Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
is delayed and disproportionate; thus, it is not a direct and immediate payback, but
it is rather a more sophisticated and complex behavior that requires some form of
planning.
The retribution principle behind revenge and retaliation can be conceptualized as
a social function that is not explicitly represented in retaliation, but it might become
the trigger for revenge. When retaliating, the individual simply strikes back, and the
imposition of suffering is not necessary. It can be present as a function, which is not
explicitly represented in the mind of the actor and is definitely not the reason why
he undertakes that action. Few years ago, several newspapers published the story of
a betrayed English woman who discovered her husband's infidelities and reacted by
selling his sporty and expensive car on eBay for 1 British pound. Was she retaliating
against him or was she taking revenge? According to our analysis, selling the car
is not aimed to get a quantitatively similar compensation, because the betrayal and
the car have completely different values (and the value of the betrayal cannot be
even determined) and they cannot be compared at all. The offender was the focus of
the action and making him suffer was the goal of the wife who had not repaid her
husband with the same currency (betraying him in return and making him know it),
but she chose to do something that was, presumably, much worse from the husband's
viewpoint. The wife's goal was to rebalance the sufferance and not to reciprocate
her husband with the same action, so she chose an action that was supposed to make
him suffer, regardless of any apparent similarity or proportionality between the tort
and the reaction.
The second important difference between these two phenomena is proportion-
ality. In retaliation, retribution is quantitative and the reaction has to be exactly
proportionate to the initial wrong, like in the lex talionis or “an eye for an eye.” This
is the classic example of retaliation in which there is a perfect symmetry between
the wrong suffered and that imposed (Vidmar
2001
). On the other hand, revenge is
qualitative; thus, the avenger is interested in making the other suffer without any
regard for proportion between the initial aggression and the reaction. The focus on
quality can be accounted for by an important symbolic dimension that we find in
revenge, but is completely absent in retaliation: the aggressor should not be paid
back with the same currency but the effect should be comparable. The avenger may
choose an action that is different from the wrong initially suffered but that triggers
the same negative emotions that were experienced by the victim or that the victim
expects the aggressor to suffer. A tort that calls for revenge can be either avenged or
forgiven, but it cannot be repaid in any other way, because these are the only ways of
getting a symbolic compensation. Retaliation can give you back the material object
that was damaged by the aggressor, but it cannot repay the symbolic damage.
The third difference consists in the focus of reaction: in retaliation the focus is
the action itself, whereas in revenge it is the actor. A retributive reaction implies
that what individuals want is to repay the offender with an equal offense, and the
suffering is not an explicit goal. Of course their counteraggression can make the
other suffer, but this is not the reason why people engage in this kind of behavior.
On the other hand, making the other suffer is the goal of the avenger who aims
at restoring the initial balance compromised by the aggression. The offender is the
Search WWH ::
Custom Search