CHANGE: THE COMMON DENOMINATOR

When examining the situation in South Africa sketched in the article “White? Even Mandela can’t help you now” one can see many instances of aggression.^[1] This aggression takes on many forms but can be, in the article, mainly concentrated in one category, threats. Examples of this are the “highly fortified homes” in which the members of the South African British community live, mothers insisting that their daughters “be walked home by several men”, and the keeping of snakes because “the blacks are … terrified” of them.^[2] Fear, induced by aggression, can also be seen; “I never stopped at red lights: it was too dangerous”.^[3] Even affirmative action, though on a different level, can be seen as aggressive since it can cause people to feel that their livelihood is being threatened. The following question may arise when confronted with an article such as this one; what triggers this behaviour, can it possibly be predicted and, when predicted, perhaps even prevented? Attempts to answer this question may bring about many discussions on controversial issues, and, depending on political as well as religious and ideological beliefs, produce just as many different answers. This essay does not try to answer this question, however, it is linked to the issue as it will try to disprove a popular explanation for the occurrence of aggression and present an alternative interpretation of the problem.

When looking for causes for focused aggression of large groups over long periods of time an argument that appears to satisfy the qualifications of a satisfactory explanation is one which states that the area is overcrowded, leading to an increase in interpersonal friction and irritation and, eventually, to aggressive behaviour. These explanations mainly stem from an experiment by the experimental psychologist J. B. Calhoun in the early 1960’s where he observed that rats, when kept under high population densities, would start “killing, sexually assaulting and … cannibalizing one another”.^[4] It was quickly concluded that the same goes for all animals and, hence, for humans. The statistics, however, show a different picture, a higher population density does not necessarily lead to more violence in human society. Though many examples can be given, one of the most convincing is the following; “The Netherlands had a population density 13 times as high [as the USA], but its homicide rate was eight times lower”.^[5] Humans appear to have a system that prevents them from destroying the crowded society they developed over the years.

Since large–scale experimenting on humans is impractical and ethically sensitive, experiments were conducted with other primates, monkeys and apes, in order to better understand the particulars of this system. The information the experiments yielded confirmed the existence of a system, what was more, it even hinted at the existence of refinements of the system making it increasingly complex as the studied primate became more closely related to humans. Monkeys, such as rhesus monkeys, react to high population densities “with more grooming and submissive grinning”, both means to either calm or appease other monkeys, lowering the chance of violent encounters^[6]. On the other hand, apes, such as chimpanzees, did not exhibit a raise in calming or appeasing behaviour, rather, they appeared to be “holding in their emotions”.^[7] In short, the refinement of the system can be seen in the fact that the chimpanzees keep a low profile in order to maintain the overall peace, whereas the rhesus monkeys have to spend more time and energy to reach this same goal. An example from everyday life that illustrates the effects of acute crowding is that when standing in an elevator or when queuing in the supermarket, people will tend to keep “large body movements, eye contact and loud verbalizations” to a minimum.^[8]

Since the argument of overcrowding does not apply for aggressive human behaviour another explanation must be looked for. When further examining the article on the South African situation a number of statements stand out, for instance, words like “revolution” and “African renaissance” indicate the social impact and emotional value people have with the current changes taking place in South Africa.^[9] Furthermore, the recurring emphasis on the need to get a balance between the contribution to society and economy of both racial groups hints at the possibility that control of the changes may, to a degree, be lost. All in all, this resembles a pendulum that, after having been let loose, keeps on oscillating to and from its equilibrium. This social pendulum, however, is of an intricate kind since its amplitude and frequency can be influenced from many dozens of different sources, many of which are interdependent and show oscillatory movement as well.

To attempt to influence such a complicated system to achieve predictable results is difficult, even under the best of circumstances, and the impaired interracial connections render the overall situation too fragile to hazard any attempts aimed directly at the system. It is here that the power of the media might be of assistance. In the article by M. Ingram there is still made a clear distinction between black and white and this helps to keep such a distinction alive, if the media were to blur this difference, eventually, this would find itself a way into the population. In such a way, the interracial friction that has been the cause of so many problems may slowly but surely be decreased, thus easing the transition from apartheid to mutual co–operation and equality South Africa is still in the process of making.

What has been made clear is that overcrowding of people is not a direct cause for an increase of aggression but that it is rather change induces such behaviour. A comparison has been made between the changes that are taking place in South Africa and the movement of a pendulum, moreover, the fragility of the system has been noted and the hazards of attempting to change it directly. Lastly, it has been suggested that the media can play an important role in carefully blurring the interracial distinctions, and, in so doing help to smooth out an area where much friction exists. It can only be hoped that no new complications arise that might escalate the entire situation to proportions as can be seen in Zimbabwe at the moment.

17 May. 00

For questions/comments: E-mail me.