Charleville musket 1766 (credit: G. Garitan (Own work), via Wikimedia Commons)

For one more post, I have to deal with the gun violence issue. The psychological roots of the obsession that some people, especially American males, have long had with guns. 

There are lots of theories out there about the psychological roots of some people's fascination with guns. A Freudian one that irks me claims that a gun is a kind of "phallic extension" and that is why guns appeal so primally to some men. 

But the idea that a gun is a "phallic extension" for insecure men, for me, just makes no sense. The link between the image of a gun and that of a phallus is just too tenuous and far-fetched. At that rate, shovels and conductors' batons and so many other objects could be seen as "phallic extensions". Wotan! That theory is founded on about as much evidence as Norse mythology.

On the other hand, I think some models from the science of Comparative Psychology do have things to tell us. One that I find interesting is called the "cichlid effect".  

It has been cited by several major writers. I first learned about this "effect" in 1970. Kate Millett, in a book called "Sexual Politics", discussed the ways in which human sexual relations are analogous to relations in the political world. There are opening moves, proposals that are subtle or not so subtle, counter-proposals, agreements that are spoken - or more often implied - disputes, resolutions, etc. - in politics and in human relationships. Sex as politics is a useful metaphor. 

But the model that she described which fascinated me most came from the research of Nobel Prize-winning biologist, Konrad Lorenz. He studied many animals' patterns of behavior. In several species, but most clearly, in fish called "cichlids", he found that when spawning season came, the males of this species would only attempt to mate with females that were "awed" by the male (his term). In short, a male would not perform sexually with any female who did not act deferential when he approached her. Millett made it clear that she was contemptuous of the idea. I thought it deserved a bit more consideration. 

There is a reproductive advantage for dominant males and submissive females. That is what Lorenz' followers claimed. Under this model, females get more opportunities to reproduce if they "kowtow" or "knuckle under" to a male. And dominant males get most of the females. Genes for these traits get passed on to more offspring more often.

Does this biological imperative drive human sexual behavior? Lorenz and some who came after him claimed that the answer was "Yes". Men want and need to feel superior to a woman before they will approach her in any sexual way. Control makes confidence. That's the theory. 

I, on the other hand, have doubts about the applicability of the model to human beings. But what does the evidence seem to say? 

Would this model explain the gun obsession of a small but scary number males in the U.S.? The need to own guns, to flaunt them, and, in some cases, to use them on other human beings? Do guns give one a sense of control and dominance? In short, has a deep but powerful sexual need caused the spread of gun culture in the U.S.? Does a sexual need underlie gun violence? 

It is generally acknowledged these days that males, especially white Western males, are feeling more and more under threat. The macho role models that they once looked to for direction are more and more becoming socially taboo. Much of what made the dominant place of Western males in their own society has been discredited. Values, works of art, images in advertising and in the media in general - these are all becoming more and more derogatory in tone toward the old images of "real men". Hairy-chested, gun-handling, hard-punching he-men are largely out of fashion. Maybe, modern confusion about what a man is supposed to be has caused some men to feel a need to carry and collect guns in order to get their confidence back. The return of self-confidence comes with the sense of power carrying a gun brings. Or so the "cichlid" explanation would go.  

The weak part of this way of explaining gun violence is that there are millions of exceptions to this model. Most men, in fact. Millions of men don't need a gun to have self-esteem. In fact, they don't feel a need to bully women period. If they are interested in a woman, they recognize that, unless the interest is shown clearly in return, they are probably wasting their time. They move on. She has a right to her preferences. There are plenty of other cichlids in the sea. 

In addition, millions of women now own guns. Millions more, without guns, are assertive, confident beings in their own contexts. And they have no trouble finding eager male partners for sex or company. In fact, millions of men today are attracted to confident, assertive women. 

In short, my reply to those who seek to find instinct-driven motives for some men's collecting guns is simply this: we aren't fish. What makes humans human is their capacity to recognize and rise above their primal programming. We learn about soils and pests so we can grow larger crops. The knowledge isn't gathered and passed on for the sake of curiosity. The same is true of our knowledge of animals, weather, diseases, etc.. And of our most primal breeding imperatives. We modify them and direct and re-direct them so that we can live together in communities and get along. Live. As whole nations capable of teamwork. Then, we multiply and thrive.  

Thus, men and women both learn to do better than fish do, or dogs or apes do. We don't need to yield to obsolete, primitive drives in order to just live. As a matter of fact, mostly we already have learned to live more sensibly. We do better than any other species on this planet because we can think and learn, change our habits and customs and adapt to changing circumstances. 

We are not fish driven by primal forces beyond our understanding. 

So speaking of learning, we have learned by harsh experience over the last few years, that automatic weapons are not legitimate arms for regular civilians to own. Some ordinary citizens like to hunt, but no one hunts deer with a machine gun. That, for sure, is not sportsmanship.  

The need of the community for basic safety clearly outranks the citizens' right to "bear arms" in the automatic weapons case. If the U.S. Constitution says otherwise, it needs to be updated. It was made by people; it can be changed by people. It was not passed down on stone tablets inscribed by a Divine hand. 

The welfare of the whole community is the focus of the law. And if a document like the U.S. Constitution even appears to claim that some males, to fill their need to feel secure or powerful or whatever else they want to call it, have a right to own as many firearms as they please of any type whatever, automatic weapons included, then that document is just wrong. 

Study harder. Go to the gym. Build twenty pounds of muscle. Practice your three point shot. Or practice guitar. Learn to cook like a real gourmet chef. Write. Sculpt. Paint. Sing. Compose a symphony. Get your mile under six minutes. Build a home. Take pride in how you love your wife and kids. Take one of your best business ideas and go for it. Most of all, become a master of your trade, work at it hard, and take pride in every job well-done. Take pride in your character, your instincts about right and wrong. These are not to be lightly valued. Millions of all genders, nations, and creeds have them, but millions more don't. 

There are lots of ways to be a better man in your own eyes and in the eyes of those around you. There always have been. Finding your "self" by acts of violence or the threat of violence is a way of acting and thinking that became obsolete centuries ago. Soldiers who have seen a real war may know how to fight to the death if they have to, but they don't glorify war. They know better from hard experience. Violence is sometimes necessary. But in our neighborhoods, we don't want or need that to be the case. In short, let the cops handle it. Too many men taking it on themselves to avenge every slight is why America is in the situation that it is in today. 

Therefore, to put it all together, you could even campaign and vote for a candidate who will put the automatic weapons only in the hands of the police and the military. There is no legitimate reason for them to be in the hands of regular citizens. Experience in recent years has shown over and over that, in fact, there are compelling reasons for them not to be. 

Finally, if you still feel that you have no sense of being worthy as a man unless you can have a machine gun, get help. There is something deeply wrong in you that no gun is ever going to fix. 

The whole idea that men, or women for that matter, have a need and a right to feel powerful over others is obsolete. We have to learn to live together and get along or we are done on this planet. Every incidence of gun violence is just more evidence which shows where our bottom line in the twenty-first century lies. We must learn to respect our neighbors. Maybe, even love them. The alternative, when it is extrapolated to the global scale, is too terrible to contemplate. The way of love, on the other hand, has to begin in our own towns.  

In the shadow of the mushroom cloud, nevertheless, have a great day. 





    Sandy Hook choir perform at Super Bowl, 2013 (credit: Au Kirk, via Wikimedia Commons)