I seem to be in a virtuous cycle of watching movies with single word titles. Instinct (1999) is the latest. It’s a psychological thriller starring Anthony Hopkins and Cuba Gooding Jr. Anthony Hopkins plays Dr. Ethan Powell, a renowned anthropologist who disappeared into the African wilderness to study mountain gorillas. Two years later, he’s found and arrested after killing two park rangers and injuring others. That makes it a blend of Gorillas in the Mist with Sigourney Weaver and Medicine Man with Sean Connery. He’s returned to the U.S. and placed in a brutal maximum-security psychiatric facility, where he’s been completely mute and unresponsive. That adds a dimension of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest with Jack Nicholson with a touch of King of Hearts with Alan Bates.
Cuba Gooding Jr. plays Dr. Theo Caulder, an ambitious young psychiatrist who takes on Powell’s case, hoping to write a career-making book about him. Caulder’s challenge is to get Powell to speak and discover what happened in Africa that transformed this respected academic into a violent, silent prisoner. As Caulder gradually breaks through Powell’s silence, he learns that Powell had “gone native,” living peacefully among the gorillas and experiencing a profound connection to nature. The killings occurred when poachers attacked the gorilla family with whom Powell had bonded. The film explores questions about what it means to be truly free versus living in society’s “cages” (literal and metaphorical). A key theme is whether civilization’s control over nature and each other is justified and whether the loss of authentic human connection to the natural world is bearable. Who are the real “animals”, the gorillas or the humans? Overall, the movie presents a critique of human dominion over nature.
Dominion is a complex concept that has several related meanings. It can reference a Supreme authority or sovereignty with complete control or power over something. Such as,“The empire exercised dominion over vast territories”. It can be noun such as a territory or sphere of influence…a realm, domain, or area under someone’s control. That might be like, “The king’s dominion stretched from the mountains to the sea”. The historical political usage could be that dominion refers to self-governing territories within the British Empire (like the Dominion of Canada). These territories had autonomy but still recognized the British monarch. In the biblical/theological context, dominion is God’s supreme authority over creation. In the legal context, ownership rights and control over property constitute dominion. The word itself comes from Latin dominium (meaning “lordship” or “ownership”), which derives from dominus (lord/master). The core concept across all uses is authority, control, and rule over something or someone.
The question for the ages is who exactly has dominion? The answer depends on the context. God is typically said to have ultimate dominion over all creation in Judeo-Christian tradition. And in Genesis 1:26-28, God gives humans dominion over animals and the earth. In political/legal terms, sovereign governments have dominion over their territories. Property owners have dominion over their land and possessions. Rulers and monarchs historically claimed dominion over their realms. In practical terms, individuals have dominion over their own lives and choices (personal autonomy) just as parents and guardians have legal dominion over minor children. Some argue that humans have too much dominion over nature (that’s a serious environmental ethics debate). The question is about who should have dominion over various domains (resources, technology, data, etc.).
Man’s dominion over nature is a complex and contested concept with multiple perspectives. Once again, in the religious/traditional view, the answer largely stems from Genesis: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing.” So the traditional interpretation is that humans have God-given authority to rule and use nature. The more modern reinterpretation is that this means stewardship or responsible caretaking, not exploitation. But the historical reality is that humans have exercised dominion through agriculture and domestication for 10,000+ years. Then came the industrial revolution and its attendant resource extraction that came with urbanization and habitat transformation and technology that reshapes ecosystems.
The current debate involves arguments for human primacy. Human welfare and progress require using natural resources. Intelligence and capability create responsibility to manage nature. Technology is thought to be able to solve environmental problems we create. But there are also arguments against unlimited dominion. We don’t want things leading to climate crisis, mass extinction, and ecosystem collapse. Humans are part of nature, not separate from or above it. Indigenous worldviews emphasize harmony, not domination. Doesn’t long-term human survival depend on healthy ecosystems?
Instinct, the film, critiques the dominion concept, suggesting humans have created their own cages through civilization while destroying authentic freedom found in nature. Powell’s character represents someone who rejected human dominion entirely. When the park rangers attack Powell’s family of gorillas, they kill the silverback, the steward who watched over Powell when he was in the jungle and, indeed, watched over his entire world. The silverback represents the antithesis of dominion…or at least the very best version of it.
Let’s face it, dominion inevitably involves violence. So why does man engage in or even countenance violence? This is one of humanity’s deepest questions, with no single answer. There’s the biological/evolutionary factor. Brain structure and the amygdala that controls fear and aggression and the prefrontal cortex with its dysfunction for impulse control come into play. There are hormones (testosterone and cortisol imbalances), genetics (somewhat predisposition, but not necessarily deterministic), evolutionary legacy (competition for resources, mates, status, tribal in-group/out-group dynamics, etc.), and abnormal neurology (damage to certain brain regions correlates with increased aggression). The psychological factors are multiple…trauma (childhood abuse, PTSD, unresolved pain), mental illness (though to be clear, most mentally ill people aren’t violent), personality disorders (antisocial, narcissistic patterns), dehumanization (seeing others as less than human) and a general lack of empathy with its attendant inability to feel others’ suffering. The social/environmental factors equally contribute to the phenomenon. There’s poverty and inequality (desperation, perceived injustice), cultural norms (glorification of violence), group dynamics (mob mentality), various learned behaviors (witnessing violence normalizes it), social exclusion (rejection, isolation, humiliation…often due to caste), and the ever-present resource scarcity (competition for survival needs). There are even philosophical/existential views that contribute to violence. Hobbes felt that humans are naturally violent and that only civilization restrains us. Rousseau said the opposite that humans are peaceful, but that its civilization that corrupts us. Nietzsche said that will and power are fundamental human drivers. Existentialists like Sartre said meaninglessness and anxiety drive destructive acts. Even religion has original sin, spiritual warfare and moral failure as justification for violence.
Violence usually results from multiple factors interacting. Biology creates potential for it, psychology shapes it, environment triggers it, and culture either restrains or amplifies it. In Instinct, Powell’s perspective is that civilization itself, the domination, control, loss of authentic freedom, creates the conditions for violence. It’s all about the feeling of being “caged”. So, can man possibly eliminate violence altogether? This is perhaps the ultimate question about human nature and society. The pessimistic case leads to a simple “No”. There is the biological reality, the historical evidence, the philosophical arguments (especially that free will means we have the capacity to choose violence) and the economic reality that resource scarcity will always exist. But current advancements in technology (especially AI) suggest that the situation may altogether change. The optimistic case says that a significant reduction in human violence is possible. Violence has actually decreased dramatically over centuries with murder rates down, wars less frequent, torture declining. Civilization, education, trade, and empathy expansion have worked (at least until very recently). The things that have reduced violence historically are strong institutions and rule of law combined with economic prosperity and opportunity, increased education and literacy, democracy and political voice and an overall cultural evolution toward greater empathy. But some violence is reactive/defensive – protecting self or others. Mental illness may always exist and some percentage of the population will always have impaired judgment. Human nature says that emotions will override reason on occasion. The paradox of enforcement against violence is that preventing violence requires the threat of force.
Powell’s view might be that civilization’s attempt to control and dominate (humans over nature, institutions over individuals, groups over each other) creates the very violence it claims to prevent. The “cages” generate the rage. Maintaining order requires force, but force perpetuates violence. The question isn’t whether we can create a violence-free utopia, but whether we’re willing to do the hard work of building societies that minimize the conditions that breed violence. You can’t eliminate all violence, but you can dramatically reduce it through proper structures, incentives, and safeguards. Powell is more alligned with Rousseau in thinking that civilization creates violence and therefore we should all go live in the jungle and chew on leaves passively. I will admit to being more Hobbesian and feeling that civilization does NOT equal dominion and it serves to restrain our violent nature. So, my recipe is more civilization and less dominion.