Revenge?

Revenge?

Revenge at its simplest is somewhat of an easy concept to understand. If something is done to someone, it is easy to assume they will retaliate. It is not often that violent or vengeful actions are taken against a party without some sort of revenge. In the world we live in, some sort of revenge is often required. If action is not taken a country or government seems weak. Not only that, but they lose the faith of the people in the sense that the government will not stand up to aggressors. One of the greatest examples of our time would have to be the US retaliation on Afghanistan for the September 11th attacks. In the beginning the reasons were clear cut. They attacked us so we attacked them. But at some point in time, the reasons were changed and the focus of the war switched to Iraq. Similarly, the Unites States took a stance of non-involvement during World War II. This stance stood firm until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, forcing the United States into the war and eventually to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

At what point does revenge become something more? Fine suggests that certain actions are taken due to the unexpected consequences of one decision. Opportunities arise from the outcome of one action that allows for advancements in other areas to be taken. He states “Social problems are linked in complex, dynamic, and interconnected ways… ‘solving’ social problems creates both opportunities and constraints that … generate other problems through a process [termed] ‘chaining social problems.’” According to this theory, revenge will no longer be revenge when the consequences create an opportunity to gain something worthwhile.

So the simple act of making sure someone “gets what they deserve” is not so simple after all. In fact it creates a complicated string of opportunities in which one is able to gain power and influence. In effect, what might start out as a simple act of retaliation, could turn into a means to permanently change the balance of power within the global community. For instance, the War in Afghanistan led to the War in Iraq, which resulted in the execution of Saddam Hussein.

But is this type of action truly necessary? It is clear throughout history it is not enough to just get revenge. Governments pursue objectives far after the necessary retaliation is taken. I can only think that this can be explained by the fact that the only guaranteed security a country can have is to be at the top. In order to make it to the top one must take every opportunity possible to expand influence, even after the necessary revenge has been taken.

Fine, Gary Alan. "The Chaining of Social Problems: Solutions and Unintended Consequences in the Age of Betrayal." Social problems 53.1 (2006): 3-17.