Brainwash (2010–…): Season 1, Episode 4 - Vold - full transcript

I just want to ask you a few simple questions. No silliness.

Why do some people enjoy violence?

Everyone has their own tradition and culture.

When you see riots, it's like a fever thermometer.

One blow is one too many.

Are we humans born with an instinct for violence?

And if so, what dampens it? And what amplifies it?

Are there for example some cultures that make people more violent?

I'm in multi-cultural Grønland, in Oslo.

Where I during one hour meet a gang-member waving a gun.

And another that explodes because I walk around with a camera.



Sorry...

I'll throw this bike at you.

Sorry, sorry, sorry!

I'm filming...

It may seem like I have sought trouble.

But in report from the Crime Prevention Council it is stated that:

"More than twice as many immigrant boys compared to Norwegians"-

-"have been in fights with weapons."

And it's especially people from countries with "cultures of honor" that stands out negatively.

While Norwegians have 13 convictions per 1000 capita.

People from Iraq, Somalia, Iran, Morocco and Lebanon-

-more than 40 convicted per 1000 capita.

Are people from some cultures more hot-tempered than others?

Yes.



Absolutely! Me, personally too.

Where are you from?

Iran.

Are these just prejudices?

Or is there something about it?

Are people from some cultures more violent than others?

And in that case, why is it so?

To find this out I my talk to an expert.

And in Norway it's the criminologists that knows the most about violence.

Hedda Giersten is a professor in criminology-

-at the University of Oslo, and has written several books on violence and murder.

Are there some cultures that are more violent?

Are some people from some societies more hot-tempered than others?

Temperamental people exist in many countries.

There are temperamental people in Norway too.

She says that Norwegians misunderstand when we perceive people from-

-some cultures are more temperamental.

Why did you get so mad?

I don't know. Don't ask me.

It's not the intention to get mad, it's just a way of talking.

That we experience it as tempered and very like, provoking, strong, aggressive and nasty maybe.

A way of talking?

Yes.

And maybe they expect you to answer as... equally hard.

Yeah, okay. So it's a...

A way of communicating.

Maybe not conversation, but communication.

When the otherwise calm Zinedine Zidane react like this after Materazzi called-

-his sister a whore, is that a way of communicating?

Or could it have something to do with his background from Algerian culture of honor?

Could you test if people from some cultures-

-are more easily provoked by small provocations-

-than people for example from Norway?

Yes, you probably could.

But the question is of cause what is the answer you will get.

Let's say the answer is that they get more mad.

Yes.

Then it would be interesting?

Maybe I got just as upset, but said: "I don't think this was fun."

So it's not that people from honor cultures actually get more mad by provocation than-

-people who are not from cultures of honor?

That could be. But it's hard to know.

At least I think so.

But could this be investigated?

I don't know. I don't know any studies.

I sense that Giertsen isn't thrilled about talking about this.

So I have to find these things myself.

And after some search online I discover that there have been done studies on cultures of honor and temper.

Not here in Norway, but in the USA.

Shut up! Bloody hell!

Do people from some cultures more tempered and get more easily offended than others?

I'm meeting a psychologist named Richard Nisbett-

-who did a cool experiment to find out about this.

Richard Nisbett is born and raised in the Southern States.

In El Paso in Texas.

For the Southern boy Nisbett, were there many things felt foreign in the Northern States.

In parts of the Southern states, murder rate is four times higher per 100.000 inhabitants-

-compared to the Northern states.

And there is especially one type of murder that is more prevalent.

But why where there so many murders resulting from insults in the South?

Nisbett and his colleagues did big surveys in dissimilar parts of the USA-

-on attitudes towards violence.

And they found 3 things that separated the South from the North.

Southern families teach other attitudes towards violence than Northern states families.

Nisbett got the key to understanding the difference from a colleague-

-who has studied Middle East cultures.

So it's not only in the Middle East that they have cultures of honor.

But are people from cultures of honor actually more tempered?

To test this Nisbett conducted a study now famous under the name "Asshole-experiment".

Nisbett also took saliva samples to measure chemically the level of anger.

Nisbett conducted several similar experiments. And they all showed the same thing.

People from the Southern states are more tempered that people from the Northern states.

But isn't this research that brands one group as violent hotheads?

While people in the Northern states see their temperament as something a bit childish.

It was the immature and childish aspect of cultures of honor-

-that was the basis for the skits on respect we did in "Team Antonsen".

Look at me, Joelsrud. Show me respect, Joelsrud.

Show him respect.

Show me respect!

Show him respect.

One thing is how Norwegians see people from cultures of honor.

But i wonder, why are they so hot tempered?

Why do these cultures come to existence?

According to Nisbett these cultures are formed where there are-

-no police or state governed by law.

And not least in societies with grazing livestock.

The willingness to strike back has a deterrent function.

The disadvantage is that it often leads to spirals of revenge.

The principle of revenge is deeply rooted in the Somali culture.

Especially the old Somali culture.

Where if a family member, for instance a father, is killed,-

-then the son must revenge him.

In modern society, state and police ensure that there is no face to hit back on.

But if the society changes, can our temperament also change?

This was in reality tested out in the morning of October 17th, 1969.

Then the police in Montreal, Canada, went on strike.

At 11.20 the first bank was robbed.

And during that day further five banks were robbed.

Over 100 shops were looted and several people killed.

After a short time you saw traces of a culture of honor.

Only those shop owners that armed themselves, avoided being robbed.

At the end the government had to send in military troops to calm down the situation.

A society without law and order does not just lead to anarchy,-

-it turns on our violence buttons.

But what about Norway? We weren't always as regulated by law.

Were we once also a bunch of hotheads?

I will meet history professor at the university in Oslo, Erling Sandmo.

He's a specialist in criminal history.

And has especially studied the violence development in Norway.

What kind of society was Norway in the 17th century?

Did one have a culture of honor back then?

It was very strong. If you read court records from 16th and a long time up into the 18th century,-

-people are concerned with what words they use on each other.

What gestures they make. And whether they are insulted.

They are easily offended. Then it ends up in court. Or they take matters in their own hands.

So if I met a Norwegian from the 17th century,-

-would I perceive him as a pompous hothead?

Who was concerned with being treated with respect.

He would be concerned with the words you used to address him.

And if he heard something he thought was offensive or affronting,-

-he would be more on guard than we are used to now.

So Norway had a strong culture of honor 400 years ago.

What kind of consequences did this have on the murder rate?

It was 10 times what it is now, maybe more.

In Bergen, in 1580, maybe you could multiply it by 100. In Bergen.

100 times more murders in Bergen in the 1580s than today?

I believe so.

Bergen was a bloodbath in the 16th and 17th century.

And this lady is probably the descendant of several killers.

And then the murder rate sank dramatically in a short time.

In 200 years it sank substantially.

The state decides to fight this.

They install a judge that will rule according to laws.

And people who are violent shall be punished.

They have to pay fines. And if they commit serious offenses,-

-mostly murder, they will be killed. "We will fight this."

When the state gets involved, the culture of honor gets toned down.

So it's not the genes that changes, but the culture.

And in 200 years, people become more wimpish. More like us.

At the end of the 18th century, people have developed-

-a new sensitivity for violence. They feel it's scary.

But what about before the 17th century? You couldn't call the police.

Does this mean that humanity always have had a violent honor culture?

Or was there a time we lived in peace and harmony with each other?

I'm going to find this out.

Marit Clementz and Ingvild Forbord runs The Women's Academy.

And they believe that humans for several thousands of years ago lived peacefully.

What kind of societies were these peaceful societies?

It was a society that focused on art:

On life, not death.

On the child. And on beauty.

And they build their cities on plains, not on hills to defend themselves.

In this society no-one killed each other.

And nor had they words for either murder or rape.

Everyone was equally valued. Life was at the center.

And you can see it in art objects.

That they honored life by making beautiful patterns after flowers and plants.

They had the time and opportunity to make things beautiful around them.

Are peaceful, harmonious society?

Yes.

Without violence or rape?

Without struggle of strife.

These people lived in peace and harmony. Until one day...

People came from the east, in three big waves.

They brought in a different culture.

They had weapons, horses. And built their houses in hills.

And warrior people came from the east?

Yes.

Were the men ruled, and men and women did not co-operate?

Uhhh, yes. You could say that they had a male god. He was at the top.

And the peaceful societies had a female god?

That's what they believe, yes.

This theory of a peaceful culture that worshiped goddesses,-

-has been met with a critical view from other historians.

But Marit and Ingvild very openly admit it's not just scientific basis-

-to believe in a peaceful and harmonious past.

Because it gives us hope for the future.

We want people to know that is was possible.

And we have to hold on to that hope.

For without hope for peace, there will never be peace.

We must hope it's possible.

And knowing that it likely has happened before, makes us think:

Yes, it can happen.

It's important to have a dream and a hope.

But I wonder if there really have been a time where people lived peacefully together?

I'm right by the University of Bodoe.

Nope, we're in Boston!

Close to Harvard.

This is Harvard!

(Pinkers "The Blank Slate" inspired this documentary)

At Harvard University I meet professor Steven Pinker.

Who is an evolutionary psychologist.

There exist many conceptions in the West about the life in tribal communities-

-is harmonious and peaceful.

But is this just a myth?

In the 20th century 100 million people were killed in war.

But Pinker says that if wars in our time had been as deadly as a typical tribal war,-

-20 times more had been killed. 2 billion people!

Even if we now live in peaceful times,-

-we see that for example Aftenposten writes in their editorial:

That: "The 20th century was one of the bloodiest and violent in human history."

Why is the perception that we live in violent times so common?

But even if we today live in a peaceful time and are less violent than ever,-

-still, there is something strange here.

Why do people still often think of violence and murder?

Have you fantasized about killing someone?

Yes, I have. It's not often.

But associated which, when I read about things where children are the victims.

And I think of what I would do if it were my kids.

I can't imagine what I would do.

Then I would have fantasized for the first time about killing.

Ragnhild Bjørnebekk works at the Police Academy in Oslo.

She has experienced that people's murder fantasies are especially triggered-

-by the thought of someone hurting their children.

I have held introductions about rape.

Then I have asked what people would do if their child was raped.

Or if one they knew was raped. I have studied this.

Then the most extreme thoughts see daylight.

Imagine a sexual criminal molesting your child.

Then the state would say: "We have a cure. He'll never do it again."

Would you be fine with that, or would you demand more punishment?

No, I would have demanded that he was punished more.

It's my own flesh and blood that has experienced something horrible.

It wouldn't have been enough for him just to see a therapist.

Just be prescribed medicine. I would have demanded more.

And if that hadn't happened, I had fantasized about doing something myself.

These women are not evil. And they don't live in a culture of honor.

Still they feel a need for retaliation and revenge.

Can this indicate that the desire for revenge not just learned, but also innate.

Do we as humans have the potential to develop a logic of revenge?

Deep down inside us?

I think that the logic of revenge is also something-

-that in many ways is formed by-

-how we are taught in co-existence with other people.

Is the desire for revenge common for all people?

I think the need for revenge in many ways is learned.

Giertsen feels that the desire for revenge is not innate.

But are we in Norwegian society taught to feel a need for revenge?

I ask social anthropologist Inger Lise Lien at Center for Violence and traumatic stress about this.

Hi!

So hygge'li.

How nice of you to come.

Yes.

So, Christianity says that if stricken on the right cheek, you should turn the left cheek.

So, you shouldn't really answer with violence.

You should... you should try to understand other people.

Turn the left cheek.

And this opposite of the logic of revenge.

My mom always said: "The strongest one gives in."

The strongest one gives in, right?

So, so, so in a way we reduce this tendency-

-to use the automatic reaction to retaliate.

Even if our culture reduces the desire for revenge,-

-we do not get completely rid of our need for revenge.

We still feel the desire for revenge.

But now someone else is responsible for our revenge.

Perhaps that's why we feel it's so frustrating when the state-

-is unable to catch the killer of Martine, a Norwegian student.

We feel that the state fails in its duty to revenge and restore justice.

Many things point to us being born with a disposition for revenge.

The culture can turn down this tendency, but can never turn it all the way down to zero.

And while our need for revenge is satisfied by the legal system,-

-the revenge button in cultures of honor is turned up.

So you get blood revenge.

The brutal murder has shocked the Somali community in Oslo.

Yesterday 3 young men were caught and charged with the murder.

The police believes that 2 of them, 2 brothers,-

-took the life of the man that killed their father 15 years ago.

Meanwhile there is another side of violence we can't look past.

Violence is primarily a male thing.

Circa 90 % of all punishable violence in Norway is committed by men.

And it's men who commit most acts of violence and murder in all societies.

Why are men more violent than women?

I think it is related with how we are raised.

And what's important to us when we become men and women.

And that, for women it is, by upbringing and other ways perhaps,-

-important to show care. Take care of others.

To be sensitive to what the environment says.

And exactly not break down, hit or hurt, which is the nature of violence.

Is it just learning and upbringing that is the answer to male violence?

Steven Pinker does not believe so.

But this could still be about upbringing.

Why does Pinker think Giertsen's explanation is wrong?

Pinker believes that evolution made it so that males a born-

-with a stronger disposition towards violence.

And that there are traces of this in the male body and psyche.

The male violence is not just inflicted on other males.

In 2007 a Norwegian paper revealed that 72 women in Norway-

-were killed by their husbands during the last 7 years.

Especially connected with break-ups.

Why is it often men that kill women and not the other way around?

There are sides of the male gender role, which, in some cases,-

-also in the Norwegian society, actually are open for the possibility-

-of killing the partner or spouse, seems as a viable cause of action.

Is it really the case that the Norwegian male gender role is open for killing women?

No, I think that's completely wrong.

Because if that was a male gender role, many more would use violence.

Most men in Norway reject violence.

And the studies conducted on the subject show that males do not accept the use of violence.

It's not a part of their thought system.

If it's not a part of the male role, why then do Norwegian males kill?

I go to Austin, Texas, to talk with psychology professor David Buss.

To understand why a man in this age would kill a woman that leaves him-

-professor Buss thinks we have to look at our evolutionary past.

When we lived together in smaller groups than today.

To put it bluntly, those of our ancestors-

-who did not guard their reputation, got fewer descendants-

-than those who took care of their reputation.

For a man killing a wife that left him, could in some situations give him an advantage.

So, Buss thinks that men killing women should be understood-

-in the light of innate dispositions.

Does this mean that we can't do anything about it?

On the contrary, Buss thinks that it's important to be aware of these dark sides of human nature.

David Buss and Steven Pinker disagree with professor criminology professor Giertsen.

They emphasize that violence also has an innate component.

And that you can't understand violence without considering biology.

I therefore invite Giertsen to my office, and show her what they've said.

Because Giertsen said that men are most violent because of upbringing.

How does she know that it's upbringing and culture-

-that makes men more violent than women?

No, that is. That is... one...

What should we say, a cultural impression.

An impression I have that there are these differences.

But I don't have any proper, systematical study that shows this.

They say that if you raised girls and boys the same way,-

-the boys would still be more violent. Do you agree or disagree?

I think that it's hard to answer. Because...

Is it really?

Exactly the same upbringing.

Just think of only the theoretical concept.

If you raise boys and girls the same way. Would they be equally violent or not?

So, I think that... What I would answer to that... I think that...

My problem is that I don't think this is such an important question.

This is my problem.

Isn't it important to understand how people a made-

-to be able to control the level of violence?

But, there is something I wonder about. And it is:

Why must we think biology?

Because it seems like boys... in a larger degree-

-have a disposition for violence.

It must be useful to know what triggers violence in boys.

But to believe that it lies in the biology-

-is also a point of view.

It's not something you know.

No, it's a hypothesis.

You see it in every culture...

Yes, so why would you want to take that point of view.

I don't...

To think biology.

I think...

Yes, that's what you want.

I want that?

Yes, it seems so.

Yes, opposed to Giertsen,-

-at least I don't want to take the point of view against biology.

At least not that resolute.

I believe that it is useful to know what violent mechanisms in our inborn psychology-

-that can be reduced or triggered by the environment we live in.