Howard Zinn Violence And Human Nature Summary

Summary of Howard Zinn’s “Violence and Human Nature”

In Howard Zinn’s article “Violence and Human Nature” Zinn investigates the belief that violence is an innate trait of human beings. In the end he comes to a conclusion that not all humans are born with a drive to be violent, but instead mainly influenced by that person’s natural surroundings and environments. In section one of Zinn’s article, he explains three events in which he has experienced which have ultimately shaped his perception of human violence. Two of the events he watched and one in which he participated. He claims that the violence he has participated in can be explained by the environment and it was influenced by his surroundings. Zinn believes it is wrong to make excuses beyond the environment one is raised in, or that it is the environment that one is brought up by that holds the reason why human beings are violent. In the next section, Zinn is looking at the great minds to see what their views are and if violence is connected to Human Nature. Zinn looks into a philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, who
believed that mankind had an everlasting desire for power that would only be finished in death. Zinn also examines the mind of Albert Einstein who wanted to seek answers for why humans make war. For this he writes to philosopher, Sigmund Freud, who responds by saying that he agrees with Einstein that, “Because man has within him a lust for hatred and destruction” (Zinn 34). However, Einstein then concludes that man is steered to “disastrous collective suggestions”. In the end Zinn discovers that even the most intelligent men cannot find evidence within their profession to prove that humans are driven to commit violent acts.
In Howard Zinn’s third section, he focuses on the evidence in science to figure out if one has an innate drive of violence and if they are aggressive or not. At first Zinn talks about two scientists, Freud and E. O. Wilson who neither find evidence for the drive of violence within their profession, but instead turn to a logical explanation of our history. He believes that because its neither found in biology or psychology that many people turn to the impression that since there is so much war it must mean that it comes from something within human nature that drive us to aggression. Zinn also comments on Wilson’s idea that humans are “innately aggressive”, he goes in depth of Wilsons definition to it and concludes that he does not think that the environment we are surrounded by decides whether we are good or not but that from the point we are born we genetically have the potential to be violent but that we also have the possibility for tranquility. Zinn although concludes that characteristic genes are commonly known for passing down from one generation to the next, yet there is virtually nothing about genes having to do with mental ability like aggression being handed down. When Zinn decides to look into psychology, he focuses on one famous experiment to see the way humans reacted. It was known as the “Milgram Experience”, a test that would show how authority is used to conflict violence. The experiment ordered volunteers to observe a person taking a test. The volunteers were ordered to shock the test takers whenever they got a wrong answer, yet the volunteers were unaware that the test takers were merely just actors pretending to be in agonizing pain. When the volunteers became unwilling to continue to shock the test takers they were told to continue. Some carried on while others refused. They found that the behavior of people who were willing to shock the actors can be justified by what they learned, for they were ordered to follow the instructions given by the ones in charge. Another example Zinn uses is the study of anthropologist Colin Turnbull who ran a study in which he would live in two different environments of native tribes. He saw the Pygmies to be kindhearted and peaceful, while the Ik’s were greedy and vulgar but noticed that the reason was because of the environments they lived in. Turnbull saw that the Pygmies had an easier life, and that the Ik’s, who lived in a place of starvation turned to aggression in an attempt to survive. In the end, Zinn finds that none of the scientific evidence explains the aggressive violence that characterizes war.
In the following section Howard Zinn argues that the reasons we go to war is not because we are appealed to destruction but are influenced by our surroundings.
Zinn believes one reason we go to war is because people are brought up to believe that they could confide in our political leaders and that our country is good and better than others. Zinn also mentions that people also go to war because of the benefits that are obtained like education and economic security, and some even go to war because some were recruited under the law. J. Glenn Gray a former combatant presumes that the “lust of the eye” was one of the reasons people went to war, and he believed people were fascinated by emotional experiences and painterly images they received from the war. In the end Zinn believes that the reason we go to war is by the beliefs that we are taught and not because we have an inherent drive for
violence.
In section five, Zinn explores different understandings of war and illustrates the draft and how humans react toward violence. Zinn adds, in the draft for World War I people were not eager to go to war for an opportunity to kill, in fact, he says many people were against it. Zinn mentions a few situations where people from different states tried to get out of the war, so they pursued immunity or even suicide. He also mentions a case where obedience played a vital role in causing a fuming bloodbath. It was known as the My Lai Massacre, where soldiers were ordered to execute everyone in the village, mostly women and children, even though not a single bullet had been shot at the soldiers. One soldier reveals, “I didn’t agree with the killings but we were ordered to do it” (Zinn 42). However, some refused to obey orders and attempted to save of the women and children. Based on soldier’s experiences, Zinn concludes that people are not naturally violent but the setting that they are put in make them violent.
In the last section, Zinn mentions anarchist Emma Goldman, who considers science as the reason why horrible crimes are committed .This is later opposed by biologist Salvadore E. Luria, who distrusts that genes are what cause one to be violent, yet she believes that one should look into the “creativity of the mind” (Zinn 43). Zinn looks in depth at what she means and concludes that creativity has been shown in history when people refused to kill and commit violent acts, yet scholars and the great minds only looked at the negative actions that humans took part in. In the end, Zinn is adamant that humans are not programmed for violence yet he comes to an understanding that there is an immeasurable capacity for a human to turn to violence. However, there is also an unlimited potential for peacefulness that a human can be capable of that is determined by the person environment and situations.