Violence

From Theory to Research

Margaret Zahn, Henry Brownstein, Shelly Jackson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781583605615
• eBook ISBN: 9781317521372
• Topic: Law
• Subtopic: Criminal Law
• Index: Law

Brings together theoretical and empirical papers prepared by noted researchers and theoreticians. The first part includes chapters by criminological theorists who apply their theory of crime particularly to violence. The second part contains chapters by researchers who look at the substantive area of their expertise through the lens of theories of violence. Each chapter is original and was written specifically for this book.

Part I
Introduction: Toward a Theory of Violence

Henry H. Brownstein
Margaret A. Zahn
Shelly L. Jackson

A theory is an explanation of the world around us. It provides a context through which we can incorporate what we consider to be facts and tells us how those facts fit together in a meaningful way. It helps us to make sense of what otherwise does not make sense. Consider the case of violence.

After years of beatings at the hands of a man who claims to love her, a woman stabs or shoots him. We might not condone her action, but in the context of self-preservation we can understand why she would do it. In times of war, not only soldiers but also noncombatants, including children, are killed and wounded. Each time it happens it is horrific and we may not agree with it, but in the context of war we can understand why people are killing and wounding each other. Drug dealers often use physical force and brutality to protect their market share or the integrity of their product. We might be offended and frightened by their actions, but in the context of doing business we are able to explain why in the absence of access to legal authority they might act that way.

A young mother watches as her car rolls down a boat ramp into a lake while her two sons, ages three years and 14 months, are strapped inside. We sympathize when we believe her story that a carjacker took her car and killed her children. When we learn that her story is a lie and that she did it herself to be free of her children, our interpretation of the situation and therefore our response to it are likely to be different. A 15-year-old boy in Springfield, Oregon, walks into his school cafeteria one day and opens fire on his classmates, killing two and wounding more than 20. A 14-year-old in Paducah, Kentucky, fires at a prayer circle of his fellow students, killing three and wounding five. School officials and psychologists theorize that their actions can be explained in terms of motives and circumstances.

The role of theory in social and behavioral science is to help us explain and thereby understand diverse social situations such as those described above. In the case of violence, theory guides the way we think and what we know about why people violate or harm other people. Chapters in this book present a variety of theories about violence and show how these theories are applied to particular social phenomena. Ultimately, the purpose of this book is to help better explain and understand violence.

Toward a Theoretical Explanation of Violence

In its simplest sense, then, a theory is an explanation. A theory can be an explanation for why two or more things are related to each other, or why something happens or does not happen. A theory helps us to make sense of the empirical evidence or facts of our experience and observation. A theory is not itself a set of facts, but it helps us to explain known facts in a way that is believable and compelling.

According to Herbert Blumer, “The aim of theory in empirical science is to develop analytic schemes of the empirical world with which the given science is concerned” (1969:140). The point is that while theory is a means by which to conceive the world in an abstract way, it is of value for scientific inquiry only to the extent that it “connects fruitfully with the empirical world” (Blumer, 1969:143). For Blumer, social science is thus challenged to develop methodological perspectives “congruent with the nature of the empirical world under study” (1969:vii). This is true whether quantitative research methods are employed to provide empirical evidence that is used to verify a theory (Zetterberg, 1963), or qualitative methods are used to search through empirical evidence for a theory that is grounded in the evidence (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

A particular social theory, then, is an analytic framework. Through the scientific method, the theory connects an abstract way of looking at a social phenomenon with empirical evidence of that phenomenon as derived from the social world in which we live. The theory expands our knowledge and understanding of that world. Effective theories provide guidance for further inquiry, “setting problems, staking out objects, and leading inquiry into asserted relations” (Blumer, 1969:141). For quantitative researchers, theories offer inferences and implications that need to be verified with empirical evidence from research. For qualitative researchers, they are the ground in which to plant newly discovered empirical evidence to see what new ideas emerge.

Theory does these things by “conceiving the world abstractly, that is, in terms of classes of objects and of relations between such classes” (Blumer, 1969:140). Such abstract classes of objects, or concepts, are the basic elements from which theoretical propositions about the nature of social phenomenon and their relationships are derived. Abraham Kaplan suggested that concepts “mark out the path by which we may move most freely in logical space. They identify the nodes or junctions in the network of relationships, termini at which we can halt while preserving the maximum range of choice as to where to go next” (1964:52).

As members of society, we experience the abstract world of social experience as an empirical reality. Individually, we each conceptualize that world in a meaningful way that allows us to live our everyday lives (see Kaplan, 1964; Lazarsfeld & Rosenberg, 1955). We form mental images, called conceptions, each of which represents “a collection of related phenomena that we have either observed or heard about somewhere” (Maxfield & Babbie, 1998:94). A concept, according to Kaplan, is a “family of conceptions” (1964:49), an abstraction that is understood by all participants in a social world to commonly refer to their personal conceptions of the same social phenomenon (Maxfield & Babbie, 1998).

Today, social and behavioral scientists trying to explain theory to students use different words to define theory, but overall their definitions are consistent with traditional views. Trying to define it in a primer for undergraduates, Bohm simply writes that theory helps you to explain “why or how things are related to each other” (1997:1). Maxfield and Babbie expand on that theme a bit when they write that theory is “a systematic explanation for the observed facts and laws that relate to a particular aspect of life” (1998:37).

Focusing more directly on what theory should do, Akers writes that it should help you “to make sense of facts that [you] already know and can be tested against new facts” (2000:1). Wallace, emphasizing what makes a theory a good theory, writes that it can be “taken to mean any set of symbols that is claimed verifiably to represent and make intelligible specified classes of phenomena and one or more of their relationships” (1969:3). Noting that explanation is “the key word in the definition,” Liska and Messner define theory as “an interrelated set of statements or propositions used to explain the events or things that constitute the subject matter of a perspective” (1999:16).

In writing about what theory does, Akers makes it clear to his readers that theory explains to us what is or what may be, not what ought to be (2000:2). As noted earlier, for explaining what is or what may be, concepts are the building blocks of theory (Chafetz, 1978; Kaplan, 1964; Lazarsfeld & Rosenberg, 1955). To deal with violence in everyday life, we conceptualize it as individuals. To understand it as a social phenomenon, we construct a concept, a word or symbol that represents our conception of empirical reality. To be able to study theory, we have to be able to define it in such a way that it has meaning and can be measured empirically. At that point it is called an operational definition (Maxfield & Babbie, 1998:99), and we use that definition to conduct studies that will allow us to test hypothesized relationships between the concept of violence and concepts of other social or behavioral phenomena. Propositions are hypothetical statements we make about the relationships we expect to observe between and among such concepts (see Blumer, 1969; Kaplan, 1964).

Theory is not about what ought to be, yet underlying all social theories are philosophical assumptions about the social world (Kaplan, 1964:88). For example, to be able to explain social phenomena, we need to assume that social reality exists (i.e., it is not an illusion) and that there is some order to it (Chafetz, 1978:34-35). For his students, Bohm calls these assumptions the “hidden agenda” of theories, because they cannot be proven scientifically or empirically but have to be accepted for the theory to make sense (1997:4). Besides making metaphysical assumptions about the nature of reality in general, social theorists make epistemological assumptions about how knowledge is acquired, ontological assumptions about human nature, and cosmological assumptions about the nature of society (Gouldner, 1971). These assumptions guide the thinking of the theorist as he or she approaches the study of a particular phenomenon. When a set of assumptions is integrated in a meaningful way, it forms a general orientation toward a subject matter, a way of thinking about the subject. This general orientation is called a paradigm (Kuhn, 1970). A particular paradigm represents a coherent set of assumptions that “serves to define what should be studied, what questions should be asked, how they should be asked, what rules should be followed in interpreting the answers obtained” (Ritzer, 1975:7).

During any historical period, science is likely to be dominated by a single paradigm. That paradigm integrates in a meaningful way a set of assumptions about knowledge and reality that is reasonable in the context of the time. The paradigm contributes to scientific advancement by providing an orientation for theory and research, helping contemporary scientists to accumulate knowledge in an orderly and meaningful way. This is what Kuhn called “normal science” (1970). However, over time, the dominant paradigm inevitably becomes inadequate at explaining changing conditions and circumstances, and a new paradigm emerges. According to Kuhn, “Led by a new paradigm, scientists adopt new instruments and look in new places. Even more important, during revolutions scientists see new and different things when looking at familiar instruments in places they have looked before” (1970:111). In this way, science advances when one paradigm replaces another, or when there are competing paradigms.

Theories of violence will vary depending on the paradigm through which a phenomenon is being explained and the underlying assumptions of that paradigm. For example, a paradigm may be rooted in classical or neoclassical philosophy, a product of the Enlightenment. In that case, a theory of violence would be based on assumptions that human beings have free will and are therefore responsible for their actions and will act to maximize pleasure and minimize pain (see Beccaria, 1963; Bentham, 1843). A theory of violence rooted in a positivist paradigm would not agree that violence is reasoned behavior based on free will. Rather, it would view violence from the philosophical assumption that human behaviors are a consequence of biological or cultural factors over which the individual has no control (Fishbein, 1990; Goddard, 1914; Lombroso, 1876). A theory of violence grounded in a critical paradigm would be based on the assumption that human beings both create and are created by the social structures and institutions of their social world (see Bohm, 1982; Lynch & Groves, 1989; Schwartz & Hatty, 2003).

The paradigm that underlies a particular theory of violence inevitably separates that theory from other theories that use different paradigms. In this case, a simple unification of theories of violence, each grounded in a different paradigm, would be challenging at best. Similarly, it is possible for a number of theories to be rooted in the same paradigm but have different explanatory variables, in which case it would be challenging but possible to establish an integrated theory of violence. Finally, a number of theories could be rooted in the same paradigm and use similar or complementary variables, in which case the possibility of theory integration is maximized. In this book we look at a variety of theories of violence and consider how each contributes to a broader understanding of violence.¹ In addition, we provide an analysis of the feasibility of integrating the theories of violence contained in this book.

The Concept of Violence

As noted earlier, Blumer argued that for a theory to be fruitful it needs to be possible for its concepts to be connected to the empirical world (1969). Therefore, it is not surprising that in considering the problem of social theory, he wrote, “Ambiguity in concepts blocks or frustrates contact with the empirical world” (1969:152). His point was made clearer by comparison to the natural sciences “wherein empirical instances are accepted in their concrete and distinctive form” (1969:152). For example, H₂O might have the quality of an abstract concept to it, but we all recognize water when it is presented to us. We cannot so easily say the same for social concepts. Therefore, theories about abstract social concepts, such as violence, inevitably require greater attention to issues of conceptualization. To study violence, then, we need to clearly define what we mean by violence.

Definitions of violence vary. For example, the term violence may refer to a number of different behaviors. Yet by speaking of violence as violence, we imply that it is one thing. Through that one word all the forms and manifestations of violence are said to represent the same social phenomenon. Is the killing of a rival by a drug dealer the same thing as the killing of a husband by an abused wife? Is the terrorist act of a suicide bomber the same thing as the patriotic act of a soldier? Do measures of violent crime measure the same thing as measures of corporate violence?

In the everyday lives of individuals, violence is experienced in different ways. Given his or her personal experiences and observations of violence, each individual has a particular mental image or conception of what violence is. For theory and research, the question is whether a concept of violence can be formed that lends itself to observation and measurement. If we are to understand and explain violence, this is an important question. We need to be able to define violence as an abstract class of objects that can be commonly understood to refer to the variety of personal conceptions of violence.

On a broad theoretical level, Sorel (1950) reflected on violence in terms of class conflict, and Arendt (1969) thought about violence in terms of the justification of means to accomplish ends. Contemporary definitions of violence more often identify characteristics or conditions that are necessary for any social activity or behavior to be regarded as violence. Weiner, Zahn, and Sagi define violence as “the threat, attempt, or use of physical force by one or more persons that results in physical or nonphysical harm to one or more other persons” (1990:xiii). For Reiss and Roth, violence refers to “behavior by persons against persons that intentionally threatens, attempts, or actually inflicts physical harm” (1993:2). Similarly, for Riedel and Welsh, violence refers to “actions directed toward another in a face-to-face encounter or near-physical contact” (2002:1-2).

Sometimes the definition of violence is connected not only to the activity or behavior of individuals or groups, but also to the intention for the activity or behavior. For example, Newman defines violence as “the use of force to gain dominance over another or others” (1979:1). In defining violence in subjective terms, sometimes the emphasis is on the way members of society interpret or perceive the activity or behavior. For example, Brownstein wrote, “forms of social activity that we consider violent are those that in our judgment symbolize and represent physical force and domination” (2000:7).

Definitions of violence do have certain characteristics or elements in common. In all o...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Acknowledgments
• Contents
• Part I Introduction Violence: From Theory to Research
• Part II Theories of Violence
• Part III Applying Theories to Substance
• Part IV Conclusion The Need for a Theory of Violence
• Editors' Biographical Information
• Contributors' Biographical Information
• Name Index
• Subject Index