In the face of oppression, do not use violence

Oppression is understood as the subjugation of one group by another, imposed by an asymmetric power and often reinforced by hostile conditions, such as threats or actual violence. To be oppressed is to experience that another group, which is more powerful, threatens or assaults our own group. It is feeling humiliated and insulted, feeling that you have fewer opportunities and that the laws do not apply the same.

But is it enough to be oppressed to trigger violence? At first it was considered that oppression was the cause that provoked violence . This idea finds its roots in the hypotheses of frustration-aggression and relative deprivation. These hypotheses propose that oppression, frustration and humiliation are some of the variables that trigger violence.

The hypothesis of frustration-aggression

One of the first theories that served to explain how violence arose was the hypothesis of frustration-aggression . This theory stated that aggressions are always the product of frustration . However, this theory was not proven in reality.

The data indicated that frustration did not inevitably lead to aggression, frustrated people did not have to use violence. Sometimes, the frustration ended in the resolution of the problem and, in other occasions, the violence occurred in the absence of frustration. It could arise, for example, from the intolerance or misinformation of the person who uses it.

"Even if a poor man gets rich, he will continue to suffer the same diseases that affect the poor, as a result of the oppression he suffered in the past" -Eduardo Punset-

Therefore, it is not reasonable to consider frustration as a necessary and sufficient factor to cause aggression. Therefore, the hypothesis was reformulated so that only the aversive frustration under threat would be the one that provoked the aggression. In this way frustration could favor anger and hatred. In turn, these emotional states, before a threat, would be the ones that would produce the aggression.

However, this new proposal does not always seem to be fulfilled either. Frustration under threat can facilitate aggression, but it will not determine aggressive behavior.

The relative deprivation

Faced with the failure of the frustration-aggression hypothesis, a new theory emerged, the theory of relative deprivation. This theory understands frustration as a state caused by relative deprivation. Relative deprivation is a distorted perception of needs. It consists in the belief that we are deprived of a need or a right. According to this theory, rebellion would arise when people can not stand the conditions of inequality in which their group lives.

"Oppression. Rebellion. Treason. He used great words like people do, without knowing what they can represent. " Nadine Gordimer-

Over time it has been seen that relative deprivation can facilitate certain attitudes towards violence, especially among members of a social class or an oppressed group. But not for that reason is a factor that always triggers violence. Although poverty and economic inequality can lead to violence, not always, even in most cases, they will do so.

The perceived oppression

Oppression perceives by itself is not a necessary or enough cause for violence to arise. Even so, it is a cognitive-emotional variable that constitutes a potential risk factor. Oppression does not have to be real, it can be perceived. Believing that another group is threatening us may be enough to make us feel oppressed. The concept of oppression encompasses previous theories, which is why it includes negative feelings, such as frustration and cognitive sensations, such as deprivation.

But, although oppression does not necessarily form part of the cocktail of factors that ends up precipitating violent behavior, it is very related to some clinical symptoms, such as anxiety or depression. In addition, people who feel oppressed tend to develop more emotional stress, which plays an important role in support of violence.