After reviewing our history, one easily feels tempted to conclude that violence is innate to human beings. Romeo and Juliet’s Verona, for example, is a violent world whose source of violence is the feud between the Montagues and the Capulets.
Assuming Verona is a civilized city, dialogue
should have been able to solve the conflict between the two families. However,
after Romeo marries Juliet, Tybalt challenges Romeo to a duel, and Romeo tries
to solve things peacefully, yet his attempt results in Mercutio’s death, which
proves that dialogue is unable to solve conflicts in their world. On the
contrary, it actually causes more violence as Mercutio’s death infuriates Romeo
so much that he ends up killing Tybalt.
Furthermore, violence in Romeo
and Juliet is portrayed as universal (Resnick 1): “The quarrel is between our
masters, and us their men.” This shows that both masters and servants are involved
in the feud. Furthermore, when the first fight scene takes place, even common people
get involved in the fight, which shows violence is universal in Verona: “Down
with the Montagues! Down with the Capulets.”
Unexpectedly, violence in Verona
seems to be necessary because “it pushes the story forward and makes things
happen” (Violence in Romeo and Juliet), and Shakespiare turns it into a source
of hope (Resnick 1): It is the deaths of Romeo and Juliet that ends the feud,
as if “the only way that they [Capulets and Montagues] learn is through the
horrible deaths of their children” (Resnick 1).
All of the above leads to ask
ourselves whether violence is inherent to human beings or not. Although at first sight
that seems to be the case, it is actually not. As a matter of fact, external
stimulation is more likely to result in violent behaviors rather than internal
ones (Kohn). This idea is pefectly applicable to Romeo and Juliet, as the violence taking place is caused by
external reasons. For example, when Romeo kills Tybalt, he does so to avenge
his friend Mercutio, which is clearly an external reason.
So classmates, do you think
violence is innate to human nature? Do you agree that although violence is bad,
it gets things going in Romeo and Juliet? If not, do you think dialogue could
have ended the feud instead of the deaths of Romeo and Juliet (consider the
duel between Tybalt and Romeo)? I’m looking forward to reading your answers.
Works Cited
Kohn, Alphie. “Are Humans Innately Aggressive?”
www. Alfiekohn.org. alfiekohn.org/miscellaneous/aggression.htm, June 1988. Web.
07 Sep. 2014.
Resnik, Chris. “Violence in Romeo and Juliet.” pages.towson.edu. pages.towson.edu. Web.
07 Sep. 2014.
WriteWork contributors. "Violence in
'Romeo and Juliet', Shakespeare." WriteWork.com. WriteWork.com, 04
February, 2006. Web. 07 Sep. 2014.
I'd like to answer to the questions from the last paragraph of your post under two perspectives. The first one is in the light of Albert Banbura's theory of social learning. To support my point, I suggest that you watch the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVynCNGxYmU (Bandura y la Teoría del Aprendizaje Social - Experimento del Muñeco Bobo). According to the findings of the experiment in this video, children that were exposed to violent behavior, not only imitated aggressive actions, but they also invented new ways of hitting the doll. Whereas the children that were not exposed to violent behavior never presented a violent response to the doll. This experiment supports my view that human beings are not inherently violent. However, once we have been exposed to violence, there's no coming back. We are absorbed by a strong emotional force that is intended to harm somebody or something.
ResponderEliminarThe second perspective is in the light of the psychologist Carl Pickhardt. According to him “most human violence is committed with a purpose in mind, for example: to get what is wanted, to make a statement, to make a change, to cause suffering, to end suffering, or some combination of the above”. In the case of the Romeo, what motivates his violence is revenge, for Mercutio is killed by Tybalt. In this sense, it is possible to say that the Montagues and the Capulets are moved by revenge, which is the purpose of violence. And revenge is a vicious circle. For this reason, as you said in your post, violence is what gets things going in the play. And what we can learn about this feud is that “feelings can prompt poor decisions that only make a hard situation worse” (Pickhardt, 2009).
Finally, I’d like to say that violence and revenge were the main means of communication between the Montagues and the Capulets. On this account, I believe that dialogue would have been ineffective when considering the long history of hatred behind these families. The damage of past injuries was stored in the hearts of them.
References
Pickhardt, C. (2009, June 6). Why violence? Retrieved September 9, 2014.
Debateuniversidades. (2013, April, 24). Bandura y la Teoría del Aprendizaje Social - Experimento del Muñeco Bobo. [Video file]. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVynCNGxYmU
You say "one easily feels tempted to conclude that violence is innate to human beings", and Anto says "Experimento del Muñeco Bobo". Then I say "sadly we do not live in an isolated world",
ResponderEliminarViolence may not be innate, but also cannot be avoided.
Does it get things going? of course!