression

LITTLE boys like fighting. Not only in selfdefence, but as aggressors. If there is no fighting going on, they may deliberately provoke it. Grown men may do likewise. They have been fighting each other in tribal feuds, wars between nations and world wars since time immemorial.

On the very first pages of the Bible we find two sons of the first human couple, Adam and Eve, in mortal conflict. “Abel became a keeper of flocks, and Cain a tiller of the soil….Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.” Why? Why did Cain slay Abel? Maybe it was jealous. God accepted the offerings of Abel, but not of Cain “who greatly resented this” (Genesis 4: 2 – 8).

Every one of us has personal experience of aggression, either as aggressor or as the victim of an attack. Aggression begins as a verbal attack — verbal violence. If we witness a conversation about a controversial issue, especially if it gets emotional and heated, we may ask: do the disputants want to arrive at the truth or do they just want to win a fight and come out as the winner, never mind the initial question?

Karen Armstrong, a scholar who is studying religion and violence, writes: “In the democratic assemblies of Athens, citizens learned to debate competitively, to marshal arguments logically and effectively and to argue their case in order to win. They practised rhetorical ploys to undermine their opponents’ position and had no qualms about discrediting them and their cause in order to marginalise their policies. The objective was to defeat one’s opponent: nobody was expected to change his mind, be converted to the other side, or enter emphatically into the rival viewpoint.”

“To undermine the opponent’s position”, that is very much the aim also of politicians today, eg, in pre-election rallies (in recent United States elections), in parliamentary debates, in Press statements, in TV shows, or interviews. That Brexit (British exit from EU) was approved off by British voters was largely due to a media campaign characterised by lies and falsehoods.

“What politicians say before elections is not to give us facts and inform us about their honest convictions. Propaganda is part of their struggle for power. Untruths, falsehoods, lies are “means fair and foul” and are tolerated.

“TV advertising is not meant to tell us the truth and give us facts. It is meant to increase sales and profits by all means, even distorting facts and misleading the buying public.

“The debates in our parliamentary institutions, the media, academia and the law courts are essentially competitive. It is not enough for us to seek the truth; we also want to defeat and even humiliate our opponents ... Admitting that your opponents may have a valid point seems unthinkable.” So what do we do? Attack our adversaries publicly and challenge them over their propaganda, shameless lies, mere rumours and “hearsay”? This often proves counterproductive.

“All that happens is that [I am] virulently attacked and my assailants rehearse the old ideas again with greater venom ... The intellectual atmosphere becomes even more polluted and people remain entrenched in an angry negativity ... we often identify with our ideas so strongly that we feel personally assaulted if they are criticised or corrected” .

Recently the Catholic bishops made themselves spokespersons for the poor who have nobody else to speak for them.

“The corruption in the country has reached alarming levels”, they said in a letter listing the ills besetting our nation at this time. After all, the church is the conscience of the nation. The Bishops only did their duty. But they were vilified and accused of horrendous crimes. The attack on the archbishop of Harare was a case of “character assassination”.

Conflicts between cultures and religions are not brought to an end by hitting back. If the Western world answers the hatred of Islamists with more hate-speech and military interventions, the warlike situation will only be perpetuated. The sectarian fighters will feel that their prejudices have been confirmed and call for revenge even more loudly.

Such violent clashes happen in the media publicly. A similar mechanism is seen to be at work even in private confrontations between individuals. In many disputes one of the debaters will be ridiculing and mocking the other. Irony and sarcasm are used as perhaps more subtle weapons in such a verbal battle.

They imply contempt for the other, and are meant to hurt and insult. Sometimes it is merely the tone of voice that upsets and angers the opponent. The “Battle of the Sexes” may be won by a man who “makes fun” of women who in turn expose the weaknesses of men and ridicule masculinity. A mocking tone may betray deep-seated prejudices. Personally very arrogant people may habitually contradict their rivals, thus claiming intellectual superiority.

A classical case is that of a nagging wife driving her husband mad by constant provocation. Since he cannot match her verbal skills, he tries to subdue her by a brutal assault. As a result the marital crisis gets worse and worse.

Instead of silencing her for the moment he ruins their marriage forever. At one point during their verbal battles, one of them should have seen that they were heading for disaster. Violence, whether verbal or physical, is never constructive or redemptive.

Attack and counterattack never repair a broken relationship. It just lands you in an unstoppable vicious circle. “It is no good responding to injustice with hatred and contempt. This, again, will simply inspire further antagonism and make matters worse” .

Even if I have to criticise or question something said in a debate, there is no need to personally attack the one who said it. It is possible to utter criticism respectfully.

And just because some opponents belong to the other sex, another nation, religion, political party or profession is no reason to deny them respect. Outright hate speech will close doors that ought to be opened.

Aggression is futile. Wars serve no purpose. They build no bridges. They destroy what was binding us together. Even if cat and mouse cannot live in peace, you try and do it with your neighbour.

Even though the proverb says, “Kiti negonzo hazviiswe panzvimbo imwe chete” (‘Cat and rat cannot be put together in one place,’ Tsumo, 904), do not despair. Peace is possible in the heart and in the home.

If anger first grows in our hearts and poisons our relationship, so does aggression. It gives us no peace, does not enable us to forgive and reconcile. An outbreak of war is the result of utter despair.

When will we ever learn about the futility of aggression, verbal or indeed bloody and lethal? If you are cursing your opponent, you are killing him.

Speaking to her politely and gently even in an argument, showing esteem for her as a person, a sister, a companion will open her heart to you.