On 2006/06/13, at 23:31, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> Jean Christophe:
>
>
> Is there a relation between the places where the rate goes up the
> most: Midwest + cities of 50.000~500.000 and the areas that are the
> most hit by the current administration in terms of unemployment,
> enrollment etc ?
>
> [WS:] I do not think this is the right question to ask of Archer's
> model.
> IIRC, he specifically rejects and individualistic connection (i.e.
> people
> who were involved in combat in one way or another are more prone to
> violence) for a collectivistic one. Specifically, he argues that the
> government decision to enter an armed conflict legitimizes the use of
> violence in general to solve differences of opinion, and that have a
> _generalized_ effect on the entire population, whether involved in war
> hostilities or not.
I was more thinking of places where unemployment and enrollment are high as places where social cohesion is the weekest. As far as enrollment is concerned, I was thinking about the fact that having so many young people away, when they normally would be productive and thus most probably contribute to social cohesion, is probably hurting those areas more so than having veterans coming back (something to which I was not meaning to refer to in the first place, sorry if that was not clear). So that in social-cohesion poor environment, state legitimized violence is more likely to produce violence based relations. ?
Jean-Christophe