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.

The Social Dynamics of Communal Violence in India

Contrasting strands of explanation of the motives underlying collective action, as either culturally determined, as an attempt at compensation, point towards an understanding of identity politics as a reaction to given conditions. They pay little attention to the social dynamics that evolve in relation to the conflict within a group, and the possible motivation that can ensue from these. This article analyses the mobilisation among Hindu-nationalist organisations. Rather than seeking their attraction in their discursive outputs and the possible answers they might give in times of change, the contention is that they are to be sought in the specific internal dynamics and the possibilities they create within their historical context. These specific opportunities for action are inherent firstly in the mode of operation relying on participation and involvement, on their direct intervention, their localness and accessibility. Moreover, the dichotomisation inherent in violence makes possible the integration of different interests and different discontents under one banner and therefore contributes to the project of unification undertaken by Hindu-nationalism.