Journal Five

The theory that makes the most sense to me is the basic human needs theory. I think it makes sense that everyone wants those needs satisfied and that a lack of meeting them is what would lead to conflict. I don't like the human selfishness that some of the other theories seem to point to. I don't think that humans are naturally selfish and aggressive creatures. I think we have an incredible ability to care about each other. I like the basic human needs theory because it allows room for both of these things. We can care about each other and our group and our identity, but we still engage in conflict when those needs are challenged or ignored. The other theory I like for this reason is the conflict is functional theory.
However, I was reading a book by Jane Goodall this morning and came across something interesting. She was the first to observe the aggressive behaviors of Chimpanzees. They went on a very aggressive spree for quite some time—killing members of other groups and babies of their own group. Eventually their group split in half, some members moving down into the valley. Within the next year, all of these members who had “abandoned” their original group were killed except for two young females who were convinced to come back to the group. Some people used this to prove the aggressive drive that all humans have—saying that we're so closely related to the Chimpanzee who also has this behavior. Jane Goodall says however that while we're closely related to the Chimpanzee, and we have some innate aggressive drive. She says that there is no use denying our impulses and the aggression that is in us, but that at the same time many of our aggressive and violent tendencies are learned. We are mentally more capable and therefore should be held above these behaviors. We have the capacity to rise above our impulses.