Everyday Indivisibility: How Exclusive Religious Practices Explain Variation in Subnational Violence Outcomes

This project explores the puzzle of religious violence variation. Religious actors initiate conflict at a higher rate than their secular counterparts, last longer, are more deadly, and are less prone to negotiated termination. Yet the legacy of religious peacemakers on the reduction of violence is undeniable. Under what conditions does religion contribute to escalated violence and under what conditions does it contribute to peace? I argue that more intense everyday practices of group members, or high levels of orthopraxy, create dispositional indivisibilities that make violence a natural alternative to bargaining. Subnational armed groups with members whose practices are exclusive and isolating bind together through ritual practice, limit the acceptable decisions of leaders, and have prolonged timeframes, all of which result in higher levels of intensity, intransigence and resolve during violent conflict. The theory challenges both instrumentalist and constructivist understandings of social identity and violence. To support this argument, I construct an original cross-national data-set that employs ethnographic data on micro-level religious practices for 724 subnational armed groups in both civil wars and terror campaigns. Using this data, I build an explanatory “religious practice index” for each observation and examine its relationship with conflict outcomes. Findings suggest that exclusive practice groups fight significantly longer with more intensity and negotiate less. I also apply the practice model to qualitative cases. Fieldwork in the West Bank and Sierra Leone reveals that groups with more exclusive religious practicing membership are principle contributors to violence, whereas those with inclusive practices can contribute to peace. The project concludes with a discussion about several avenues for future research and identifies the practical policy applications to better identify and combat religious extremism.

Post-Conflict Maternal Communication, Children's Understandings, and Child Functioning in Violent and Non-Violent Families

The last two decades have been marked by a growing public awareness of family violence. Research by social scientists has suggested that family violence is widespread (Gelles and Straus, 1988). It is estimated that every year 1.8 to 4 million women are physically abused by their partners (Novello, 1992). In fact, more women are abused by their husbands or boyfriends than are injured in car accidents, muggings, or rapes (Jaffe, Wolfe, and Wilson, 1990). A recent prevalence study by Fantuzzo, Boruch, Beriama, Atkins, and Marcus (1997) found that children were disproportionately present in households where there was a substantial incident of adult female assault. Experts estimate that 3.3 to 10 million children are exposed to marital violence each year (Carlson, 1984; Straus, 1991). Until recently, most researchers did not consider the impact of parental conflict on the children who witness this violence. The early literature in this field primarily focused on the incidence of violence against women and the inadequate response of community agencies (Jaffe et al, 1990). The needs of children were rarely considered. However, researchers have become increasingly aware that children exposed to marital violence are victims of a range of psychological maltreatment (e.g., terrorizing, isolation;Hart, Brassared & Karlson, 1996) and are at serious risk for the development of psychological problems (Fantuzzo, DePaola, Lambert, Martino, Anderson, and Sutton, 1991). Jouriles, Murphy and O'Leary (1989) found that children of battered women were four times more likely to exhibit psychopathology as were children living in non-violent homes. Further, researchers have found associations between childhood exposure to parental violence and the expression of violence in adulthood (Carlson, 1990). Existing research suggests that children who have witnessed marital violence manifest numerous emotional, social, and behavioral problems (Sternberg et al., 1993; Fantuzzo et al., 1991; Jaffe et al, 1990). Studies have found that children of battered women exhibit more internalizing and externalizing behavior problems than non-witnesschildren (Hughes and Fantuzzo, 1994; McCloskey, Figueredo, and Koss, 1995). In addition, children exposed to marital violence have been found to exhibit difficulties with social problem-solving, and have lower levels of social competence than nonwitnesses (Rosenberg, 1987; Moore, Pepler, Weinberg, Hammond, Waddell, & Weiser, 1990). Other reported difficulties include low self esteem (Hughes, 1988), poor school performance (Moore et al., 1990) and problems with aggression (Holden & Ritchie, 1991; Jaffe, Wolfe, Wilson, & Zak, 1986). Further, within the last decade, researchers have found that some children are traumatized by the witnessing experience, showing elevated levels of posttraumatic stress symptoms (Devoe & Graham-Bermann, 1997; Rossman, Bingham, & Emde, 1996; Kilpatrick, Litt, & Williams, 1997). These findings corroborate clinical reports that describe many exposed children as experiencing trauma reactions. It appears that the negative effects of witnessing marital violence are numerous and varied, ranging from mild emotional and behavioral problems to clinically significant levels of posttraumatic stress symptoms. These incidence figures and research findings indicate that children's exposure to violence is a significant problem in our nation today and has serious implications for the future.

Social Inequity and Globalization: Understanding Violent and Nonviolent Responses

Globalization generates economic growth that is dominated by the free market dynamics of liberalization, deregulation, and privatization. The benefits of this growth are not distributed equally. The resulting inequities cause poverty, marginalization, exclusion, and instability. People respond to these inequities in both positive/nonviolent and negative/violent ways. This capstone project investigates the reasons for divergent responses to globalization by contrasting the underlying social factors in two case studies: peace communities in Colombia and piracy in Somalia. By measuring the level of vulnerability, considering security in a variety of domains, and examining stress on socio-cultural norms, this project develops a social factors framework for understanding the reasons for negative/violent versus positive/nonviolent responses to globalization.