Social Development

Numerous models have been formulated to describe development. Generally, these start off with a state of not-yet development or nondevelopment, and then go on to contrast this with a second state: some kind of plan or blueprint for development. As a result, the process of development is equated with a series of completed stages. Like having to climb the rungs of a ladder, one moves up and up in order to become more and more developed. The associated catching-up processes are then frequently described with phase models. ln contrast to such goal-directed perspectives on development with their links to modernization theory, social development pursues an alternative approach focusing on the empowerment and autonomy of actors, and also taking account of the structural obstacles that confront them as they shape their daily lives in the sense of learning to develop their selves. This means that development is always conceived within a twin framework of self- and other-development. Social development represents a holistic approach that is non-static and process-oriented.

The Uses of Violence: An Examination of some Cross-Cutting Issues

A general theory of violence may only be possible in the sense of a meta-theoretical framework, As such it should comprise a parsimonious set of general mechanisms that operate across various manifestations of violence. In order to identify such mechanisms, a general theory of violence needs to equally consider all manifestations of violence, in all societies, and at all times. Departing from this assumption this paper argues that three theoretical approaches may be combined in a non-contradictory way to understand violence as goal-directed instrumental behaviour: a theory of the judgment and decision-making processes operating in the situations that give rise to violence; a theory of the evolutionary processes that have resulted in universal cognitive and emotional mechanisms associated with violence; and a theory of the way in which social institutions structure violence by selectively enhancing its effectiveness for some purposes (i.e legitimate use of force) and controlling other types of violence (i.e crime). To illustrate the potential use of such a perspective the paper then examines some general mechanisms that may explain many different types of violence. In particular, it examines how the mechanisms of moralistic aggression (Trivers) and moral disengagement (Bandura) may account for many different types of violence.