Ape-men

Blogger Donna at Tell Me a Story recently linked to some research (paywall, unfortunately) by political scientist Erica Chenoweth on the use of violence by political movements, and quotes Chenoweth's summary:

"I collected data on all major nonviolent and violent campaigns for the overthrow of a government or a territorial liberation since 1900," she says -- hundreds of cases. "The data blew me away.....One thing I found is that an uprising becomes about 50 percent more likely to fail if it turns to violence."

This has been true of social movements too.  The black Civil Rights movement starting in the 1960s was famously dedicated to non-violence and made immense progress toward its major goals, though obviously racism hasn't been fully defeated.  The gay movement, which has been stunningly successful at achieving both policy changes (such as gay marriage) and a huge turnaround in public attitudes (even in the face of ancient and powerful religious taboos) within a remarkably short span of time, has virtually never used violence, working instead by appeals to sympathy and the sheer justice of its cause.  Movements such as the KKK, notorious for both using and threatening violence, have massively lost ground -- their views have become far less accepted than they were a few decades ago and they themselves are pariahs.

It's not surprising that this is so.  Every complex human society is governed by a specialized entity, the state, which asserts a monopoly on the use of force.  Except momentarily, humans in complex societies cannot be effectively intimidated by violent groups challenging the existing social order because they can appeal to the state, a more powerful entity, for protection and retaliation (note that this is true whether or not the social order is unjust; it merely means that violence will not work to change that social order as long as the state is determined to enforce it).

It's a curious fact that right-wing movements seem addicted to intimidation tactics, especially carrying and displaying guns and making threats of violence.  Charlottesville was a striking example, but the behavior is generally pervasive among such groups. It often seems that for a lot of these people, the opportunity to display guns and other intimidating paraphernalia is a big part -- maybe the biggest part -- of the appeal of joining a neo-Nazi, KKK, or other militant group.  It meets some deep psychological need.  Even on our side, which generally rejects initiating violence on principle, many people take great satisfaction from the thought of "punching Nazis" and the like.

Why are people so drawn to violence and threats even in the face of evidence that they're often counter-productive? I think it's an example of instinctive behavior which survives from a pre-human stage of evolution and remains powerful even though the nature of complex modern human societies makes it self-defeating.

Humans are primates.  In all primate species, each social group has a dominance hierarchy (especially among males), and males are very concerned with being as high up in the hierarchy as they can get, partly because females preferentially mate with higher-status males. Humans have this trait too -- our corporate and political hierarchies follow the same pattern, though more subtly.  Among chimpanzees (the species most closely related to us), males assert dominance by intimidating, threatening behaviors -- screeching loudly, charging, banging things on the ground, etc.  Primatologists actually call these behaviors "intimidation displays".

Much of the progress of human civilization has consisted of "taming" the tendency to display such behaviors.  Human males in complex societies move up the dominance hierarchy by winning and displaying wealth, political power, or social status.  However, not all individuals are equally amenable to such refinement.  Many less-educated, low-status human males still tend to assert themselves by being loud and aggressive and displaying behavior or paraphernalia that intimidate others.  Among chimpanzees this would actually help them move up the hierarchy; in modern human societies it doesn't, but it's instinctive.  It takes different forms around the world depending on culture and technological level, but it's the same primate instinct. There's a primal satisfaction in feeling scary.

I'm constantly reminded of primate behavior when I see groups like the KKK and neo-Nazis and, yes, other violent groups like the Black Bloc. Even things like military training routines that involve shouting while brandishing weapons, demonstrations with loud chants and raised fists, and suchlike, satisfy the same instincts. The genetic legacy of our pre-human ancestors is very much still with us. We're still apes.  Some humans have enough civilized self-awareness to realize that ape-like intimidation displays usually fail to get us what we want (and even look faintly ridiculous).  Others do not.