The DisUnited States. Reimagining why violence happens to help drive determinants of peace.
Book review. Demmers, Jolle. 2012. Theories of violent conflict. An introduction. Routledge.
ISBN13: 978-0-415-55534-0. War (philosophy). Political violence (social aspects).
With the sudden and tragic escalation of violence exploding in the United States, it is wise to consider violent conflict determinates. A theoretical perspective can help us look upon violence with empathy, compassion, and wisdom. Then we can apply peacebuilding initiatives that restore trust and safety in a fractured society and happiness to its people.
Jolle Demmers' introduction to the Theories of Violent Conflict (2012) draws upon social scientists' research and applies their work to contemporary conflict. Through the text, the reader can consider their own perspective on intergroup violence and how social identity plays its part in the conflict's genesis.
Each person has an identity. This normative classification simply defines who or what we are. Demmers says, we have an identity, or we are weak and lost. Anything that impacts negatively on our identity can lead to anxiety and violence. Context plays its part in our identity. The United States political landscape has become increasingly fragmented. Recent isolationist policies of the President have divided people across a plethora of good versus bad narratives. Many Americans feel that their social identity is under threat, sometimes from seemingly invisible forces such as the fake news, conspiracy theories and outright lies.
Demmers discusses the importance of social identity as the relationship between the individual and their social environment. For me, this relational perspective includes, "I am a New Zealander; I am not an American. I am Anglican; I am not Muslim. I have empathy for others while I try to suspend judgement." In this context, multiple identities exist in parallel. Some may seem prominent, while others less so. At age 51, I began studying for a master's degree at the Eastern Mennonite University, Virginia. For three years, off and on, I lived in Harrisonburg and set about adjusting to my new home. From the outset, people struggled with my Kiwi accent. Occasionally, they reacted with confusion. Was I a student or a lecturer? They saw a white, middle-aged man and, naturally, assumed I was faculty. This experience confirms Demmers' observation that "our personal social identity can be different from the social identity projected on us from others – a result of the other person's normative construct and the context they exist within."
Social identity can change the rules and narratives about right or wrong. As a white male of European extraction, I was easily accepted into mainstream society with English as my first language. Not so easy for some of my cohort, possessing characteristics very different from mine. My classmates were from Africa, the Middle East, and South America. Demmers says that ethnicity is characterised by a shared culture and common ancestry, and speaks of a dichotomy between two common ways of analysing race: Positivist and Interpretive.
From the positivist viewpoint, ethnicity differences are natural, within our concept of nationhood. As a natural social phenomenon, violence is unavoidable, though it may be containable. Within this paradigm, society reacts to ethnic assumptions; when at least one social group has an adverse reaction, the result is conflict. Academic researchers, however, generally, reject the positivist viewpoint.
Most scholars support an Interpretive (constructivist) paradigm [Max Weber 1864-1920], where ethnicity defines boundaries between individuals and therefore, groups. While it recognises ethnic group boundaries as permeable and dynamic, violence does not result from an irrational, spontaneous eruption of mass anger. Instead, it is deliberately orchestrated by elites to increase group cohesion and solidarity of the masses. The elites foment ethnic violence to cement power. In today's world, elites may respond to systemic transformations beyond their control; they may also do this to facilitate market liberalisation and manage the economic recession. From this theory, Donald J Trump's behaviour provides many parallels.
In the Hollis Matrix [Demmers. P52. Table B], Interpretive theory conflicts with Positivist theory. It claims that ethnic groupness is the result of violence, not the cause. Demmers argues against falling into a unitary trap and failing to contrast relevant social identity. One way, she says, to avoid this unitary trap is to use the lens of "everyday primordialism," rather than setting up a contrast between Positivism and Interpretive. Both views support an understanding of ethnicity concerned with social meaning. Everyday primordialism encompasses the impact of popular culture and the media influence on the masses.
From my perspective – as a member of an out-group of non-resident aliens who are neutral observers of Trump's presidency – the two paradigms can be found within the same social movement. Let us consider the two primary presidential candidates given these models.
1. The Democratic candidate appears to have an interpretive approach to governance. In their opinion society can be understood. Therefore, violence is a construct of cognitive imperatives, and war is not inevitable. In this paradigm, the ability to learn and adapt is apparent. "Ethnicity is something we are socialised into." [Verkuyten, 2005].
2. The Republican candidate, with their divisive and elitist rhetoric, is operating within the Positivist paradigm, manifesting conduct akin to primordialism. ("…candidate traffics in prejudice, fears and lies on the campaign trail." President B Obama. By M Shear. New York Times. September 28, 2016).
To understand why the electorate might support a Positivist view, Demmers offers this explanation: People will follow social entrepreneurs as rational actors who pursue their own interests within the limits of what is strategically possible at that moment. Furthermore, it explains that as predatory elites, they can capture populist attitudes and foment group think. It seems these efforts to destabilise the political landscape is self-centred and egotistical.
Regrettably, the worst scenario for the U.S. citizens could be unintentional. Suppose an increasing number of disenfranchised individuals form common bonds. In that case, they may feel empowered to the point of becoming instruments of political and ethnic violence, having become subject to and manipulated by a group-think of fear and anxiety.
Demmers identifies this tension between two opposing views of inter-group violence as 1. being inherently related to a fundamental human need whereby violence is inevitable (POSITIVIST), or 2. being actively produced and politically constructed and thus equally deconstructed, if desired (INTERPRETIVE).
When we categorise our world and ourselves, we are attempting to simplify the complex. This is at the core of our social identity and helps explain why people who feel a threat to their identity turn against each other. Research to date would have us believe that Positivist and Interpretive theories of the Hollis Matrix are mutually exclusive. There is a notable gap in any cross-paradigm theorem. I agree with Demmers when she suggests that inquiry between the two disciplines is required to better understand the underlying assumptions on group formation and sources of ethnic violence.
Given the current political situation in the U.S., understanding the sources of identity-based violence and addressing them is required to minimise and eliminate violence.