lecture 2 - 4.docx

Reading 1 and 2 Notes: Lecture 2: Micro-Social Foundations of Violence Complexity of the “Human Animal”: This addresses the multifaceted nature of humans and the complexities involved in understanding their behavior, particularly in relation to violent tendencies. It encompasses psychological, soci...

Reading 1 and 2 Notes: Lecture 2: Micro-Social Foundations of Violence Complexity of the “Human Animal”: This addresses the multifaceted nature of humans and the complexities involved in understanding their behavior, particularly in relation to violent tendencies. It encompasses psychological, social, cultural, and biological factors that contribute to human actions. Logic of Evolutionary Psychology (IF, RV, RHP): Evolutionary psychology suggests that certain behaviors, including potential violent inclinations, might have evolved as adaptive responses over time. The terms you've listed—IF (inclusive fitness), RV (reproductive value), and RHP (resource holding potential)—refer to concepts within evolutionary psychology that could relate to understanding the evolutionary roots of violence in terms of survival, reproduction, and resource acquisition. Limitations of Biological Perspective: While biological factors might contribute to predispositions or inclinations toward violence, this perspective might overlook the significant impact of social, cultural, and environmental influences on human behavior. It's essential to recognize the interplay between biological predispositions and sociocultural contexts in understanding violence. Social Learning Theory: This theory suggests that individuals learn behaviors, including violent ones, through observation, imitation, and reinforcement within their social environments. It emphasizes the role of socialization, modeling, and conditioning in shaping behaviors, including violent tendencies. Intergenerational Transmission of Violence Theory: This theory explores how violent behavior or tendencies can be passed down across generations within families or social environments. It examines how exposure to violence in childhood, either as a victim or witness, can contribute to the perpetuation of violent behaviors in later life. Each of these points represents different theoretical frameworks or perspectives that contribute to understanding the micro-social foundations of violence, shedding light on the various factors and mechanisms influencing the emergence and perpetuation of violent behaviors in individuals and societies. Lecture 3: Macro-Social Foundations of Violence Black’s Pure Sociology Analytic Framework: Black's framework focuses on understanding social structures and patterns that influence human behavior. Pure sociology aims to analyze the social world based on social structures and relationships rather than individual motivations or psychological factors. Violent Structures: This refers to societal or systemic structures that perpetuate or condone violence. These structures might include institutionalized inequalities, power dynamics, or cultural norms that enable or foster violent behavior. Collins’ Interpersonal Violence Model (CT/F): Randall Collins' model examines the micro-interactions and dynamics that lead to confrontations or violence. It distinguishes between confrontation tension (CT) and forward panic (F), exploring how these states can escalate conflicts into violent encounters. “Violent Societies”: United States vs. Canada: This likely involves a comparative analysis of societal factors, policies, cultural norms, and historical contexts in the United States and Canada, aiming to understand variations in violence rates, patterns, and societal responses between these countries. Cultural Justifications for Violence: Cultures often have norms, beliefs, or narratives that justify or rationalize certain forms of violence. These cultural justifications might vary across societies and historical contexts, influencing attitudes towards violence. Key Concepts Associated with Social Fields: These concepts are likely tools for analyzing social environments: Relational Distance: Refers to the closeness or distance between individuals or groups in social interactions. Cultural Distance: Indicates differences in cultural norms, values, or practices between individuals or groups. Functional Independence: Describes the degree to which different social components or entities operate separately or interdependently. Social Inequality: Focuses on disparities in social, economic, or political resources among individuals or groups. Polarized Social Fields: Refers to environments with extreme divisions or conflicts between groups or individuals. Partisanship: Involves strong support for a particular group, ideology, or cause. Social Isolation: Denotes the lack of social connections or integration within a community or society. State Autonomy as Form of Social Isolation: Discusses how state institutions might become isolated from broader societal influences, potentially impacting policies or responses related to violence. These concepts and frameworks help to analyze the broader societal structures, cultural contexts, and social dynamics contributing to the understanding of violence on a macro-social level. Lecture 4: Interpersonal Forms of Bilateral, Moralistic Violence Violence as a Form of “Conflict Management” or Moralism: This explores how violence might be used as a means to resolve conflicts or assert moral beliefs. It could involve the imposition of one's moral standards or resolving disputes through force. Expressive vs. Instrumental Violence: Expressive violence involves emotional outbursts or actions driven by feelings, while instrumental violence is purposeful, strategic, and calculated to achieve certain goals. The lecture might explore the differences between these two forms of violence. Social Fields and Relational Contexts of Violence: This likely discusses how social environments, relationships, and broader societal contexts shape the occurrence, patterns, and outcomes of violent interactions between individuals or groups. Male Dominance of Violence: Examines the prevalence of men in perpetrating violent acts and explores societal, cultural, or biological factors contributing to this trend. Status Competitions and Violence (e.g., “Bar Fights”): Explores how conflicts or competitions for social status or dominance can escalate into violent encounters, such as bar fights, where status-related tensions arise. Status as a Key Resource and Core Processes Associated with Acquiring Social Status: Discusses the significance of social status in societies and the mechanisms or behaviors individuals adopt to attain, maintain, or assert their status. Fighting as a Matter of “Honour”: Explores cultural or social contexts where violence is tied to notions of honor, where individuals resort to violence to defend their honor or reputation. Michalski's theory of prison violence delves into the dynamics of violence within the context of correctional facilities, focusing on several key concepts: Violence as Symbolic Expression of Hegemonic Masculinity: Within the prison environment, violence serves as a symbolic expression of dominance and power, often associated with traditional notions of masculinity. In this setting, displaying aggression and asserting authority through violence becomes a means of reinforcing or establishing dominance. Prison Status Hierarchy: The prison environment operates with a distinct social hierarchy where inmates hold varying positions of status. This hierarchy influences interactions, conflicts, and power dynamics within the facility. Defining Status: Status in prison is defined by an individual's standing or position within the inmate social order. It's determined by factors such as respect, influence, and perceived power within the inmate community. Resources: Economic, Political, and Social: In the prison setting, resources take on various forms, including economic resources (such as contraband or access to goods), political resources (influence and alliances), and social resources (networks, support, or reputation). Inalienable Quality of Status: Status within the prison system is often perceived as inherent or intrinsic to an individual. It's not easily transferable or forfeited, contributing to its significance and the lengths inmates might go to defend or maintain their status. Inexpansible Quality of Status: This refers to the limitation of status within the prison hierarchy. As the status hierarchy is fixed and limited, any elevation of one inmate's status might come at the expense of another, leading to conflicts or tensions. Relative Locations: Inmates occupy specific positions or relative locations within the prison's social hierarchy. These positions determine their relationships, interactions, and power dynamics with other inmates. Michalski's theory provides insights into how power, dominance, and status dynamics operate within the prison environment, influencing the expressions of violence, conflicts, and social interactions among inmates. The concepts of status and its associated resources play a pivotal role in shaping these dynamics and understanding the complexities of violence within correctional facilities.