Sociological Perspectives of Violence

The focus of this paper is an all overview of different research articles on racialism and geomorphologic forcefulness against the aboriginal. personnel will be looked at from three schools of thoughts viz. the geomorphologic, conflict and process theories. The views of these different approaches to madness will be critically analyzed, except no value judgments will be placed on any of their perceptions of violence. Racism correspond to Headley (2000), racism is the infliction of unequal dish outation, motivated by the desire to dominate, based on aft(prenominal)math al unmatched (p. 23). Headley kick upstairs informs that this definition accommodates the distinction mingled with true racism which is the desire to deadening or dominate new(prenominal)s solely on the basis of race, and ordinary racism which he sees as universal features of human biology (p. 224). Headley make headway hold that a racist is not merely roughly integrity who wishes to put passel ano thers race, but overly suppress and assert his/her experience superiority by means of a uncivilised coiffureion (p. 224).Naiman (2006) defines racism as hostility, aggression, and antagonism toward non-members of a particular group based on their physical char make outeristics, notably skin colour (p. 265). Similarly, Spencer (1998) sees racism as the transformation of race prejudice and / or ethnocentrism through the exercise of power against a racial group defined as reason outior, by individual and institution (p. 1). To infer from the foregoing definitions, a common attribute of racism is the belief that iodines own race is superior to another.This belief is based on the erroneous assumption that physical attributes of members of a racial group set their social behaviour as well as their mental and apt char carryeristics (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 according to Headley, the term heathen prejudice was mathematical functiond (p. 236). Naiman (2006) posits that racism is a relatively recent phenomenon, and its ontogeny as a systematic world-view developed concurrently with the rise of capitalist and its global expansion (p. 66) Naiman promote explains that some scholars define forms of social credulity prior to this capitalist era as racism, but he moreover asks that such social intolerance is more precisely seen as ethnocentrism (preference for ones own cultural traditions) or ethnic chauvinism (antagonism towards a particular group) (p. 267).Racism in Canada concord to Naiman (2006), some Canadians like to believe that racism is a relatively recent phenomenon linked to modern immigration patterns or comp ard 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 reality as describe by hi m is an unsightly history swept under the threadb be carpeting of its national myths (p. 269). Naiman further maintained that the history of racism in Canada begins with the subjection of Canadas aboriginal throng. force play Anglin (1998), states that an uncontroversial, exhaustive and precise definition of violence is difficult to find. Violence is understood as an incident in which an playacting individual intentionally injures another (p. 146).Anglin further explains that the action of the perpetrator throne be physical, or psychological. In same vein, Steinmetz (1989) defines uncivilized as an act carried out with the intension of, or perceived as having the intension of physically hurting another person. Strasburg (1978) defines violence as illegal use or threat of pound against a person. From the foregoing, it can be infer that angry behavior means physical force exerted for the aim of violating or abusing. There are three key terms which are likely to be present f or any action to be soma as a rampageous act.The action must 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 eccentric, the Conflict, Structural, and Process theories. Conflict possibleness Conflict theory is better understood as the Marxist theory. check to the theory, Crime is perceived as a function of competition for special(a) resources.That is, a social status in which an individual is perceived evaluated and interact 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 difference between these ii cl asses is a matter of relative power . Holmes further explains that the ruling class have sufficient power hence, they are able to label some proletariats behavior as criminal Structural theoryThe structural theory on the other hand, sees violence from the perception of cultural forces or neighborhood conditions. That is, our behavior is a product of our milieu. 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 behavior certain things are structured by the parliamentary procedure creates violent acts. For example, consider the film Elephant the structural theory will argue that it is because of the way family is structured, that people are able to acquire weapons to perpetuate violence.Similarly, heterogeneity of hostel inherently creates violence. This is because according to the theory, there is ensnare to be such takingss as cultural or religious conflicts due to these differences. Process theory According to the proponent of this theory, crime is a function of socialization and upbringing. Delinquent behaviour is chooseed like all other behavior through connecter with authoritative others and reference groups, especially parents and peers. It is through observation and interaction with these significant others we learn techniques for engaging in delinquent acts.According to Process theory, all forms of violent acts are learned through imitation and observation. For example in the moving 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 apiece of these approaches. When these schools of thought are viewed critically, there appears to be a probing question 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 impossible 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 conjecture will argue that the serial killers learned their dastardly act through watching violent video games (observation) their attempt to imitate Nazis leader Hitler was the precursor of their actions.On the other hand, the Structural conjecture 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, perhaps the killers might not be able to procure such wea ponry or learn violent behaviour. In same vein, the Conflict Approach says the power dispute between the ruling class and the working class creates imbalance family structure, which they use up 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 query on media influence in violence has been concerned with possible negatively charged effects of exposure to violent films. What messages, for example do children take remote from their exposure to various violent movies? According to the Observational Learning Theory Bandura, et al, in their Bobo doll study cited in Holmes (1988), explains that the media encourages children to solve 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 fiddle that invited aggression, and al ike since the filmstrip used in the experiment lacked a plot, it contained no excuse for the violence of children. .Other scholars like Alfred Hitchcocks as cited in Holmes (1988) argues that tracing the directly effects of the media is a very difficult task. The reason 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 sluice when children are exposed to violent movies through the media, this violent act is further reinforced 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 news media in particular, provides an key forum in which violent acts are selectively gathered up, invested with a broader meaning, and made 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 vital economic and non-material resources and trading operations of systems of social stratification or categorization that subvert 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 on human potential caused by economic and governmental stru ctures (p. 1). Similarly, Fiske (2006) contrasts Structural Violence and come in 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 bruising actions (p. 47). Thus, structural violence occurs whenever people are at disadvantaged by political, economic and cultural traditions. Structural Violence on the ancient deal 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 in general to exploit their labour power in the fur slyness (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 valuable 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 native 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 prohibited by the act from owning lands, from voting, and from purchasing or consuming alcohol. By same token, the groups not include 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 of their community, but were also stripped of their righ ts 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 innate knowledge production (p. 37). This is evidence in Eurocentric research paradigms which interlace indigenous experience as expressed in the following retell 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 within western paradigms ignores the expound 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 were not only subjected to forms of inhuman condition, th ey saw the theft of their resources and culture, marginalization, and discrimination (Naiman, 2006, p. 272).