Sociological Perspectives of Violence

The focus of this paper is an over perspective of different research articles on racialism and geomorphological violence a lay downst the aboriginal. military group depart be looked at from three schools of cerebrations namely the structural, conflict and process theories. The put one acrosss of these different show upes to violence will be critically analyzed, still no value judgments will be placed on either(prenominal) of their detections of violence. Racism According to Headley (2000), racial discrimination is the pain sensation of unequal consideration, motivated by the desire to dominate, found on hie alone (p. 23). Headley that explains that this definition accommodates the distinction between true racism which is the desire to harm or dominate others solely on the innovation of race, and ordinary racism which he sees as universal features of human biological science (p. 224). Headley skinther maintained that a racist is not merely someone who wishes to p ut down anothers race, just now also overcome and assert his/her own superiority through a lurid interpret (p. 224).Naiman (2006) doctors racism as hostility, aggression, and antagonism toward non-members of a particular group based on their physiological characteristics, notably skin colour (p. 265). Similarly, Spencer (1998) sees racism as the transformation of race prejudice and / or ethnocentrism through the exercise of business office against a racial group defined as inferior, by respective(prenominal) and institution (p. 1). To infer from the foregoing definitions, a common attribute of racism is the principle that ones own race is superior to another.This belief is based on the erroneous assumption that somatic attributes of members of a racial group determine their social behaviour as well as their psychological and intellectual characteristics (Spencer, 1998, p. 5). Historical Roots of Racism. The term racism became popularized in the late 1960s during the civil rights movement (Headley, 2000, p. 235). Prior to this time consort to Headley, the term pagan prejudice was used (p. 236). Naiman (2006) posits that racism is a relatively recent phenomenon, and its emergence as a systematic arena-view developed simultaneously with the rise of capitalist and its global expansion (p. 66) Naiman however explains that some scholars define forms of social intolerance prior to this capitalist era as racism, but he however presss that such social intolerance is more barely seen as ethnocentrism (preference for ones own cultural traditions) or ethnic chauvinism (antagonism towards a particular group) (p. 267).Racism in Canada According to Naiman (2006), some Canadians manage to believe that racism is a relatively recent phenomenon linked to ripe immigration patterns or compared to United States, Canada has little history of overt racism (p. 69). Naiman, however, argues that racism in Canada has a long and sordid past, which in public as desc ribed by him is an unsightly history swept beneath the threadbare rug of its national myths (p. 269). Naiman further maintained that the history of racism in Canada begins with the subjugation of Canadas aboriginal people. Violence Anglin (1998), states that an uncontroversial, exhaustive and fine definition of violence is difficult to find. Violence is understood as an resultant in which an acting case-by-case intentionally injures another (p. 146).Anglin further explains that the put through of the perpetrator slew be physical, or psychological. In like vein, Steinmetz (1989) defines uncivilised as an act carried out with the intension of, or perceived as having the intension of physically hurting another mortal. Strasburg (1978) defines violence as illegal use or threat of force against a person. From the foregoing, it can be infer that waste demeanour means physical force exerted for the purpose of violating or abusing. There are three get a line terms which are lik ely to be present for any action at law to be manakinified as a violent act.The action must(prenominal) be intentional, force may be applied and the action must result in harm (physical, psychological and emotional). Human behaviour does not occur in isolation or in vacuum but it is influenced by the interplay of many other factors. Consequently, different schools of thoughts about violence, view any violent act as a precursor of other factors. For sheath, the Conflict, Structural, and knead theories. Conflict theory Conflict theory is better understood as the Marxist theory. According to the theory, Crime is perceived as a conk of competition for limited resources.That is, a social status in which an individual is perceived evaluated and treated accordingly by legal authorities. The Marxist view is that conflict between these class-based social hierarchies, the haves (bourgeoisie), and has not (proletariat) that produces violent behavior. According to Holmes (1988), the dif ference of opinion between these two classes is a matter of relative cause . Holmes further explains that the ruling class have sufficient power hence, they are qualified to label some proletariats behavior as felonious Structural theoryThe structural theory on the other hand, sees violence from the perceptual experience of cultural forces or neighborhood conditions. That is, our behavior is a product of our environment. The world we live in, shapes our lives. Since our environment is not static, our behavior revolves around this dynamism. The structural approach holds the view that the dash certain things are structured by the auberge creates violent acts. For example, consider the film Elephant the structural theory will argue that it is because of the way gild is structured, that people are suitable to acquire weapons to carry on violence.Similarly, heterogeneity of lodge inherently creates violence. This is because according to the theory, there is bound to be such iss ues as cultural or religious conflicts due to these differences. bidding theory According to the proponent of this theory, crime is a function of acculturation and upbringing. Delinquent behaviour is intimate like every other behavior through association with significant others and reference groups, especially parents and peers. It is through mirror image and interaction with these significant others we learn techniques for engaging in delinquent acts.According to cognitive operation theory, all forms of violent acts are learned through off-key and observation. For example in the motion picture Elephant, the Process theory argues that the two serial killers learned such violent acts through the use of violent computer games and imitation of the Nazis leader, Hitler. The argument advanced by these different schools of thought appears convincing, because violence in society can be explained through distributively of these approaches. When these schools of thought are viewed cr itically, there appears to be a probing headway that needs to be answered.Among each of these theories which contributes more to violence in society? Considering the importance of each of these schools of thought, it will be difficult if not infeasible to adequately explain violence from the perception of one of these approaches. This is true because each of these approaches interplay to influence ones behaviour depending on the situation. For example, using the movie Elephant, the Process system will argue that the serial killers learned their cowardly act through watching violent video games (observation) their attempt to observe Nazis leader Hitler was the precursor of their actions.On the other hand, the Structural Theory will argue that it is because of the way society is structured that the serial killers were able acquired guns to perpetuate their acts. Similarly, if society is structured in such a way that getting violent computer games are almost impossible to get, p erhaps the killers might not be able to procure such implements of war or learn violent behaviour. In same vein, the Conflict start says the power struggle between the ruling class and the working class creates imbalance family structure, which they claim resulted in poor parental upbringing.This results in violent acts because the children are not properly catered for. The Role and Effect of the mass media on Violence Research on media influence in violence has been concerned with possible negative effects of icon to violent films. What messages, for example do children take away from their exposure to various violent movies? According to the empiric Learning Theory Bandura, et al, in their Bobo wench study cited in Holmes (1988), explains that the media encourages children to do work their problems by violent means they further maintain that constant exposure to violence normalizes violence (p. 100).Critics of the Bobo doll experiment have pointed out that the doll was the type of toy that invited aggression, and also since the filmstrip used in the experiment lacked a plot, it contained no justification for the violence of children. .Other scholars like Alfred Hitchcocks as cited in Holmes (1988) argues that tracing the direct effects of the media is a very difficult task. The power for this according to him is that when the media operates in the natural environment, their influence is only one factor among many other factors this is because what they see and hear is most likely monitored by their parents (p. 8). Hitchcock further explains that even when children are exposed to violent movies through the media, this violent act is further rein obligate if the parents, themselves also engages in any forms of violence. The media reflects nearly every aspect of a society these reflections are not necessarily accurate. This is because violence is not accurately represented by the media. The intelligence agency media in particular, provides an important forum in which violent acts are selectively gathered up, invested with a broader meaning, and do available to public consumption (Ksenych, 2003, p. 35).The media has the power to shape the issue and to shape the consciousness of viewers by sensationalizing and trivializing cases of abuse. A good example of this is the misleading representation of the percentage of violence as reported by the media and the one reported by statistics Canada (Ksenych, 2003 p. 35). Structural Violence Structural Violence according to Anglin (1998) is violence produced by structures of domination, form of expropriation of rattling economic and non-material resources and operations of systems of social stratification or categorization that alloy peoples chances of survival (p. 46). Through structural forms of violence, persons are socially and culturally marginalized in ways that deny them the opportunity for emotional and physical wellbeing.Walker (2003) sees Structural Violence as the constraints o n human potential caused by economic and political structures (p. 1). Similarly, Fiske (2006) contrasts Structural Violence and Direct Violence. Fiske argues that structural violence is manifested in social inequalities, and almost always invisible, embedded in social structures. Direct violent on the other hand, is overt and has a perpetrator of the harmful actions (p. 47). Thus, structural violence occurs whenever people are at disadvantaged by political, economic and cultural traditions. Structural Violence on the cardinal People The stolen generation is the name generally given to the Aboriginal families adopted into non Aboriginal families as a result of government policies on assimilation (Mellor, 2006, p. 82). According to Holmes (1998) the first British and French colonist made contact with the Aborigines primarily to exploit their labour power in the fur trade (p. 270). Holmes further explains that the Aborigines were under paid in exchange of their labour.Furthermore, as the fur trade declined and agriculture expanded the colonists forcefully took over the blue-chip lands inhabited by the Aboriginal people. Fiske (2006) sees structural violence against the Aboriginal from the perception of cultural marginalization. Fiske explains after confederation, the Canadian government used assimilation to gain control over the Aborigines. The tool used to promote this end was the Indian act of 1876 (p. 248). This act not only controls every aspect of the lives of the primordial people, but it also laid out who would be bound or not bound by the act.For example, the Status Indians were those bound by the act, and were verboten by the act from owning lands, from voting, and from purchasing or consuming alcohol. By same token, the groups not included in the act are Non-Status Indian. Fiske further explains that prior to 1985, the Aborigines women were excluded from Indian register when they married non-Indians. Similarly, these women were not only forced out o f their community, but were also stripped of their rights to property inheritance. The children born in this marriage were also denied Indian status.By same token, Walker, (2003) explains that there was also forms of structural violence against indigenous knowledge production (p. 37). This is evidence in Eurocentric research paradigms which distort indigenous experience as expressed in the following quote To assume that phenomena from another world view can be adequately explained from a totally foreign world view is the essence of psychological and philosophical imperialism. Consequently, forcing indigenous researchers to fit their approach indoors western paradigms ignores the premise that all research paradigms have a pecific cultural foundation. Walker further explains that this cultural bias of the dominant western society is based on the assumptions that the western methodology was universal (p. 38). From the foregoing, it can be seen that the indigenous people of Canada wer e not only subjected to forms of inhuman condition, they saw the thievery of their resources and culture, marginalization, and discrimination (Naiman, 2006, p. 272).