Even those of us who are not scholars of the field have theories about violence and what makes some people kill, rape, pillage, and maim. What is your theory? Theories begin with definitions, so you need to define what you mean by violence. Also think about the range of violent behaviors and targets. Are the root causes of abusing children and waging war the same? Keep in mind that theories include causes and effects, and good theories also include relationships among various causes. In the case of violence no single cause can explain even single acts of violence let alone statistics about violence. So, for example, it may well be true that children who are physically abused are more likely to become murderers, but the vast majority of abused children do not. Try to include a range of possible causes from the biological (if you’re inclined) to the psychological, cultural and political/economic.This initial exercise is meant to get you thinking systematically about the material we will be covering and will, I hope, lead us to a more interesting first class discussion. It will not be graded, although I will use it to help determine which, if any of you, might need a boost with writing skills. You will be doing a lot of writing for this class, and even people who generally write well sometimes have some problems making the transition to writing in “social science ways”. So do not take this assignment lightly, but also do not worry about whether your theory is right or wrong or whether you have covered all the possible causes and effects. As you will come to learn no matter how complex your initial theory, the causes of violence are even more complex than you imagine. That’s one of the things that makes the topic so fascinating – no easy answers. Please do not feel the need to consult outside references; at this point I’am primarily interested in how well you can draw on your own intellectual resources.
Inferring human behavioral tendencies from the study of lower animals is risky business indeed. Yet, at the same time, not using such rich data is to ignore a potential goldmine of information about our biological proclivities. One problem is, of course, that animal behavior is rarely consistent across species or sometimes even within the same species across ecological niches. Another more fundamental problem is that one can never be sure what animal behavior "means" or how similar it is to human behavior. So in many primates males kill offspring of new mates, and that may seem analogous to human males killing stepchildren. But is it? Maybe across different species behaviors that seem quite different may actually perform the same functions and thus be quite similar. Do you find the data from the great apes convincing evidence for a biological basis of human violence? Why or why not? Which data do you find the most convincing? The least?
What makes the Yanomamo so violent? Obviously culture is, at least in part, to blame, but we need to dig deeper. The tendency among lay people and many social scientists is to assume that saying something is caused by culture is a good explanation. But cultures are not merely absorbed through osmosis. What aspects of the culture create a "culture of violence" in this case? Are there other, non-cultural factors, possibly at work?
Bandura, Berkowitz, and Zillman present three quite different theories about human aggression and violence. Which of these theories makes the most sense to you as an explanation for violence? Why? What factors or variables are left out or downplayed by the three theories collectively that you think might be important. In other words, assuming you could take the best parts of each model (and actually there are ways to do that) to build a comprehensive model, what would you need to add?
What can we do to control violence in our society? Deal with as many control factors as you wish, but you might want to focus on one or two, and they need not be the ones discussed in the readings. Keep in mind that violence has proved impossible to control, and that the best you might hope for is a significant reduction. You should also be aware of moral, cultural, and political constraints on your proposed solutions. Castrating all men who are convicted of violent offenses would surely lower violence rates but is surely (hopefully?) not an acceptable solution for many reasons. That having been said, you should not feel totally hampered by practicalities either. It is fair to say that we have probably tried most of the obviously "practical" solutions. So you might want to argue that gun control would be a good solution even though at the moment that has no political viability. Better rehabilitation of men in prisons might also be important if politically impractical without massive public education efforts on the real costs of present prison programs. So it's a balancing act. It is probably best to avoid those solutions which are never likely to be adopted and focus on those that might be with a sufficiently educated public or relatively minor cultural changes. In this kind of paper it's generally a good idea to be clear about your own values and to demonstrate a clear understanding of the interplay between cultural, political, and psychological factors.