Why are Risk Assessments Important?

Why are Risk Assessments Important? Demonstrate why risk assessment is an important conceptual  framework for health and social care practice A phrase I have heard often is ‘health and safety gone mad’ and this has been said by people in the care sector when referring to procedures and training they believe is unnecessary, just creating extra work, to perform extra checks and it has been expressed that some employees felt as if it was creating more procedures and forms to fill that if not done the employee could be blamed if something goes wrong and management could avoid responsibility. I believe that these feeling are caused by introducing training and implementing new tasks without an explanation to their importance and not providing the risk assessment to show the research and past incidents that have led to new procedures being enforced. On the 4th April 2015 I was working as a casual support worker in a S.E.N school and a teacher there told me that herself and the other teachers had to attend ladder training and were forbidden from using chairs or anything else to reach for objects on school premises, the school now had a ladder that they described to be safer and would lessen the risk of an accident. The teacher I spoke to said â€Å"its health and safety gone mad.† She thought it was wasted effort having to have to get the ladder and impractical that they were told that no staff should use chairs for that purpose. She did not know about the numerous risk assessments that had been completed involving falls in school settings from chairs and tables; the National Union of Teachers researched and discovered that ‘Between 2002 and 2010 there was one death and nearly two thousand injuries in the education sector as a result of falls from height’. The National Union of teachers examined regulations th at would support their results and the ‘Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations states that employers must do all that is reasonably practicable to prevent anyone falling. They must avoid work at height being carried out wherever possible, and where it is unavoidable put in place measures (e.g. suitable work equipment and procedures) to minimise the risk of a fall, and the risk of injury should someone fall despite suitable measures being put in place’. So it is each employer’s obligation to provide training and equipment to ensure the safety of their employees when the probability of the risk happening becomes greater and new information is produced showing new procedures need to be implemented. Risk assessment is the valuation of the harm or disease that could be caused by an object or the environment and this harmful substance is labelled a hazard and the level of harm that hazard can cause will affect how the hazard is controlled. The hazard could present a low or high risk to individuals or the environment; the extent of harm the hazard could cause and the probability of that harm happening is how the risk is measured. The factors to consider when looking at a hazard are how it could cause harm, where does the hazard reside or kept, conditions surrounding the hazard, the frequency of exposure and how much exposure is safe (GreenFacts.org, 2014). A qualitative risk assessment ‘produces findings that are applicable beyond the immediate boundaries of the study (G, Guest, 2005)’. A qualitative risk assessment has been defined as a ‘written photograph’ (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, Allen, 1993) as cited in Participant Observation as a Data Collection Method (2005), it observes an individual’s contradictory behaviours, beliefs, opinions, emotions, and relationships of individuals. Qualitative methods are also effective in identifying intangible factors, such as social norms, socioeconomic status, gender roles, ethnicity, and religion, whose role in the research issue may not be readily apparent. (G, Guest, 2005). The techniques of a qualitative risk assessment is to observe the subjective influences of the individual, to interview the person or other individuals that are necessary to the assessment to gain background information, contributing factors that has lead up to current conditions and the r isk assessment, to strategies possible solutions and to try and have answers to any queries. Focus groups bring together a group of people to discuss and express their feelings on one topic. The focus group can assist in researching a sensitive subject, to gather preliminary data, aid in the development of surveys and interview guide, to clarify research findings from another method and to gain a large amount of information on the topic in a short time, access to topics that might be otherwise unobservable, can insure that data directly targets researchers topic and Provide access to comparisons that focus group participants make between their experiences (Cohen D, 2006). Qualitative risk assessments assist with quantitative risk assessments as the conclusion of the qualitative risk assessment can provide the information needed to create a numeric value for the probability of the hazard causing harm or disease to individuals or the environment. A quantitative risk assessment identifies the level of risk by using an equation that would show if the risk has a high or low chance of harm or disease by evaluating the hazard, the environment and individuals that could be exposed. The equation used is R=C x E x P means: R is the total score of the risk for example; 20 or less=negligible, 21-69=low, 70-199=medium, 200-399=high and 400or more=very high. C means consequence, severity or disease for example; fatality=100, very serious=75, serious=50, important=10 and minor=5. E is for how often an individual is exposed to the hazard for example; continuous=10, frequent=6, occasional=3, unusual=2, rare=1 and very rare=0.5. P=probability of the hazard causing harm or disease, how often a person could come into contact with the hazard and how capable is the person to deal with the hazard for example; would be expected=10, quite possible=6, unusual but possible=3, only remotely possible=1, conceivable but unlikely=0.5, practically impossible=0.2 and virtually impossible (Tabithasonia, 2014). Risk assessments are based on factual research but there are occasions when personal fears, media and inconclusive debates could lead people to believe that a hazard could cause more harm than studies show or create fears of unrealistic hazards. A media coverage of a study reported serious risks on certain medicines causing unnecessary fear amongst consumers as many of the facts they stated were proven exaggerated or false. The study was based in the US and it was on whether the use of medicines that have anticholinergic effects links to the increased risk of Alzheimer’s at the University of Washington and Group Health Research Institute was published in the peer-reviewed medical journal. The study had some shortcomings and was US based but the British media published the findings in the newspapers and particular newspapers exaggerated statistics, several printed the name of the wrong drug, wrong information given about the focus group and failed to make people aware that the instant stopping of these medications could have adverse effects. The drugs that the study focused on was antihistamines such as Benadryl but the U.K form of Benadryl does not contain diphenhydramine which has a anticholinergic effect and diphenh ydramine is not a chemical that is used in U.K in medicines as it is in the US so the risk of Benadryl in the U.K increasing the risk of Alzheimer’s would be risk assessed as very low as there is no hazard to cause the risk. The level of risk can be based on a person’s perception of the risk using their own knowledge of hazard gathered from word and mouth, personal dread of the hazard occurring and popular beliefs of the hazard and precautionary procedures are put in place using these values. In an elderly residential home there was a fear of Legionnaires’ disease but there was no evidence to support this fear as when tested there was no trace of legionella bacteria in the water system and the water system’s thermometer would ensure the water temperature stays at the levels where the Legionella bacteria is unable to spread and the caretaker checked the water system often ensuring it was up to health and safety standards but a senior member of staff believed that stagnant water was the cause of the spread Legionella bacteria and she thought the home did not use enough water daily to prevent this. An NHS article explains that the environment needed for Legionella bacteria is water temp erature of 20-45C (68-113F) and impurities in the water that the bacteria can use for food – such as rust, algae and lime scale, the world health organisation also has the same information on the spread of legionella bacteria also that if there is stagnant water to test the quality of the water after three days and there still may be no detection of legionella bacteria but these facts were not taken into account when the senior member of staff did her risk assessment and requested that the caretaker would run the taps and showers for a few hours daily to empty the water tanks but if there was a risk of legionnaires disease running water is a risk as it affects people by breathing it in the small droplets of water and the constant refilling of the water tank can dilute the disinfectant chemicals in the tank that protects the water against bacteria proving that a risk assessment that is based on a personal opinion can be inaccurate and would need further investigation into the facts. Epidemiology is the study of patterns of disease and mortality rates showing the diversities in areas, this helps target areas in the need of preventative healthcare and shows which areas or ages are more vulnerable to disease and what areas are people living the longest. The epidemiology study for Legionnaires disease shows that it ‘is rare in the UK. In 2013, 284 people were reported to have the infection in England and Wales. Of these cases, 88 people (31%) were exposed to the infection while travelling abroad – mainly to Mediterranean countries, but also tropical countries such as India. However, given the millions of trips made abroad each year, 88 cases is a very small number. Cases of Legionnaires disease arising in England and Wales usually peak between July and September. (NHS, 2015)’ In healthcare settings there are mandatory risk prevention measures in legislation on risk management and the health and safety of individuals and the environment that have been sanctioned by governing bodies and enforced by inspectors such as Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales. The Health and Social Care (Safety and Quality) Act 2015 is a legislation that’s goal is to improve the safety and quality of those in care and explains what is expected of regulators of health and social care professions. Riddor or reporting of injuries, diseases and dangerous occurrences regulations 2013 is the regulation that explains to employers their duties on assessing risks and how to report incidents and these reports are important to assess the needed safety precautions to prevent incidents in the future. COSHH or Control of Substances Hazardous to Health is the law that enforces employers to ensure all hazardous substances are stored safely in appropriate storage rooms, necessary me asures to be taken and risk assessments are completed to prevent any incidents. The case study I am looking at is about Susan a 45 year old school teacher who three years ago lost her husband in a car accident when she had been driving and blames herself even though it was not her fault and since the accident she has turned to alcohol. Susan has been finding her job more stressful and is drinking more for as a coping mechanism but this had to stop as she arrived for work one day under the obvious influence of drink. She was sent home and warned if it happened again a formal disciplinary action would be taken. Her husband Rik was self-employed and had not made provision for a pension or insurance payment in the event of his death and Susan has not adapted her lifestyle following Rik’s death and she spends more than she earns. Her only income is her salary and child benefit; Susan did have some savings but these have now been spent. She has taken out a bank loan and has also just started taking out short term ‘pay day’ loans. The family live in their own home but it is subject to a mortgage. Susan is struggling to make payments and the last two have been paid late. Susan’s daughter Lydia aged 16 has just started her A levels and is at risk of being excluded for lack of effort. She has also started a relationship with Lee, aged 27, who is unemployed and has 2 children from separate previous relationships. Susan’s son Tom aged 14 has started to rebel against his mother. He defies her and stays out after dark and mixes with the ‘wrong people’. He was returned to the house recently by the police having been found drinking in the local park. Causes of Aggressive Behaviour: Anthropology Theories Causes of Aggressive Behaviour: Anthropology Theories In what sense are aggressive behaviors, i.e. conflict, competition, and dominance, universal characteristics of humans? What is the evidence that in some cultures aggressive behaviors are rarely observed and strongly sanctioned? How is such an outcome achieved? Humans are innately social animals, whose existence depends on a continued complex relationship with other human beings. Expressed aggression will inevitably lead to an individual or group as the dominator, and an individual or group as the dominated. Since human origin, individuals and groups have had continuous conflicts in search for the best economic resources, the most fertile land, and the most sustainable reproductive social group. For this reason, human history is full of aggressive conflicts and sanctioned aggressive behaviors. This essay is a brief composition summarizing the outcomes of aggressive human behaviors, specifically focusing on whether dominance, competition, conflict, and war are caused by nature, nurture, or both. This essay also presents case studies of rare amicable, nonviolent societies and their achievements of peace and human security. It is widely agreed among evolutionary anthropologists and sociobiologists that aggression is a biologically universal human characteristic (Dennen Falger 1990; Schmookler 1995; Wrangham Peterson 1996); however, many contemporary cultural anthropologists advocate that aggression is a cultural construct (Kropotkin 1914). Indeed, the historical debate between nature and nurture is vigorous, as the categories of human intrinsical, interactional, and environmental traits are blurred. Hobbes (ed. Tuck 1991) argued that war is a functional part of human nature that maintains a balance of power and solidarity. Rousseau (Jonathan 2005) defended the position that war is independent from human nature, and is therefore a dysfunctional social construct invented by states intended to protect societies. In contrast, Malthus (Pullen 1989) believed war to be a functional mechanism imparted by God to humans to reduce populations at necessary intervals through an innate expression of aggression and a need for in-group cohesion to maintain a sustainable equilibrium. The nature-nurture debate continues still, from early philosophers to contemporary scholars with no definitive answer. The debate however has recently grown more complex with a greater comprehension of biological predispositions that effect human behavior. The most compelling explanation is that many biological predispositions, like aggression and competition, can be distinguished from, but influenced by, the cultural environment (Renfrew 1997). Every living organism, Ridley (2003, p. 236) argues, is an instrument for ‘genes to grow, feed, thrive, replicate, and die, but most importantly its primary survival function is reproduction. Reproduction undoubtedly catalyzes a competitive force to create descendants. This essay reputes the position that biological factors influence the cultural, or as Ridley (2003) describes it ‘nature via nurture. More specifically, reproduction and aggression biologically entail phenotypic outcomes. All humans feel the need to eliminate competitors, or the offspring of competitors to protect reproductive capital such as territory and mates (Low 2000, p. 214). This can be achieved through aggressive non-violent dominance or aggressive violent conflicts. Anderson and Bushman (2002, p.28) defines human aggression as ‘any behavior directed toward another individual that is carried out with the proximate (immediate) intent to cause harm. This, however, does not mean that the individual has carried out the harmful conduct. It can be inferred then, that aggression is a means to create an inverse relation to achieve a goal through someone without the use of harm or violence. The definition of violence, such as war, conflict, competition, and dominance is arbitrary. For example, violence in one culture can be very different to another culture, or even to individuals of the same culture. Anderson Bushman (2002, p.29) defines violence as ‘aggression that has extreme harm as its goal (e.g., death). When comparing the two definitions, it is clear that violence is aggressive expression but, conversely, aggression does not always lead to violence. These definitions lead to the conclusion that aggression is biological and universal among humans and furthermore, violence is nature via nurture. In fact, human expression of violence is minimal compared to aggression. Aggression can be observed in almost every human interaction in the form of non-violent dominance and competition for social capital (Dennen Falger 1990). Culture arbitrates in inverse relations with norms, mores, folkways, and taboos to prevent aggression turning into rampant violence. With the mediation of culture, aggression via violence serves multiple functions and dysfunctions within human societies (Dennen Falger 1990). Established in-out groups create and maintain group identity and boundary lines between societies. This stratification then creates reciprocal hostility between groups and creates the need for social institutions. These institutions often act as social filters preventing impulsive social conflict between in-out groups (Dennen Falger 1990). These filters also act as a mobilization mechanism, unifying the energies of group members, thus increasing group cohesion or reaffirming state sovereignty (Dennen Falger 1990). Without group unification, powerful charismatic people cannot rally a society toward a collective interest. Social order is achieved through rules and commands issued by these powerful people to maintain a normative system of society and influence the weaker people to represent their will (Dennen Falger 1990). The example of aggression (nature) via dominance (nurture) complies with the laws of mutual aid and mutual struggle (Wrangham Peterson 1996; Kropotkin 1914 ). Through these two laws humans directly benefit from achieved power, status, and resources through competition; however, as a result, 60 percent of all human societies engage in warfare at least yearly (Low 2000, p. 223). War would be inevitable if the genetic basis alone dictated human action. The above arguments have uncovered that the universal character of human conflict, competition, and dominance is contingent on biological aggressive behaviors. Ethnographic records and historical accounts tell a clear story of hominid catalyzed aggression (Carmen 1997). From primate pack raiding, to Homo habilis tribal skirmishes, to Homo erectus group battles, to Neandertal societal armed conflicts, to Homo sapien civilization wars (Schmookler 1995 p. 74-87; Otterbein 2004), humans have perpetually constructed cultural systems to solve the recurrent problem of violent aggression via mutual aid and mutual struggle. Through history, humans have been actively altering their environments through problem solving to best suit intellectual development, which has caused an inevitable in-group/out-group competition (Schmookler 1995). The more humans mutually support each other, the more intellectual development occurs; conversely, the more human intellect increases, the larger civilizations become, and more blood is shed (Schmookler 1995). That is, greater levels of population pressure are associated with a greater likelihood of warfare. Furthermore, ‘warfare is more likely in advanced horticultural and agrarian societies than it is in hunting–and–gathering and simple horticultural societies, and that it is also more likely in hunting–and–gathering and agrarian societies that have above–average population densities (Nolan 2003). Thus, the denser human population becomes, the laws of mutual aid and mutual struggle become more imposed. This is evidence that cultur e can intensify or suppress expressions of aggression. For the most part, however, culture has been unsuccessful at eliminating violence. Since mutual aid and mutual struggle has failed to resolve the problem of universal conflict, surely something must provide a solution. Kropotkin (1914, p. 74) argues that, ‘better conditions are created by the elimination of competition by means of mutual aid, thus establishing a cultural ecology of pacificism. This argument fails because, as presented above, innate aggression induces competition for optimal human survival. To completely eliminate competition, aggression must first be entirely suppressed. Complex human culture is unable to hinder aggression to the degree of elimination, but Kropotkin inadvertently made a good point. Once competition is reduced, social disparities and meritocracy will also decrease, thus preventing the less dominant group from obtaining the subordinate position (Schmookler 1995). The latter part of this essay will draw upon case studies to argue that competition reduction has been the primary objective for many tribal societies and welfare stat es. Kropotkin (1914) uses numerous examples to argue that societies with intra-group cohesion rarely encounter intra or inter-group conflict. Among them is a Papuan tribe located in Geelwink Bay, studied by G.L. Blink (1888). Kropotkin (1914, p. 94) interprets Blinks account as, ‘never having any quarrels worth speaking of and ‘never had he any conflict to complain of which is unsupported because Blink, in his field notes writes, ‘war prisoners are sometimes eaten. Kropotkin does not completely overlook this statement of warfare, but this case study fails to prove his point that inter-group peace is achievable. Kropotkin, therefore, makes a detrimental mistake in his argument for exemplifying paramount sociability and inter-tribal peace. It seems Kropotkin was attempting to persuade readers through an anarchist agenda by centering on the Papuan peaceful in-group relations and describing the Papuan tribe as having a primitive communist system (Kropotkin 1914, p. 93-95). By using examples of Inuit tribes, Kropotkin once again glorifies in-group mutual aid, but abandons emphasis on inter-group conflict. In summarizing Veniaminoff, Kropotkin (1914, p. 100) writes, ‘one murder only had been committed since the last century in a population of 60,000 people, irrespective of mass infanticide to maintain a sustainable population. In truth, Inuit tribes rely heavily on cooperation and reciprocity for intra-group survival; however, they are not exempt from inter-group hostility as Kropotkin omits (1914, p. 95-104; Gat 1999, p. 26). Anthropologist Reynolds (1985, p. 24) asserts that, ‘Eskimos had limited their aggressiveness in past fights with other Eskimos, but had been more brutal in fights with other North American Indian peoples. Although restrained and ritualized, Inuit did wage combat against each other and engaged in inter-ethnic conflict (Gat 1999, p. 26). Even Veniaminoff, whom Kropotkin (1914, p. 99) quotes, writes that for Aleoutes â₠¬Ëœit is considered shameful to†¦ask pardon from an enemy; to die without ever having killed an enemy. Once again, Kropotkin relates the primitive society with his anarchical communist agenda to prove in-group solidarity and peace is achievable, but avoids out-group enmity. Specifically, Kropotkin takes a Rousseauean social Darwinist stance on aggression and conflict by arguing that humans are innately peaceable and cooperative. Nevertheless, Kropotkin shares a commonality with Rousseau, Malthus, and Hobbes; each has constructed two functional and universal explanations for aggression and conflict (Dawson 1996, p. 7). Firstly, interspecific aggression occurs when one group attempts to exclude another group through competitiveness and dominance. This can be achieved with or without violence and is distinguished from predation, when an individual or group dominates the other for the economic gain of a food source. Secondly, group cohesion results in a synergistic in-group relationship, consequently producing an ethnocentric view of superiority toward other groups (Pope 2000, p. 161; Dawson 1996, p. 7). Although Kropotkin downplayed group ethnocentrism and rallying, he realized it is inevitable, as explained above. Indeed, the laws of mutual aid and mutual struggle universally obligate humans. As explained above, innate competition and group solidarity has, throughout the history of man, led to conflicts. With the rise of large-scale societies, these conflicts evolved into primitive warfare. During the early Paleolithic, H. s. sapiens began to spread rapidly across the earths surface (Dawson 1996, p. 26). Fissionings and fusions occurred often, and competition intensified because of seasonal scarce resources. According to Dawson (1996, p. 26) ‘all theories of primitive warfare have recognized that whether or not it [war] is innate it has to be triggered by competition. Warfare is certainly not innate, but it may account for the wide dispersal of early Paleolithic humanity. Conversely, it would have limited the possibilities for offensive/defensive competition because early humans most likely fought for land and resources and the winner would assume ‘ownership, while the other group found new economic capital (Dawson 1996, p. 26). This method would prove effecti ve until groups could no longer diffuse due to a limit of land and resources. At the beginning of the Neolithic culture, large groups could no longer easily avoid neighboring groups by seeking new land, therefore resource limitations compelled people to live in larger, more cohesive societies (Dawson 1996, p. 26-27). Dense populations compelled groups to become territorial, with semi-permanent settlements. Human societies, consequently, were forced to create caches of food to survive. In order to protect these caches, defensible resources became a defensive strategy against raiding groups, especially for agricultural societies (Dawson 1996, p. 26-27). Defensive logistics were designed to deter war but, according to the archeological evidence, war was more often and more brutal (Dawson 1996, p. 26-27). As a result of militarism, the individual became an expendable resource for the good of the group. The democratization of warfare among states is the current solution to the consistent and universal competitive strive for dominance. The democratic model originated during the French Revolution, when states were not yet nation-states and nationalism had not yet developed as a significant political force (Baylis, Smith, Owens 2008, p. 546). For the first time, humanity mustered an enormous and unprecedented amount of human energy into one single national service and mutual protection (Schmookler 1995, p. 99-100, 287-288; Baylis et al. 2008, p. 546). When France democratically handed over this vast army to Napoleon, neighboring nations were compelled to enhance and enlarge their military to deter domination. However, Napoleon was able to dominate Europe because of the newly devised national political system, enabling him to conjure unequalled armies (Schmookler 1995, p. 99-100, 287-288; Baylis, et al. 2008, p. 546). Once again, the laws of mutual aid and mutual struggle intertwine. In conclusion, Hobbes, Malthus, Rousseau, and Kropotkin all had a static view of competition. Competition inevitably leads to war and peace. The laws of mutual aid and mutual struggle are innate, universal, and are not mutually exclusive. They secure orderliness and allow humans to act freely to preserve their genes, however, the knowledge and values shared by a society influence and, to some degree, determine the thoughts and actions of an individual to behave synergistically and symbiotically (Schmookler 1995, p. 13). Through time, humanity has used solidarity, anarchy, fissioning, defense, militarism, social institutions, and democracy to sanction or repel conflict and violence with no prevail. In each case study presented, intra-group solidarity brought on inter-group competition and conversely, inter-group conflict caused intra-group solidarity. Because humans are social creatures and are dependent on each other for culture, conflicts are inevitable. The laws of mutual struggle and mutual aid operate within the law of natural selection – gene survival of the fittest individual or group. In/out groups will always be present; however, conflict and war are not innately biological. They are an outward expression of acculturation. That is, human biological aggression is stimulated by cultural norms, mores, folkways, and taboos. A groups cultural sanctions determine the social consequence for overt aggression. Bibliography Baylis, J., Smith S., Owens P., The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, London. 546 Baron, RA Richardson, DR 1994, Human aggression, 2nd ed., Plenum Press, New York, pp. 1-38. Blink, G.L. 1888, Bulletin de la societe d anthropologie, vol.11, p. 386, cited in Kropotkin, Petr 1914, Mutual aid: A factor of evolution, Porter Sargent Publishers Inc, Boston. p. 93. Carmen, John 1997, Material harm: Archaeological studies of war and violence, Cruithne Press, UK. Coy, Patrick Woehrle, Lynne 2000, Social conflicts and collective identities, Rowman Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Maryland. Dawson, Doyne 1996, The origins of war: Biological and anthropological theories, History and Theory, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 1-28, viewed 25 Aug 2009, . Dennen, J. Falger V. (ed) 1990, Sociobiology and conflict: Evolutionary perspectives on competition, cooperation, violence and warfare, Chapman and Hall, London. Gat, A 1999, Social organization, group conflict and the demise of the Neanderthals, The Mankind Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 437-454. Kropotkin, Petr 1914, Mutual aid: A factor of evolution, Porter Sargent Publishers Inc, Boston. Low, Bobbi 2000, Why sex matters: A Darwinian look at human behavior, Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Marks, Jonathan 2005, Perfection and disharmony in the thought of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Cambridge University Press, Great Britain. Nolan, Patrick 2003, ‘Toward an Ecological–Evolutionary Theory of the Incidence of Warfare in Preindustrial Societies, Sociological Theory, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 18 – 30. Otterbein, Keith 2004, How war began, Texas AM University Press, U.S.A. Pope, Geoffrey 2000, The biological bases of human behavior, Allyn and Bacon, Boston. Pullen, John (ed.) 1989, T.R. Malthus: Principles of political economy, vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, Great Britain. Renfrew, John 1997, Aggression and its causes: A biopsychosocial approach, Oxford University Press, New York. Reynolds, Vernon 1985, ‘Sociobiology meeting, Anthropology Today, Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 24-25, viewed on 01 September 2009, . Ridley, Matt 2003, Nature via nurture, Fourth Estate, London. Schmookler, Andrew B. 1995, The parable of the tribes: The problem of power in social evolution, second edition, State University of New York, New York. Tuck, Richard (ed.) 1991, Hobbes: Leviathan, Cambridge University Press, Great Britain. Wrangham, R Peterson, D 1996, Demonic males: apes and the origins of human violence, Bloomsbury, London.