it may have traction here on this list, but i'm still not buying it. it's too romantic for me. and it's like the thesis of bowling for columbine, which seemed like left-liberal wish fulfillment and some multivariate linear acrobatics than social science. there's been a significant rise since pa
[WS:] I fully agree with you. I was once attracted to Archer's argument and I still think that it is interesting in calling attention to negative effects of warmongering on collective consciousness, but it does not hold water as a behavioral model. For one thing, it is too general - there are many intervening factors between popular perception of what government or the media say or do, and how people act in everyday life. That does not mean that what government/media say has no effect, but that this effect rather weak, if at all separable, from the other intervening factors.
Unfortunately, much of social science is pseudo-science - an attempt of ideologically motivated interests to disguise itself as "science." This is quite evident on this list - some people have no problem blaming warmongering for increased violence, but refuse to blame gangsta rap -even though both involve the same purported causal mechanism (legitimation of violence by authority/celebrity figures). Evidently "our thugs" can do no wrong, while "their thugs" can do no good. Unfortunately, this primitive tribal mentality dominates the US political discourse and spills over to social sciences.
Wojtek