|
Abstract
|
Policymakers often are at odds over what strategies will be most effective at reducing the incidence of violent behavior in high-risk populations. Beginning with the position that social theory and public policy are inextricably linked, the author examines the policy implications of the long-standing debate in the social sciences over the relative contributions of socioeconomic inequality versus cultural differences as causes of violence. While the weight of the scholarly evidence favors neither of these explanations, existing and proposed policies often reflect a preference for the importance of culture. This paper discusses the limitations of that choice and advocates alternative policies that consider the importance of both sets of etiological factors.
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of this paper by Hawkins was to argue that the current theories on violence which focus on culture, race, and inequality inadequately explain the group differences in rates of violence in America.
METHODOLOGY:
The author presented a non-experimental discussion of the literature on the relevant theories of violence.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The author discussed the limitations of the separate theories on violence and concluded that inequality nor culture adequately explain the difference in rates of violence in America. First, the author discussed the different levels of violence across social groups, regions, and settings. It was reported that high rates of violence were most common among African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. In the South and West regions of America, violence and homicide rates among whites and nonwhites also tend to be high. Similarly, large urban settings tend to have high rates of violence.
The first theory discussed was on the topic of race, ethnicity, and violence. The author began by citing literature which found that from the mid-1800s to World War I high rates of violence were found among the immigrants from Europe. Other studies conducted at Chicago attributed high rates of violence to living in the "inner city" or "zone of transition" regardless of the ethnic background. This was evident as African Americans displaced the Europeans in the inner city and have been found to have high rates of violence. The author noted that to this day studies have found African Americans to have the highest rates of violence, with comparable rates among Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and Native Americans. The author expressed concern over the differences in time between the European decline in rates of homicide and the lack of decline in homicide rates among African Americans. The author suggested that mass media, politics, "prejudice and hasty generalizations" have influenced the explanations for the differences in violence rates between whites and nonwhites. In addition to such explanations the author included incidental explanations which led to an understanding of the experiences of the violent situations. They concluded this section by noting that despite the valuable insights of the experiences, the explanations of the differences tend to reflect the politics of American race relations, and fail to address other issues such as class inequality.
Theories on culture and subcultures were noted by the author to be the most widely accepted explanations for the white/nonwhite difference in violence. The author also stated that cultural theories emphasized cultural values, social learning, social control/containment, or psychosocial or psychiatric dysfunction. This type of emphasis becomes important in the study of society when trying to explain the connection between culture and its effects on behavior. The author noted that difficulties in proving or disproving the theory have led to substantial criticism.
Theories on inequality and poverty were also discussed and emphasized a link between violent crime and economic deprivation or rapid changing economic conditions. Measures of deprivation and relative deprivation for these types of studies included unemployment rates, percentage of people below the poverty rate, and median income. Disputes over the impact of such measures have led to inconclusive studies. In response to the disputes researchers have sought to test the impact of socioeconomic deprivation by using an index with measures of income, educational attainment, and family structure and have found correlations between "structural poverty" and rates of homicide between families and friends but not among strangers. Contradicting and inconsistent findings on the effects of inequality or relative deprivation on aggregate rates of violence have led to questioning theories of this sort. Cross-national studies were noted to have more consistent findings for the link between inequality and violence. The findings suggested that countries with higher levels of socioeconomic inequality have higher homicide rates. Countries with a significant amount of economic discrimination against subordinate groups were found to have similar effects, with economic discrimination having a stronger affect than socioeconomic inequality (measures of the independent variables were not discussed). It was also suggested that "ethnic heterogeneity" was correlated with high rates of homicide. The author noted that the dispute between the importance of economic factors versus cultural differences on violence remain unresolved.
The author emphasized the dispute when discussing the problems of the black underclass and cited William Wilson who pointed to dysfunctional values and norms and rejected race when characterizing the plight of the black underclass. Wilson was criticized for the lack of importance attributed to institutional forms of racism and segregation as having had an influence on the black underclass.
The author concluded that theories which focus entirely on inequality or culture fail to adequately explain the group differences in rates of violence. The theories fail to provide adequate explanation for high levels of violence among certain groups such as Mexicans, Native Americans, and Whites in the South. In addition, the author argued that most of the studies on the topic have been poorly conceptualized and have not been subject to empirical testing. The author suggested that in terms of violence prevention cultural explanations have been valued more than theories of socioeconomic inequality. Interventions aimed at cultural differences alone fail to include or address structural or institutional problems which could lead to a lack of significant reduction in violence. Failing to reduce crime in this situation could deem cultural solutions as ineffective when the problem may be due to the exclusion of institutional solutions. Thus, the author stated that a collaboration of both theories better explains as well as would prevent the differences in rates of violence.
AUTHOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS:
The author recommended that policy makers should avoid intervention policies which focus solely on cultural solutions.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
Violence Causes
Sociocultural Factors
Socioeconomic Factors
Adult Violence
Juvenile Violence
Racial Differences
Racial Factors
Inequality
Theory
African American Violence
Native American Violence
Hispanic Violence
Ethnicity
Urban Violence
Caucasian Violence
Social Class
Class Factors
Poverty
Language: en |