Youth criminality and urban social conflict in the city of Rosario, Argentina. Analysis and proposals for conflict transformation

The present article describes and analyses youth criminality in the city of Rosario, Argentina between the years 2003-2006. Key actors’ understandings of and responses to the conflict were investigated by means of semi-structured interviews, observations, discourse analysis of policy documents, analysis of secondary data, and draw heavily on the experience of the author, a citizen and youth worker of Rosario. The actors examined were the police, the local government, young delinquents and youth organisations. Youth criminality is analysed from a conflict transformation approach using conflict analysis tools. Whereas, the provincial police understand the issue as a delinquency problem, other actors perceive it as an expression of a wider urban social conflict between those that are “included” and those that are “excluded” and as one of the negative effects of globalisation processes. The results suggest that police responses addressing only direct violence are ineffective, even contributing to increased tensions and polarisation, whereas strategies addressing cultural and structural violence are more suitable for this type of social urban conflict. Finally, recommendations for local youth policy are proposed to facilitate participation and inclusion of youth and as a tool for peaceful conflict transformation.

Understanding the Other’s “Understanding” of Violence: Legitimacy, Recognition, and the Challenge of Dealing with the Past in Divided Societies

Post-conflict societies which have achieved a cessation of violence and embarked on a political conflict transformation process cannot in the long-term avoid a process of dealing with the past. Case studies of South Africa and Northern Ireland confirm this normative claim, showing that within the post-war society as a whole a social consensus on how to “understand” and “recognize” the use of violence that occurred during the conflict is necessary: understanding the other’s “understanding” of violence. A mutual understanding must be reached that both sides fought a campaign that was just and legitimate from their own perspective. The morality of the “other’s violence” has to be recognized.