...And not a mention of "Christ", the supreme pacifist. Is that omission an outcome of the common view, that religion is seen as a cause and effect of global violence?

...The authors theory which "plies the lie", pacification of children is best achieved by "sparing the rod", is also highly debatable I would think: But simply put, children thrive on love and affection which is given genuinely; this imperative to success and happiness must result in a non-violent child...or does it, in a violent world: Or does it simply set-up the pacifist child as an item to be protected from the world, by ever increasing laws which prohibit violence to one "set" by enacting violence of the State on another "set"?

..IMO though, one can not argue that the author deserves congratulations on his personal mission of pacifism, which has often come at great cost to himself over the years.

I agree with a statement made by a Mr David Kennedy "With the growth of technology, education has turned more and more to utilitarian ends in most of the fields of human endeavour, moving away from philosophical speculation on the nature of life and its inter-relationships, despite its importance. We are now immmersed in a 'technological reality', ways of controlling life, nature, and human beliefs. So we are back to brainwashing and the destruction of that fine purpose of education in fostering free and independent thought and the grand irony of education destroying itself."

We live in a society that is plugged into a "matrix" and our minds are reflective of the mainstream media, current misinformation at that MSM level and misinformation from governments, commercial and industrial interests and the myriad of other 'interests' out there that push a particular agenda that is often so distant from reality, nature and normality that it is not surprising we are raising more and more violet people who think that their actions are somehow 'normal'.

Humans are innately violent. It comes with the genes. This trait may well be made worse by the social conditioning that each child receives.

However, as a child, I was punished at home with a smack when I was naughty and caned nearly every day at school (for talking). Despite this, I am a pacifist and strongly anti-war!

We live in a world where SELF is encouraged. Most people spend their life catering for SELF. In a world where we need to be considerate of others if we are to survive as a species, putting SELF first is very counterproductive (but not to Oligarchs, Corporations and Politicians who exploit humans using this trait).

I disagree with many of the points in this article.

Robert

Look, I don't mean this unkindly, but have you caught up with the extensive research indicating that the levels of inter-personal violence have declined dramatically in recent decades? They have constructed indicies of murder rates since the middle ages and they have been declining (albeit increasing slightly in more recent times).

You may also have noted aother indications such as the decline in popularity of boxing, and a drop in the number of on-field assaults in the likes of Aussie rules Football - albeit for reasons to do with the professionalisation of the sport.

As a start why not read the book 'Farewell to Alms' (no, not the Hemmingway book - note the spelling of the last word) which discusses this trend and puts forward a genetic explanation for it. There has been some discussion of it.

As for your main thesis we should draw a distinction between socialisation of children, which results in much less violence later on, and brutalisation, which is what you are thinking of. In considering this topic you may care to read up on stories of the 30s and 40s, say, with depict surprisng levels of interpersonal violence.

As for the bit about warfare, you did realise the number of armed conflicts had been declining? There are groups that track these things. There was a distinct peak after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, from memory, and now the number and severity of military conflicts are declining.

Whether you believe in Creation or Evolution - the fact remains that 'violence' is not only a human trait but also found in virtually all animal species.

A certain amount of aggression is likely essential for survival and like every other aspect of a persons make up, some have far more than others. This would account for the oftimes vast differences in behaviour and personality of children born to and raised by the same parents. It would also account for children being reared using "non-violent parenting methods" who have no inhibitions about physically assaulting their peers or even adults.

While children brought up with violence - as in brutality, not the occasional slap on the bum as aptly applied discipline, may well act likewise, this is by no means a given. Nor that the child reared in all gentleness will perpetuate the same. Certainly if we're to reduce levels of true violence in this world, children must be taught and be expected to conform to social standards. While they are learning about their rights, they must also be taught their responsibilities.

Also while violence can beget violence, just as frequently violence works against itself.. Early memory of my brother who had a habit of biting, sometimes when frustrated, tired or provoked, othertimes for devilment. My duty to protect younger siblings had been drummed into me so I'd never really retaliated until Mother, frustrated and embarassed by his behaviour decided he should be bitten back and instructed me to do so. She'd tried words, smacks, time out (locked in the bathroom) but now it was bite and be bitten. I bit him twice, that was it - he never bit me again. Don't think Mum had to bite him too many times either. I do remember her biting him because he bit the poor cat, him crying and her saying "Now you know how it feels ..." He quit the behaviour pretty fast.

Robert Burrowes world would be nice but in reality it's another planet (and species?) altogether methinks.

divine_msn

Quite right. Violence is rightly to be deplored but there are some instances where it can end a sea of troubles at little cost.

Another useful instance is jail. Although I have never been to jail I have been to a boys school (which shares some characteristics with a jail, as I understand it). If you are bullied in such places a non-violent approach is asking for real trouble. But if you make it clear you won't stand any nonsense once, then there is no need to do anything again, usually. Non-violence is asking for violence in such places.

If the author has been studying violence since the 1960's as stated and has not seen the increase in street violence since smacking went out the window then I doubt whether he will ever come to a sensible conclusion. Humans are violent because it is in their fallen nature to be lustful, greedy, jealous and full of self. It did not take a life of abuse to cause the science graduate to take it out at the Batman movie recently. The denial of the fallen nature always leads to wrong conclusion. People steal because forbidden fruit appears to taste better than legal fruit.

I hate to be uncharitable, but I don't see how a Gilligan's Island experience qualifies Mr Burrowes to make the assertions that he does. Other than the excessive focus on The Self, the article also lacks data, coherence and frankly an understanding of reality.

>>Other than the excessive focus on The Self, the article also lacks data<<

Which is what you'd expect from two pacifists sitting about navel gazing for fourteen years. How on earth was Mr Burrowes hoping to gather information about the causes of human violence using that methodology? Divine inspiration?

Robert: wouldn't those 14 years have been better spent examining the psychology of people who are violent instead of two people who aren't? If you wanted to research the causes of violence you really couldn't have picked a worse method than the one you did. No wonder all your conclusions are so dubious.

Cheers,

Tony

How extremely depressing, to spend one's life in such an utterly pointless fashion. To be curious about why people are violent is a perfectly natural part of life, just one of many unfathomable facets of being human. But to spend such a huge slab of one's life obsessing about it is merely sad.

And then to arrive at the end (one hopes) of this journey and find only banality is nothing short of tragic.

I took a quick peek at the document that Mr Burrowes referred us to. And immediately felt as though I was intruding upon someone's private nervous breakdown. It makes no sense whatsoever.

"It takes enormous and protracted violence to terrorise the individual into accepting paid work in a modern economy"

Enormous and protracted violence is required to get us into the workforce? I'm sorry, that is not the planet I live on. It might be the planet of someone who is looking to justify their own lack of intention to earn what is commonly known as an honest wage, but it sure ain't mine.

The end result is a lecture on child-rearing, from someone who clearly has no children of his own, but is also so thoroughly emotionally damaged that they actually think that this makes sense:

"Because all adults have been so dysfunctionalised by violence, they now believe that chronic and compulsive interference in the natural development of the child, and particularly in the expression of its feelings, is 'normal'. Why? Because this violent interference is regarded as necessary to 'socialise' the child in the ways of its society. But the outcome is disastrous and tragic: this violent interference makes it impossible for any child to become properly functional (which does not include being obedient) let alone to realise its genetic potential for consciousness (or Self-realisation)."

Please. Seek help.