Fluent Essays

Only 1 page, 2 paragraphs. MLA double spaceRead the Example carefully, your response should just like the Example.You need to use at least 2-3 reading in your response. No outside sources.Also check the lecture.Write a question in the end for discussion like the example.Reading response prompts:(Choose ONLY ONE Prompt) Is everyone capable of committing physical violence? Of killing? Why or why not?Collins (p.13) argues that staged fair fights tend to have less violence than attacks on the weak and suggests as a policy implication that “the amount of violence could be limited if the types of fights which normally involve attacking the weak (such as drivebys and vendettas) could be substituted by staged fair fights.” Is this a reasonable prescription for reducing violence? How would it be implemented? Global media make us more aware than ever of atrocities against civilians. Has or can this make war and wartime violence less likely? Why or why not? Technology is changing the way that war is waged and increasing the possibilities for ‘remote violence.’ Does this make wars today less psychologically taxing? Why or why not? example_reading_response.pdf lecture_3_how_does_violence_occur_slides.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview Example reading response for How Does Violence Occur week Prompt: What step or steps can be taken to make protests less violent? Collins and Nassauer both argue that to key factor in whether interactions turn violent or not is whether a side overcomes the barrier of confrontational tension and fear in order to attack the other, or if tension in the interaction is reduced, even if one side started with violent intentions. One key factor inhibiting violence is a humanized vision of the other/opponent, which is why people and governments dehumanize others to legitimize or justify violence (Eisner pp.53-4). Nassauer (p.517) notes how important it is for police and protesters to understand the “heterogeneity of the other group,” seeing them as individual other people, and not a faceless, nameless mass. Understanding the other side as individuals can make communication easier and avoid misunderstanding of intentions that can lead to fear. Previous understanding of the other side or communication outside of the protest area makes this easier. Another option is to try to ensure both sides are in ‘normal’ clothes or uniforms to make the interaction less tense. While police may feel safer in riot gear, it makes them more intimidating and less relatable, and while protesters may feel safer with masks in an age of video surveillance and facial recognition technology, masks also make protesters seem scarier and not individuals, but part of a crowd. Seeing the other side as individuals could reduce the likelihood of police or protesters ‘piling on’ (Nassauer p.522) if someone fell down or was outnumbered. Further Questions for Discussion One question is whether the ability to humanize the other diminishes over time. If police and protesters engage in repeated clashes, will it get more difficult to see each other as people, rather than enemies? Another question is what role weapons play in determining levels of tension and fear in an interaction. Would protesters be more or less likely to use violence if they know police do not have lethal weapons? Are police more likely to use force if they just have tear gas and rubber bullets and think they will not kill anyone using them? How Does Violence Occur? G LOBA L 1 9 7 : P EACE , CON F L I C T, A N D V I OL E NCE I N G LOBA L P E RSPEC TI VE CL A S S 3 , JA N UA RY 1 3 , 2 0 2 0 P ROF ESSOR KA I M . T HA L E R Today: How does violence occur? • Can any theory explain all direct violence? • When do interactions or events result in direct violence? • What social and psychological factors lead to direct violence? • How can violent interactions be short-circuited? • How do organizations try to facilitate the use of violence? • What are the psychological and social effects of committing violence? Theories of Violence from Micro to Macro • Focus today will be primarily on direct violence • Micro-level: individual interactions in an encounter • Macro-level: broad patterns and organized violence at a large scale • Socioeconomic background factors bad at explaining who commits violence • More poor young men & more substance abusers than there is violence • Instrumental use of violence (Eisner) • Rational use to seek advantage in a contest for social or material resources • Use depends on both person and situation Violence in Interactions • Collins and Nassauer focusing on the micro-level • People normally back off from violence or use violence incompetently • There are off-ramps from violence or factors that escalate towards it • Key emotional factors are confrontational tension and fear Confrontational Tension and Fear • Any interaction can turn into confrontation, but these don’t often start violent • Mutual tension and perception of rivalry • Contest over emotional dominance in the situation • Most people don’t really want to hurt others, so have to break through or avoid tension Confrontational Tension and Fear • Ways to get around barrier of confrontational tension and fear (Collins) • • • • • Attacking the weak Audience-oriented staged and controlled fair fights Confrontation-avoiding remote violence Confrontation-avoiding by deception Confrontation-avoiding by absorption in technique When do protests turn violent? • Protesters may plan to use violence and it doesn’t happen, or vice versa • Tension building during first couple hours either diffuses or released violently • Triggering moments • Breakup of police lines • Outnumbering • Falling down • Shouting vs. screaming How might violent interactions be short-circuited? • Humanize the other • Offer options for de-escalation • ‘Risk factors’ can be used to try to de-escalate • Apologize • Break tension • Humor • Distraction • The unexpected • Social monitoring or shame How do violent interactions end? • Victory • Stalemate • Tension petering out • Outside intervention • In war, question of which side maintains emotional and material resources • What are emotional resources in a war? Organizing Violence • States trying to monopolize control over violence • ‘Legitimate’ and ‘illegitimate’ violence • Organized violence as conflict over political or economic advantage • Clausewitz: war as ‘politics by other means’ (Shaw) • Armed organizations create structures and rules for use of violence • Civilian-combatant distinction • Often not clear cut • Organizations are collections of individuals, so have to get them to overcome confrontational tension/fear Is anyone ‘good’ at violence? • Even in militaries and police forces, only about 2\% of people enjoy committing violence • In any large interaction, 15-25\% of people inflict most casualties • Socialization and routine •Remote violence increasing choice of militaries and armed groups (drones, IEDs) What are the psychological effects of violence? • War can have ‘positive’ social and psychological effects • Alertness, group bonding, national unity, dedication to non-material goals, self-sacrifice • But these come at a huge cost • Psychiatric casualties • Dilemmas for militaries • Combat contains many stresses, but biggest is killing • Killing another human is against our instincts • Suffering intentional, nonconsensual violence inflicted by another person is universal fear • Nervous system reacts to combat with fight-or-flight hormones • Post-combat exhaustion and need for ‘purification rituals’ Can we be re-socialized against committing violence? • Retributive/punitive vs. rehabilitative model of justice • Disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) programs • Counseling and therapy to ‘unlearn’ violence and reestablish inhibitions Next class: Reading Group Discussion • Prompts for reading responses • Is everyone capable of committing physical violence? Of killing? • Collins (p.13) argues that staged fair fights tend to have less violence than attacks on the weak and suggests as a policy implication that “the amount of violence could be limited if the types of fights which normally involve attacking the weak (such as drivebys and vendettas) could be substituted by staged fair fights.” Is this a reasonable prescription for reducing violence? How would it be implemented? • Global media make us more aware than ever of atrocities against civilians. Has or can this make war and wartime violence less likely? Why or why not? • Technology is changing the way that war is waged and increasing the possibilities for ‘remote violence.’ Does this make wars today less psychologically taxing? Why or why not? •Submit 1-2 paragraph reading responses by 7pm tomorrow • Address at least one prompt • Pose new questions or issues for group discussion Next week: Is the world getting less violent? • Are humans naturally violent? • What are historical patterns of war, peace, and direct violence? • Have war and direct violence been declining or simply evolving? • Have people been getting more ‘civilized’? • How have science and technology changed levels of war and direct violence? • Blog posts due by 9pm on January 25 • Example op-eds/blog posts on Gauchospace ... Purchase answer to see full attachment