[lbo-talk] dignity, respect, and homicide rate

Wojtek S wsoko52 at gmail.com
Wed Dec 19 06:51:41 PST 2012


Interesting hypothesis, indeed. Sort of Dane Archer in reverse. Archer argued that government actions "trickled down" to the population, so to speak, so if the gov't waged a war, the citizenry followed the suit feeling that violence is a legitimate means of conflict resolution. Roth seems to arguing the opposite, when gov't legitimacy is low, violence is high and when gov't legitimacy is high, violence goes down. The mechanism that he hypothesizes is self-respect.

I think that Roth's hypothesis can be backed by observations - as many acts of violence and assaults stem from perceived disrespect. The weakness of this argument is that violence in response to being "dissed" is relatively rare, as most such conflicts are resolved through non violent means, such as verbal arguments, shunning, etc. At the very least, you need an intervening variable that explains why violence is more likely in some circumstances but not in other. One possibility is research by the Chicago school linking violence to social disorganization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_disorganization_theory). The main argument here is that when social structure that normally provides legitimate non-violent means of conflict resolution is weakened (e.g. by migrations), social sanctions against violence weaken as well, and violence becomes the only means of conflict resolution available.

It may be that the Obama administration followed policies that strengthened black communities, which in turn reduced violence.

Wojtek

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 8:48 AM, shag carpet bomb <shag at cleandraws.com> wrote:
> Interesting thesis. Basically, he says elsewhere that the history of
> violence and gun violence more generally has to do with distrusting the
> government. This is not about law and order so much as a sort of identity
> politics. This makes sense in terms of Perry Anderson's thesis about the
> rise of nationalism and collective identity.
>
> Elsewhere, also, he talks about how throughout history, whenever a minority
> group (e.g.,Chinese in California) have felt disrespected, they've had high
> rates of violence and gun violence. Which is interesting. There's a tendency
> to claim that the "trouble with diversity" is that it speaks to issues of
> respect and ignore material needs. But, interestingly, respect and being
> treated with dignity matters to the people who must suffer the disrespect
> and lack of dignity - perhaps enough so that rates of interpersonal violence
> change as a consequence? Dunno.... (There is some related ideas and research
> in Elijah Anderson's work on dignity, respect, and poverty in Streetwise.)
>
> http://cjrc.osu.edu/researchprojects/hvd/AHSV/It's%20No%20Mystery%2011-22-2009%205-2010.pdf
>
> "The relationship between violence and feelings about government tracks
> separately by race. The black homicide rate peaked between 1971 and 1974,
> when black trust in government reached its post-World War II low. The white
> homicide rate peaked in 1980 during the final year of the Carter
> administration, when white trust in government reached its postwar low
> because of accumulated anger over busing, welfare, affirmative action, the
> defeat in Vietnam, and the seizure of American hostages in Iran. That rate7
> per 100,000 white persons per yearwas by itself three to fifteen times the
> homicide rate in other affluent nations.
>
> Why does faith in government have a profound impact on interpersonal
> violence? How people feel about the government plays an important role in
> determining how they feel about themselves and society. If people believe
> that their government shares their values, speaks for them and acts on their
> behalf, they feel greater self-respect and gain confidence in their dealings
> with people outside their families. What matters is that citizens feel
> represented, included, and empowered. When people doubt the honesty and
> competence of public officials and question the legitimacy of their
> government, especially on the national level, they can feel frustrated,
> alienated, and dishonored. And those feelings, in turn, can stimulate the
> hostile, defensive, and predatory feelings that lead to violence against
> friends, acquaintances, and strangers. Trust in government is not the only
> prerequisite for lower rates of violence, but it is a powerful one, and we
> have now traced a persistent correlation between such trust and low homicide
> rates through the histories of dozens of nations reaching back at least as
> far as the seventeenth century.
> The inauguration of the first black president and the passing of the Bush
> administration re-legitimized the government in the eyes of most Americans
> for the first few months of 2009. African Americans and other racial
> minorities, who live disproportionately in America's cities, were especially
> affected by these events. Their greater trust in government and the
> political process and their positive feelings about the new president led to
> lower rates of urban violence.
> The question is now whether feelings of trust will deepen over the next few
> years and encompass a broader share of the American people. It took
> twenty-five years of strong leadership and largely successful foreign and
> domestic policies to build trust to the level it attained in the late 1950s
> and early 1960s, and a willingness on the part of the American people to
> support policies that entailed great risk and enormous sacrifice. Whether
> Americans will be able to rebuild such trust in the absence of a Great
> Depression, a World War, and a Cold War will determine to a large degree
> whether the drop in violence will prove fleeting.
>
> --
> http://cleandraws.com
> Wear Clean Draws
> ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

-- Wojtek

"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list