By: Ahmed M. ElNahhas
– Pisa, June 15th 2014.
Commenting on the Brussels meetings where the European Union members are
discussing the Emigration Energency phenomena, Prof.
Marek Halter said:
“Coming out of
a church, how many persons would stop to offer alms (charity) to
the poor? Very few, though all religions have prescribed it.. In the same way
governments retire from their moral responsibilities.. In 1938 the Evian
Conference was held to figure out which nation would receive and accommodate
the Jews; only the
Dominican Republic came
forward offering its welcome.. Now, the same is happening again, and Europe is
refusing to host and shelter frightened and horrified refugees desperately escaping
from ethnic cleansing and civil wars.. Human beings looking for safety and serenity
through a dignifying working life.. The urgent need today is being able to
figure out a global solution for Africa.. We have for long allowed misery to
devastate that continent, and now we have to face the consequences and pay the
price”.
What Prof. Halter have just said, drove me to think.. What is the the
core of the problem? How and where to look for its original cause? The one
before Colonialism, Racism, Corruption or Apartheid.. The true one causing all
of them.. And, like an Archeologist
digging out history from underneath the ground and clearing it from dirt; I
think I may have found it.. Buried under heavy layers of human lies and
intentional distortion of facts.
So, bear with me for a moment.. Allow me to explain:
Sociological, Anthropological, Ethological and
Psychoanalytical scientific vernaculars have all clearly drawn the
line separating “Aggressiveness”
from “Violence”..
Yet, the modern use of the two terms is so confused; and even mixes them up to
the point of rendering them synonyms.
While Aggressiveness means
the instinct to identify and defend our own physical, psychic or social
territory in its many diverse forms, in short our identity; Violence instead is the thriving instinct
to entre others territories and to violate them, by words or facts, in personal
or collective lives.
In poor words: if I’m hungry and succeed to procure myself a chunk
of bread, then my aggressive instinct would drive me to eat it
all and alone.. Only the intervention of a cultural code could induce me
towards a mediation as to share it with another person equally famished. But
violence become verifiable when I rip off the chunk of bread from someone
else’s hands to keep it to myself and eat all and alone.
Similarly, if searching for energy resources would drive a population into
the initiative of looking for new lands that are well provisioned by such
resources, then we are talking about Aggressive Instinct; that would quickly
mutate into Aggression/Violence if those lands were inhabited by antique
populations whom are opposed and/or in disagreement to such initiative.
Since humanity, for long unmemorable time, used to mediate instinct by
Moral
Conscience; then the use of aggressiveness or the sorting to violence
have always depended upon: a) the quality of the subject, b) its conscience, c)
its sub-conscience and d) the social status in which it lives.
So, why then to mix up such two different terms?
Because today Human Aggressiveness
is very much ill and clumsily swings between two poles completely opposed and
as much destructive:
1) either
we feel unable to identify and defend our own territory; or
2) we
are incapable of identifying and respecting the territory(ies) of the others.
As a result, and for various reasons, we have come to simplify the
complexity of the two instincts, to the point of ignoring – or even denying -
the difference between Violence and Self-Defence.
The consequences, whether on personal or collective levels, are a juicy
matter of daily chronicle on newspapers and TV talk shows.
Pass On The Word.
Ref:
·
Le Idee of Anais Ginori.
·
Inégalité: Notre création by Marek Halter.
·
TamTam of Marina Valcarenghi.
No comments:
Post a Comment