Outliers Violence Analysis

Peace

Violence has been recorded down in our history from the dawn of time; it seems that in the past, violence was the answer for all disputes. Though time has progressed, “violence has been in decline … and today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species’ time on earth” (Pinker). This decline in violence helps illustrate that mankind has been able to change, by dealing with conflicts in a peaceful manner, for violence is now not the first option to deal with issues. This turnaround also shows an evolution in mankind’s thinking process and ethics. Mankind now has understood value in living; thus, this has allowed for peace to play an integral part in society’s culture today.

In our history, we see that violence has

played an integral part in mankind’s lives. As exhibited from the Bible:
Ancient texts reveal a stunning lack of regard for human life. In the Bible, the supposed source of all our moral values …prescribes death by stoning as the penalty for a long list of nonviolent infractions, including idolatry, blasphemy, homosexuality, adultery, disrespecting one’s parents, and picking up sticks on the Sabbath. (Pinker)
Also, continuing in the Middle Ages:
Many conventional histories reveal that mutilation and torture were routine forms of punishment for infractions that today would result in a fine. In Europe before the Enlightenment, crimes like shoplifting or blocking the king’s driveway with your oxcart might have resulted in your tongue being cut out, your hands being chopped off, and so on. (Pinker)
This shows that violence was a part of society’s culture. Based on conjectures, human life might have been less valued due to monarchy being placed in society. Because of monarchy, a hierarchy system was implemented as well. The structure of the hierarchy system displayed inequality between the nobles and the peasants; nobles usually had control and power over the peasants, resulting in the peasant class being treated like trash. I believe this way of life fueled and ignited negative thinking in society (that one’s life was easily disposable), for it was deemed okay to use acts of violence for punishment. Because of this negative cognitive pattern, it was hard for mankind to realize and understand the value of not only their life, but their neighbor’s life as well.
War in history was the main cause for casualties by means of violence. In the 15th century of feudal Japan, “Oda Nobunaga prepared the ground for the unification of Japan under one rule. He achieved his goal with utmost ruthlessness and streams of blood” (Wanczura). Though, he was not able to continue his vision of creating a unified land, for one of his loyal retainers, Mitsuhide Akechi, declared a rebellion against Oda, causing Oda to commit forced seppuku (suicide ritual to cleanse one’s shame). Because of the way of life in Japan (feudalism), I believe that Oda’s vision was flawed because of society’s culture. Although his vision of unification would mean peace to the entire nation, feudalism in Japan made it very difficult for leaders like himself to achieve his goal. Because of feudalism, there were many clans that erupted in Japan. Each clan reigned over parts of the country. Not only that, most leaders of each faction wanted to rule the entire nation of Japan. Because of this, Oda had no other choice, but to use his blade to cut through his own path to fufill his vision. In comparison, feudalism was no better than a society sustained by monarchy. The rift between the social classes was still strong. Because of this, in battles, peasants were mainly used to fight as infantry; they were basically pawns for the nobles fighting to attain their dreams. Peace seemed inevitable, for power and class dominated society (which also led to pride and honor).
Although I believe that Oda could have formed more alliances to help unify Japan, I believe that his pride triggered; he wanted to be the main ruler of Japan after the chaos. I also believe that his pride was fueled, for the society Japan practiced the “culture of honor.”
From a passage in Malcolm Gladwell’s novel Outliers, Gladwell explains the “culture of honor,” “where a man’s reputation is at the center of his livelihood and self-worth” (167).

“In the backcounty, violence wasn’t for economic gain. It was personal. You fought over your honor” (169). In the Harlan County in the nineteenth century there was conflict between two families. “The Howards and the Turners-did not get along” (162). Their conflicts led to gun fighting, causing casualties to both families, and wreaking havoc in the community. Though, throughout the family feud, the general attitudes toward using guns (violence) to resolve conflicts was accepting (it was natural). Will Turner’s mother is an example of accepting gun violence, as she told her son, “Die like a man, like your brother did!” Though, I believe that her attitude towards gun violence were justified, for “she belonged to a world so well acquainted with fatal gunshots that she had certain expectations about how they ought to be endured” (164). Comparing family feuds back then to present time, family feuds are now generally handled in nonviolent ways. Court is an example of resolving family feuds. Not only that, if the Howards and Turners resorted to gun violence to settle their fight, all of the surviving family members would be jailed for manslaughter in today’s

society.
With Will Turner’s mother, gun violence back then seemed accepting. It is possible that her laid back attitude towards gun violence was due to the justice system back in the day. Courts back in the day may have been seen irreverent. In the murder trial in Breathitt County, a man “walked up to the judge and grabbed his gavel… and announced, “Court’s over and ever’body can go. We ain’t agoin’ to have any court here this term, folks” (165,166). This shows the lack of power in the justice system. In today’s society, if a man walked up to the judge to grab his gavel, it is most likely that the police officers in the court room would have held him down before he even reached the judge’s panel. In regards to guns today, there are gun control laws. One cannot acquire a gun easily. People now need to take classes in order to understand how to use a gun and to also wield a gun. Not only that, there is an age limit in acquiring guns in our country. Also, it is not likely for people to walk around carrying guns packed in their belt holster. People nowadays have the freedom to walk around unarmed, for society today has evolved; it has become more peaceful, and people understand the importance of their own and their neighbor’s lives.
In regards to Will Turner’s mother’s attitude towards death, this might have been the general attitude back in the day. Because guns were not restricted, it is possible that solving their issues through gun violence was generally accepted because it was usually the solution to their problems. Today, the value of life has increased. We now mourn and become depressed over losing a loved one. Not only that, because we value life, parents also care for their children. Children who want to go to the army usually have parents who do not want them to go, in fear of their son/daughter dying in the war. This shows that society now has changed to help mankind understand that people have self-worth, and dying in vain is not an option; it is considered a conspiracy and victims of deceased spouses would do what they can to find justice for their deceased loved ones.
Despite having violence in our background, mankind has slowly learned and demonstrated compromise in order to be at peace with one another. The Treaty of San Francisco (one of the many Treaties that have been used to stop wars) that was declared effective on April 28, 1952, explains “peace became official between Japan and some of the Allied nations, and thus it represented the technical end of WW2” (Chen). Despite the tremendous damage from WWII, the Allied Nations were able to be at peace with Japan. This allowed leeway to a mutualistic relationship in the future. Now, in today’s society, with the Treaty still in effect, the Allied Nations and Japan are still friends and interact with one another through exporting and trading goods, through traveling, and also through our respective president’s visiting their neighboring countries. This shows an evolution in our cognitive thinking, with peace in mind, we are capable of building a peaceful society where we can coexist with one another.
In regards to violence, it is possible that violence can be based on instinct. “In true nature-nurture fashion, though some kind of genetic preprogramming for violence may exist in humans as a result of our evolution, it is the specific environment that decides how, or whether, that biological determination is triggered, scientists say” (Whipps). Not only that, our reasoning for killing can be a factor in violence. “The intelligent reasoning that lets most of us override any innate desire to be violent also makes some people, such as parents that kill their children, as well as institutions justify violence illogically, experts say” (Whipps). This helps explain how a culture’s society can influence civilian thinking. Violence can be deemed as illogical, for the society and way of life in the past was mostly made of up negative patterns of thought due to violence. Consequences such as death and daily warfare may have helped influence people to condition themselves to believe that human life was disposable and irreverent. “The critical variable in the indulgence of violence is an overarching sense that life is cheap. When pain and early death are everyday features of one’s own life, one feels less compunction about inflicting them on others. As technology and economic efficiency lengthen and improve our lives, we place a higher value on life in general” (Pinker). As time has progressed, we now see an evolution of change in our society; we emphasize value in our lives and well-being. We also think before we act on violence (eg. compromise to find other ways to deal with conflicts).
In society today, we have other ways in expressing our disagreements. One way of expressing our disagreements is through nonviolent peaceful protesting. Chenoweth explains that violent protesting is not good: