Quick Maslow recap:The basic idea is that
there are five states or levels of struggle. Each level must be addressed in order.
The most basic level includes
survival needs: food, water, shelter and protection from immediate
dangers. If any of these are
threatened, you don’t really care about much else.
The second level is security
needs: Will you have food
tomorrow? Will you be safe tomorrow?
The third and fourth levels are
social—the need to belong and the need to have status or esteem within the
group.
Dr. Maslow theorized that if these
four basic levels were secure, each individual could then move to a higher
level, become “self-actualized” and start living the dream.
It’s a good theory and it is widely
applicable to issues of conflict and violence. Not just in possible motivations but also in identifying our
own blind spots. Our ancestors
took care of our survival and security needs long ago. Few people become self-actualized
enough to truly live their dreams.
Most of us struggle at the third and fourth levels, the social levels.
Our conflicts have been social: who
is in charge? Who does the boss
like better? Will she think that I
am a wimp? Who does this guy think
he is? Will I fit in?
When our experience with conflict
has been all social, we default to those strategies, especially under
stress. The last two lessons talked about how violence can arise from the lower level needs and how that
violence is qualitatively different than social violence.
Today is all about violence arising
from the highest level of personal development. Self-actualized violence. Identity violence.
In college, we were told that
self-actualization was positive, the source of all creativity and altruism
(…and that struck me wrong right there, for there are countless stories of
altruism and heroism when survival and security are threatened.)
When I revisited Maslow at the
Police Academy supervisory course I was cautioned against hiring
self-actualized people: “They do what they want to do, not what you tell them
to do.”
The thing is, if you are a
generally good person and take care of all your basic and social needs, you
have the confidence to take risks in being a good person. You become a better person. And if you were a dick and achieve self-actualization,
you become a self-actualized dick.
They are relatively rare, but
self-actualized predators exist, and they are very different than other
predators. They do not hurt,
humiliate or degrade to fulfill a need, not in the sense of needing food or
needing drugs. They enjoy the
act. They enjoy the begging
victim, the sensation of killing or raping or conning. It is no longer something they do. It is who they are. And it is possibly the only thing that
makes them feel alive.
The psychobabble gets in the way
here, as urges and desires get called needs, as predators in interviews subtly
present something they wanted to do as something they needed to do. You may have a hobby or career that you
love, the one thing that makes you feel good, the hallmark of your identity…
but you could walk away. You can’t
walk away from air. Intense desire
is qualitatively different than a need.
Remember that when predators rationalize their behavior.
On the other hand, if you DO have a hobby that is the most important thing in your life, the one thing that makes you feel complete and whole, the one endeavor where the world makes sense (how many 30+ year martial artists are reading this?) you have a handle on this mindset. Horrific as it may sound, some get the satisfaction from beating and rape that you get from your hobby.
Their acts have become their
identity. They no longer
merely kill or rape. This predator
IS a rapist. IS a murderer. Less violent, but on the same dynamic,
are the professional conmen and grifters.
A young man in custody for stabbing
a girl told detectives that it was the most awesome feeling of his life, the
ultimate rush…and since that day he had been looking for a chance to stab
someone else and feel it again without getting caught.
A man questioned about two rapes he
confessed to: “To be completely honest?
They were the best experiences of my life.”
This is a hard thing for most of us
to wrap our minds around. We can
barely imagine motivations that might drive us to extreme violence—desperation,
revenge, or to save something (a country) or someone that we value
greatly. Most of us can’t really
imagine loving it, finding our true selves in the tears and bruises of a woman
begging for mercy.
And it is a mistake to assume that because we cannot truly grasp it, it is not happening.
Like predators driven by need,
predators driven by the love of the act, the process, learn the skills. Most start out very inefficient. Some make elaborate plans and many love
the planning process, the watching… but in their early attempts at mayhem they
are often clumsy and unprepared for the messy reality (like many who study
self-defense).
It is my belief that many serial
killers start their careers late because they get caught after these tentative
explorations.
They become efficient with
time. They become skilled.
Not driven by withdrawals or
addictions, they are also not distracted by pain. Some deny that they are different than other people. One told me that he only does what
everyone else desires to do and that all others are bound by fear. He felt he was only special in his
bravery…but his victims were always small and weak.
Many understand that they are
different, and different becomes better in one’s own mind very quickly. This is important with questions of rehabilitation. have you ever 'fixed' someone who believed he is smarter and already better than you? I have never once met a violent criminal who had doubts about his own superiority over both his victims and the society trying to 'fix' him. (See last section of this post.)
Most people follow social rules and
are never consciously aware of them.
It’s not just that most of us do the right thing, we do the right things
without it occurring to us that it is an option. I hold my hand out, you shake it. You have a choice, but if your job or life involves meeting
people frequently, you will shake my hand before it occurs to you that there is
a choice.
Identity predators see these
choices, and feel superior because others do not. The predator thinks, his victims follow their instincts.
This is a deadly distinction. I’ve said again and again in these
lessons that it is a mistake to equate social conflict with other types… not
only is it a deadly mistake, but the process predator is not blinded by fear
or need or pain. He knows the
social games and he will use them.
Social violence is rarely dangerous
and almost always completely predictable.
As long as a skilled predator can keep you in your social mode, as long
as you keep trying social strategies he has absolute confidence that:
1)
You are completely predictable and
2)
You will not be able to bring yourself to hurt him
Not only are social scripts
ineffective, they will actively be used against you. And used to increase the victim’s pain and humiliation as
the survivor agonizes over social strategies (which often include pleading or
flattering), wondering, sometimes for years, if they somehow encouraged the
violence.
Identity predators have much in
common with need predators. The
will become efficient over time.
They have othered the victim to a level that allows extreme force. They will avoid witnesses.
They are discouraged by the same
things as well. Raising the stakes
is the most effective. A credible
threat of force discourages the threat.
They do not, generally, like pain and do fear injury.
You can lower the stakes, but this can be hard because many process predators have a 'type' a specific victim profile and it is impossible to know in advance what a specific predator's type is. Generally, though, if the payoff is to see someone scream and beg an indifferent or stoic demeanor may be somewhat effective...except for the ones who need the challenge. As with Resource Predators, lowering the stakes is the least effective and least reliable strategy.
The payoff for an identity predator
is primarily emotional. This is
not a strategy I recommend as a first choice, but some may be discouraged if the designated victim doesn’t play
the victim role ‘right’. For adult
and violent crimes, the strategy is nearly worthless, but for dealing with
bullies, whether on the playground or in the office, it is imperative that you
never become an entertaining victim.
The identity predator has one more
twist that is not shared with the need predator. Because the identity predator enjoys the process, the
process can be quite drawn-out.
Emotional pain may be as satisfying as physical pain.
Low level (non-violent or low-level
violence) predators may enjoy bullying and degrading people without ever
obviously harming them. They enjoy
not only having a submissive partner but making the partner be submissive in public.
And this is something very important to understand about the conflict/violence scale: process predators who enjoy emotional abuse will never, ever admit that what they do is violent. And there is a huge amount of this type of emotional violence perpetrated by self-righteous people convinced that because their cause is just (in their own eyes) or it is "for the greater good" that what they do is not emotional abuse. And they are just as skilled in evading personal responsibility or introspection as any serial rapist. But what they do differs no in kind, but merely on the scale of physicality.
More violent predators may use
social skills and social pressure to keep the victims from talking, or even to
ensure that they are available for further victimization. In Iraq, Saddam’s Mukhabarat were
notorious for video taping their sexual assaults and then using the threat of
the videos to elicit more victimization…
In some cases, especially with
predators who victimize children, the target will be ‘groomed’ into a victim
personality. The will be taught
that acquiescence is the best survival strategy. Victims will systematically be denied control of their own
lives. In a dynamic called
‘learned helplessness’ they will be showered with gifts or with punishment,
randomly… so random that they never learn the triggers and come to believe that
they have no control and should just obey.
None of these mindsets are so alien
that we can’t understand them, but none of them respond to social controls or
social expectations…and for entirely logical reasons.
9 comments:
Sarge, I was curious about something and the "contact me" link on your site seemed to be on the fritz so I thought this might be a good way to get some feedback. I am curious about a concept that you mentioned in Meditations On Violence and how one might train it. The concept, if memory serves, is metastrategy. I was wondering how you can train yourself to reflex levels with metastrategy or combine it with the operant conditioned counter-assault concept In Facing Violence. Thanks for your time.
Malc- I have no idea. All of the people I know who have metastrategies evolved them through a combination of training and experience. I'm not even sure if they are learned or expressions of inner nature, or just a conditioning of what worked. I'll have to give this some thought and see if it can be worked directly.
This is heavy. Had to read it about four times.
Ouch!
"The payoff for an identity predator is primarily emotional...."
Sarge- cool, thanks. I think it would be worth a blogpost (or, hell, a full book.) I'm ironing out counterassault move with a couple friends in the DC area and finding anyone out here who has any idea what I'm talking about is at this pointing appearing to be impossible. ideas?
Malc -- you're not far from me. Maybe we can puzzle it out together, if you wanna try?
not finished reading yet but this thought occurs to me, in order for most folks to understand the "evill" or "dark side" draw maslows hierarch as a diamond - first the pyramid, then a pyramid underneath. Belonging - write knitting circle on the up, gangs on the down. If you explain this in the context of good and evil (another flawed model) more folks will get it. The self gets in the way if you have to put yourself in the same model as the "bad guys." Sure it's a socially acceptable form of Othering - but it might help some folks make the leap - we're all just house apes making decisions. kunoichi
Jim- Thanks for stepping up. I was going to suggest you.
Jim- sounds good and thanks. shoot me an email at malcolm.rivers@gmail.com.
Sarge- thanks for taking the time to respond and if you have a chance to write a blog about it, that would be pretty cool.
Post a Comment