Cultures breed aggression where it is modeled, prestiged, and functionally rewarded

Evidence

The powerful role of sociocultural influences in human aggression is strikingly revealed in ethnographic studies of cross-cultural diversity. These variations, which challenge the view that aggression is inbred, take three forms: cross-cultural diversity, intracultural diversity, and transformative societal change. Certain fighting cultures breed aggression by modeling it pervasively; attaching prestige to it; and according it functional value for gaining social status, material benefits, and social control. In other, pacific cultures, interpersonal aggression is a rarity because it is devalued and rarely modeled and has no functional value (Alland, 1972; Bandura, 1973). — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 162

Categorization

• XREF: The claim that functional value plus prestige plus pervasive modeling enables harm echoes how the vault treats rationalization of Islamophobic/racist policy as culturally normalized behavior, and foreshadows Bandura’s disengagement mechanisms where harmful conduct is validated socially rather than biologically driven. — connects to: Culture functions as a control mechanism governing behavior through approval — W. David Marx, Status and Culture: How Our Desire for…, 141; A tradition of aggression normalizes renewed group violence — Leonard S. Newman and Ralph Erber (eds.), Understanding Genocide: The Social…, 104; Third-party punishment can stabilize any cultural trait within a group — Joe Henrich and Robert Boyd, The Evolution of Conformist…, 117 (+1 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 162