Culture, basic emotions and self-control

Blog by Huib Wursten and Fernando Lanzer

Norbert Elias, in his book The Civilizing Process, described the process of civilization in terms of the development of self-control. The higher the level of civilization, the higher the level of restraint, stability, and flexibility.  

However, it is not always easy to control your emotions. Some people say that they are, in reality, a thin layer protecting the world from harmful basic emotions.

Revenge movies, for instance, are often satisfying because they tap into deep-seated emotions and universal themes that resonate with many people. 

Revenge movies typically revolve around the idea of justice and catharsis. When the protagonist seeks revenge, it satisfies the audience’s desire for justice, especially in cases where traditional justice systems fail. The act of revenge serves as a cathartic release, allowing viewers to experience vicariously the triumph over injustice. The strong emotions at play—anger, grief, betrayal—are universally relatable. The audience, through the film’s characters, feel that they are allowed to express justified rage without the restraints of civilization that would make them feel guilty for such aggressive expressions of violence.

Human Rights as a Framework for Managing Emotions

Human rights are universal principles that aim to protect all individuals’ dignity, freedom, and equality. Basic emotions, such as fear, anger, love, and empathy, are intrinsic to human nature and play a crucial role in how people perceive and react to the world around them. Human rights provide a framework for managing emotions constructively. 

For instance, anger might arise from perceived injustice, but human rights principles encourage addressing such feelings through lawful and peaceful means rather than violence.

Emotions like fear or hatred can also lead to prejudice and discrimination, which human rights frameworks seek to combat. Balancing these emotions with protecting others’ rights is a key challenge in diverse societies. 

This implies that while recognizing that destructive emotions are natural, acting on them without considering their impact on others and due process before conviction and punishment can lead to undue harm toward innocent people. Human rights provide the necessary boundaries within which emotions can be expressed, ensuring that the dignity and rights of all individuals are respected. At the same time, recognizing the role of emotions in motivating human rights advocacy is crucial for fostering a compassionate and just society.

Civilization and impulse control 

It’s important to keep primary emotions like anger and the desire for revenge under control for several reasons:

Impulse control is often referred to as a cornerstone of civilization because it is essential for the functioning of organized societies. The ability to regulate impulses—to delay immediate gratification, resist harmful urges, and consider the long-term consequences of actions—enables individuals to live together harmoniously, follow social norms, and contribute to collective well-being. This behavior regulation allows for the development of complex social structures, institutions, and cultural practices that define civilization.

The Role of Impulse Control in Social Order

In a civilized society, individuals are expected to adhere to certain rules and norms that promote order and stability. These rules often require people to suppress immediate desires or aggressive impulses in favor of behaviors that align with societal expectations. For example, instead of resorting to violence when angered, individuals in a civilized society are expected to resolve conflicts through dialogue or legal means. This control of impulses helps prevent chaos and ensures that social interactions remain peaceful and productive.

Delaying Gratification and Long-Term Planning

Civilization is built on delaying gratification and engaging in long-term planning. This means individuals must often forgo immediate pleasures for future benefits, such as working hard in the present to secure a stable future or investing resources in education and infrastructure that will benefit society in the long run. Impulse control allows people to think beyond their immediate needs and desires, fostering the development of systems like education, law, and governance that require sustained effort and foresight.

3. Moral and Ethical Development

Impulse control is also closely tied to developing moral and ethical standards within a society. Civilized behavior often involves making choices that are beneficial to oneself and considerate of others. This requires empathy, self-discipline, and the ability to put the community’s needs above personal desires. For instance, following laws, practicing fairness, and showing respect for others’ rights are all behaviors that stem from controlling selfish impulses in favor of ethical conduct.

Cultural and Intellectual Advancement

The arts, sciences, and other cultural achievements of civilization often require high impulse control. Creativity and intellectual pursuits involve dedication, patience, and the ability to focus on complex tasks over long periods. Impulse control enables individuals to resist distractions and persist in endeavors contributing to cultural and technological progress. The development of language, literature, and philosophical thought, all of which are hallmarks of civilization, are made possible by the ability to control impulses and engage in deep, reflective thinking.

Uneasiness and anger as a result of the need for self-control

In the news and the media, we see that in many countries, people seem to be becoming progressively more angry. 

According to Sigmund Freud, the need for control over basic emotions creates an insoluble tension between an individual and the community and culture he is part of.  In 1930 in his book “Das Unbehagen in der Kultur” Freud applies some of the principles of his psychoanalysis.  He focuses on what he sees as the fundamental tensions between civilization and the individual.  He asserts that the primary friction stems from the individual’s quest for instinctive freedom battling against civilization’s contrary demand for conformity and repression of instincts.  Freud states that when any pleasurable situation is prolonged, it creates a feeling of mild contentment.  However, many of humankind’s primitive instincts (for example, the desire to kill or unlimited sexual gratification) are clearly harmful to the well-being of the community.  As a result, civilization has created laws that prohibit killing, rape, and adultery and severe punishments are levied if these rules are broken.  In this way, our opportunities for happiness are restricted by the law.  This process, argues Freud, is an inherent quality of civilization that gives rise to perpetual feelings of discontent among its citizens.

Freud’s theory is based on the notion that humans have certain characteristic instincts that are immutable.  Most notably, sexual libido and the predisposition to violent aggression toward authority figures or sexual competitors who obstruct the individual’s path to gratification.  This is inherent to what we call culture.  The basic human instincts of a sexual and violent nature are being kept at bay by what is called “civilization” This civilization creates a habitable social environment with its rules and norms.  This, in turn, provides protection for the humans in that civilization, but in so doing, it also creates new psychological problems such as neuroses, inhibition, and repression.

The most important “drive” in human beings is aimed at maximizing pleasure and happiness. Freud calls this the ‘pleasure principle’. We want to have it all! However, at the same time, we are acutely aware that we are limited in our desires and actions because, in reality, we might do ourselves and others harm. Freud calls this the ‘reality principle’. Not everything we want is possible. 

In the human psyche, another drive can be found in the tendency for destruction. This partly results from the frustration of being restrained but also as an independent motivation, as sometimes violence “just feels good”.  Pain and acts of destruction are seen to be giving satisfaction.  We all know the example of a child destroying a sandcastle after building it at the beach for hours.  In an article on unrest, the author, Bas Heijne, refers to the main character in a book by Dostoyevsky, who says, “Sometimes it just feels good to destroy something.”

The problem of being “street smart.”

Some people reject the human rights approach and promote being “street-smart”. This means adopting a different, unwritten code of ethics that allows for “thinking on your feet”. 

This is then seen as “realistic” in contrast to theoretical “academic approaches”. Street-smart behavior frequently implies behaving according to basic emotions like anger and the desire for revenge.

Here are a few examples of such opinions and the need to look at the wider implications for morality:

1. “The only thing they understand is violence.”

This is often invalid for several reasons, especially when applied to groups or individuals:

It is an oversimplification of Human Behavior: People and groups have complex motivations that cannot be reduced to a single factor like violence. Many factors, such as cultural values, emotions, social conditions, economic circumstances, and personal experiences, influence human behavior.

Dehumanization: This statement can dehumanize the targeted group or individual by implying they lack the capacity for reason, dialogue, or empathy, which are fundamental human traits.

Bias and Prejudice: It often stems from or reinforces biases, stereotyping, and prejudice, leading to further division and conflict.

It is a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: If one assumes that violence is the only language understood, one may take premature actions that escalate conflict rather than resolve it through peaceful means.

It is Ignoring Context: The statement ignores the context in which violence occurs, such as oppression, injustice, or desperation, where violence may be a reaction rather than an innate understanding.

In summary, the statement “the only thing they understand is violence” is invalid because it oversimplifies complex human behavior, dehumanizes individuals or groups, can lead to a cycle of escalating violence, lacks empirical support, and raises significant ethical concerns. Effective communication, understanding, and nonviolent approaches are often more productive in resolving conflicts and achieving lasting peace.

• “We have to stop this once and for all.” 

In the context of a conflict, this is problematic for several reasons:

Unrealistic Expectations: The phrase implies that the conflict can be resolved permanently, which may not be realistic. Many conflicts have deep-rooted causes that aren’t easily or quickly resolved. Suggesting a “once and for all” solution might oversimplify the situation’s complexity and set expectations that can’t be met.

Overconfidence: The phrase implies that a decisive, possibly forceful, action can resolve the issue, ignoring the need for negotiation, compromise, and long-term strategies.

Ignoring Underlying Issues: Stating “once and for all” may focus on ending the symptoms of the conflict (such as violence) without addressing the underlying issues (like inequality, historical grievances, or political differences). Without addressing these root causes, the conflict is likely to resurface in the future.

Potential for Escalation: The phrase can suggest a final, all-encompassing action, which could escalate tensions. Parties in a conflict might perceive this as a threat or an ultimatum, leading to further entrenchment or retaliation rather than moving toward resolution.