Social learning and analysis of cultural views on interpersonal violence have much to say about peer-to-peer bullying, vertical workplace microaggressions, and social horizontal violence. We generally agree that "microaggressions" are undesirable, yet some would suggest interpersonal aggressions are unavoidable. For some time professional development workshops and staff-focused social-emotional capacity training have focused on merely coping with microaggressions or assuming an assertive posture when experiencing them. Assertiveness [1] is so sought after that numerous self-help books and television programs aim to increase its prevalence in society. Horizontal violence, however, in its various forms, is pervasive. Horizontal violence [2] being the lived and vicarious discretionary aggression perpetrated by and among people in various areas of human activity.
High pressure, time constrained work environments which are populated by diverse personalities are indeed likely to cause tensions. Work units or community groups with divergent ideas or non-consensus on how to achieve a shared goal can produce tensions. Creative tension is indeed natural to the process of both transformation and progress. Tensions may be driven by missed timelines, ineffective communication, disappointing outputs, and perceived over reaches in position and authority. Strategies to remain calm or assertive in the face of aggression are valuable but perhaps, in the longer-term, questioning and re-framing our cultural view of aggression, in general and workplace or institutional aggression in particular, would better serve organizations, the health of their allies and associates, and the communities from which they come and return.
Is Coping with Aggression The Ultimate Outcome?
With rational self-interest in mind and for the security of physical and emotional boundaries, we all should incorporate so-called healthy aggression [3, 4] (i.e. assertiveness) into our personalities. The ability and, more importantly, the will to evaluate a situation and determine the necessary and appropriate amount of assertiveness is adaptive and healthy human behavior. Establishing boundaries is necessary for both survival and security. Ultimately, boundaries support one’s mental health and productivity in performing chosen roles. Existing research on adversity suggests that chronically stressed and under-appreciated people demonstrate, among other things, increased absenteeism, decreased creative input, and the over-stressed select coping strategies that undermine health and performance which may progress into active disengagement and sometimes other far reaching consequences. Despite the first-aid offered by mastering coping strategies, brain science and social science research suggests man is not meant or built to cope with chronic stress and discretionary aggression. Coping is not the ultimate outcome; a just, generative culture is.
Aggression In And As Culture
The prevalence of discretionary aggression in our daily lives—be it emotional violence, mental violence, or physical violence—makes us believe humans are by nature aggressive and it is incumbent upon the aggressed upon to adapt to such leanings. Accordingly, we accept the idea of pervasive human aggression. There is an opportunity cost to such adaptations. Adapting to violence as natural behavior persuades us to believe that displays of humanity are in fact moments of excellence and as such, a work supervisor who opts for understanding rather than exercising oppressive power, those who call 911 for an obviously injured person, stop to administer first aid to a person in distress, refuse to injure another by “following orders,” or choose to stand together against an aggressor are worthy to be praised as exceptional men/women. Yes, we should be grateful for such actions and people who are present enough to be just. However, when a society is constructed in such a way that openly just people become atypical of the common narrative, we have to ask ourselves some difficult questions about cultural identity and values. This questioning is appropriate at the personal, relational, and institutional levels.
Experiencing The Systems We Create and Reinforce
As deciders of cultural direction, we must be intentional about and critical of the social-emotional messages that we allow to incentivize and constrain inhumane human behavior. Social-emotional messages flavor the milieu of a culture. Social messages teach the listener what is accepted as real [5] and worthwhile. Social teaching and learning produce an understanding of what types of human behavior (and expressed thoughts) are acceptable, expected, and even desired in our various roles as workers, group members, and citizens. Whatever you label it, in this culture and its global implications, discretionary aggression entertains and shadows us. In movies, comedy, music, jokes, policy, community outings, water cooler conversations, the evening news, professional development seminars, and dinner table talk. You may not be the object of the horizontal violence, but only a few degrees of separation exist, and horizontal violence has rippling and recursive effects. The effects of experiencing adversity and discretionary aggression translate into the quality of self-care, parenting, and later conflict resolution and interpersonal interactions.
If you have not noticed the pervasiveness of discretionary aggression, it is because you choose to insulate yourself or you live in a xenophilic place where no person’s diversity of thought or being is a perceived affront to the unconscious premises of someone else’s identity. But, most likely, the reason you do not see it is because you ignore/minimize/detach from what you see, hear or experience for the purpose of coping with and adapting to displays of unnatural behavior. Apathy is--best-case scenario--an unhealthy form of coping under an undesirable and/or overwhelming reality. Theories about the role of inquiry and institutional change suggest that it is our impassioned and persistent questions that determine the course and nature of the social systems we create/experience. We are simultaneously deciders of cultural milieu and victims of our questions, or lack thereof.
Defining Questions
The frailty of constraints we impose on abhorrent behavior, the (intentional/unintentional) incentivizing of horizontal violence or adaptation to inhumane identity is not natural, but it can become typical of a place, space, or people. The cost of horizontal violence is a tainted cultural breeding ground that serves to reproduce denatured offspring from iteration to iteration. We are each and collectively responsible for the quality and humanity of our decisions and the offspring such decisions produce. "Society is a product of us." [6] Our work units and community groups are a product of the ideas we consume and are a result of the impact that consumption has on our thoughts, speech, and actions. The wrongs we right. The media we like. The memes we share. The questions we ask. The things we dare. We are deciders. The real question is, what are our decisions made of, and is that enough?
The conduction of business and access to capital are now driving forces in our daily lives. What mental, emotional, physical, or relational steps do you reason we can take to better own our individual roles as deciders of our personal-, relational-, institutional-cultural milieu and position discretionary aggression as abhorrent behavior that undermines mental health and productivity?
FOOTNOTES:
- Assertiveness defined as the ability and will to advocate for the humane and legitimate interests, rights, and boundaries of oneself or one’s collective in the presence of unprovoked aggression.
- Paulo Freire popularized “horizontal violence” as that which occurs between oppressed peoples because of their oppression in the class hierarchy. Horizontal violence may be considered an effect of adversity or personal and/or group historical trauma. Here, I conceived all as being on the same natural level, without regard to the institutional titles or accolades each may have acquired. Therefore, the perceived or experienced violence is horizontal, in nature.
- See Dr. Jordan Peterson's lecture series on Personality.
- Aggression as defined by Webster’s dictionary.
- Often our intuitions undergo forced shaping/quieting to avoid sticking out; social learning teaches us what we must do to get-along. This shaping determines what we perceive and what actions we choose to risk because of those perceptions. In addition, some critical social messages are attacked on grounds other than their basis in observation, statistics, or logical/rational conclusion. They are indeed inconvenient truths.
- See Dr. Jordan Peterson's lecture series on Depth Psychology, Personality and Its Transformations. https://www.youtube.com/user/JordanPetersonVideos
About The Author
With background as a school-based therapist, higher education instructor, and Masters in Educational Psychology (learning and cognition), Pamela “Denise” Long, MS, OT, CFLE, nurtures research and practice interests in evaluation-focused organization development, helping people and institutions incorporate trauma-informed care (TIC) principles, and advancing the strategic use of collaborative social learning to improve the outcomes of educational and community organizations.
Comments (0)