- Email: [email protected]
Causes and cures V: The sociology and anthropology of violence
Causes and cures V: The sociology and anthropology of violence Bandy X. Lee PII: DOI: Reference:
S1359-1789(16)30013-1 doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2016.03.001 AVB 986
To appear in:
Aggression and Violent Behavior
Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:
13 November 2015 27 February 2016 1 March 2016
Please cite this article as: Lee, B.X., Causes and cures V: The sociology and anthropology of violence, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2016.03.001
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Causes and cures V: The sociology and anthropology of violence
SC
RI
PT
[N.B.: This is a continuation of “The Causes and Cures of Violence” series.]
NU
Bandy X. Lee, M.D., M.Div.
Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
Abstract
AC CE P
TE
D
MA
[email protected]
The past two years have been a landmark moment for violence prevention, with the publication of The Global Status Report on Violence Prevention 2014; a historic resolution on violence by the 67th World Health Assembly; and the release of multiple documents on violence by international and United Nations entities, with a corresponding building of momentum in scholarship. Most notably, in September 2015, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, addressing the need for violence prevention at an unprecedented scale. In this context, more than ever, violence studies have become a field of its own right. Still, a systematic approach of the topic has been lacking, and no textbook yet synthesizes the knowledge of multiple disciplines toward a cogent understanding. This article is the fourth of a series of fifteen articles that will cover, as an example, an outline of the Global Health Studies course entitled, “Violence: Causes and Cures,” reviewing the major bio-psycho-
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT social and structural-environmental perspectives on violence. Based on the tenet that individual violence does not occur in isolation from social and cultural forces, it reviews the contributions
PT
of sociology and anthropology. Although much of sociology has shied away from the topic of
RI
violence other than through its study of deviance and crime, and much of anthropology’s ethnographic methods have made research difficult in contexts of violent conflict, both bring
SC
new potentials. Concepts such as social belonging and cultural symbols can bring important
NU
insight into the nature of violence.
AC CE P
TE
D
MA
Keywords: Violence studies; Homicide; Suicide; Collective violence; Sociology; Anthropology
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Article
PT
We are living through a landmark moment for violence prevention. The past two years,
RI
especially, have seen an outpouring of documents reflecting a growing focus on the problem of
SC
violence and multilateral collaborations to solve it. In December 2014, for example, the World Health Organization, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, and the United Nations
NU
Development Programme (WHO, UNODC, & UNDP, 2014) joined forces to launch The Global Status Report on Violence Prevention 2014, detailing the efforts of 133 countries to address
MA
interpersonal violence. It is the first major report on violence since the World Report on Violence and Health (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002), an influential document
TE
D
that consolidated all the existing science on violence for the first time. In the same year, the 67th World Health Assembly (WHA, 2014) adopted a historic resolution addressing violence,
AC CE P
bringing particularly to focus women, children, and other vulnerable members of the populations subject to systematic structural and institutional violence. Furthermore, Global Study on Homicide 2013: Trends, Contexts, Data (UNODC, 2014), Hidden in Plain Sight: A Statistical Analysis of Violence against Children (United Nations Children’s Fund [UNICEF], 2014a), Ending Violence against Children: Six Strategies for Action (UNICEF, 2014b), Preventing Suicide: A Global Imperative (WHO, 2014), and Preventing Youth Violence: Taking Action and Generating Evidence (WHO, 2015), all appeared within a two-year time span, highlighting some of the major forms of violence. Most notably, on September 25, 2015, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations [UN], 2015), addressing the need for violence prevention at an unprecedented scale and recognizing the interdependence between sustained peace and sustainable development. In this context, more
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT than ever, it is time for violence studies to become a field of its own right, with university-level instruction capable of addressing the complexities and commonalities of the different forms of
PT
violence beyond the current “niche-based” study. Meanwhile, ongoing worldwide events point
RI
to the importance of this life-or-death issue and the need for a cogent understanding that is more than the sum of its parts.
SC
Over several issues, Aggression and Violent Behavior has graciously offered to publish a
NU
lecture series that has been implemented through the Global Health Studies Program at Yale College in a course entitled, “Violence: Causes and Cures.” While it does not purport to be the
MA
definitive sequence for reviewing all the major bio-psycho-social and structural-environmental perspectives on violence, it is a proposal for a systematic approach. This article consists of the
TE
D
fifth of this fifteen article series, which carries the following order:
AC CE P
1. Introduction: Toward a New Definition 2. The Biology of Violence 3. The Psychology of Violence 4. The Symbolism of Violence (in this issue) 5. The Sociology and Anthropology of Violence (in this issue) 6. The Political Science and Economics of Violence 7. Structural Violence 8. Environmental Violence 9. Consequences of Violence 10. Criminal Justice Approaches 11. International Law Approaches
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 12. Public Health Approaches 13. Global Medicine Approaches
PT
14. Nonviolence Approaches
RI
15. Synthesis and Integration
NU
SC
1. Introduction
If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences. W.I. Thomas and D.S. Thomas, The Child in America (1928)
MA
-
TE
D
Sociology and anthropology can illumine a great deal about violence. Sociology as a field deals with the scientific study of human society and social behavior. It advances our
AC CE P
understanding of the bio-psycho-social-environmental nature of human behavior (Lee, 2015a), by revealing that what appear to be purely individual actions do not occur in isolation from social forces. It thus interconnects relationships, the family, the community, and society. Anthropology is the scientific study of humanity, which describes the workings of societies around the world through comparative and cross-cultural (sometimes historical) methods, especially through the investigation of cultures outside one’s own. While sociology and anthropology have developed independently as fields and typically have their own departments, they have converged in methods and populations of study over time. For this reason, we group them together in this article, even though the large body of contribution from each field would merit more than an article of its own; in fact, each would probably require an entire book to do
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT the content justice. However, the aim of this article series is to show how to think about violence from the perspectives of each field and not to be comprehensive in coverage of content.
PT
For instance, sociology shows us that things that seem random at the individual level can make sense at the societal level, as we see in epidemics of homicide or suicide (Lee et al.,
RI
2014a). One might, and many have, practiced it as “psychology writ large”; in other words, it
SC
studies the dynamics of society instead of the individual. Anthropology probes into culture, or
NU
what Ruth Benedict has described as “personality writ large.” Both investigate the manner in which human beings organize the world through symbols as a direct product of their being
MA
“social animals.” French sociologist Émile Durkheim, for example, showed that even the most private act of suicide had more to do with the society than individual characteristics. This holds
TE
D
all the more true for interpersonal and collective violence, as anthropology has revealed, through its study of the ethnic, gendered, class-based dimensions of violence (Rylko-Bauer et al., 2009).
AC CE P
A major contribution of anthropology in the study of human society has been to break the nearexclusive focus on the Global North. American anthropologist Franz Boas, by withholding theory because of the complexity of cultures, encouraged detailed, objective recording and study of ethnographic findings; this led to the pioneering approach of studying cultures from their own historical background and perspective (Moore, 2008). The fields are not without limitations in the study of violence, however, and their strengths can also be their weaknesses. The intimate methods of anthropology have made contexts of violent conflict difficult to research, and its disciplinary purview of being anti-theoretical and relativistic has made it blind to genocides about to happen (Scheper-Hughes, 2004). Much of sociology has also shied away from violence research, other than its somewhat remote subfield criminology, which focuses on criminal violence and crimes that are convictable within the social institution of criminal justice.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Nevertheless, these two fields have great potential to make some of the most important
RI
PT
contributions to a broader understanding of violence.
SC
2. Evolution of the two disciplines
NU
Social analysis began far before the existence of any discipline. In Western tradition, this is thought to have begun with Ancient Greek philosopher Plato, who was concerned with proper
MA
government and the application of laws. In East Asian tradition, Ancient Chinese philosophers such as Confucius focused on avoiding chaos and violence through the emphasis on social roles.
TE
D
In medieval Islam, Ibn Khaldun, a fourteenth-century North African scholar, is considered as the father of sociology; he expounded in Muqaddimah his social-scientific reasoning on social
AC CE P
cohesion and social conflict (Enan, 2007). In France, the philosopher of science Auguste Comte (1848) coined the term sociology, proposing sociological positivism as a remedy for social ills. Durkheim (1895) rejected this logic, but along with Karl Marx and Max Weber from Germany, formally established the field as a science of social institutions. Durkheim’s seminal monograph, Suicide (1897), a case study of suicide rates amongst Catholic and Protestant populations, distinguished sociological analysis from psychology or philosophy. By carefully examining suicide statistics in different police districts, he attempted to demonstrate that Catholic communities have a lower suicide rate than that of Protestants, something he attributed to social—as opposed to individual or psychological—causes (Wacquant, 1992). Through such studies he posited that sociology would be able to determine whether any given society is “healthy” or “pathological” and seek social reform to negate organic breakdown, or social
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT anomie (a lack of moral standards in an individual or a group due to the loss of social bonds). Sociology quickly evolved as an academic response to the perceived challenges of modernity,
PT
such as industrialization, urbanization, secularization, and the process of “rationalization”
RI
(Habermas, 1990). Sociology interacted with psychology, jurisprudence, economics, and philosophy, with theories being appropriated in a variety of different fields (Giddens, Duneier &
SC
Applebaum, 2007). Since 1894, American sociologists George Herbert Mead and Charles
NU
Cooley influenced the rise of social psychology and the symbolic interactionism of the modern Chicago School (Cooley & Angell, 1930; Turner, 2011). Symbolic interactionism emphasizes
MA
social meanings that individuals create through their interactions with each other (Dennis & Martin, 2005). The contemporary discipline of sociology has two major theoretical frameworks,
TE
D
among others: the historical foundations of functionalist (Durkheim) and conflict-centered (Marx) accounts of social structure (Abend, 2008). Functionalism focuses on social institutions,
AC CE P
the norms they create, and the effects these norms have on behavior (Jones, 2007). Social conflict theory explains social behavior by describing how individuals compete for power (Dahrendorf, 1958).
Cross-cultural records of local characteristics date as far back as the early writings of Mesopotamia (Third Dynasty of Ur), the Sanskrit texts of Hindu cosmology (the Purāṇ as), the early imperial records of China (Qin Dynasty), and the father of history Herodotus’ accounts of cultures beyond the Hellenic realm (Raaflaub & Talbert, 2009). Anthropology as a field, however, began much later. Danish pioneering scientists Caspar and Thomas Bartholins (1647) defined anthropology as “the science that treats of man.” French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who formulated ideas on “the noble savage,” without the oppressive effects of civilization, had profound effects on the field. However, research only continued with short-
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT lived organizations such as the Société Ethnologique de Paris, the Ethnological Society of New York, and the Ethnological Society of London in the nineteenth century, for the purposes of
PT
liberal, anti-slavery, and pro-human-rights causes. They maintained international connections
RI
and published their own journals, until the twentieth century, when many thousands of higher educational institutions established anthropology departments. Boas and Polish anthropologist
SC
Bronisław Malinowski established the field’s emphasis on long-term, in-depth examination and
NU
participant experiential immersion. The findings have been used to frame cultural critiques against racial ideologies, gender inequality, and more recently, post-colonial oppression in favor
MA
of multiculturalism (Eriksen, 2004). The cultural anthropological tradition is said to have originated in North America, while the social anthropological tradition has its roots in Europe
TE
D
(Rapport 2014). Cultural anthropology emphasizes culturally patterned thought and behavior (Winthrop 1991), whereas social anthropology is dedicated to the study of distant civilizations in
AC CE P
their traditional and contemporary forms (Lewis 2009). Sociology and anthropology have merged methods and subjects of study over time. Despite their broad sociocultural perspectives, neither has yet advanced major theories or concepts on violence (Accomazzo, 2012; Malesevic, 2010), and these remain areas of great potential exploration.
3. Sociological theories
We mentioned earlier that sociology reveals that things that seem random at the individual level can show patterns at the societal level that are subject to scientific study. While human society is enormous and highly complex, it is possible to formulate theories about it and
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT to test them, which is why sociology is a science, and a science that is very useful to studying violence. Indeed, the nature of violence forces us to see that individuals are not separate but
PT
belong to a wider unit of organization, for without the wider context, even individual violence
RI
remains unpredictable and inexplicable. It is impossible to cover all that sociology has to offer in the understanding of violence: its topics of study include the causes of crime, poverty, and
SC
many other social problems that are closely associated with violence. However, a few principles
NU
are worth highlighting. The first is functionalism: it proposes that the social organization functions as a whole, with norms and institutions acting as “organs” that work together within
MA
the larger “body” of society (Spencer, 1893). Much as in systems theory of biology (Lee, 2015b), we learn that, not only is society not reducible to the dynamics of individuals alone, it is
TE
D
possible to study how a society behaves just as one can study how an individual behaves. In fact, functionalism has frequently looked to biology for its closest and most compatible model for
AC CE P
conceptualizing structure over individual parts (Giddens, 1984). Societies can take on characteristics that mimic individual organisms, have collective agency, and act as an indivisible unit. This is how sociology can be a systematic study of social life and is important to the study of violence, which is largely concerned with uncovering causes and prevention methods for a phenomenon that we designate to be a social problem. Unlike functionalist theories that emphasize the cohesiveness of systems, as in healthy organisms, conflict theory critiques the inequality between particular groups, as in the fragmented states of pathology. History is a natural course of evolution that succeeds or fails to correct these ills, as the father of social conflict theory Marx (Marx & Engels, 1888) has described:
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on
PT
an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a
RI
revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending
SC
classes (pp. 7-8).
NU
Marx rejected the prevailing explanation of social problems in terms of the shortcomings of individuals. Together with his collaborator Friedrich Engels, they defined class consciousness as
MA
workers’ awareness of themselves as a unified class in opposition to a capitalist system that oppresses them.
TE
D
Within this larger scope, interactionism has developed and become one of the dominant sociological perspectives of today. It derives social processes (such as conflict, cooperation,
AC CE P
identity formation) from human interaction and is the study of how individuals act in society. Symbolic interaction, in particular, has highlighted subjective meanings and the empirical unfolding of social processes, creating the influential Chicago School before and after World War II (Fine, 1995). This approach moves away from the macro- to the micro-level to analyze society in terms of the shared reality that people construct through their interactions. People use symbolic communications to understand and navigate through the world, contributing to a complex, ever-changing web of collective meaning-construction (Macionis & Gerber, 2010). Shaped by Weber, George Herbert Mead (1934), and Erving Goffman, among others, this perspective best bridges the symbolic character of human beings as discussed in the preceding article (Lee, 2016) and the social reality we construct through meaningful symbols. Relevant to this is social belonging, as Weber articulated, as a fundamental human need, deemed essential
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT for optimal functioning (Easterbrook & Vignoles, 2013). Factors creating a strong sense of belonging include relationships characterized by interdependence, frequent interactions, and
PT
intimacy (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). A lack of belonging has been connected to increased risk
RI
of self-harm and suicide (Timmons et al., 2011). Related to belongingness is the concept of social inclusion and exclusion, which have strong links to beliefs in equality and inequality
SC
(Salooje, 2009). Movement toward political inclusion, for example, is a way to reduce political
NU
violence and violent protests (Osakwe, 2012). Similarly, reducing inequalities in gender norms can help reduce violence against women (Hilbert & Krishman, 2000). Having strong cross-
MA
ethnic friendships, furthermore, is correlated with positive attitudes about other racial groups (Tropp & Prenovost, 2008), while norms that promote exclusion diminish those friendships
TE
D
(Kileen et al., 2013).
Utilitarianism, or exchange theory, explains social stability and change as a process of
AC CE P
negotiations and exchanges between parties. It upholds two major assumptions: (a) cost-benefit analyses and comparisons of alternatives are the basis of human relationships; and (b) individuals, in interacting with others, will always seek to maximize their wins. Similar to rational choice theory in economics, rational actors are assumed to have a knowledge of alternatives; a knowledge of the consequences of the various alternatives; an ordering of preferences of outcomes; and a decision to select among the possible alternatives (Whitford, 2002). Unlike economic exchange, however, the elements of social exchange are variable over time, from person to person, and not reducible to a single quantitative exchange rate (West & Turner, 2007). Proponents of this theory include George C. Homans, Peter Blau, and Richard Emerson. James G. March and Herbert A. Simon brought nuances to the theory by noting that an individual’s rationality is bounded by the context or organisational setting.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Various syntheses have emerged from these approaches, and sociology is helpful in its contribution of the ecological framework of violence, whereby levels of individual, relationships,
PT
community, and society are in dynamic interrelation. The field gives us challenges in how to
RI
connect the not-so-easily resolvable dichotomies of structure and agency, subjectivity and objectivity, and statics and dynamics. In other words, do individuals make free choices, or are
SC
there factors that limit these choices? Is observation primarily based in individual perception, or
NU
are there external, shared realities? Lastly, is it more useful to employ methods of historical
TE
4. Anthropological perspectives
D
MA
evolution, or snapshots of social life?
AC CE P
While sociology attempts to describe the workings of society through one or more grand theories, anthropology is more concerned with demonstrating variety and respecting the range of manifestations that human societies can have. Hence, in progressing in the bio-psycho-socialenvironmental paradigm of human affairs, we are moving from the intrapersonal to the interpersonal, and then inside-society to between-society comparisons. More concerned about showing rather than telling, anthropology ends up largely as a cataloguing of different cultures by time period or geographic region. While traditional emphasis has been on remote regions, more recently looking “across the tracks,” such as in urban anthropology in the United States, has become popular (Hannerz, 1980). Regardless of proximity or distance, some principles remain important, such as the use of both emic (insider) and etic (outsider) observations in studying a culture. These derive from the linguistic terms of phonemic and phonetic: the former
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT relate to language-specific sound units that a native speaker recognizes (but a foreigner does not), while the latter refers to objective, universal sounds that are common across languages.
PT
Phonemes solidify in the brain after a certain age range, and therefore when one tries to learn a foreign language, one carries the phonemes of one’s own language to the new language, resulting
RI
in an “accent”. Widening this distinction to the study of cultures, insider perspectives can reveal
SC
meanings and nuances of particular cultural features, while outsider points of view can grasp the
NU
peculiarities and uniqueness of those features. The ability to incorporate both perspectives is an essential skill, since the pervasive nature of culture makes it difficult to describe when one is too
MA
close, while understanding its intricacies is difficult as an outsider. Furthermore, there is the challenge of making descriptions without bringing in one’s own terminology, since no observer
TE
D
is culturally neutral.
These concepts then bring up universalist versus relativist notions. A universalist would
AC CE P
say that violence, like any illness, is innate (usually biological) and ubiquitous, and differences are superficial because culture is “added onto” the universal core. Psychiatric disorders, for example, were once considered universal at the core with only different expressions based on different cultural conventions. However, even schizophrenia, which has an almost uniform prevalence of one percent throughout the world, is found to have better prognosis in less economically developed countries (Jablensky, Sartorius, Cooper, Anker, Korten, & Bertelsen, 1994). As studies increasingly reveal that not only does culture shape meaning and significance for the individual but determines the causes, manifestations, and final course of many major psychiatric illnesses, medical anthropologists have increasingly espoused relativist positions. This holds all the more true for violence, which has fluctuated widely in type and prevalence across cultures and over time.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Anthropology has studied violent societies and peaceful societies. As much as violence is said to have been ubiquitous, there are a lot of societies that are not at war, most societies most
PT
of the time are not at war, and even societies at war are not violent all the time. Therefore, it is
RI
very difficult to make the claim that war has been omnipresent throughout history. On the other hand, the rates of current violence are unacceptable, given the detriment to human life and the
SC
knowledge that it is preventable. It seems more productive, rather, to consider the characteristics
NU
that peaceful societies carry, and to imagine ways in which they could illumine means of prevention. A review of 24 peaceful societies (Bonta, 1996) has shown, for example, that their
MA
ways of conflict resolution differ from the management systems found in other, more violent, societies and that their worldviews of peacefulness and structures to reinforce those worldviews
TE
D
distinguish them from other societies. They put into question notions about conflict and conflict resolution that high-income-country scholars commonly hold: namely, that violent conflict is
AC CE P
inevitable in all societies; that punishment and armed force prevent internal and external violence; that political structures are necessary to prevent violent conflicts; and that violent means are positive and necessary. The review reveals that over half of the peaceful societies have no recorded violence; they rarely punish other adults (apart from the threat of ostracism); they handle conflicts with outside societies in the same peaceful ways that they approach internal conflicts; they do not look to outside governments when they have internal disputes; and they have a highly negative view of conflict. The existence of peaceful societies highlights the highly symbolic and subjective, rather than practical and objective, nature of violence. The notion of violent imaginaries arises from the view that violence needs to be imagined in order to be carried out (Schmidt
Schro der,
2001). Here, we return to the symbolic nature of human beings (Lee, 2016): cultures, like
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT individuals, do not strike out at random but follow cultural norms of appropriate action and shared moral imperatives. For example, an important code of legitimating war is historicity—
PT
symbolically reinterpreting and reenacting prior wars, fighting from memory or over memory,
RI
such as the power to establish one’s view of the past against rival claims. American anthropologist Veena Das (2000) notes a new kind of violence that has emerged in the last few
SC
decades, going beyond contractual violence to involve global flows of images, capital, and
NU
people that enmesh with local identity formation within the same local world. In other words, wars are not only fought over resources but is a resource for making and remaking worldviews.
MA
For example, violence in Northern Ireland has helped to divide or to distinguish between groups (Feldman, 1991). Violent imaginaries form through narratives, performances, and imageries,
TE
D
which become authoritative justifications for war, which are contingent on the positions and strategic interests of those who disseminate them. Stories can keep alive the memory of past
AC CE P
glories (Meeker, 1979; Rosaldo, 1980) or perceived injustices (MaIkki, 1995; Swedenburg, 1995), which states can capitalize upon to promote violence to their own ends (Čolović 1995). Performances are public rituals in which antagonistic relationships are staged and intensified, such as the arousal of war frenzy in fascist Germany and Italy and post-September 11 United States. Visual imageries such as banners, murals, or the media (Jarman, 1997; Peteet, 1996) can also powerfully state positions of antagonism. While these are seldom entirely new inventions or discontinuous from realities or past events, a reframing for current application instigates action. They also occur where symbolic representations are under threat: for example, just as globalization has made identities tied to space and history more fluid, nationalism, ethnicity, and religion have become high currencies in conflict (Appadurai, 1998; Kapferer, 1988). State failure can sometimes become the cause of subsequent political violence (Kosmatopoulos, 2011).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT To view contemporary ethnic or religious conflicts outside of this symbolic representation is to miss their meaning; violent imaginaries become violent practices because of their social and
RI
PT
cultural poignancy.
NU
SC
5. Conclusion
Principles of sociology and anthropology can illumine a great deal about the social and
MA
cultural dynamics of violence. Violence is gaining more focus as a topic of study for these fields as well, especially as perspectives from the Global South, of minorities, and of women garner
TE
D
ground, but also because of the greater attention on violence as it changes in form and visibility both politically and privately. Research on violence in relation to inequalities of gender,
AC CE P
ethnicity, sexuality, and religion is advancing understanding on new forms of violence (Abraham, 2002; Ertürk and Purkayastha, 2012; Fregoso and Bejarano, 2010; Iganski, 2008), as well as the inclusion of more perspectives from the Global South. Experiences of postcolonialism, war, and conflict zones become important in these new forms of violence (Caforio and Kümmel, 2005; Connell, 2007; Fanon, 1990). Local, national, international, and global processes are interconnected at macro and micro levels and influence the level of violence in a society. Sociological and anthropological methods can bring strength to the treatment of violence by highlighting the interaction between these different levels (Purkayastha, 2009), which also reveal how different types of violence are also interconnected (Lee et al., 2014b), and employing intimate and detailed ethnographic methods (Moore, 2008). As several recent, important attempts to go beyond the analysis of violence only as crime or in sole relation to
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT states show (Collins, 2008; Malesevic, 2010; Ray, 2011; Scheper-Hughes & Bourgois, 2004; Shaw, 2000; Wieviorka, 2009), sociology and anthropology have great potential for providing
RI
PT
more general social theories of violence that highlight dynamics between the different spheres.
NU
SC
Acknowledgment
The author would like to gratefully acknowledge Grace Lee for her scholarship and underlying
TE
D
MA
inspiration for this article series.
AC CE P
References
Abend, G. (2008). The meaning of 'Theory. Sociological Theory, 26:2. Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1).
Bartochevis, V. (2014). The model of four "table legs" for consensus from the perspective of functionalism, liquid modernity and complexity theory. Socialiniu Mokslu Studijos, 6(1) Battistich, V.
Horn, A. (1997). The relationship between student’s sense of their school as a
community and their involvement in problem behaviors. American Journal of Public Health, 1997(87). Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 497-529.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Bennett, J.W. (1967). Hutterian Brethren: The agricultural economy and social organization of a communal people. Stanford University Press.
PT
Bonta, B. D. (1996). Conflict resolution among peaceful societies: The culture of peacefulness.
RI
Journal of Peace Research, 33(4), 403-420.
Collins, R. (1994). Four sociological traditions, Oxford University Press: New York [e-book].
NU
Comte, A. (1848). A General View of Positivism.
SC
Collins, R. (2009). The micro-sociology of violence. British Journal of Sociology, 60(3).
Cooley, C. H., & Angell, R. C. (1930). Sociological Theory and Social Research: Selected
MA
Papers of Charles Horton Cooley. New York, NY: H. Holt and Co. Coyne, S. M. (2007). Does media violence cause violent crime? European Journal on Criminal
TE
D
Policy and Research, 13(3-4), 205-211 Dahrendorf, R (1958). "Toward a theory of social conflict." Journal of conflict resolution: 170-
AC CE P
183.
Das, V. (2000). Violence and Subjectivity. Berkeley: University of California Press. Dennis, A., & Martin, P. J. (2005). Symbolic interactionism and the concept of power. The British journal of sociology, 56(2), 191-213. Dennis, A., & Martin, P. J. (2007). Symbolic interactionism and the concept of social structure. Sociological Focus, 40(3), 287-305. Denzin, N. K. (2008). Symbolic interactionism and cultural studies: The politics of interpretation. John Wiley & Sons. Durkheim, Émile [1895] "The Rules of Sociological Method" 8th edition, trans. Sarah A. Solovay and John M. Mueller, ed. George E. G. Catlin (1938, 1964 edition).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Easterbrook, M. & Vignoles, V.L. (2013). What does it mean to belong? European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(6).
PT
Enan, M. A. (2007). Ibn Khaldun: His Life and Works. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Other Press
RI
Sdn Bhd.
Eriksen, T. H. (2004). What is Anthropology? London, U.K.: Pluto.
SC
Feldman, A. (1991). Formations of Violence: The Narrative of the Body and Political Terror in
NU
Northern Ireland. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Fine, G. A. (1995). A Second Chicago School? The Development of a Postwar American
MA
Sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
TE
Cambridge, U.K.: Polity.
D
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration.
Giddens, A., Duneier, M., & Applebaum, R. (2007). Introduction to Sociology. Sixth Edition.
AC CE P
New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company. Gilligan, J. (1997). Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Glennie, A. (2014). Internet makes boys think sex should be 'graphic and violent', warns BBC's wark. Daily Mail
Goode, W. J. (1997). Rational choice theory. The American Sociologist, 28(2), 22-41. Habermas, J. (1990). The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Modernity’s Consciousness of Time. Polity Press. Hannerz, U. (1980). Exploring the City: Inquiries Toward an Urban Anthropology. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Hilbert, J. C., & Krishnan, S. P. (2000). Addressing Barriers to Community Care of Battered Women in Rural Environments: Creating a Policy of Social Inclusion. Journal Of Health
PT
& Social Policy, 12(1), 41-52.
RI
Jablensky, A., Sartorius, N., Cooper, J. E., Anker, M., Korten, A., & Bertelsen, A. (1994). Culture and schizophrenia. British Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 434-436.
SC
Jones, S.S. (2007). Functionalism of Mind and Functionalism of Society: The Concept of
NU
Conscience and Durkheim’s Division of Social Labour, Durkheimian Studies, 13(1). Kosmatopoulos, N. (2011). Toward an Anthropology of 'State Failure': Lebanon's Leviathan and
MA
Peace Expertise. Social Analysis, 55(3), 115-142.
Krug, E. G., Dahlberg, L. L., Mercy, J. A., Zwi, A. B., & Lozano, R. (2002). World Report on
TE
D
Violence and Health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Retrieved on September 27, 2015, from:
AC CE P
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/42495/1/9241545615_eng.pdf Lawler, E. J., Ridgeway, C., & Markovsky, B. (1993). Structural Social Psychology and the Micro-micro Problem. Sociological Theory, 11(3), 268. Lee, B. X. (2015a). Causes and cures I: Toward a new definition. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 25, 199-203.
Lee, B. X. (2015b). Causes and cures II: The biology of violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 25, 204-209. Lee, B. X. (2016). Causes and cures IV: The symbolism of violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior (in this issue). Leiblich, A. & Josselson, R. (1994). Exploring identity and gender, The narrative study of lives, London: Sage.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Lewis, I. M. (2009). Social and Cultural Anthropology in Perspective. Transaction Publishers. Macionis, J. J., & Gerber, L. M. (2010). Sociology. Seventh Canadian Ed. Toronto: Pearson
PT
Education Canada.
RI
Macionis, J., & Gerber, L. (2010). Sociology. 7th Canadian Ed. Toronto, Canada: Pearson Canada.
SC
Mahoney, J. & Goertz, G. (2006). A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative
NU
research. Political Analysis, 14(3).
Malesevic S (2010) The Sociology of War and Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MA
Marsh, P., Rosser, E., & Harre, R. (1978). The rules of disorder, London: Routledge. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1888). The Manifesto of the Communist Party. London.
TE
D
McNeely, C., & Falci, C. (2004). School connectedness and the transition into and out of Health‐Risk behavior among adolescents: A comparison of social belonging and teacher
AC CE P
support. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 284-292. Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Metcalf, P. (2005). Anthropology: the basics. Taylor & Francis. Milbrandt, M. K. (2000). Violence in art: Raising authenic issues for discussion. Art Education, 53(1), 25-32
Moore, J. (2008). Visions of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists. 3rd Ed. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Osakwe, E. (2012). The Dynamics of Citizenship Participation and Inclusion in Nigeria. International Journal Of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 6(11), 53-61. Raaflaub, K. & Talbert, R. J. A. (2009). Geography and Ethnography: Perceptions of the World in Pre-Modern Societies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Rapport, N. (2014). Social and cultural anthropology: The key concepts. Routledge. Riches, D. (1986). The anthropology of violence. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
PT
Salooje, A. (2009). Social inclusion, citizenship, and diversity. Canadian Council on Social
RI
Development. Available at: http;//www.ccsd.ca/subsites/inclusion/bp/as.htm. Sarah Accomazzo. Anthropology of Violence: Historical and Current Theories, Concepts, and
SC
Debates in Physical and Socio-cultural Anthropology. Journal of Human Behavior in the
NU
Social Environment 22, Issue 5, 535-552, 2012.
Scheper-Hughes, N. & Bourgois, P. (2004). Introduction: Making sense of violence. In N.
27. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
MA
Scheper-Hughes and P. Bourgois (Eds.), Violence in war and peace: An anthology, pp. 1-
TE
D
Scheper-Hughes, N. (2004). Ishi's brain, Ishi's ashes: Anthropology and genocide. In N. Scheper-Hughes and P. Bourgois (Eds.), Violence in war and peace: An anthology, pp.
AC CE P
61-68. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell. Schlievert, C. (2009). Take this moment: Sexual violence awareness and the art museum as a vehicle for social change. Journal of Cultural Research in Art Education, 27, 63-76 Schmidt, B. E.,
Schro der, I. (2001). Anthropology of Violence and Conflict. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Spencer, Herbert (1876). The Principles of Sociology. Vol 1. London, U.K.: Williams and Norgate. Stanage, S. (1974). Violatives: Modes and themes of violence, in S.Stanage Reason and Violence, Littlefield/Adams.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Timmons, K. A., Selby, E. A., Lewinsohn, P. M., & Joiner, T. E. (2011). Parental Displacement and Adolescent Suicidality: Exploring the Role of Failed Belonging. Journal of Clinical
PT
Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40(6).
RI
Turner, J.H. (2007). Self, emotions, and extreme violence: Extending symbolic interactionist theorizing, Symbolic Interaction, 30(4).
SC
Turner, J. H. (2011). Extending the symbolic interactionist theory of interaction processes: A
NU
conceptual outline. Symbolic Interaction, 34(3), 330-339. United Nations (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
MA
Development. New York, NY: United Nations. Retrieved on September 27, 2015, from: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/70/L.1&Lang=E
TE
D
United Nations Children’s Fund (2014a). Hidden in Plain Sight: A Statistical Analysis of Violence against Children. New York, NY: UNICEF. Retrieved on September 27, 2015,
AC CE P
from:
http://files.unicef.org/publications/files/Hidden_in_plain_sight_statistical_analysis_EN_3 _Sept_2014.pdf
United Nations Children’s Fund (2014b). Ending Violence against Children: Six Strategies for Action. New York, NY: UNICEF. Retrieved on September 27, 2015, from: http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Ending_Violence_Against_Children_Six_strateg ies_for_action_EN_2_Sept_2014.pdf United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2014). Global Study on Homicide 2013: Trends, Contexts, Data. Vienna, Austria: United Nations. Retrieved on September 27, 2015, from: https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-andanalysis/statistics/GSH2013/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013). BRIDGING THE QUALITATIVEQUANTITATIVE DIVIDE: GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING MIXED METHODS
PT
RESEARCH IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21-54
RI
Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. New York, NY: Knopf, 571-572.
SC
Wacquant, L. (1992). Positivism. In T. Bottomore & W. Outhwaite, Eds., The Blackwell
NU
Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Social Thought.
Walliman, N. R. (2006). Social Research Methods. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. [e-book].
MA
Warner, B. D., & Fowler, S. K. (2003). Strain and violence: Testing a general strain theory model of community violence. Journal Of Criminal Justice, 31(6).
TE
D
Watson, L. & Watson-Franke, M-B. (1985). Interpreting Life-Histories, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
AC CE P
Weiner, J. (1995). Anthropologists, Historians, and the Secret of Social Knowledge. Anthropology Today, 11(5). Wellington, . .,
Szczerbi ski, M. (2007). Research Methods for the Social Sciences. London:
Bloomsbury Publishing [e-book]. West, R., & Turner, L. (2007). Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Whitford, J. (2002). Pragmatism and the untenable dualism of means and ends: Why rational choice theory does not deserve paradigmatic privilege. Theory and Society, 31, 325-363. Winthrop, R. (1991). Dictionary of Concepts in Cultural Anthropology, Westport, Conn: Greenwood.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT World Health Assembly (2014). Strengthening the Role of the Health System in Addressing Violence, in Particular against Women and Girls, and against Children. Geneva,
PT
Switzerland: World Health Organization. Retrieved on September 27, 2015, from:
RI
http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA67/A67_ACONF1Rev1-en.pdf World Health Organization (2014). Preventing Suicide: A Global Imperative. Geneva,
SC
Switzerland: World Health Organization. Retrieved on September 27, 2015, from:
NU
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/131056/1/9789241564779_eng.pdf World Health Organization (2015). Preventing Youth Violence: An Overview of the Evidence.
MA
Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Retrieved on September 27, 2015, from:
TE
D
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/181008/1/9789241509251_eng.pdf?ua=1&ua= World Health Organization, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, & United Nations
AC CE P
Development Program (2014). Global Status Report on Violence Prevention 2014. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Retrieved on September 27, 2015, from: http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/Reports/UNDP-GVAviolence-2014.pdf
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Highlights for Causes and Cures V:
Human violence occurs in a social and cultural context
Sociology shows that it is possible to formulate theories about human society
Anthropology demonstrates variety that is possible with human societies
The need for social belonging can help explain individual violence
Cultural symbols can help explain the subjective and “imaginary” nature of violence
AC CE P
TE
D
MA
NU
SC
RI
PT
S1359-1789(16)30013-1 doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2016.03.001 AVB 986
To appear in:
Aggression and Violent Behavior
Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:
13 November 2015 27 February 2016 1 March 2016
Please cite this article as: Lee, B.X., Causes and cures V: The sociology and anthropology of violence, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2016.03.001
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Causes and cures V: The sociology and anthropology of violence
SC
RI
PT
[N.B.: This is a continuation of “The Causes and Cures of Violence” series.]
NU
Bandy X. Lee, M.D., M.Div.
Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
Abstract
AC CE P
TE
D
MA
[email protected]
The past two years have been a landmark moment for violence prevention, with the publication of The Global Status Report on Violence Prevention 2014; a historic resolution on violence by the 67th World Health Assembly; and the release of multiple documents on violence by international and United Nations entities, with a corresponding building of momentum in scholarship. Most notably, in September 2015, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, addressing the need for violence prevention at an unprecedented scale. In this context, more than ever, violence studies have become a field of its own right. Still, a systematic approach of the topic has been lacking, and no textbook yet synthesizes the knowledge of multiple disciplines toward a cogent understanding. This article is the fourth of a series of fifteen articles that will cover, as an example, an outline of the Global Health Studies course entitled, “Violence: Causes and Cures,” reviewing the major bio-psycho-
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT social and structural-environmental perspectives on violence. Based on the tenet that individual violence does not occur in isolation from social and cultural forces, it reviews the contributions
PT
of sociology and anthropology. Although much of sociology has shied away from the topic of
RI
violence other than through its study of deviance and crime, and much of anthropology’s ethnographic methods have made research difficult in contexts of violent conflict, both bring
SC
new potentials. Concepts such as social belonging and cultural symbols can bring important
NU
insight into the nature of violence.
AC CE P
TE
D
MA
Keywords: Violence studies; Homicide; Suicide; Collective violence; Sociology; Anthropology
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Article
PT
We are living through a landmark moment for violence prevention. The past two years,
RI
especially, have seen an outpouring of documents reflecting a growing focus on the problem of
SC
violence and multilateral collaborations to solve it. In December 2014, for example, the World Health Organization, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, and the United Nations
NU
Development Programme (WHO, UNODC, & UNDP, 2014) joined forces to launch The Global Status Report on Violence Prevention 2014, detailing the efforts of 133 countries to address
MA
interpersonal violence. It is the first major report on violence since the World Report on Violence and Health (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002), an influential document
TE
D
that consolidated all the existing science on violence for the first time. In the same year, the 67th World Health Assembly (WHA, 2014) adopted a historic resolution addressing violence,
AC CE P
bringing particularly to focus women, children, and other vulnerable members of the populations subject to systematic structural and institutional violence. Furthermore, Global Study on Homicide 2013: Trends, Contexts, Data (UNODC, 2014), Hidden in Plain Sight: A Statistical Analysis of Violence against Children (United Nations Children’s Fund [UNICEF], 2014a), Ending Violence against Children: Six Strategies for Action (UNICEF, 2014b), Preventing Suicide: A Global Imperative (WHO, 2014), and Preventing Youth Violence: Taking Action and Generating Evidence (WHO, 2015), all appeared within a two-year time span, highlighting some of the major forms of violence. Most notably, on September 25, 2015, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations [UN], 2015), addressing the need for violence prevention at an unprecedented scale and recognizing the interdependence between sustained peace and sustainable development. In this context, more
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT than ever, it is time for violence studies to become a field of its own right, with university-level instruction capable of addressing the complexities and commonalities of the different forms of
PT
violence beyond the current “niche-based” study. Meanwhile, ongoing worldwide events point
RI
to the importance of this life-or-death issue and the need for a cogent understanding that is more than the sum of its parts.
SC
Over several issues, Aggression and Violent Behavior has graciously offered to publish a
NU
lecture series that has been implemented through the Global Health Studies Program at Yale College in a course entitled, “Violence: Causes and Cures.” While it does not purport to be the
MA
definitive sequence for reviewing all the major bio-psycho-social and structural-environmental perspectives on violence, it is a proposal for a systematic approach. This article consists of the
TE
D
fifth of this fifteen article series, which carries the following order:
AC CE P
1. Introduction: Toward a New Definition 2. The Biology of Violence 3. The Psychology of Violence 4. The Symbolism of Violence (in this issue) 5. The Sociology and Anthropology of Violence (in this issue) 6. The Political Science and Economics of Violence 7. Structural Violence 8. Environmental Violence 9. Consequences of Violence 10. Criminal Justice Approaches 11. International Law Approaches
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 12. Public Health Approaches 13. Global Medicine Approaches
PT
14. Nonviolence Approaches
RI
15. Synthesis and Integration
NU
SC
1. Introduction
If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences. W.I. Thomas and D.S. Thomas, The Child in America (1928)
MA
-
TE
D
Sociology and anthropology can illumine a great deal about violence. Sociology as a field deals with the scientific study of human society and social behavior. It advances our
AC CE P
understanding of the bio-psycho-social-environmental nature of human behavior (Lee, 2015a), by revealing that what appear to be purely individual actions do not occur in isolation from social forces. It thus interconnects relationships, the family, the community, and society. Anthropology is the scientific study of humanity, which describes the workings of societies around the world through comparative and cross-cultural (sometimes historical) methods, especially through the investigation of cultures outside one’s own. While sociology and anthropology have developed independently as fields and typically have their own departments, they have converged in methods and populations of study over time. For this reason, we group them together in this article, even though the large body of contribution from each field would merit more than an article of its own; in fact, each would probably require an entire book to do
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT the content justice. However, the aim of this article series is to show how to think about violence from the perspectives of each field and not to be comprehensive in coverage of content.
PT
For instance, sociology shows us that things that seem random at the individual level can make sense at the societal level, as we see in epidemics of homicide or suicide (Lee et al.,
RI
2014a). One might, and many have, practiced it as “psychology writ large”; in other words, it
SC
studies the dynamics of society instead of the individual. Anthropology probes into culture, or
NU
what Ruth Benedict has described as “personality writ large.” Both investigate the manner in which human beings organize the world through symbols as a direct product of their being
MA
“social animals.” French sociologist Émile Durkheim, for example, showed that even the most private act of suicide had more to do with the society than individual characteristics. This holds
TE
D
all the more true for interpersonal and collective violence, as anthropology has revealed, through its study of the ethnic, gendered, class-based dimensions of violence (Rylko-Bauer et al., 2009).
AC CE P
A major contribution of anthropology in the study of human society has been to break the nearexclusive focus on the Global North. American anthropologist Franz Boas, by withholding theory because of the complexity of cultures, encouraged detailed, objective recording and study of ethnographic findings; this led to the pioneering approach of studying cultures from their own historical background and perspective (Moore, 2008). The fields are not without limitations in the study of violence, however, and their strengths can also be their weaknesses. The intimate methods of anthropology have made contexts of violent conflict difficult to research, and its disciplinary purview of being anti-theoretical and relativistic has made it blind to genocides about to happen (Scheper-Hughes, 2004). Much of sociology has also shied away from violence research, other than its somewhat remote subfield criminology, which focuses on criminal violence and crimes that are convictable within the social institution of criminal justice.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Nevertheless, these two fields have great potential to make some of the most important
RI
PT
contributions to a broader understanding of violence.
SC
2. Evolution of the two disciplines
NU
Social analysis began far before the existence of any discipline. In Western tradition, this is thought to have begun with Ancient Greek philosopher Plato, who was concerned with proper
MA
government and the application of laws. In East Asian tradition, Ancient Chinese philosophers such as Confucius focused on avoiding chaos and violence through the emphasis on social roles.
TE
D
In medieval Islam, Ibn Khaldun, a fourteenth-century North African scholar, is considered as the father of sociology; he expounded in Muqaddimah his social-scientific reasoning on social
AC CE P
cohesion and social conflict (Enan, 2007). In France, the philosopher of science Auguste Comte (1848) coined the term sociology, proposing sociological positivism as a remedy for social ills. Durkheim (1895) rejected this logic, but along with Karl Marx and Max Weber from Germany, formally established the field as a science of social institutions. Durkheim’s seminal monograph, Suicide (1897), a case study of suicide rates amongst Catholic and Protestant populations, distinguished sociological analysis from psychology or philosophy. By carefully examining suicide statistics in different police districts, he attempted to demonstrate that Catholic communities have a lower suicide rate than that of Protestants, something he attributed to social—as opposed to individual or psychological—causes (Wacquant, 1992). Through such studies he posited that sociology would be able to determine whether any given society is “healthy” or “pathological” and seek social reform to negate organic breakdown, or social
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT anomie (a lack of moral standards in an individual or a group due to the loss of social bonds). Sociology quickly evolved as an academic response to the perceived challenges of modernity,
PT
such as industrialization, urbanization, secularization, and the process of “rationalization”
RI
(Habermas, 1990). Sociology interacted with psychology, jurisprudence, economics, and philosophy, with theories being appropriated in a variety of different fields (Giddens, Duneier &
SC
Applebaum, 2007). Since 1894, American sociologists George Herbert Mead and Charles
NU
Cooley influenced the rise of social psychology and the symbolic interactionism of the modern Chicago School (Cooley & Angell, 1930; Turner, 2011). Symbolic interactionism emphasizes
MA
social meanings that individuals create through their interactions with each other (Dennis & Martin, 2005). The contemporary discipline of sociology has two major theoretical frameworks,
TE
D
among others: the historical foundations of functionalist (Durkheim) and conflict-centered (Marx) accounts of social structure (Abend, 2008). Functionalism focuses on social institutions,
AC CE P
the norms they create, and the effects these norms have on behavior (Jones, 2007). Social conflict theory explains social behavior by describing how individuals compete for power (Dahrendorf, 1958).
Cross-cultural records of local characteristics date as far back as the early writings of Mesopotamia (Third Dynasty of Ur), the Sanskrit texts of Hindu cosmology (the Purāṇ as), the early imperial records of China (Qin Dynasty), and the father of history Herodotus’ accounts of cultures beyond the Hellenic realm (Raaflaub & Talbert, 2009). Anthropology as a field, however, began much later. Danish pioneering scientists Caspar and Thomas Bartholins (1647) defined anthropology as “the science that treats of man.” French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who formulated ideas on “the noble savage,” without the oppressive effects of civilization, had profound effects on the field. However, research only continued with short-
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT lived organizations such as the Société Ethnologique de Paris, the Ethnological Society of New York, and the Ethnological Society of London in the nineteenth century, for the purposes of
PT
liberal, anti-slavery, and pro-human-rights causes. They maintained international connections
RI
and published their own journals, until the twentieth century, when many thousands of higher educational institutions established anthropology departments. Boas and Polish anthropologist
SC
Bronisław Malinowski established the field’s emphasis on long-term, in-depth examination and
NU
participant experiential immersion. The findings have been used to frame cultural critiques against racial ideologies, gender inequality, and more recently, post-colonial oppression in favor
MA
of multiculturalism (Eriksen, 2004). The cultural anthropological tradition is said to have originated in North America, while the social anthropological tradition has its roots in Europe
TE
D
(Rapport 2014). Cultural anthropology emphasizes culturally patterned thought and behavior (Winthrop 1991), whereas social anthropology is dedicated to the study of distant civilizations in
AC CE P
their traditional and contemporary forms (Lewis 2009). Sociology and anthropology have merged methods and subjects of study over time. Despite their broad sociocultural perspectives, neither has yet advanced major theories or concepts on violence (Accomazzo, 2012; Malesevic, 2010), and these remain areas of great potential exploration.
3. Sociological theories
We mentioned earlier that sociology reveals that things that seem random at the individual level can show patterns at the societal level that are subject to scientific study. While human society is enormous and highly complex, it is possible to formulate theories about it and
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT to test them, which is why sociology is a science, and a science that is very useful to studying violence. Indeed, the nature of violence forces us to see that individuals are not separate but
PT
belong to a wider unit of organization, for without the wider context, even individual violence
RI
remains unpredictable and inexplicable. It is impossible to cover all that sociology has to offer in the understanding of violence: its topics of study include the causes of crime, poverty, and
SC
many other social problems that are closely associated with violence. However, a few principles
NU
are worth highlighting. The first is functionalism: it proposes that the social organization functions as a whole, with norms and institutions acting as “organs” that work together within
MA
the larger “body” of society (Spencer, 1893). Much as in systems theory of biology (Lee, 2015b), we learn that, not only is society not reducible to the dynamics of individuals alone, it is
TE
D
possible to study how a society behaves just as one can study how an individual behaves. In fact, functionalism has frequently looked to biology for its closest and most compatible model for
AC CE P
conceptualizing structure over individual parts (Giddens, 1984). Societies can take on characteristics that mimic individual organisms, have collective agency, and act as an indivisible unit. This is how sociology can be a systematic study of social life and is important to the study of violence, which is largely concerned with uncovering causes and prevention methods for a phenomenon that we designate to be a social problem. Unlike functionalist theories that emphasize the cohesiveness of systems, as in healthy organisms, conflict theory critiques the inequality between particular groups, as in the fragmented states of pathology. History is a natural course of evolution that succeeds or fails to correct these ills, as the father of social conflict theory Marx (Marx & Engels, 1888) has described:
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on
PT
an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a
RI
revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending
SC
classes (pp. 7-8).
NU
Marx rejected the prevailing explanation of social problems in terms of the shortcomings of individuals. Together with his collaborator Friedrich Engels, they defined class consciousness as
MA
workers’ awareness of themselves as a unified class in opposition to a capitalist system that oppresses them.
TE
D
Within this larger scope, interactionism has developed and become one of the dominant sociological perspectives of today. It derives social processes (such as conflict, cooperation,
AC CE P
identity formation) from human interaction and is the study of how individuals act in society. Symbolic interaction, in particular, has highlighted subjective meanings and the empirical unfolding of social processes, creating the influential Chicago School before and after World War II (Fine, 1995). This approach moves away from the macro- to the micro-level to analyze society in terms of the shared reality that people construct through their interactions. People use symbolic communications to understand and navigate through the world, contributing to a complex, ever-changing web of collective meaning-construction (Macionis & Gerber, 2010). Shaped by Weber, George Herbert Mead (1934), and Erving Goffman, among others, this perspective best bridges the symbolic character of human beings as discussed in the preceding article (Lee, 2016) and the social reality we construct through meaningful symbols. Relevant to this is social belonging, as Weber articulated, as a fundamental human need, deemed essential
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT for optimal functioning (Easterbrook & Vignoles, 2013). Factors creating a strong sense of belonging include relationships characterized by interdependence, frequent interactions, and
PT
intimacy (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). A lack of belonging has been connected to increased risk
RI
of self-harm and suicide (Timmons et al., 2011). Related to belongingness is the concept of social inclusion and exclusion, which have strong links to beliefs in equality and inequality
SC
(Salooje, 2009). Movement toward political inclusion, for example, is a way to reduce political
NU
violence and violent protests (Osakwe, 2012). Similarly, reducing inequalities in gender norms can help reduce violence against women (Hilbert & Krishman, 2000). Having strong cross-
MA
ethnic friendships, furthermore, is correlated with positive attitudes about other racial groups (Tropp & Prenovost, 2008), while norms that promote exclusion diminish those friendships
TE
D
(Kileen et al., 2013).
Utilitarianism, or exchange theory, explains social stability and change as a process of
AC CE P
negotiations and exchanges between parties. It upholds two major assumptions: (a) cost-benefit analyses and comparisons of alternatives are the basis of human relationships; and (b) individuals, in interacting with others, will always seek to maximize their wins. Similar to rational choice theory in economics, rational actors are assumed to have a knowledge of alternatives; a knowledge of the consequences of the various alternatives; an ordering of preferences of outcomes; and a decision to select among the possible alternatives (Whitford, 2002). Unlike economic exchange, however, the elements of social exchange are variable over time, from person to person, and not reducible to a single quantitative exchange rate (West & Turner, 2007). Proponents of this theory include George C. Homans, Peter Blau, and Richard Emerson. James G. March and Herbert A. Simon brought nuances to the theory by noting that an individual’s rationality is bounded by the context or organisational setting.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Various syntheses have emerged from these approaches, and sociology is helpful in its contribution of the ecological framework of violence, whereby levels of individual, relationships,
PT
community, and society are in dynamic interrelation. The field gives us challenges in how to
RI
connect the not-so-easily resolvable dichotomies of structure and agency, subjectivity and objectivity, and statics and dynamics. In other words, do individuals make free choices, or are
SC
there factors that limit these choices? Is observation primarily based in individual perception, or
NU
are there external, shared realities? Lastly, is it more useful to employ methods of historical
TE
4. Anthropological perspectives
D
MA
evolution, or snapshots of social life?
AC CE P
While sociology attempts to describe the workings of society through one or more grand theories, anthropology is more concerned with demonstrating variety and respecting the range of manifestations that human societies can have. Hence, in progressing in the bio-psycho-socialenvironmental paradigm of human affairs, we are moving from the intrapersonal to the interpersonal, and then inside-society to between-society comparisons. More concerned about showing rather than telling, anthropology ends up largely as a cataloguing of different cultures by time period or geographic region. While traditional emphasis has been on remote regions, more recently looking “across the tracks,” such as in urban anthropology in the United States, has become popular (Hannerz, 1980). Regardless of proximity or distance, some principles remain important, such as the use of both emic (insider) and etic (outsider) observations in studying a culture. These derive from the linguistic terms of phonemic and phonetic: the former
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT relate to language-specific sound units that a native speaker recognizes (but a foreigner does not), while the latter refers to objective, universal sounds that are common across languages.
PT
Phonemes solidify in the brain after a certain age range, and therefore when one tries to learn a foreign language, one carries the phonemes of one’s own language to the new language, resulting
RI
in an “accent”. Widening this distinction to the study of cultures, insider perspectives can reveal
SC
meanings and nuances of particular cultural features, while outsider points of view can grasp the
NU
peculiarities and uniqueness of those features. The ability to incorporate both perspectives is an essential skill, since the pervasive nature of culture makes it difficult to describe when one is too
MA
close, while understanding its intricacies is difficult as an outsider. Furthermore, there is the challenge of making descriptions without bringing in one’s own terminology, since no observer
TE
D
is culturally neutral.
These concepts then bring up universalist versus relativist notions. A universalist would
AC CE P
say that violence, like any illness, is innate (usually biological) and ubiquitous, and differences are superficial because culture is “added onto” the universal core. Psychiatric disorders, for example, were once considered universal at the core with only different expressions based on different cultural conventions. However, even schizophrenia, which has an almost uniform prevalence of one percent throughout the world, is found to have better prognosis in less economically developed countries (Jablensky, Sartorius, Cooper, Anker, Korten, & Bertelsen, 1994). As studies increasingly reveal that not only does culture shape meaning and significance for the individual but determines the causes, manifestations, and final course of many major psychiatric illnesses, medical anthropologists have increasingly espoused relativist positions. This holds all the more true for violence, which has fluctuated widely in type and prevalence across cultures and over time.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Anthropology has studied violent societies and peaceful societies. As much as violence is said to have been ubiquitous, there are a lot of societies that are not at war, most societies most
PT
of the time are not at war, and even societies at war are not violent all the time. Therefore, it is
RI
very difficult to make the claim that war has been omnipresent throughout history. On the other hand, the rates of current violence are unacceptable, given the detriment to human life and the
SC
knowledge that it is preventable. It seems more productive, rather, to consider the characteristics
NU
that peaceful societies carry, and to imagine ways in which they could illumine means of prevention. A review of 24 peaceful societies (Bonta, 1996) has shown, for example, that their
MA
ways of conflict resolution differ from the management systems found in other, more violent, societies and that their worldviews of peacefulness and structures to reinforce those worldviews
TE
D
distinguish them from other societies. They put into question notions about conflict and conflict resolution that high-income-country scholars commonly hold: namely, that violent conflict is
AC CE P
inevitable in all societies; that punishment and armed force prevent internal and external violence; that political structures are necessary to prevent violent conflicts; and that violent means are positive and necessary. The review reveals that over half of the peaceful societies have no recorded violence; they rarely punish other adults (apart from the threat of ostracism); they handle conflicts with outside societies in the same peaceful ways that they approach internal conflicts; they do not look to outside governments when they have internal disputes; and they have a highly negative view of conflict. The existence of peaceful societies highlights the highly symbolic and subjective, rather than practical and objective, nature of violence. The notion of violent imaginaries arises from the view that violence needs to be imagined in order to be carried out (Schmidt
Schro der,
2001). Here, we return to the symbolic nature of human beings (Lee, 2016): cultures, like
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT individuals, do not strike out at random but follow cultural norms of appropriate action and shared moral imperatives. For example, an important code of legitimating war is historicity—
PT
symbolically reinterpreting and reenacting prior wars, fighting from memory or over memory,
RI
such as the power to establish one’s view of the past against rival claims. American anthropologist Veena Das (2000) notes a new kind of violence that has emerged in the last few
SC
decades, going beyond contractual violence to involve global flows of images, capital, and
NU
people that enmesh with local identity formation within the same local world. In other words, wars are not only fought over resources but is a resource for making and remaking worldviews.
MA
For example, violence in Northern Ireland has helped to divide or to distinguish between groups (Feldman, 1991). Violent imaginaries form through narratives, performances, and imageries,
TE
D
which become authoritative justifications for war, which are contingent on the positions and strategic interests of those who disseminate them. Stories can keep alive the memory of past
AC CE P
glories (Meeker, 1979; Rosaldo, 1980) or perceived injustices (MaIkki, 1995; Swedenburg, 1995), which states can capitalize upon to promote violence to their own ends (Čolović 1995). Performances are public rituals in which antagonistic relationships are staged and intensified, such as the arousal of war frenzy in fascist Germany and Italy and post-September 11 United States. Visual imageries such as banners, murals, or the media (Jarman, 1997; Peteet, 1996) can also powerfully state positions of antagonism. While these are seldom entirely new inventions or discontinuous from realities or past events, a reframing for current application instigates action. They also occur where symbolic representations are under threat: for example, just as globalization has made identities tied to space and history more fluid, nationalism, ethnicity, and religion have become high currencies in conflict (Appadurai, 1998; Kapferer, 1988). State failure can sometimes become the cause of subsequent political violence (Kosmatopoulos, 2011).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT To view contemporary ethnic or religious conflicts outside of this symbolic representation is to miss their meaning; violent imaginaries become violent practices because of their social and
RI
PT
cultural poignancy.
NU
SC
5. Conclusion
Principles of sociology and anthropology can illumine a great deal about the social and
MA
cultural dynamics of violence. Violence is gaining more focus as a topic of study for these fields as well, especially as perspectives from the Global South, of minorities, and of women garner
TE
D
ground, but also because of the greater attention on violence as it changes in form and visibility both politically and privately. Research on violence in relation to inequalities of gender,
AC CE P
ethnicity, sexuality, and religion is advancing understanding on new forms of violence (Abraham, 2002; Ertürk and Purkayastha, 2012; Fregoso and Bejarano, 2010; Iganski, 2008), as well as the inclusion of more perspectives from the Global South. Experiences of postcolonialism, war, and conflict zones become important in these new forms of violence (Caforio and Kümmel, 2005; Connell, 2007; Fanon, 1990). Local, national, international, and global processes are interconnected at macro and micro levels and influence the level of violence in a society. Sociological and anthropological methods can bring strength to the treatment of violence by highlighting the interaction between these different levels (Purkayastha, 2009), which also reveal how different types of violence are also interconnected (Lee et al., 2014b), and employing intimate and detailed ethnographic methods (Moore, 2008). As several recent, important attempts to go beyond the analysis of violence only as crime or in sole relation to
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT states show (Collins, 2008; Malesevic, 2010; Ray, 2011; Scheper-Hughes & Bourgois, 2004; Shaw, 2000; Wieviorka, 2009), sociology and anthropology have great potential for providing
RI
PT
more general social theories of violence that highlight dynamics between the different spheres.
NU
SC
Acknowledgment
The author would like to gratefully acknowledge Grace Lee for her scholarship and underlying
TE
D
MA
inspiration for this article series.
AC CE P
References
Abend, G. (2008). The meaning of 'Theory. Sociological Theory, 26:2. Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1).
Bartochevis, V. (2014). The model of four "table legs" for consensus from the perspective of functionalism, liquid modernity and complexity theory. Socialiniu Mokslu Studijos, 6(1) Battistich, V.
Horn, A. (1997). The relationship between student’s sense of their school as a
community and their involvement in problem behaviors. American Journal of Public Health, 1997(87). Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 497-529.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Bennett, J.W. (1967). Hutterian Brethren: The agricultural economy and social organization of a communal people. Stanford University Press.
PT
Bonta, B. D. (1996). Conflict resolution among peaceful societies: The culture of peacefulness.
RI
Journal of Peace Research, 33(4), 403-420.
Collins, R. (1994). Four sociological traditions, Oxford University Press: New York [e-book].
NU
Comte, A. (1848). A General View of Positivism.
SC
Collins, R. (2009). The micro-sociology of violence. British Journal of Sociology, 60(3).
Cooley, C. H., & Angell, R. C. (1930). Sociological Theory and Social Research: Selected
MA
Papers of Charles Horton Cooley. New York, NY: H. Holt and Co. Coyne, S. M. (2007). Does media violence cause violent crime? European Journal on Criminal
TE
D
Policy and Research, 13(3-4), 205-211 Dahrendorf, R (1958). "Toward a theory of social conflict." Journal of conflict resolution: 170-
AC CE P
183.
Das, V. (2000). Violence and Subjectivity. Berkeley: University of California Press. Dennis, A., & Martin, P. J. (2005). Symbolic interactionism and the concept of power. The British journal of sociology, 56(2), 191-213. Dennis, A., & Martin, P. J. (2007). Symbolic interactionism and the concept of social structure. Sociological Focus, 40(3), 287-305. Denzin, N. K. (2008). Symbolic interactionism and cultural studies: The politics of interpretation. John Wiley & Sons. Durkheim, Émile [1895] "The Rules of Sociological Method" 8th edition, trans. Sarah A. Solovay and John M. Mueller, ed. George E. G. Catlin (1938, 1964 edition).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Easterbrook, M. & Vignoles, V.L. (2013). What does it mean to belong? European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(6).
PT
Enan, M. A. (2007). Ibn Khaldun: His Life and Works. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Other Press
RI
Sdn Bhd.
Eriksen, T. H. (2004). What is Anthropology? London, U.K.: Pluto.
SC
Feldman, A. (1991). Formations of Violence: The Narrative of the Body and Political Terror in
NU
Northern Ireland. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Fine, G. A. (1995). A Second Chicago School? The Development of a Postwar American
MA
Sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
TE
Cambridge, U.K.: Polity.
D
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration.
Giddens, A., Duneier, M., & Applebaum, R. (2007). Introduction to Sociology. Sixth Edition.
AC CE P
New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company. Gilligan, J. (1997). Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Glennie, A. (2014). Internet makes boys think sex should be 'graphic and violent', warns BBC's wark. Daily Mail
Goode, W. J. (1997). Rational choice theory. The American Sociologist, 28(2), 22-41. Habermas, J. (1990). The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Modernity’s Consciousness of Time. Polity Press. Hannerz, U. (1980). Exploring the City: Inquiries Toward an Urban Anthropology. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Hilbert, J. C., & Krishnan, S. P. (2000). Addressing Barriers to Community Care of Battered Women in Rural Environments: Creating a Policy of Social Inclusion. Journal Of Health
PT
& Social Policy, 12(1), 41-52.
RI
Jablensky, A., Sartorius, N., Cooper, J. E., Anker, M., Korten, A., & Bertelsen, A. (1994). Culture and schizophrenia. British Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 434-436.
SC
Jones, S.S. (2007). Functionalism of Mind and Functionalism of Society: The Concept of
NU
Conscience and Durkheim’s Division of Social Labour, Durkheimian Studies, 13(1). Kosmatopoulos, N. (2011). Toward an Anthropology of 'State Failure': Lebanon's Leviathan and
MA
Peace Expertise. Social Analysis, 55(3), 115-142.
Krug, E. G., Dahlberg, L. L., Mercy, J. A., Zwi, A. B., & Lozano, R. (2002). World Report on
TE
D
Violence and Health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Retrieved on September 27, 2015, from:
AC CE P
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/42495/1/9241545615_eng.pdf Lawler, E. J., Ridgeway, C., & Markovsky, B. (1993). Structural Social Psychology and the Micro-micro Problem. Sociological Theory, 11(3), 268. Lee, B. X. (2015a). Causes and cures I: Toward a new definition. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 25, 199-203.
Lee, B. X. (2015b). Causes and cures II: The biology of violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 25, 204-209. Lee, B. X. (2016). Causes and cures IV: The symbolism of violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior (in this issue). Leiblich, A. & Josselson, R. (1994). Exploring identity and gender, The narrative study of lives, London: Sage.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Lewis, I. M. (2009). Social and Cultural Anthropology in Perspective. Transaction Publishers. Macionis, J. J., & Gerber, L. M. (2010). Sociology. Seventh Canadian Ed. Toronto: Pearson
PT
Education Canada.
RI
Macionis, J., & Gerber, L. (2010). Sociology. 7th Canadian Ed. Toronto, Canada: Pearson Canada.
SC
Mahoney, J. & Goertz, G. (2006). A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative
NU
research. Political Analysis, 14(3).
Malesevic S (2010) The Sociology of War and Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MA
Marsh, P., Rosser, E., & Harre, R. (1978). The rules of disorder, London: Routledge. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1888). The Manifesto of the Communist Party. London.
TE
D
McNeely, C., & Falci, C. (2004). School connectedness and the transition into and out of Health‐Risk behavior among adolescents: A comparison of social belonging and teacher
AC CE P
support. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 284-292. Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Metcalf, P. (2005). Anthropology: the basics. Taylor & Francis. Milbrandt, M. K. (2000). Violence in art: Raising authenic issues for discussion. Art Education, 53(1), 25-32
Moore, J. (2008). Visions of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists. 3rd Ed. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Osakwe, E. (2012). The Dynamics of Citizenship Participation and Inclusion in Nigeria. International Journal Of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 6(11), 53-61. Raaflaub, K. & Talbert, R. J. A. (2009). Geography and Ethnography: Perceptions of the World in Pre-Modern Societies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Rapport, N. (2014). Social and cultural anthropology: The key concepts. Routledge. Riches, D. (1986). The anthropology of violence. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
PT
Salooje, A. (2009). Social inclusion, citizenship, and diversity. Canadian Council on Social
RI
Development. Available at: http;//www.ccsd.ca/subsites/inclusion/bp/as.htm. Sarah Accomazzo. Anthropology of Violence: Historical and Current Theories, Concepts, and
SC
Debates in Physical and Socio-cultural Anthropology. Journal of Human Behavior in the
NU
Social Environment 22, Issue 5, 535-552, 2012.
Scheper-Hughes, N. & Bourgois, P. (2004). Introduction: Making sense of violence. In N.
27. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
MA
Scheper-Hughes and P. Bourgois (Eds.), Violence in war and peace: An anthology, pp. 1-
TE
D
Scheper-Hughes, N. (2004). Ishi's brain, Ishi's ashes: Anthropology and genocide. In N. Scheper-Hughes and P. Bourgois (Eds.), Violence in war and peace: An anthology, pp.
AC CE P
61-68. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell. Schlievert, C. (2009). Take this moment: Sexual violence awareness and the art museum as a vehicle for social change. Journal of Cultural Research in Art Education, 27, 63-76 Schmidt, B. E.,
Schro der, I. (2001). Anthropology of Violence and Conflict. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Spencer, Herbert (1876). The Principles of Sociology. Vol 1. London, U.K.: Williams and Norgate. Stanage, S. (1974). Violatives: Modes and themes of violence, in S.Stanage Reason and Violence, Littlefield/Adams.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Timmons, K. A., Selby, E. A., Lewinsohn, P. M., & Joiner, T. E. (2011). Parental Displacement and Adolescent Suicidality: Exploring the Role of Failed Belonging. Journal of Clinical
PT
Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40(6).
RI
Turner, J.H. (2007). Self, emotions, and extreme violence: Extending symbolic interactionist theorizing, Symbolic Interaction, 30(4).
SC
Turner, J. H. (2011). Extending the symbolic interactionist theory of interaction processes: A
NU
conceptual outline. Symbolic Interaction, 34(3), 330-339. United Nations (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
MA
Development. New York, NY: United Nations. Retrieved on September 27, 2015, from: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/70/L.1&Lang=E
TE
D
United Nations Children’s Fund (2014a). Hidden in Plain Sight: A Statistical Analysis of Violence against Children. New York, NY: UNICEF. Retrieved on September 27, 2015,
AC CE P
from:
http://files.unicef.org/publications/files/Hidden_in_plain_sight_statistical_analysis_EN_3 _Sept_2014.pdf
United Nations Children’s Fund (2014b). Ending Violence against Children: Six Strategies for Action. New York, NY: UNICEF. Retrieved on September 27, 2015, from: http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Ending_Violence_Against_Children_Six_strateg ies_for_action_EN_2_Sept_2014.pdf United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2014). Global Study on Homicide 2013: Trends, Contexts, Data. Vienna, Austria: United Nations. Retrieved on September 27, 2015, from: https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-andanalysis/statistics/GSH2013/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013). BRIDGING THE QUALITATIVEQUANTITATIVE DIVIDE: GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING MIXED METHODS
PT
RESEARCH IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21-54
RI
Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. New York, NY: Knopf, 571-572.
SC
Wacquant, L. (1992). Positivism. In T. Bottomore & W. Outhwaite, Eds., The Blackwell
NU
Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Social Thought.
Walliman, N. R. (2006). Social Research Methods. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. [e-book].
MA
Warner, B. D., & Fowler, S. K. (2003). Strain and violence: Testing a general strain theory model of community violence. Journal Of Criminal Justice, 31(6).
TE
D
Watson, L. & Watson-Franke, M-B. (1985). Interpreting Life-Histories, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
AC CE P
Weiner, J. (1995). Anthropologists, Historians, and the Secret of Social Knowledge. Anthropology Today, 11(5). Wellington, . .,
Szczerbi ski, M. (2007). Research Methods for the Social Sciences. London:
Bloomsbury Publishing [e-book]. West, R., & Turner, L. (2007). Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Whitford, J. (2002). Pragmatism and the untenable dualism of means and ends: Why rational choice theory does not deserve paradigmatic privilege. Theory and Society, 31, 325-363. Winthrop, R. (1991). Dictionary of Concepts in Cultural Anthropology, Westport, Conn: Greenwood.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT World Health Assembly (2014). Strengthening the Role of the Health System in Addressing Violence, in Particular against Women and Girls, and against Children. Geneva,
PT
Switzerland: World Health Organization. Retrieved on September 27, 2015, from:
RI
http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA67/A67_ACONF1Rev1-en.pdf World Health Organization (2014). Preventing Suicide: A Global Imperative. Geneva,
SC
Switzerland: World Health Organization. Retrieved on September 27, 2015, from:
NU
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/131056/1/9789241564779_eng.pdf World Health Organization (2015). Preventing Youth Violence: An Overview of the Evidence.
MA
Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Retrieved on September 27, 2015, from:
TE
D
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/181008/1/9789241509251_eng.pdf?ua=1&ua= World Health Organization, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, & United Nations
AC CE P
Development Program (2014). Global Status Report on Violence Prevention 2014. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Retrieved on September 27, 2015, from: http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/Reports/UNDP-GVAviolence-2014.pdf
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Highlights for Causes and Cures V:
Human violence occurs in a social and cultural context
Sociology shows that it is possible to formulate theories about human society
Anthropology demonstrates variety that is possible with human societies
The need for social belonging can help explain individual violence
Cultural symbols can help explain the subjective and “imaginary” nature of violence
AC CE P
TE
D
MA
NU
SC
RI
PT