Sharp force trauma relating to cultural anthropology

Aggression and Violent Behavior 27 (2016) 158–163

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aggression and Violent Behavior

Causes and cures V: The sociology and anthropology of violence☆

Bandy X. Lee Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

☆ N.B.: This is a continuation of “The Causes and Cures E-mail address: [email protected].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.03.001 1359-1789/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history: Received 13 November 2015 Received in revised form 27 February 2016 Accepted 1 March 2016 Available online 3 March 2016

The past two years have been a landmark moment for violence prevention, with the publication of The Global Sta- tus Report on Violence Prevention 2014; a historic resolution on violence by the 67th World Health Assembly; and the release of multiple documents on violence by international and United Nations entities, with a corresponding building of momentum in scholarship. Most notably, in September 2015, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, addressing the need for violence prevention at an unprec- edented scale. In this context, more than ever, violence studies have become a field of its own right. Still, a sys- tematic approach of the topic has been lacking, and no textbook yet synthesizes the knowledge of multiple disciplines toward a cogent understanding. This article is the fourth of a series of fifteen articles that will cover, as an example, an outline of the Global Health Studies course entitled, “Violence: Causes and Cures,” reviewing the major bio-psycho-social and structural-environmental perspectives on violence. Based on the tenet that in- dividual violence does not occur in isolation from social and cultural forces, it reviews the contributions of soci- ology and anthropology. Although much of sociology has shied away from the topic of violence other than through its study of deviance and crime, and much of anthropology's ethnographic methods have made research difficult in contexts of violent conflict, both bring new potentials. Concepts such as social belonging and cultural symbols can bring important insight into the nature of violence.

© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Violence studies Homicide Suicide Collective violence Sociology Anthropology

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 2. Evolution of the two disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 3. Sociological theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 4. Anthropological perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

We are living through a landmark moment for violence prevention. The past two years, especially, have seen an outpouring of documents reflecting a growing focus on the problem of violence and multilateral collaborations to solve it. In December 2014, for example, the World Health Organization, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, and the United Nations Development Programme (WHO, UNODC, & UNDP, 2014) joined forces to launch The Global Status Report on Violence Prevention 2014, detailing the efforts of 133 countries to address inter- personal violence. It is the first major report on violence since the World Report on Violence and Health (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, &

of Violence” series.

Lozano, 2002), an influential document that consolidated all the existing science on violence for the first time. In the same year, the 67th World Health Assembly (WHA, 2014) adopted a historic resolution addressing violence, bringing particularly to focus women, children, and other vulnerable members of the populations subject to systematic structural and institutional violence. Furthermore, Global Study on Ho- micide 2013: Trends, Contexts, Data (UNODC, 2014), Hidden in Plain Sight: A Statistical Analysis of Violence against Children (United Nations Children's Fund [UNICEF], 2014a), Ending Violence against Children: Six Strategies for Action (UNICEF, 2014b), Preventing Suicide: A Global Imper- ative (WHO, 2014), and Preventing Youth Violence: Taking Action and Generating Evidence (WHO, 2015), all appeared within a two-year time span, highlighting some of the major forms of violence. Most

159B.X. Lee / Aggression and Violent Behavior 27 (2016) 158–163

notably, on September 25, 2015, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations [UN], 2015), addressing the need for violence prevention at an unprec- edented scale and recognizing the interdependence between sustained peace and sustainable development. In this context, more than ever, it is time for violence studies to become a field of its own right, with university-level instruction capable of addressing the complexities and commonalities of the different forms of violence beyond the current “niche-based” study. Meanwhile, ongoing worldwide events point to the importance of this life-or-death issue and the need for a cogent un- derstanding that is more than the sum of its parts.

Over several issues, Aggression and Violent Behavior has graciously offered to publish a lecture series that has been implemented through the Global Health Studies Program at Yale College in a course entitled, “Violence: Causes and Cures.” While it does not purport to be the defin- itive sequence for reviewing all the major bio-psycho-social and structural-environmental perspectives on violence, it is a proposal for a systematic approach. This article consists of the fifth of this fifteen ar- ticle series, which carries the following order:

1. Introduction: Toward a New Definition 2. The Biology of Violence 3. The Psychology of Violence 4. The Symbolism of Violence (in this issue) 5. The Sociology and Anthropology of Violence (in this issue) 6. The Political Science and Economics of Violence 7. Structural Violence 8. Environmental Violence 9. Consequences of Violence

10. Criminal Justice Approaches 11. International Law Approaches 12. Public Health Approaches 13. Global Medicine Approaches 14. Nonviolence Approaches 15. Synthesis and Integration

1. Introduction

Man is by nature a social animal. -Aristotle, The Politics (fourth century B.C.).

Sociology and anthropology can illumine a great deal about violence. Sociology as a field deals with the scientific study of human society and social behavior. It advances our understanding of the bio-psycho-social- environmental nature of human behavior (Lee, 2015a), by revealing that what appear to be purely individual actions do not occur in isolation from social forces. It thus interconnects relationships, the family, the community, and society. Anthropology is the scientific study of human- ity, which describes the workings of societies around the world through comparative and cross-cultural (sometimes historical) methods, espe- cially through the investigation of cultures outside one's own. While so- ciology and anthropology have developed independently as fields and typically have their own departments, they have converged in methods and populations of study over time. For this reason, we group them to- gether in this article, even though the large body of contribution from each field would merit more than an article of each its own; in fact, each would probably require an entire book to do the content justice. However, the aim of this article series is to show an overview of how to think about violence from the perspective of the important fields of study and not to be comprehensive in coverage of each of these fields.

For instance, sociology shows us that things that seem random at the individual level can make sense at the societal level, as we see in epi- demics of homicide or suicide (Lee, Wexler & Gilligan, 2014). One might, and many have, practiced it as “psychology writ large”; in other words, it studies the dynamics of society instead of the individual. An- thropology probes into culture, or what Ruth Benedict (1934) has

described as “personality writ large.” French sociologist Émile Durkheim (1897), for example, showed that even the most private act of suicide had more to do with societal than individual characteristics. This holds all the more true for interpersonal and collective violence, as anthropology has revealed, through its study of the ethnic, gendered, class-based dimensions of violence (Rylko-Bauer, Whiteford, & Farmer, 2009). A major contribution of anthropology in the study of human so- ciety has been to break the near-exclusive focus on the Global North. American anthropologist Franz Boas (1938), by withholding theory be- cause of the complexity of cultures, encouraged detailed, objective re- cording and study of ethnographic findings; this led to the pioneering approach of studying cultures from their own historical background and perspective (Moore, 2008). The fields are not without limitations in the study of violence, however, and their strengths can also be their weaknesses. The intimate methods of anthropology have made contexts of violent conflict difficult to research, and its disciplinary purview of being anti-theoretical and relativistic has made it blind to genocides about to happen (Scheper-Hughes, 2004). Much of sociology has also shied away from violence research (Walby, 2012), other than its some- what remote subfield criminology, which focuses on criminal violence and crimes that are convictable within the social institution of criminal justice. Nevertheless, these two fields have great potential to make some of the most important contributions to a broader understanding of violence.

2. Evolution of the two disciplines

Social analysis began far before the existence of any discipline. In Western tradition, this is thought to have begun with Ancient Greek philosopher Plato, who was concerned with proper government and the application of laws. In East Asian tradition, Ancient Chinese philoso- phers such as Confucius focused on avoiding chaos and violence through the emphasis on social roles. In medieval Islam, Ibn Khaldun, a fourteenth-century North African scholar, is considered as the father of sociology; he expounded in Muqaddimah his social-scientific reason- ing on social cohesion and social conflict (Enan, 2007). In France, the philosopher of science Auguste Comte (1848) coined the term sociology, proposing sociological positivism as a remedy for social ills. Durkheim (1894) rejected this logic, but along with Karl Marx and Max Weber from Germany, formally established the field as a science of social insti- tutions. Durkheim's (1897) case study of suicide rates among Catholic and Protestant populations distinguished sociological analysis from psychology or philosophy. By carefully examining suicide statistics in different police districts, he attempted to demonstrate that Catholic communities have a lower suicide rate than that of Protestants, something he attributed to social—as opposed to individual or psychological—causes (Wacquant, 1993). Through such studies he pos- ited that sociology would be able to determine whether any given soci- ety is “healthy” or “pathological” and seek social reform to counter organic breakdown, or social anomie (a lack of moral standards in an in- dividual or a group due to the loss of social bonds). Sociology quickly evolved as an academic response to the perceived challenges of moder- nity, such as industrialization, urbanization, secularization, and the pro- cess of “rationalization” (Habermas, 1987). Sociology interacted with psychology, jurisprudence, economics, and philosophy, with theories being appropriated in a variety of different fields (Giddens, Duneier, & Applebaum, 2007). Since 1894, American sociologists George Herbert Mead (1934) and Charles Cooley (Cooley & Angell, 1930) influenced the rise of social psychology and the symbolic interactionism of the mod- ern Chicago School. Symbolic interactionism emphasizes social meanings that individuals create through their interactions with each other (Dennis & Martin, 2005). The contemporary discipline of sociology has two major theoretical frameworks, among others: the historical founda- tions of functionalist (Durkheim) and conflict-centered (Marx) ac- counts of social structure (Abend, 2008). Functionalism focuses on social institutions, the norms they create, and the effects these norms

160 B.X. Lee / Aggression and Violent Behavior 27 (2016) 158–163

have on behavior (Jones, 2007). Social conflict theory explains social be- havior by describing how individuals compete for power (Dahrendorf, 1958).

Cross-cultural records of local characteristics date as far back as the early writings of Mesopotamia (Third Dynasty of Ur), the Sanskrit texts of Hindu cosmology (the Purāṇas), the early imperial records of China (Qin Dynasty), and the father of history Herodotus' accounts of cultures beyond the Hellenic realm (Raaflaub & Talbert, 2009). Anthro- pology as a field, however, began much later. Danish pioneering scien- tists Caspar and Thomas Bartholins (1647) defined anthropology as “the science that treats of man.” French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1755), who formulated ideas on the natural man, without the oppressive effects of Western civilization, had profound effects on the field. However, research only continued with short-lived organiza- tions such as the Société Ethnologique de Paris, the Ethnological Society of New York, and the Ethnological Society of London in the nineteenth century, for the purposes of liberal, anti-slavery, and pro-human- rights causes. They maintained international connections and published their own journals, until the twentieth century, when many thousands of higher educational institutions established anthropology depart- ments (Eriksen & Nielsen, 2001). Boas and Polish anthropologist Bronisław Malinowski (1944) established the field's emphasis on long-term, in-depth examination and participant experiential immer- sion. The findings have been used to frame cultural critiques against ra- cial ideologies, gender inequality, and more recently, post-colonial oppression in favor of multiculturalism (Eriksen, 2004). The cultural an- thropological tradition is said to have originated in North America, while the social anthropological tradition has its roots in Europe (Rapport, 2014). Cultural anthropology emphasizes culturally patterned thought and behavior (Winthrop, 1991), whereas social anthropology is dedicated to the study of distant civilizations in their traditional and contemporary forms (Lewis, 2009). Sociology and anthropology have merged methods and subjects of study over time. Despite their broad sociocultural perspectives, neither has yet advanced major theories nor concepts on violence (Accomazzo, 2012; Malesevic, 2010), and these remain areas of great potential exploration.

3. Sociological theories

While human society is enormous and highly complex, it is possible to formulate theories about it and to test them, which is why sociology is a science, and a science that is very useful to studying violence. In- deed, the nature of violence forces us to see that individuals are not sep- arate but belong to a wider unit of organization, for without the wider context, even individual violence remains unpredictable and inexplica- ble. It is impossible to cover all that sociology has to offer in the under- standing of violence: its topics of study include the causes of crime, poverty, and many other social problems that are closely associated with it. However, a few principles are worth highlighting. The first is functionalism: it proposes that the social organization functions as a whole, with norms and institutions acting as “organs” that work togeth- er within the larger “body” of society (Spencer, 1876). Much as in sys- tems theory of biology (Lee, 2015b), we learn that, not only is society not reducible to the dynamics of individuals alone, but is also possible to study how it behaves just as one can study how an individual be- haves. In fact, functionalism has frequently looked to biology for its clos- est and most compatible model for conceptualizing structure beyond the individual parts (Giddens, 1984). Societies can take on characteris- tics that mimic individual organisms, have collective agency, and act as an indivisible unit. This is how sociology can be a systematic study of social life and is important to the study of violence, which is largely concerned with uncovering causes and prevention methods for a phe- nomenon that we designate to be a social problem.

Unlike functionalist theories that emphasize the cohesiveness of sys- tems, as in healthy organisms, conflict theory critiques the inequality be- tween particular groups, as in the fragmented states of pathology.

History is a natural course of evolution that succeeds or fails to correct these ills, as the father of social conflict theory Marx (Marx & Engels, 1848) has described:

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild- master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes (pp. 7–8).

Marx rejected the prevailing explanation of social problems in terms of the shortcomings of individuals. Together with his collaborator Frie- drich Engels, they defined class consciousness as workers' awareness of themselves as a unified class in opposition to a capitalist system that op- presses them.

Within this larger scope, interactionism has developed and become one of the dominant sociological perspectives of today. It derives social processes (such as conflict, cooperation, identity formation) from human interaction and is the study of how individuals act in society. Sym- bolic interaction, in particular, has highlighted subjective meanings and the empirical unfolding of social processes, creating the influential Chica- go School before and after World War II (Fine, 1995). This approach moves away from the macro- to the micro-level to analyze society in terms of the shared reality that people construct through their interac- tions. People use symbolic communications to understand and navigate through the world, contributing to a complex, ever-changing web of col- lective meaning-construction (Macionis & Gerber, 2010). Shaped by Weber (1922), George Herbert Mead (1964), and Erving Goffman (1959), among others, this perspective best bridges the symbolic charac- ter of human beings as discussed in the preceding article (Lee, 2016–in this issue) and the social reality we construct through meaningful sym- bols. Relevant to this is social belonging, as Weber articulated, as a funda- mental human need, deemed essential for optimal functioning (Easterbrook & Vignoles, 2013). Factors creating a strong sense of belong- ing include relationships characterized by interdependence, frequent in- teractions, and intimacy (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). A lack of belonging has been connected to increased risk of self-harm and suicide (Timmons, Selby, Lewinsohn, & Joiner, 2011). Related to belongingness is the concept of social inclusion and exclusion, which have strong links to beliefs in equality and inequality (Richmond & Saloojee, 2006). Move- ment toward political inclusion, for example, is a way to reduce political violence and violent protests (Osakwe, 2012). Similarly, reducing inequal- ities in gender norms can help reduce violence against women (Hilbert & Krishnan, 2000), while having strong cross-ethnic friendships is correlat- ed with positive attitudes about other racial groups (Tropp & Prenovost, 2008).

Utilitarianism, or exchange theory, explains social stability and change as a process of negotiations and exchanges between parties. It upholds two major assumptions: (a) cost–benefit analyses and comparisons of al- ternatives are the basis of human relationships; and (b) individuals, in interacting with others, will always seek to maximize their wins. Similar to rational choice theory in economics, rational actors are assumed to have a knowledge of alternatives; a knowledge of the consequences of the various alternatives; an ordering of preferences of outcomes; and a decision to select among the possible alternatives (Whitford, 2002). Un- like economic exchange, however, the elements of social exchange are variable over time, from person to person, and not reducible to a single quantitative exchange rate (West & Turner, 2007). Proponents of this the- ory include George C. Homans (1961), Peter Blau (1964), and Richard Emerson (1976). March and Simon (1958) brought nuances to the theory by noting that an individual's rationality is bounded by the context or or- ganizational setting.

Various syntheses have emerged from these approaches, and sociol- ogy is helpful in its contribution of the ecological framework of violence, whereby levels of individual, relationships, community, and society are

161B.X. Lee / Aggression and Violent Behavior 27 (2016) 158–163

in dynamic interrelation. The field helps us to navigate the not-so-easily resolvable dichotomies of structure and agency, subjectivity and objec- tivity, and statics and dynamics. In other words, do individuals make free choices, or are there factors that limit these choices? Is observation primarily based in individual perception, or are there external, shared realities? Lastly, is it more useful to employ methods of historical evolu- tion, or snapshots of social life? Each of these questions have implica- tions for understanding violence.

4. Anthropological perspectives

While sociology attempts to describe the workings of society through one or more grand theories, anthropology is more concerned with demonstrating variety and respecting the range of manifestations that human societies can have. Hence, in progressing in the bio-psy- cho-social-environmental paradigm of human affairs, we are moving from the intrapersonal to the interpersonal, and then from within- society to between-society comparisons. More concerned about show- ing than telling, anthropology is largely a cataloging of different cultures by time period or geographic region. While traditional emphasis has been on remote regions, more recently looking “across the tracks,” such as in urban anthropology in the United States, has become popular (Hannerz, 1980). Regardless of proximity or distance, some principles remain important, such as the use of both emic (insider) and etic (out- sider) observations in studying a culture. These derive from the linguis- tic terms of phonemic and phonetic: the former relate to language- specific sound units that a native speaker recognizes (but a foreigner does not), while the latter refers to objective, universal sounds that are common across languages. Phonemes solidify in the brain after a certain age range, and therefore when one tries to learn a foreign lan- guage, one carries the phonemes of one's own language to the new lan- guage, resulting in an “accent”. Widening this distinction to the study of cultures, insider perspectives can reveal meanings and nuances of par- ticular cultural features, while outsider points of view can grasp the uniqueness and commonality of those features. The ability to incorpo- rate both perspectives is an essential skill, since the pervasive nature of culture makes it difficult to describe when one is too close, while un- derstanding its intricacies is difficult from the outside. Furthermore, there is the challenge of making “objective” descriptions without bring- ing in one's own terminology, since no observer is culturally neutral.

These concepts then bring up universalist versus relativist notions. A universalist would say that violence, like any illness, is innate (e.g., a bi- ological “instinct”) and ubiquitous, and differences are superficial be- cause culture is “added onto” the universal core. Psychiatric disorders, for example, were once considered universal at the core with only dif- ferent expressions based on different cultural conventions. However, even schizophrenia, which has an almost uniform prevalence of one percent throughout the world, is found to have better prognosis in less economically developed countries (Jablensky et al., 1994). As stud- ies increasingly reveal that not only does culture shape meaning and significance for the individual but also determines the causes, manifes- tations, and final course of many major psychiatric illnesses, medical an- thropologists have increasingly espoused relativist positions. This holds all the more true for violence, which has fluctuated widely in type and prevalence across cultures and over time.

Anthropology has studied violent societies and peaceful societies. As much as violence is said to have been ubiquitous, a lot of societies are not at war, most societies most of the time are not at war, and even so- cieties at war are not violent all the time. Therefore, it is very difficult to make the claim that war has been omnipresent throughout history. On the other hand, the rates of violence we currently measure are unaccept- able, given the detriment to human life and the knowledge that it is pre- ventable. It seems more productive, rather, to consider the cultural characteristics that peaceful societies carry, to help inform possible means of prevention. A review of 24 peaceful societies (Bonta, 1996) has shown, for example, that their ways of conflict resolution differ

from the management systems found in other, more violent, societies and that their worldviews of peacefulness and structures to reinforce those worldviews help to distinguish them. They put into question no- tions about conflict and conflict resolution that high-income-country scholars commonly hold: namely, that violent conflict is inevitable in all societies; that punishment and armed force prevent internal and external violence; that political structures are necessary to prevent violent con- flicts; and that violent means are positive and necessary. The review re- veals that over half of the peaceful societies have no recorded violence; they rarely punish other adults (apart from the threat of ostracism); they handle conflicts with outside societies in the same peaceful ways that they approach internal conflicts; they do not look to outside govern- ments when they have internal disputes; and they have a highly negative view of conflict.

The existence of peaceful societies supports the highly symbolic and subjective, rather than practical and objective, nature of violence. The notion of violent imaginaries arises from the view that violence needs to be imagined in order to be carried out (Schmidt & Schröder, 2001). Comparing cultures points to the universal underneath the different patterns, and that is the symbolic nature of human beings (Lee, 2016–in this issue): cultures, like individuals, do not strike out at random but fol- low cultural norms of appropriate action, shared moral imperatives, rites, rituals, and meaning. For example, an important code of legitimating war is historicity—symbolically reinterpreting and reenacting prior wars, fighting from memory or over memory, such as the power to establish one's view of the past against rival claims. American anthropologist Veena Das (2000) notes a new kind of violence that has emerged in the last few decades, going beyond contractual violence to involve global flows of images, capital, and people that enmesh with identity forma- tion within the same local world. In other words, wars are not only fought over resources but are a resource for making and remaking worldviews. For example, violence in Northern Ireland has helped to di- vide or to distinguish between groups (Feldman, 1991). Violent imagi- naries form through narratives, performances, and imageries, which become authoritative justifications for war, which are contingent on the positions and strategic interests of those who disseminate them. Stories can keep alive the memory of past glories (Meeker, 1979; Rosaldo, 1980) or perceived injustices (Malkki, 1995; Swedenburg, 1995), which states can capitalize upon to promote violence to their own ends (Čolović, 1995). Performances are public rituals in which an- tagonistic relationships are staged and intensified, such as the arousal of war frenzy in fascist Germany and Italy and post-September 11 United States (Kellner, 2010). Visual imageries such as banners, murals, or the media (Jarman, 1997; Peteet, 1994) can also powerfully state positions of antagonism. While these are seldom entirely new inventions or dis- continuous from realities or past events, a reframing for current applica- tion instigates action. They also occur where symbolic representations are under threat: for example, just as globalization has made identities tied to space and history more fluid, nationalism, ethnicity, and religion have become high currencies in conflict (Appadurai, 1998; Kapferer, 1988). State failure can sometimes facilitate subsequent political violence by making these representations more prominent (Kosmatopoulos, 2011). To view contemporary ethnic or religious conflicts outside of these symbolic interpretations is to miss their meaning; violent imaginaries become violent practices because of their social and cultural poignancy.

5. Conclusion

Principles of sociology and anthropology can illumine a great deal about the social and cultural dynamics of violence. Violence is gaining more focus as a topic of study within these fields as well, especially as perspectives from the Global South and of minorities, and women gar- ner ground, but also because of the greater attention on violence as it changes in form and visibility both politically and privately. For exam- ple, research on violence in relation to inequalities of gender, ethnicity,

162 B.X. Lee / Aggression and Violent Behavior 27 (2016) 158–163

sexuality, and religion is advancing our understanding of new forms of violence (Ertürk and Purkayastha, 2012; Iganski, 2008). Experiences of postcolonialism, war, and conflict zones are important in these new forms of violence (Caforio and Kümmel, 2005; Fanon, 1990). Local, na- tional, international, and global processes are interconnected at macro and micro levels and influence the level of violence in a society. Socio- logical and anthropological methods can bring strength to the treat- ment of violence by highlighting the interaction between these different levels (Purkayastha, 2009), which also reveal how different types of violence are also interconnected (Lee, Marotta, Blay-Tofey, Wang & de Bourmont, 2014b), and by employing intimate and detailed ethnographic methods (Moore, 2008). As several recent, important at- tempts to go beyond the analysis of violence only as crime or in sole re- lation to states show (Malesevic, 2010; Ray, 2011; Scheper-Hughes & Bourgois, 2004; Wieviorka, 2009), sociology and anthropology have great potential for providing more general social theories of violence that highlight dynamics between the different spheres.

Acknowledgment

The author would like to gratefully acknowledge Grace Lee for her scholarship and underlying inspiration for this article series.

References

Abend, G. (2008). The meaning of ‘Theory’. Sociological Theory, 26(2), 173–199. Accomazzo, Sarah (2012). Anthropology of violence: Historical and current theories, con-

cepts, and debates in physical and socio-cultural anthropology. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 22(5), 535–552.

Appadurai, A. (1998). Dead certainty: Ethnic violence in the era of globalization. Development and Change, 29(4), 905–925.

Aristotle (fourth century B.C.; 1988). The Politics. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Benedict, R. (1934). Patterns of culture. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Bartholin, C., & Bartholin, T. (1647). Preface. Institutions anatomiques de Gaspar Bartholin,

augmentées et enrichies pour la seconde fois tant des opinions et observations nouvelles des modernes. Paris, France: M. Hénault et J. Hénault.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal at- tachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: J. Wiley. Boas, F. (1938). The mind of primitive man. New York, NY: Macmillan Company. Bonta, B. D. (1996). Conflict resolution among peaceful societies: The culture of peaceful-

ness. Journal of Peace Research, 33(4), 403–420. Caforio, G., & Kümmel, G. (2005). Military missions and their implications reconsidered: The

aftermath of September 11th. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. Čolović, I. (1995). Bordell der krieger: Folklore, poliitb undKrieg. Osnabrück, Germany: Fibre. Comte, A. (1848). Discours sur l'ensemble du positivisme. Ou, Exposition sommarie de la

doctrine philosophique et sociale propre à la grande république occidentale etc., Paris, France.

Cooley, C. H., & Angell, R. C. (1930). Sociological theory and social research: Selected papers of Charles Horton Cooley. New York, NY: H. Holt and Co.

Dahrendorf, R. (1958). Toward a theory of social conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(2), 170–183.

Das, V. (2000). Violence and subjectivity. Berkeley: University of California Press. Dennis, A., & Martin, P. J. (2005). Symbolic interactionism and the concept of power.

British Journal of Sociology, 56(2), 191–213. Durkheim, E. (1894). Les règles de la méthode sociologique. Revue Philosophique de la

France et de l'Étranger, 37, 465–498. Durkheim, E. (1897). Le suicide, étude de sociologie. Paris: F. Alcan. Easterbrook, M., & Vignoles, V. L. (2013). What does it mean to belong? European Journal

of Social Psychology, 43(6). Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335–362. Enan, M. A. (2007). Ibn Khaldun: His life and works. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Other Press

Sdn Bhd. Eriksen, T. H., & Nielsen, F. S. (2001). A history of anthropology. London, U.K.: Pluto Press. Eriksen, T. H. (2004). What is anthropology? London, U.K.: Pluto. Ertürk, Y., & Purkayastha, B. (2012). Linking research, policy and action: A look at the

work of the special rapporteur on violence against women. Current Sociology, 60(1), 142–160.

Fanon, F. (1990). The wretched of the earth. London, U.K.: Penguin. Feldman, A. (1991). Formations of violence: The narrative of the body and political terror in

Northern Ireland. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Fine, G. A. (1995). A second Chicago school? The development of a postwar American sociol-

ogy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cam-

bridge, U.K.: Polity.

Giddens, A., Duneier, M., & Applebaum, R. (2007). Introduction to sociology (6th ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Habermas, J. (1987). The philosophical discourse of modernity: Modernity's consciousness of

time. Polity Press. Hannerz, U. (1980). Exploring the city: Inquiries toward an urban anthropology. New York,

NY: Columbia University Press. Hilbert, J. C., & Krishnan, S. P. (2000). Addressing barriers to community care of battered

women in rural environments: Creating a policy of social inclusion. Journal of Health & Social Policy, 12(1), 41–52.

Iganski, P. (2008). ‘Hate crime’ and the city. Bristol, U.K.: Policy Press. Jablensky, A., Sartorius, N., Cooper, J. E., Anker, M., Korten, A., & Bertelsen, A. (1994). Cul-

ture and schizophrenia. British Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 434–436. Jarman, N. (1997). Material conflicts: Parades and visual displays in Northern Ireland. Ox-

ford, U.K.: Berg. Jones, S. S. (2007). Functionalism of mind and functionalism of society: The concept of con-

science and Durkheim's division of social labour. Durkheimian Studies, 13(1), 85–104. Kapferer, B. (1988). Legends of people, myths of state: Violence, intolerance, and political cul-

ture in Sri Lanka and Australia. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Kellner, D. (2010). Cinema wars: Hollywood film and politics in the Bush-Cheney Era. West

Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell. Kosmatopoulos, N. (2011). Toward an anthropology of ‘state failure’: Lebanon's Leviathan

and peace expertise. Social Analysis, 55(3), 115–142. Krug, E. G., Dahlberg, L. L., Mercy, J. A., Zwi, A. B., & Lozano, R. (2002). World report on vi-

olence and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (Retrieved on No- vember 27, 2015, from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/42495/1/ 9241545615_eng.pdf).

Lee, B. X., Wexler, B. E., & Gilligan, J. (2014a). Political correlates of violent death rates in the U.S., 1900–2010: Longitudinal and cross-sectional analyses. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(6), 721–728.

Lee, B. X., Marotta, P. L., Blay-Tofey, M., Wang, W., & de Bourmont, S. (2014b). Economic correlates of violent death rates in forty countries, 1962–2008: A cross-typological analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(6), 729–737.

Lee, B. X. (2015a). Causes and cures I: Toward a new definition. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 25(6), 199–203.

Lee, B. X. (2015b). Causes and cures II: The biology of violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 25(6), 204–209.

Lee, B. X. (2016). Causes and cures IV: The symbolism of violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 27, 152–157 (in this issue).

Lewis, I. M. (2009). Social and cultural anthropology in perspective: Their relevance in the modern world. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Macionis, J. J., & Gerber, L. M. (2010). Sociology. Seventh Canadian Ed. Toronto: Pearson Ed- ucation Canada.

Malesevic, S. (2010). The sociology of war and peace. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univer- sity Press.

Malinowski, B. (1944). A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays. Chapel Hill, NC: Uni- versity of North Carolina Press.

Malkki, L. H. (1995). Purity and exile: Violence, memory, and national cosmology among Hutu Refugees in Tanzania. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: J. Wiley. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). The manifesto of the communist party. London, U.K.: Workers’

Educational Association. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Mead, G. H. (1964). On social psychology: Selected papers. Chicago, IL: University of Chica-

go Press. Meeker, M. E. (1979). Literature and violence in North Arabia. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge

University Press. Moore, J. (2008). Visions of culture: An introduction to anthropological theories and theorists

(3rd ed.). Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Osakwe, E. (2012). The dynamics of citizenship participation and inclusion in Nigeria.

International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 6(11), 53–61. Peteet, J. (1994). Male gender and rituals of resistance in the Palestinian Intifada: A cultur-

al politics of violence. American Ethnologist, 21(1), 31–49. Purkayastha, B. (2009). Many views on peace. In: G. Caforio (Ed.), Advances in military so-

ciology: Essays in honor of Charles. U.K.: Emerald: C. Moskos. Bingley. Raaflaub, K., & Talbert, R. J. A. (2009). Geography and ethnography: Perceptions of the world

in pre-modern societies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Rapport, N. (2014). Social and cultural anthropology: The key concepts. London, U.K: Routledge. Ray, L. (2011). Violence and society. London, U.K.: Sage. Richmond, T., & Saloojee, A. (2006). Social inclusion: Canadian perspectives. Chicago, IL: In-

dependent Publishers Group. Rosaldo, R. (1980). Ilongot headhunting, 1883–1974: A study in society and history.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Rousseau, J. J. (1755). Discours sur l’origine et les fondements de l’inegalité parmi les

hommes. Amsterdam, Netherlands: M. M. Rey. Rylko-Bauer, B., Whiteford, L. M., & Farmer, P. (2009). Global health in times of violence.

Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research Press. Scheper-Hughes, N. (2004). Ishi's brain, Ishi's ashes: Anthropology and genocide. In N.

Scheper-Hughes, & P. Bourgois (Eds.), Violence in war and peace: An anthology (pp. 61–68). Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.

Scheper-Hughes, N., & Bourgois, P. (2004). Introduction: Making sense of violence. In N. Scheper-Hughes, & P. Bourgois (Eds.), Violence in war and peace: An anthology (pp. 1–27). Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.

Schmidt, B. E., & Schröder, I. (2001). Anthropology of violence and conflict. New York, NY: Routledge.

Spencer, Herbert (1876). The principles of sociology. 1, London, U.K.: Williams and Norgate.

163B.X. Lee / Aggression and Violent Behavior 27 (2016) 158–163

Swedenburg, T. (1995). Memories of revolt: The 1936–1939 rebellion and the Palestinian na- tional past. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Timmons, K. A., Selby, E. A., Lewinsohn, P. M., & Joiner, T. E. (2011). Parental displacement and adolescent suicidality: Exploring the role of failed belonging. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40(6).

Tropp, L. R., & Prenovost, M. A. (2008). The role of intergroup contact in predicting chil- dren’s interethnic attitudes: Evidence from meta-analytic and field studies. In: S. R. Levy, & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through adult- hood (pp. 236–248). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable develop- ment. New York, NY: United Nations (Retrieved on November 27, 2015, from: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/70/L.1&Lang=E).

United Nations Children's Fund (2014a). Hidden in plain sight: A statistical analysis of vio- lence against children. New York, NY: UNICEF (Retrieved on November 27, 2015, from: http://files.unicef.org/publications/files/Hidden_in_plain_sight_statistical_ analysis_EN_3_Sept_2014.pdf).

United Nations Children's Fund (2014b). Ending violence against children: Six strategies for action. New York, NY: UNICEF (Retrieved on November 27, 2015, from: http://www. unicef.org/publications/files/Ending_Violence_Against_Children_Six_strategies_for_ action_EN_2_Sept_2014.pdf).

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2014). Global study on homicide 2013: Trends, contexts, data. Vienna, Austria: United Nations (Retrieved on November 27, 2015, from: https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/GSH2013/ 2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf).

Wacquant, L., Positivism (1993). The Blackwell Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Social Thought. In: W. Outhwaite, & T. B. Bottomore (Eds.), Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Walby, S. (2012). Violence and society: Introduction to an emerging field of sociology. Current Sociology, 61(2), 95–111.

Weber, M. (1922). Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus; Die protestantischen Sekten und der Geist des Kapitalismus; Die Wirtschaftsethik der Weltreligionen. Tübingen. Germany: J.B.C. Mohr.

West, R., & Turner, L. (2007). Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Whitford, J. (2002). Pragmatism and the untenable dualism of means and ends: Why ra- tional choice theory does not deserve paradigmatic privilege. Theory and Society, 31(3), 325–363.

Wieviorka, M. (2009). Violence: A new approach. London, U.K.: Sage. Winthrop, R. (1991). Dictionary of concepts in cultural anthropology. Westport, CT:

Greenwood. World Health Assembly (2014). Strengthening the role of the health system in addressing

violence. Particular against women and girls, and against children. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (Retrieved on November 27, 2015, from: http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA67/A67_ACONF1Rev1-en.pdf).

World Health Organization (2014). Preventing suicide: A global imperative. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (Retrieved on November 27, 2015, from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/131056/1/9789241564779_eng.pdf).

World Health Organization (2015). Preventing youth violence: An overview of the evidence. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (Retrieved on November 27, 2015, from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/181008/1/9789241509251_eng.pdf? ua=1&ua=).

World Health Organization, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, & United Nations Development Program (2014). Global status report on violence prevention 2014. Gene- va, Switzerland: World Health Organization (Retrieved on November 27, 2015, from: http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/Reports/UNDP-GVA- violence-2014.pdf).