Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Analysis and Definition of Violence*1 Universidad Autónoma de (original) (raw)
Related papers
Every scholar who intends to study in a coherent and academically acceptable manner a world simultaneously extremely diverse and inter-connected faces a difficult choice. On the one hand, the researcher needs the clarity of the abstract intellectual frameworks in order to conceptualize the reality, and on the other hand to avoid becoming their prisoner, by preserving the empirical accuracy of the concepts and theories involved. The aim of this paper is to discuss some epistemological and methodological aspects of a research still in progress which intends to investigate the social legitimization of the use of violence. The basic assumptions of the research can be summarized as it follows: 1. the members of the epistemic community of the Social Sciences share a universally recognized set of concepts, methods, and principles, but the social phenomena conceptualized by the same terms have various, local explanations and meanings; 2. the dominant perspectives of the Social Sciences tend to simply replicate the Western-based, hegemonic knowledge and convictions and attitudes; 3. any political event, process or phenomenon can be studied only in its own terms; 4. in order to be understood, the social realm should be investigated by researchers who are part of it, members of the very society that is questioned. The research discussed here thus consider, as premises, that a political community is, first of all, a moral community, which can be defined through the socially acceptable attitudes towards violence, as is (or can be) used both inside and outside the group. Researchers who are members of a moral community are regarded as its ‘legitimate interprets’: they are considered to be at once members of the universal epistemic community and of the moral community to which they belong as individuals. The present article tries to discuss the logic and the design of a quantitative research still in progress, to critically assess its epistemological and methodological tenets, but also its risks and failures. By doing this, its authors hope to raise some questions concerning the knowledge of the social realm, how is it achieved, how accurate is it, what does it represent, how relevant, in intellectual and even political terms, is it, and so forth. The authors would highly appreciate the comments and observations, considering them of great value for refining the research. Keywords: community, morality, violence, survey methods.
The Violence - an Element of Violent Criminality or a Way of Modern Living
European Scientific Journal, 2014
The use of force in any form, against another person, against someone else's or their own personal property is the mutual element of the criminological classification of the violent crime as one of the severest types of incriminated human behaviours. However, modern lifestyle and the dynamics of people and events suggest constant embedding of the violence and its emergent types in everyday life and in all spheres of the individual's life in society. Hence the subject of this paper is violence and the forms in which it can occur, i.e. its importance as an element of violent crime on one hand, and its importance as a way of acting and living, on the other. This leads to the assumption that violence due to the modern lifestyle is no longer just an element of violent crime, but it is becoming more and more widely spread lifestyle. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to point out and emphasize that collective consciousness should not and must not subjugate to the belief that it is normal to tolerate violence and to accept it as inevitable segment of modern living. In this sense, in order to realise the goal of the paper and to validate the assumption that has been set, it is necessary to analyse the current situation regarding the use of violence, not only when committing criminal offenses, but also in everyday life and community functioning.
The recent interest in the sociology of violence has arisen at the same time that western societies are being urged to consider the profound social crisis provoked by global financial turmoil. Social changes demand the evolution of sociological practices. The analysis herein proposed, based on the studies of M. Wieviorka, La Violence (2005), and of R. Collins, Violence: A Micro-sociological Theory (2008), concludes that violence is subject to sociological treatments centered on the aggressors, on the struggles for power and on male gender. There is a lack of connection between practical proposals for violence prevention and the sociology of violence. It is accepted that violence as a subject of study has the potential, as well as the theoretical and social centrality, to promote the debate necessary to bring social theory up to date. This process is more likely to occur in periods of social transformation, when sociology is open to considering subjects that are still taboo in its study of violence, such as the female gender and the state. The rise of the sociology of violence confronts us with a dilemma. We can either collaborate with the construction of a sub discipline that reproduces the limitations and taboos of current social theory, or we can use the fact that violence has become a “hot topic” as an opportunity to open sociology to themes that are taboo in social theory (such as the vital and harmonious character of the biological aspects of social mechanisms or the normative aspects of social settings).
Violence as a Subject of Social Science I The Specificity of Political Violence
Konfrontasi: Jurnal Kultural, Ekonomi dan Perubahan Sosial, 2021
I. Introduction Towards an Unlikely Definition of Political Violence In this article we will approach the phenomena of political violence with an inclusive criterion, preventing moralizing criterion as a unique reference, we will observe different actors (individual and collective even States), and philosophical, psychological, and symbolic implications, inextricable part of the concept of violence. First, a remark about political violence shows and advantage and a disadvantage. The advantage for the creation of this concept is a necessary and a healthy mixture of approaches. Indeed, a multidisciplinary topic, violence meets scientific aspirations: of combining sociological, political, historical, philosophical, and psychological even law perspectives. Regarding the disadvantage, the existence of multiple violence reflections and uniformity what is at stake is not only the difference between the intensity of the practices but also its purpose and nature. In addition, how to measure violence before mentioned is complicated. Though is odd to say, political violence is relative and its perception changes depending on time, social means, and cultural universes. This shows how violence shall be quoted to exist, it could not exist as such, therefore is the result of a context a struggle of power. Furthermore, extreme violence, which expression is tough and equal comes from the logic of the concept. Violence cannot be objectified.
Introduction: On Conflict and Violence
Studia Phaenomenologica, 2019
The premise of the present issue of Studia Phænomenologica is that phenomenology, by virtue of its being anchored in the concrete experience of subjectivity, of its specific conceptual endeavour and descriptive approach, has a unique theoretical potential not only to understand how the various aspects of violence are articulated with fundamental existential structures, but also to bring to light the intertwined meanings of the phenomenon of violence. In particular, the present issue is engaged in the task of capturing the complexity of the experience of violence by criss-crossing phenomenological perspectives on intersubjectivity (e.g., the problem of the hostile other, understood as an adversarial alterity), affectivity (e.g., the emergence of irritation, anger, wrath, and rage as a condition for conflict), and embodiment (e.g., the problem of vulnerability and of the infliction of pain intended by those involved in the factical situation of violence, having murder, the ultimate violence, as a limit). Another major reflection at stake is to consider how these structures of the phenomenon of violence are modalized according to the essential possibilities of spatiality and temporality, either by coming to the fore, or by fading, or by changing their configuration. In this case, it is only the description of the variations of the phenomenon of violence as a whole that can indeed reveal the modifications of its fundamental structures.
International Journal for Advanced Research, 2019
The modern civilization feels satisfied by adopting several masking habits to hide their originalities. Along with some good practices, the entire time generally indulged themselves in the destructing habits in an enormous quantity. In order to satisfy their virtual existence, they are very much prone to adopt several non-senses & in human practices, which can endangered their gross productivity in a certain extent. Day by day they are continuously pushed themselves within the quicksand of ignorance, aggression, anger, violence & humiliation. The entire society is becoming blood thirsty day by day. Most violence is preventable, not inevitable. There is a strong evidence base, grounded in research and community wisdom that prevention works. Violence is a problem that can be prevented using a scientific approach similar to what is used to address other health problems, such as heart disease or smoking related illnesses. A prevention approach often incorporates six components: 1) Choosing a focus; 2) Prioritizing risk and resilience factors; 3) Convening community partners to better understand the problem and solutions; 4) Developing a multifaceted plan; 5) Implementing the plan; and then 6) Evaluating efforts. It is the high time to take possible steps as the remedial measures to transcend this monster, named VIOLENCE. There is no pride to become violent; rather it must be the weakness of that particular person. With the violence, we are just violating our basic human rights. This paper is concentrating on the aetiology and remedial measures in order to transcend violence in its whole extent.
Violence, Civilization and the State
Sistema Penal & Violência, 2011
This paper explores the relationship between organized state violence and individual sensibilities. It moves from macro-social level discussions about the state and its formation through organised violence to microsocial level analyses of individual motivation and emotion. Drawing on the work of Norbert Elias we outline a framework for integrating political and economic analyses of state violence with the more subjective approach which focuses on the sensibilities involved in the perpetration of such violence. State violence needs to be understood both as an expression of state power and as comprising individual acts of aggression with complex social and psychological relations to other forms of interpersonal violence. We also conclude that civil society is the most effective mechanism for countering state violence.
The study sets to catagrafy the “violence” phenomenon in actual human society. The diversity of violence types, the education segments, the age segments who aggress and who are aggressed, get more and more extended. The social context is crucial for both the performance and understanding of violence. The term „senseless violence‟ is often heard in cases where a serious violent incident was apparently unprovoked or has emerged from “insignificant” insults or altercation. The notion of “senseless” violence is, by implication, contrasted to some other „reasonable‟ kind, or perhaps suggests that what we find repugnant needs to be placed beyond the bound of sense. Most people probably have a wordless conception of what is a reasonable response to offence or provocation, for example, a fatal shooting following an altercation over a parking place appears inexplicable and senseless. Still many acts of extreme violence occur in response to apparently minor incidents and violence nearly always has “sense”, that is, social meaning, to both perpetrators and victims. The targets of violence are rarely chosen randomly and the victims and perpetrators are frequently already known to each other. In some cases the attribution “senseless” refers to an assumed mental illness or other pathology that might account for otherwise incomprehensible behavior. Human society registered besides direct violence: war, murder, rape, assault, verbal attacks, that is the kind that we physically perceive, another two invisible forms and can‟t be eliminated without eliminating them, cultural violence and structural violence. Direct violence has its roots in cultural and structural violence; then it feeds back and strengthens them. All three forms interact as a triad. Direct violence reinforces structural and cultural violence. We are trapped in a vicious cycle that is now threatening to destroy life on earth.