Norms of Violence

Violent Socialization Processes and the Spillover Effect for Youth Crime

Aimée X. Delaney

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000357080
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Law
• Subtopic: Criminal Procedure
• Index: Law

Norms of Violence: Violent Socialization Processes and the Spillover Effect for Youth Crime explores the degree to which violent socialization processes, both at the macro- and micro-levels, are associated with youth criminal behavior. Based on a quantitative test of an integrated theory of social control and culture of violence, the author argues that violent socialization is a process involving physical violence, exposure to violence, and pro-violent communications. All three dimensions, in combination with national level indicators of violence, contribute to a norm of violence which, at a national-level, spills over into other dimensions of society, including the family environment.

This book seeks to answer if violent socialization processes truly control youth behavior. Various quantitative methods are used to demonstrate how violent socialization tends to be more prevalent in nations with indicators of violence compared to nations without such indicators. The spilling over of violence into socialization processes creates a context of violence normalized as a form of social control, which exacerbates youth criminal behavior within pro-violent nations.

This book is unique in propelling a more thorough explanation of international youth crime by focusing on both victimization (violent socialization) and offending, rather than arguing solely that victimization is a correlate of youth crime. It provides a reference point for future comparative research offering theoretical explanations for youth crime across different nations and is essential reading for those engaged in youth and juvenile justice efforts and scholars interested in issues surrounding violence, youth, and justice.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Violence is a powerful force within society. Violence is so influential that humans have been using violence to resolve all methods of conflict for centuries, perhaps millennia. Violence is not viewed as a problem within some nations, but may in fact be considered normal (Eller, 2006). Each nation embraces very different norms surrounding the acceptability of violence. Violence tends to occur within a context influenced by social norms (O’Keefe, 2007; Palmeri, Sams, & Turcotte, 2004; Rosario, Salzinger, Feldman, & Ng-Mak, 2003). For example, male youth violence has been associated with violence occurring within the context of violent neighborhoods and norms for neighborhood violence (Reed, 2008). The inference is that youth violence occurs within a context.

Traditionally, criminologists have examined violence and crime through an individualistic perspective—it has been seen as an antisocial behaviorial issue among certain people within society—rather than examine the contextual factors and effects that surround these individual people (Crump, 2017) and the groups to which they belong. Youth are exposed to many groups within society, and the norms emitted through those groups. This includes national-level norms, influences from a nation that create a context of norms in which youth are socialized. These norms are established by the methods in which social institutions act and react towards members of society. This may include law and government, as well as the family and other major social institutions in which socialization processes normalize certain behaviors.

Some national-level norms are consistent, regardless of regional variation, and set the tone for norms within society. Violence tends to occur within a context influenced by social norms (O’Keefe, 2007; Palmeri, Sams, & Turcotte, 2004; Rosario, Salzinger, Feldman, & Ng-Mak, 2003), and thus may be one of these consistent national-level norms. Norms accepting violence, then, occur as a contextual effect within any given nation. This contextual effect creates a national based normative standard: the degree to which violence is an acceptable norm within that nation. Such national-based normative standards become part of the primary factors that shape socialization of youth.

The family is still held primarily responsible for instilling control within and over youth as a mechanism to ensure conformity to the “moral standards and society’s laws” (Schmalleger & Bartollas, 2008, p. 248). The family takes cues from norms set forth within a nation. These cues influence the methods in which families socialize their children. Parents who are unable to recognize violence as a manifestation of deviance may endorse the acceptance of violence within their socialization of youth. Perhaps violence is not inherently deviant within a nation. Instead, violence may be a normative standard within a nation. Such macro-level norms may spill over to families and further reinforce a context that shapes youth actions and reactions towards other members of society. These processes become violent socialization.

Violent socialization processes are multiple dimensions of violence that occur as part of the normative socialization of youth. These processes include violent discipline (i.e., the use of excessive physical discipline), exposure to violence, and pro-violent communication (e.g., advising youth to use violence to resolve conflict). These processes, in combination with other national based indicators of violence, form a context in which violence is a normative standard within society and infiltrates the socialization of youth. This book sets forth the justification for the theoretical proposition of norms of violence to explain variation in juvenile crime across different nations. The context of normative violence within a nation, particularly socialization processes involving the normalization of violence, contributes to youth criminal behavior.

The Context of Socialization

Socialization is a collective process which imparts the normative manner of behavior to members of society. It involves shared ways of thinking and behaving. Socialization is necessary to inculcate culture and transmit this culture on to future generations. The social structure of a nation is comprised of different social groups, clusters of social institutions. These institutions extend from the family level to the national level (e.g., government). Each institution holds roles and responsibilities in the socialization of youth. All aspects of a nation’s social structure contribute to and are involved in socialization processes. Thus, individual members of society are not socialized independently. Socialization occurs within a context.

The context of socialization involves processes within families, communities, and the nation. Familial socialization process may be overt and direct (e.g., discipline to correct unwanted behavior). Communal socialization process may take on a subtler approach, through overt yet indirect methods. An example might be community members advising youth to use violence to resolve conflict (e.g., “hit them back” type of response). Aggregation of common communal socialization process may reflect national norms. Nationwide socialization processes are demonstrated through formal means that are both indirect and covert. Nations construct shared meanings throughout the socialization process in order to ensure that members conform to norms. These national-level meanings can spillover into the community. For example, the death penalty is a formality in some nations. These nations sanction governmental use of homicide as one response to individuals who violate laws. This knowledge is transmitted to members of that nation. Whether implicit or explicit, this type of violent conflict resolution is indoctrinated as a customary manner for conflict resolution. This “correction and guidance” (Eller, 2006, p. 54) over time can establish a pro-violent culture. Since inculcation into a nation’s culture is necessary to ensure the functioning membership of society, violence can become an accepted standard within society.

Violence

Violence is a social fact. Any aspect of society that is functional, i.e., having a purpose of serving society, is a social fact (cf. Durkheim, 1977 [1914]). Some have argued that violence serves a useful purpose (Iadicola, 2012). Violence has been used to achieve goals, as the driving factor of accomplishment (Aronson, 2012). Violence may also be a method of conflict resolution (Linsky, Bachman, & Straus, 2004). Under such conditions, violence may even be structural. Structural violence refers to violence built into the organization of society (Iadicola, 2012) and the “means of the institutions, practices, instructions of society” that promote violence (Eller, 2006, p. 140). Violence occurs within every nation (Felitti et al., 1998; Reza, Mercy, & Krug, 2001; World Health Organization, 2002). Many nations engage in some type of structural violence, whether it is formal laws or informal practices. This makes violence, to some degree, a norm.

Expanding on the issue of violence as a social fact, defining violence can be challenging. Consideration must be made for the inherent issues with defining violence (Eller, 2006; Iadicola, 2012; Thornton, Voigt, & Harper, 2013). Several aspects of violence need to be considered in the conceptualization of violence: force, intention, legitimacy, and perspective.

Force can be defined as constraints exerted on others (Merriam-Webster, 2020). With this definition, everyone engages in force to some extent. Nations exert force on their members through the government. For example, some governments engage the use of capital punishment on members who violate laws. The government can use force to end human life, yet has laws against members of that nation committing homicide. What level of nation-sanctioned force is acceptable, but not acceptable, when enacted by other groups? This can be interpreted as biased structural violence: certain social institutions and their members may use violence, via force, against the members of that nation as a justification for maintaining the social order. Eller (2006) discusses structural violence as depriving people of choice while at the same time subjecting people to unfavorable conditions. Is this not the condition of all youth? Historically, minor youth were considered property and parents/other adult community figures had unrestricted authority to do to a child whatever was deemed necessary to control their behavior (Greven, 1992; Heywood, 2010). Minor youth had no recourse, regardless of the severity of the parents’ actions (Champion, Merlo, & Benekos, 2015). In modern times, do youth have the choice to not be “spanked” or physically disciplined in every nation? If not, youth are exposed to conditions in which they are deprived of choice and condemned to physical assault. Youth are victims of structural violence. When force is mutual, such as using violence against someone who acted violently first, how do we differentiate between a perpetrator and a victim? Aren’t adults who advise youth to use violence to resolve violence endorsing force?

There is also the consideration of intention. Eller (2006) and Iadicola (2012) argue that intention is not always necessary to define violence. Violence can be unintentional. For example, child abuse can be unintentionally manifested within the socialization practices, such as the use of physical discipline to correct youth’s unwanted behaviors (e.g., see Bauman & Friedman, 1998; Eriksson, 2010; Forjuoh & Zwi, 1998; Hamby, Finkelhor, Turner, & Ormrod, 2011; Lee, & Kim, 2011; Pinheiro, 2006; Sousa, et al., 2011 for a more robust discussion of physical discipline as child abuse). The argument can be made that this is a necessary correction to control youth behavior. The intent of this method of socialization is to raise youth to be productive members of society. Violence may not be the intent. But hitting is nonetheless violence. Therefore, intent need not be instrumental in the conceptualization of violence.

Eller (2006) argues that legitimacy concerns the “relativity” of violence. Specifically, is violence relevant? Some nations may be more tolerant of violence and this tolerance is reflected within the social structure. This may include laws and socialization processes. Violence may also be expressed through behaviors, such as the rate of violent crime. The relativity of violence depends on the degree to which the members of a nation collectively accept violence. Members of a nation may justify violence (Iadicola, 2012). What is viewed as wrong for one nation may be a norm within another nation (Eller, 2006). While not all nations legitimize violence, violence may be a norm without the social groups being consciously aware.

This leads to the last aspect of defining violence: perspective. Perspective involves the collective viewpoint of members of a nation. These perspectives can be reflected in the customs of society, both formal and informal. Laws serve as formal customs, reflecting norms through what members of a nation deem to be deviant and the sanctions associated with such deviance. Methods used to socialize youth are informal customs. The specific techniques used to inculcate youth into the nation’s culture can also reflect that nation’s overall perspective if these methods are engaged collectively across that society. For example, if it is common among families and communities to advise youth to use violence to resolve conflict, youth become inculcated into a culture that promotes violence. Pro-violent messages are the collective viewpoint, and may become part of the techniques used to socialize youth. Pro-violence is not a socially desirable perspective for social groups in a nation. But even if the different social groups are not consciously aware of the perspective, or outright deny the perspective, the collective viewpoint still exists.

Taking into consideration these issues, violence is defined as behavior expended to inflict harm on another. This definition is consistent with others’ definitions of violence (e.g., see Iadicola, 2012; Thornton, Voigt, & Harper, 2013). Violent behavior includes direct action towards another, exposing another to violent behavior, and words encouraging others to engage in direct action against another. All of these actions can inflict harm, either directly or vicariously. Harm can be physical, psychological, and social. Physical harm holds as much negative consequences as psychological and social pain (Chen, Williams, Fitness, & Newton, 2008; Conejero, Olié, Calati, Ducasse, & Courtet, 2018; Nesse & Schulkin, 2019; Xu, Zuo, Wang, & Han, 2009; Zhang, Barreto, & Doyle, 2019; Zhang, Zhang, & Kong, 2019). This is because the harm stems from the use of force, particularly when the violence is deemed as legitimate and is part of the perspective of the nation. Force is simply exerting one’s will onto another. This force may not be intentional, as discussed previously. But engaging in violent behaviors towards or around another is still exerting one’s will. Behavior need not necessarily be intentional towards a specific recipient to be considered violence. Again, intention is not necessary to inflict harm. For example, violence exposure is not always outright intended, yet can still inflict harm on another. Youth who witness violence between adults may still be harmed even when those adults did not intend the youth to see their violence, nor were they motivated to inflict harm on the youth. This is not to imply that the violence discussed here is accidental. The violence is purposeful to some extent, such as when adults intend to harm each other through violence. The purpose of the violence may have been directed towards another, but such violence is displaced when others are exposed to the violence. This exposure can cause harm.

Some may argue that there has been a reduction in violence over the years. Violence is difficult to measure, particularly over time (Eller, 2006; Ember & Ember, 1994; Iadicola, 2012; Thornton, Voigt, & Harper, 2013). Social perspectives of violence mostly remain an image of physical action by one person to another person. This may be the reason members of society have the misperception of a decrease in violence. But definitions of what constitutes violence have evolved. Other definitions of violence encompass physical force (Thornton, Voigt, & Harper, 2013) to harm caused within the social order (Iadicola, 2012). Some may also argue that violence is culturally relative (cf. Eller, 2006). But violence needs to be defined universally (Iadicola, 2012), and there are universal indicators of violence transnationally. Behaviors considered violent, to some extent in certain spheres of life, are common across all nations. As an example, the forced killing of a human being is generally considered violent. This is the premise of capital punishment: the government kills a member of society by force. Members of society legitimize this behavior. If a forced killing is committed by a group of people behaving as vigilantes, these same members of society may argue such behavior is illegitimate. Both situations involve intended violence. Justifications for forced killings are irrelevant in terms of defining an act of violence. In fact, it gives strength to the argument that violence is normalized in some nations.

There are many factors that may contribute to the normalization of violence within a nation. It would be easy to argue that “terrorism” is a form of violence. But how do we define terrorism? There is no universal definition of terrorism (White, 2017). It is just as easy to argue “war” is an act of violence. What is the difference between war and terrorism? Terrorism and war may involve some acts of violence, but many definitions for terrorism and war hold singular perspectives. These definitions are based on the perspective of the victor, and the victor often legitimizes their acts of violence while vilifying the actions of the defeated. Terrorism and war have factors varying from nation to nation, and do not occur universally across nations. Therefore, these concepts cannot be reliably measured as an indicator of violence transnationally. There are many other concepts that can be argued. However, most concepts are not universally experienced transnationally. Violent socialization processes are both universal and experienced across many nations. Violent socialization processes meet all three of these characteristics of violence.

Violent Socialization Processes

Violent socialization processes include multiple different violence-based actions implemented to inculcate youth into the norms of society. These processes include three dimensions: physical discipline, exposure to violence, and pro-violence communication. These processes are conceptualized as the combination of interdependent methods infused with violence used to control youth behavior.

Violent Discipline

Violent discipline involves physical discipline that is frequent and occurs during both childhood and adolescence. Some have suggested that the purpose of physical discipline is to prevent youth from overreaching the boundaries of accept...