AO1 Xenophobia (Sport)
One explanation of group displays in humans
is from Wilson who claims that xenophobia has been documented in every group of
animals displaying higher forms of social organization. Natural selection, it
appears has favoured those genes that caused human beings to be altruistic
toward members of their own group but intolerant towards outside members. Shaw
and Wong argue that mechanisms that prompt suspicion towards strangers would
have been favoured by natural selection. This would have enabled our ancestors
to avoid attack and so leave behind more offspring. MacDonald suggests that fro
an evolutionary perspective, it is adaptive to exaggerate negative stereotypes
about outsiders, as the overperception is less costly than under perception.
Research support comes from Foldesi who
demonstrated a link between xenophobia and violent displays among Hungarian
football crowds. He found that racist conduct of a core of extremist supporters
led to an increase of spectators violence in general and xenophobic outburst in
particular. Violent incidents based on race or xenophobic attitudes were
observed at all stadiums.
However Marsh offers an alternative
explanation of the aggression within football crowds as he suggests that a lot
of the aggressive behaviour between rival sport fans is ritualistic. For
example Fosdick and Marsh’s research they quote celtic rangers match with a
crowd of approximately 50,000 were police only made 5 arrests and only 1.6
coincide with football nights compared to non football nights. Therefore
suggesting that the behaviour is mor
ritualistic rather than aggressive forms of behaviour.
Warfare is another group display of
aggression that may be explained by evolution. In societies that experienced
frequent warfare, males are more likely than females to escape infanticide due
to their potential usefulness in battle. As a result there are more men than
women. Men must compete with eat other for mates and those who do well in
battle gain access to female mate. This is because displays of aggressiveness and bravery are more attractive to females and can make an individual acquire more status in the eyes of the other group members. The strongest and most
aggressive males will have a greater success at winning and therefore survive
longer and have more reproductive success to pass on their genes.
AO2
There is some research to support this from
Chagnon. He looked at the Yanamamo tribe in the amazon rainforest who are
obsessed with the size of their village, constantly forming alliances with
other villages. Yanamamo people often fought for access to women. Success in
battle gave the warriors high status and therefore successful in finding mates
and having children. Those who had not killed anyone did not have any wives and
no children.
These evolutionary theories however are
regarded as speculative as they cannot be falsified, and therefore not regarded
as scientific theories. This is because the theories make a lot of assumption
e.g. being intolerant of strangers is adaptive to survival, but cannot back these
theories up with rigorous scientific studies. Therefore this reduces the
validity of the explanation, unlike other explanations such as social learning theory,
which can be tested.
AO2/IDA
The evolutionary theory also cannot explain
cross-cultural differences, as the theory explains that xenophobia and warfare
are innate responses for survival therefore if this was the case, these
characteristics should be universal. However this is not the case the !Kung San
tribe of the Kalahari desert aggressive behaviour is rare and devalued with in
their society. The !Kung San parents also do not physical punish their
children. This suggests that aggression is more to do with social learning than
evolutionary adaptations.
A criticism of both explanations is that it
takes the view that humans have evolved to behaved in aggressive ways this
therefore ignores the role of free will and can be seen as an irresponsible
explanation. This is because its exonerates individuals who display high levels
of violence and aggression. It also diminishes individual responsibility for
their own actions, which promotes violence and aggression.
No comments:
Post a Comment