Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
activities that share some common features. This article presents a social perspective
on violence that calls attention to the meanings of violence and to other social factors
that promote and support or, alternatively, oppose and restrict violence. Implications
for prevention and intervention are examined.
Key Words: violence, theory, social, constructionism, systems
1 Thomas W. Blume, Ph.D., LMFT, LPC, is Assistant Professor,
Department of Counseling, Oakland University, Rochester,
Michigan, 48309-4401 and is in private practice as a family
therapist in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, 48304. Electronic mail may
be sent via Internet to blume@oakland.edu.
Social Realities
People's individual experiences become social as they are shared. Individuals
can be in the same place or be exposed to the same events electronically, or
they can use a symbolic means to communicate their experiences to others. It
is the combined experiences of many individuals, shared in these ways, that
makes up a culture, a society, or a family. Within cultures, societies, and
Social Theories
Social theories of violence can be grouped into several categories; only a few
of these categories will be reviewed in this paper. The reader will detect some
overlapping concepts, and indeed some theories include essentially the same
elementsdiffering only in the ways in which the elements are seen as
interacting.
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS
According to this broad theoretical tradition (e.g., Parsons, 1977),
social groups have a number of functional requisites; certain needs
must be met in order for a social group to survive. Various lists of
functional requisites have appeared over the years. The following
examples serve to illustrate the approach.
Social and political change. Families, communities, and nations
often evolve in ways that benefit some of their members and work
to the disadvantage of others. Societies have created a variety of
mechanisms including elections, courts, and mediation with the
intent of facilitating change and eliminating injustice. But such
mechanisms have their limitations. For example, courts create a
need for either education or money to guarantee a fair hearing of a
grievance. Violence is often explained as the only alternative for
individuals and groups who do not see a nonviolent way to break out
of a position of disadvantage.
Social stability. Many of the mechanisms that serve the goal of
social change have been created by a powerful elite with a goal of
ensuring that change happens gradually and doesn't threaten their
privileges. In this case, violence is seen as a natural response when
a social heirarchy is threatened. The Watergate incident and the
highly publicized beating of Rodney King brought out viewpoints of
this kind; many people did not doubt that official misconduct had
occurred, but they considered such tactics as necessary if society
was to be defended against internal disruption or external attack.
Socialization. Children must be taught the expectations of their
social group and must be helped to acquire the skills and
understandings to take their place in the group. Violence may result
when children do not acquire necessary skills to handle
interpersonal relationships, to manage their own lives, and to
become economically self-sufficient. Effective socialization requires
more than just the presence of adults who can teach skills.
Farrington (1991), for example, found deficiencies in the parenting
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM
An increasingly popular approach to violence views human
interaction through language, a primary symbolic tool through which
people share their experiences (see Sarbin and Kitsuse, 1994).
Constructionist theories of violence focus on discourse themes
shared meaningsthat either justify violent acts or else redefine
violence so that it is acceptable behavior. Three such discourse
themes will be examined here.
Gender and family violence. Violence is strongly associated with
gender; males not only commit more violent acts, they also are the
primary consumers of entertainment with violent themes
(Kruttschnitt, 1994). The constructionist theory of gendered violence
suggests that men perpetuate this pattern in their discourse
(Blumenthal, Kahn, Andrews, & Head, 1972). Anecdotal evidence
seems to support this idea. Boys differentiate themselves from girls
with shared play themes of fighting monsters and evildoers.
Elementary school boys make threats, deride weaker boys, and
encourage aggressors. In this male social reality, the person who
can be victimized deserves it; being dominated in any way is a
source of humiliation. For the young male, winning is the only thing
that is important. Young men's stories revolve around potential if not
actual violence, and violent episodes are a necessity if one is to
really validate one's masculinity.
Young men also typically become interested in girls and sex; sexual
success is valued by the male peer group. But girls, despite their
presumed inferiority, control access to this valued activity and the
young male is in danger of being dominated. The male solution to
this dilemma is coercion. Women, according to the male myth, don't
even know how much they like sex; the male believes that he must
introduce the reluctant female to this activity, and assumes that she
will be eternally loyal to the man who first gives her sexual
fulfillment.
Caring, on the other hand, is a job to be left to the specialists:
women. Love is seen as a sign of weakness, a sure way of being
distracted from the fight. Bull Meachum, the Marine fighter pilot
depicted in the film The Great Santini, gradually taught his son that
no matter how much it hurts, he must become tough and distant so
that he can take over the role of protecting his loved ones. Meachum
also told a colleague of his discomfort being "a warrior without a
war." In a real-life parallel, General Westmoreland was quoted during
the Vietnam war as justifying the violence of his off-duty soldiers. It
was not fair, he said, to expect people to be trained killers six days a
week and Sunday-school teachers the seventh.
The power of this male discourse is supported by research. Linsky,
Bachman, and Straus (1995) found that rape was a more likely
response to stress when cultural norms favored violence, women's
status was low, and men viewed women primarily as sex objects.
Other studies have found attitudes "conducive to rape"negative
views of women, resentment and fear of domination, and beliefs
about women's ambivalence toward sexin a variety of male
samples (Reiss & Roth, 1993).
The violent society. Graham (1979) argued that the American
tradition is one in which violence is a constant theme. The preferred
version of history emphasizes the rule of law, the development of
effective political mechanisms, and cooperative efforts. But folklore
(Lynn, 1979) and official histories feature a series of violent conflicts
and the exploits of violent heroes. The U.S. was founded on violent
overthrow of a civil authority, and its children have been brought up
to emulate a series of violent role models: Hopalong Cassidy, the
U.S. Cavalry, G.I. Joe, the Six-Million-Dollar Man, andmore recently
the X-men, Ninja Turtles, and Power Rangers. Carrie Nation is
remembered because she was violent, and most Americans feel
some personal pride in winning two world wars.
The American fascination with violence is not only focused on
violent heroes, however. Victims of violence, displayed in
SYSTEMS THEORY
Finally, in the most integrative of the efforts to understand human
behavior, systems theories have both philosophical and pragmatic
roots. The term "system" is one that may be used in many ways. In
simple usage it refers only to the fact that separate elements are
connected in some way. In more sophisticated usage, systems
theories predict the nature of interactions among the individuals,
families, or groups that make up the system that is being studied.
Bateson (1979) focused on the epistemological error of using
individual-level theories (e.g., frustration) to explain phenomena at
the level of a pattern of interactions. Systems approaches to
intervention (e.g., Minuchin, 1974)on the other handtend to
focus on the practical issue of identifying the proper system level
(i.e., marital dyad, household, extended family) where efforts will be
most likely to succeed in resolving a problem.
Systems theorists view all social interactions as somehow patterned
in ways that regulate violencealong with all other forms of
behavior. System levels are nested, and each level operates
according to its own rules. Feedback processes enable each level to
assess its effectiveness and to make necessary modifications to
continue functioning. Systems are always in a state of change but
the changes do not disturb the stability of the system.
Understanding the processes, however, is not sufficient for planning
"the other" (Staub, 1990) and justify violence. At the family level it has been
demonstrated that genuine exchange can replace the rhetoric of power and
domination: Couple relationships as well as parent-child relationships can be
restructured on the basis of mutual respect. Family therapists have a singular
opportunity to reduce violence, one family at a time.
Finally, the communications media carry special responsibility for the
community's discourse on violence. The perception of imminent violence, for
example, has come to exist largely through highly-publicized news stories.
Fictional portrayals of violent heroes demonstrate unrealistic success in their
ventures and rarely suffer negative consequences. Films, music videos, and
television programs promote violence by creating a social reality in which
violent actions are the norm. Voluntary self-censorship and an effort to build a
realistic community view of violencewhile difficult to imagineoffer the
potential for system-wide change and virtual elimination of violence in
America.
References
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: E.P.
Dutton.
Blumenthal, M. D., Kahn, R. L., Andrews, F. M., & Head, K. B.
(1972). Justifying violence: Attitudes of American men. Ann Arbor, MI:
Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.