THE RELATIONSHIP OF DEVIANT AND DESTRUCTIVE
BEHAVIOUR: THEORETICAL APPROACHES
Yu.A.Klayberg
Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Doctor of
Psychology, Doctor of Legal Sciences, Professor
(Moscow State Regional University, Russia)
The destructiveness of man and his propensity for destructive behavior
is significantly determined by the peculiarities of his individual development
and of the immediate social environment. Although the destructiveness often
perceived, and is perceived now as an innate property of every person, formed
by millions of years of evolution in the acute struggle for existence. However,
the experience of the development of philosophy, sociology, biology, psychology
and neuropsychology in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries led to the
accumulation of facts to argue the question is not about innate and
socio-historical nature of the destructiveness of human behavior that are
generated in the process of socialization of the individual in terms of
historically contradictory society.
The basis of this approach is the understanding of the destructive
nature of human behavior, of course, is cultural-historical psychology of L.S.Vygotsky. He clearly
shared from each other by biological maturation and cultural development
of each individual. The first is the innate ground of identity formation, which
is surely not negligible. The second is formed and developed in the process of
socialization content of personal development, which are the result of
interiorization of real relations in the surrounding every human society [1, p.
5-328]. Leading Russian psychologists – S. L. Rubinstein, A.N.Leont'ev,
V.N.Myasischev – and their followers in their own way, but one developed the
opinion, according to which features of each person are primarily determined by
external conditions (V.P.Streltsova , K.O.Tcediya, etc.). These conditions are
real behaviors and attitudes of parents and teachers, the wider the reference
environment and social relations in General.
The position of cultural-historical psychology was fully confirmed by
the data of neuropsychology (especially the doctrine of A.R.Luria) on the
formation and restructuring in the process of socialization of complex dynamic
cerebral systems – fundamentals of purposeful activity and human behavior [8].
Approaches of cultural-historical psychology and Russian neuropsychology
are in full compliance with the latest data of the XX century ethnologists who
study not only socio-economic but also psychological aspects of life of
primitive tribes. These data are summarized by E. Fromm, who delivered
psychologists and sociologists of the world before the existence of
non-destructive tribes (in its classification – group "tribes") who
do not know (before the collision with the "civilization") of the
Institute of war, intertribal strife with relative scarcity of means of living,
high level of social orientation and mutual goodwill. All these facts,
according to the conclusion of the E. Fromm show "the destructiveness is
not innate part or structural component of any "human nature""
[9, p.160]. Fundamental properties of evolutionary change in the scale of
hundreds of thousands and even millions of years, human society, and fundamental
changes in the nature of social relations occur at the scale of millennia,
centuries, and sometimes tens or even units of years. Thus, sociology is
untenable reliance on social Darwinism, biologically destructive behavior of
people.
However, the socio-historical development in which the destructive
behavior of people – the social animal species, as well as social groups and
classes were determined solely socio-economic regularities, polarizing society.
There are various theories that reveal the mechanisms of formation of
the individual propensity to destructive behavior. In accordance with one of
them this trend is influenced by the destructive subculture through the
assimilation of certain views, lifestyles and behaviors. Another theory
identifies the destructive direction in response to a long period of
deprivation. The third hypothesis follows from the theory of E.Erikson and considers destructive group as
a result of negative identity of its participants. Finally, there is a point of
view, according to which the resort to terror, in particular, is associated
with early narcissistic injury. In the latter case, the rage and violence
becomes an individual by way of protection against feelings of helplessness
[see: 2, p177].
E.Fromm in his book "Escape from freedom" (1941) puts the main
existential dilemma – individual freedom or rejects it. Freedom is attractive,
but dangerous, as it requires a high degree of responsibility and facing
loneliness. Fromm analyzes several mechanisms of "escape from freedom",
"deliverance", arising from the uncertainty of the individual, with
which modern man overcomes his opposition to the world, the feeling of
loneliness and powerlessness.
The first mechanism E.Fromm designated as
"authoritarianism", "authoritarian character". The
authoritarian personality tends to restore the lost unity with the world
through the renunciation of self and the relations of domination-subordination.
Or, according to Fromm, "masochistic and sadistic tradition, existing in
varying degrees and neurotics, and in healthy people" [10, p.134].
Fromm called the common goal of sadism and masochism – a symbiosis, which in a psychological
sense, is the Union of the personality with another person (or another external
force), where each party loses the integrity of the structure of the
"I" [10, p.146].
A. Adler considers masochism and sadism as understood by Z. Freud, but
as a "feeling of inferiority" and "desire for power". Adler
sees only the rational side of these phenomena [10, p.140].
The second mechanism is the destructiveness. It is aimed at the destruction of its own
alienation, to turn all living things into dead and easy. However, "the
level of mayhem in the individual proportional to the degree to which limited
his expansively" [10, p.165]. And further, "the more the aspiration
to life, the more life is realized, the less destructive tendency; the more the
desire for life is suppressed, the stronger the pull to destruction" [10,
p.165]. Fromm defined power as "the
result of unlived life", emphasizing its socio-psychological rather
than biological origin.
The third mechanism of escape Fromm called
"automate conformism" and
recognized its characteristic of most normal individuals in the modern society.
When a person loses his individuality and fully assimilated personality type,
imposed on him a common template. In the end, distinctions between
"I" and the rest of the world, is formed neurotic "I"
identity lost" and turns into "pseudolites".
Therefore, this loss of the self "forced to adapt further to
produce their own "I" from the continuous recognition and approval of
others" [10, p.181].
Naturally, the loss of the "I" raises deep concern in their
own personality and thus reinforces the need to adjust. E. Fromm insists that
the loss is his own essence "turns conformities in imperative: a person
can be confident only if he lives in accordance with the expectations of
others. If we do not live to the standard scenario, we risk not only to cause
disapproval and increased isolation, but to lose confidence in its essence,
that threaten mental health" [10, p.217-218].
In all three cases, the man becomes a slave to someone or something
because of the refusal of his individual freedom. The mechanisms of escape are
opposed to positive freedom, a genuine connection with the world. But positive
freedom "consists in spontaneous activity across the whole personality of
man", in a free and creative activity of the personality, "because
person is strong insofar as it is active" [10, p.220, 223] A person can
become creative and productive, to live in harmony and love with other people,
share with them the fruits of their labor, to develop self-esteem. In this case
it acts as individually acting person, self-respecting and itself implements
contributing to the emergence of a more progressive society.
In modern society, according to Fromm, the relationships between people
are characterized by competition, exploitation, parasitism and hostility [9,
p.100-101].
In the analysis of destructiveness E. Fromm outlined two different types
of aggression:
- defensive or benign aggression, in his opinion, "that
phylogenetically inherent impulse to attack or escape in a situation where
there is a threat of life," such aggression is self-preservation and the
survival of the species;
- malignant aggression "that destructiveness and
cruelty, which are peculiar only to humans ... they have no phylogenetic
programs, serve as biological adaptation and have no purpose" [9, p.22].
Malignant aggression, in turn, manifests itself in two basic types:
a) sadism, or passionate attraction to unlimited power over another
being;
b) necrophilia, or the passion to destroy life, devotion to everything
dead, lifeless, and mechanical.
The destructiveness and cruelty, according to Frommʹs, hiding in
the instincts and inclinations, and in his character. Fromm calls them
instincts or passions. He comes to a paradoxical conclusion – destructiveness
is not typical for animals, not for primitive peoples, it is a consequence of
cultural and technological development of mankind.
What effect on increasing the destructiveness of people? Among the
reasons considered by Fromm, the following: the alienation of man from nature
the roots, the growth of cities and the crowding, the widespread exclusion of
human machines, male domination and exploitation by men of women, the power of
symbols, the injustice of social life, faith, and fear of authority.
E.Fromm indicates that the destructiveness arises as a result of
contradictions between social conditions and existential needs of people.
Appetite for destruction and sadism are a way of compensation frustrations
existential needs.
A. Ellis distinguishes healthy and unhealthy aggression. First, from his
point of view, involves the human desire to preserve life, to happiness, to
successful adaptation in a social group, to establish close relationships with
others. The basis of the second form of aggression is the tendency to blocking
or destroying the desire for these basic human goals [11, p.44].
In our opinion, destructive behavior is a specific form of deviant
behavior and has a number of relationships: similarities and phenomenological
characteristics. In the framework of the General theory of deviance can be done
classification of types of destructive behavior on the basis of the following
criteria: 1) type violates social norms; 2) the orientation of destruction; 3)
the nature and degree of destruction and destructive behavior in General
(caused or the damage).
Therefore, destructive behavior is behavior violating,
damaging, or causing the collapse of any social ties [3; 4; 5].
Based on our definition and the analysis of published scientific
literature, perhaps we can say in two types of destructive behavior:
benign-adaptive and destructive maladaptive.
On this basis we can distinguish three groups of destructive behavior:
1. Inter-destructive (antisocial) behavior contrary to moral and legal
norms, breaking and destroying them, behavior that threatens social order and
well-being of other people;
2. Indirectly-destructive (anti-social) behavior that violates and
destroys moral norms and interpersonal communication and relationships;
3. Self-destructive (dissocial) disorderly conduct and destroying
medical and psychological norms, threatening the integrity and development of
the personality and, as a result, is leading to its demise (suicide, substance
abuse, food addiction, conformity, narcissism, bigotry, autism) [4; 5; 6; 7].
In a structured way destructiveness manifests itself in the form of
destructive behavior and destructive actions. Destructive activities act as:
1. Means of achieving any meaningful goal.
2. Method of psychological discharge.
3. The method meets the requirements for self-realization and
self-affirmation (if you do not accept self-destructive forms).
Thus, the destructiveness of the behavior and attitudes of people as a
socio-psychological phenomenon that destroys cooperation and repelling them
from each other is not innate, species quality, and historically temporary
consequence of inconsistency of developing social relations, and contrary to
the biological nature of man as the most social animal on Earth. For humans it
is unnatural. Source eliminate destructive behavior and, more broadly,
relations and moral health of interpersonal, group and public micro - and
macrosociety that is created solely by the moral activity of people of each
generation.
Deviant behavior is characterized by me as a specific method of changing
social norms and expectations by demonstrating the identity of the social group
value attitude to them [3].
Literature
1. Vygotsky L. S. the history of the development of higher mental
functions // L.S.Vygotsky the collected works. M., 1983. Vol. 3. C. 5-328.
2. Zmanovskaya T.V. Fundamentals
of applied psychoanalysis. St.Petersburg, 2005.
3. Klayberg Yu.A. Fundamentals of psychology of deviant behavior. St.
Petersburg, 2014. 233 p.
4. Klayberg Yu.A. Socio-psychological approaches to the typology of
destructive behavior // Phenomenology and prevention of deviant behavior: In 2
volumes: Vol. 1. Krasnodar, 2008. P. 176-187.
5. Klayberg Yu.A. Destructive behavior // Materialy
IX Miedzynarodowej naukowi-praktycznej konferencji «Wschodnie
partnerstwo-2013». Vol. 18. Psychologia i socjologia. Przemysl. Sp. z.o.o.
«Nauka i studia», 2013. S. 77-81.
6. Klayberg Yu.A. Juvenile Deviantology. Saarbrücken: Palmarium
Publishing, Germany, 2012. 350.
7. Klayberg Yu.A. Social psychology of deviant behavior. M., 2004. 160
p.
8.2. Luria A.R. Higher cortical
functions and their violations in local lesions of the brain. M., 1969. 504 S.
9.3. Fromm E. the Anatomy
of human destructiveness. M., 1994. S.
160.
10. Fromm E. Escape from freedom. M., 2007. S. 134.
11. Furmanov I.A. Aggression and violence: diagnosis, prevention and
correction. St. Petersburg, 2007.