--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On May 21, 2007, at 3:40 PM, Wojtek Sokolowski
> wrote:
>
> > The war effect theory does not explain
> > that. However, it is possible to extend this
> argument to other
> > factors
> > legitimizing violence e.g. the hip hop music and
> gangsta rap in
> > particular -
> > which would make the Archer's theory better suited
> to explaining
> > this kind
> > of violence.
>
> As I recall, something like half the hip hop records
> are bought by
> white suburban kids. They're not killing each other.
> People with no
> prospects are more likely to commit crimes than
> anyone else.
[WS:] When you accept the war hypothesis, then it is logical to accept the hip-hop hypothesis as well, as both stipulate the same causal mechanism - legitmation of violence leads to real violence. If it does not work in case of gangsta rap, it does not work in case of war either.
It is possible to argue that legitimation alone (be it by waging a war, by gangsta rap lyrics, or by any other form of legitimation, say, religious endorsements) is insufficient to cause violence, and other factors must be present for the actual violence to occur, which I think is a very sensible approach. However, that weakens the explanatory power of these theories by requiring explanations of thos addtional factors - which the legitimation theories do not provide.
I think that the Hirschi control theory, and Wolfgang's violent subculture theory which I cited earlier, can provide that additional explantion - the breakdown of community ties and socialization into violent groups (e.g. gangs). Having those two factors present may explain why a particular form of legitimation (war, gangsta rap, religion, etc.) may lead to greater incidence of violence in some groups that are exposed to that legitimation, but not in other. The problem, however, is that legitimation may be so intercorrelated with those other factors, that it may not explain any additional variance once you introduce the other two variables in the model.
In sum, I do not think much of the legitmation of violence approach in any variant (war, gangsta rap or religion.) In addition to methodological problems (e.g proper controls for alternative factors linked to violent behavior) I simply think that the causal model implicit in this theory - that exposure to certain idea leads to behavior stipulated by that idea - does not hold water. It pops up in popular or ideological discourse to blame a scapegoat of choice - (television, counterculture, government, relgion, etc.) - but it is a post facto rationalization that has no empirical support.
Wojtek
____________________________________________________________________________________Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/