garysonthego
New member
Concepts of Violence
Pushing, jumping thrashing, slamming, ripping, throwing, reveling, hurting; these worRAB don’t appeal to everyone when it comes down to having a good time. In fact, many people would wonder why anyone would associate themselves with these types of actions. In Paul Tough’s article Into the Pit, he explains his thoughts and expectations of the Pit, and the people who engage in the activity that they call moshing.
Some would give you the explanation that it is pure madness and it’s only for people who want to release their anger on others. Other people could see it as a possible way to release anger in a constructive manner, without hurting or destroying. Anyway the pit is viewed at; there are still aspects of violence that are prevalent in it. According to Sigmund Freud, “a powerful measure of desire for aggression has to be reckoned as part of their (man’s) instinctual endowment.” Man neeRAB to practice violence and do it at the expense of others.
Rene Girard states that, “violence is not to be denied, but it can be directed to another object, something it can sink its teeth into.” By analyzing these two new theories on violence, along with Paul Tough’s article, one can develop a whole new attitude violence’s relation with the mosh pit. Rene Girard explains that it is only human nature to act in violence during the course of his life. Girard also states that people use this anger in other ways besides the devious.
People try to direct their violence into something constructive. When people do this, it is a perfect example of eustress. Eustress is converting stress into a positive manner. Violence is a form of stress because it weighs heavily on the mind and causes misinterpretations. Paul Tough shows that the people who are attending these functions are doing it in a manner to release aggression, but not to physically hurt anyone. When people have these thoughts, it goes deeper than just trying to escape, it’s mutual.
The examples that Tough uses in the article are ones that show respect, and in a way, some form of loyalty. One example is when Tough is in the Pit, and he falls on the floor. While he was on the ground, thinking this isn’t where I should be and getting somewhat trampled, he suddenly shoots up into the air. Someone grabbed him from the ground and pulled him up. This gives the impression that the “moshers” don’t want anyone to be down and out. They are helping each other get through the concert. This is a form of the respect and loyalty issue.
Tough also explains a situation where a fellow “mosher” wants a lift into the air. When he was thrown, the general consensus was to catch him. They did this without a doubt. The people won’t let you fall, for they all are there to help out and have a good time as well. Directing their stress to the mosh pit allows them to help each other out and become a united unit of chaos, but “constructive” chaos.
Finally, Tough brings a very valid point to Freud’s theory. One incident that occurred was when someone’s shoelaces came untied and he called out to the crowd “sneaker!” The crowd parted and let him tie his shoe quickly and then through him immediately back into the pit. By helping each other, and slamming on each other, people can positively direct their hostility and violence in a constructive, uniformed, and acceptable manner. Girard’s theory absolutely explains how the mosh pit functions and survives.
Sigmund Freud’s theory on violence really doesn’t hit the same target as Girrard, and therefore he talks about how it is only human nature to take violence out on someone else. He states that, “men are savage beasts to whom the thought of sparing their own kind is alien.” Freud’s theory would come into play in Tough’s article if Tough talked about men hitting and thrashing as the dominant feature in the mosh pit. Tough doesn’t come across in the article portraying “moshers” as violent beasts. He uses examples of helping one another, and loyalty.
Freud’s concept of violence is made out to make people believe that in a “form of rage” people couldn’t be civilized and thoughtful. He also believes that people go out to mosh pits to deliberately hurt people. When that statement is related to the article, the only statement that Tough made that could justify this is, “no one’s watching the band, they’ve become background.” (618) People could say that “moshers” only go to mosh and hurl their bodies at each other, but at least they are doing it in a constructive and allowed setting. People aren’t beasts, they just need to escape reality to clear their minRAB once and a while.
Girard and Freud both have different concepts of violence and how the human mind acts on it. Tough incorporates these theories in his experiences to the mosh pit, and carefully places them into an article that perceives moshing as a form of violence, but a form of constructive stress relief. Anyway moshing is looked at; violence is the main issue that comes out of it. What people don’t understand is the unspoken respect and loyalty that occurs down in the depths of the mosh pit.
Pushing, jumping thrashing, slamming, ripping, throwing, reveling, hurting; these worRAB don’t appeal to everyone when it comes down to having a good time. In fact, many people would wonder why anyone would associate themselves with these types of actions. In Paul Tough’s article Into the Pit, he explains his thoughts and expectations of the Pit, and the people who engage in the activity that they call moshing.
Some would give you the explanation that it is pure madness and it’s only for people who want to release their anger on others. Other people could see it as a possible way to release anger in a constructive manner, without hurting or destroying. Anyway the pit is viewed at; there are still aspects of violence that are prevalent in it. According to Sigmund Freud, “a powerful measure of desire for aggression has to be reckoned as part of their (man’s) instinctual endowment.” Man neeRAB to practice violence and do it at the expense of others.
Rene Girard states that, “violence is not to be denied, but it can be directed to another object, something it can sink its teeth into.” By analyzing these two new theories on violence, along with Paul Tough’s article, one can develop a whole new attitude violence’s relation with the mosh pit. Rene Girard explains that it is only human nature to act in violence during the course of his life. Girard also states that people use this anger in other ways besides the devious.
People try to direct their violence into something constructive. When people do this, it is a perfect example of eustress. Eustress is converting stress into a positive manner. Violence is a form of stress because it weighs heavily on the mind and causes misinterpretations. Paul Tough shows that the people who are attending these functions are doing it in a manner to release aggression, but not to physically hurt anyone. When people have these thoughts, it goes deeper than just trying to escape, it’s mutual.
The examples that Tough uses in the article are ones that show respect, and in a way, some form of loyalty. One example is when Tough is in the Pit, and he falls on the floor. While he was on the ground, thinking this isn’t where I should be and getting somewhat trampled, he suddenly shoots up into the air. Someone grabbed him from the ground and pulled him up. This gives the impression that the “moshers” don’t want anyone to be down and out. They are helping each other get through the concert. This is a form of the respect and loyalty issue.
Tough also explains a situation where a fellow “mosher” wants a lift into the air. When he was thrown, the general consensus was to catch him. They did this without a doubt. The people won’t let you fall, for they all are there to help out and have a good time as well. Directing their stress to the mosh pit allows them to help each other out and become a united unit of chaos, but “constructive” chaos.
Finally, Tough brings a very valid point to Freud’s theory. One incident that occurred was when someone’s shoelaces came untied and he called out to the crowd “sneaker!” The crowd parted and let him tie his shoe quickly and then through him immediately back into the pit. By helping each other, and slamming on each other, people can positively direct their hostility and violence in a constructive, uniformed, and acceptable manner. Girard’s theory absolutely explains how the mosh pit functions and survives.
Sigmund Freud’s theory on violence really doesn’t hit the same target as Girrard, and therefore he talks about how it is only human nature to take violence out on someone else. He states that, “men are savage beasts to whom the thought of sparing their own kind is alien.” Freud’s theory would come into play in Tough’s article if Tough talked about men hitting and thrashing as the dominant feature in the mosh pit. Tough doesn’t come across in the article portraying “moshers” as violent beasts. He uses examples of helping one another, and loyalty.
Freud’s concept of violence is made out to make people believe that in a “form of rage” people couldn’t be civilized and thoughtful. He also believes that people go out to mosh pits to deliberately hurt people. When that statement is related to the article, the only statement that Tough made that could justify this is, “no one’s watching the band, they’ve become background.” (618) People could say that “moshers” only go to mosh and hurl their bodies at each other, but at least they are doing it in a constructive and allowed setting. People aren’t beasts, they just need to escape reality to clear their minRAB once and a while.
Girard and Freud both have different concepts of violence and how the human mind acts on it. Tough incorporates these theories in his experiences to the mosh pit, and carefully places them into an article that perceives moshing as a form of violence, but a form of constructive stress relief. Anyway moshing is looked at; violence is the main issue that comes out of it. What people don’t understand is the unspoken respect and loyalty that occurs down in the depths of the mosh pit.