Violence as a Defense Against Intimacy - Part Four

Riots and Civil Rights Movements

Murders of civil rights workers and managers, especially when they Merger Evers and Dr. Martin Luther King, illustrated this thesis explored in Part Three of Dr. King's fervent policy of non-violence is dangerous for both black and white communities, because it is emotionally perceived not non-violence, but non-alienation. And afraid segregationists mobilized their opposition. Hidden in non-violent movement that also develops a disguised takeover of violence and alienation in exactly the same reasons. In the early years of the civil rights movement, tied people together regardless of ethnic heritage. Many participants were shocked when some African-American leaders break the bonds with other ethnic groups such as the movement became more successful.

Significantly, it is a phenomenon that only occurs if there is progress towards the coveted goal. The Assassination of Malcolm X was not while he was an ardent supporter of Black Muslim separateness. It was then he began to speak out convincingly and sincerely for the brotherhood of man regardless of color, he was shot by a black man.

This central theme can be followed through many examples of blatant murder whatever content the problem can be represented, be it political, ethnic or religious. There arises a community as well as from murderers as shown by the life stories of Booth, Oswald, Ray, Sirhan, Roeder, and all the others. They are alienated, withdrawn, rigid, dogmatic, frightened and insecure people are threatened by any move that dared to create proximity, similarity and meaningful involvement with others who differ from their own beliefs.

No matter how complete the individual wants to move in one direction of health, clinical experience shows a counter position, called resistance, reflecting the fact that people need to cling to it even miserable status quo. This is certainly not because someone prefer misery, but rather because he or she perceives known state to be more secure than the impending changes potentially caused by changing long-established feelings that limit growth.

Violent acts are not unpredictable, random events without significant psychological impact is not merely capricious manifestations of the human nature, but rather is essential, even treasured on extreme representations of defensive social behaviors. These actions are the ultimate expression of opposition to misperceived threat to equality, intimacy, acceptance of differences, and authentic human interaction present.

The dreaded expectation that an intimate encounter with another will result in self-harm is a mythology society maintains through its institutions, which then act on that support alienation. An illustration is the U.S. Supreme Court supports the internment in concentration camps of loyal Americans of Japanese heritage during WWII. This is particularly manifested in a time not of war itself, but when there is increased economic fear, insecurity and uncertainty. The other serves to pose a risk, and is then attacked, first by word, then by dangerous acts influenced by these words. They promote violence serve as the ultimate minions of alienation.

When violence is seen as a defense against intimacy, humankinds fascination with and fighting for mastery of the increasingly destructive potential becomes understandable. Wars, terrorism, riots and killings of leaders who threaten to take us towards real involvement with each other is crucial for the maintenance of protective alienation matter how conscious regretted.

With these criteria are manifestations of resistance to meaningful change only in a society struggling to be healthy. It is a sick society, stagnant in its status quo, which does not experience these growing pains. Continued growth depends not of violence, which met in kind, but stripping away sheep clothing of violence to expose the wolf of alienation that devours from within.