Studiebot antwoord

Vraag gesteld door: Injective - 7 maanden geleden

Maak een oefenexamen van de volgende tekst: Central questions in this course:
Why would an individual join a violent group?
Which group processes contribute to collective violence (CV)?
What are the characteristics of violent groups?
How do violent episodes play out over time?
Definitions
Instrumental vs symbolic violence instrumental violence is violence that achieves something else and is goal-oriented. Like a robbery, then youre engaging in violence in order to obtain money. Symbolic violence is violence that tries to demonstrate something, then violence is a goal itself. It is meant to make some point. The distinction is between the aims and the achievements. But in reality the distinction is often difficult to make, especially from the outside. It is hard to see the motivation. In collective violence it is not always instrumental violence and here the symbolic motivation also weighs quite heavily.
Collective violence is often a response to a threat or a conflict. It is violence that a group engages in collectively and violence by one or a few people on behalf of a group. It is not violence where a victim is targeted based on group membership, like a hate crime.
It is a very broad phenomenon, but where is the cut-off point? Full and complete definitions of these kind of broad terms are often hard to establish. So how do we resolve this??:
Fully explain a specific case, so specialize in a specific case of collective violence. Drawback: you never know if it is generalizable
Identify shared characteristics across different types. Drawback: you are staying quite abstract
We will look at diverse types of collective violence and look at some of the shared characteristics that they all share.
So we define collective violence as: violence engaged in/by groups to achieve a practical; social; political aim. The group is broadly defined, and can mean either spontaneous groups (crowds) or pre-existing groups, or indeed individuals who act on behalf of groups.
Different layers of collective violence:
Individual: why an individual joins a violent group
Intra-group: processes within the group that contribute to CV (radicalism)
Inter-group: dynamics between groups that contribute to CV
Zahn et al. 2004 (theories of violence)
It is a very mixed picture when it comes to theories of collective violence. Theories have lagged far behind psychological, interpersonal and even structural theories of violence. The field is in development.


Disciplinary perspective we will draw most from and how they see violence:
Criminology: a type of crime or transgression
Sociology: a consequence of (unfair) social organisation
Social psychology: a type of social behaviour
Criminology
Violence is seen as a type of crime. When discussing collective violence they focus on the violence element and the event itself.
Sociology
They focus on the structural, societal and macro processes. When talking about collective violence they focus on the collective element.
Social psychology
Violence is seen as a type of extreme social behaviour. It is between psychology and sociology in. They focus on the interaction between the individual and the social environment and on collective in the sense of groups, more than institutions. Key topics in this field include dynamics withing and between groups.
Studying collective violence
The scientific method therefore relies on using data to build theory, and then test/validate that theory. But studying collective violence in this way is difficult. In real cases we see that collective violence is often studied retrospectively.
Research methods:
Quantitative: the one with the numbers
Qualitative: the one without numbers
Quantitative methodologies are deductive start with the theory and hypothesis and then
evaluate if the data fits
Qualitative methodologies are inductive start with the data and the theory arises from that.
Reading lecture 1
Belavadi et al. (2020). When social identity-defining groups become violent (chapter 2)
Social identity theory: a theory of intergroup relations to explain conflict and cooperation between groups. The focus of the theory has broadened to include the processes through which identity and a sense of self is derived from group membership.
Self-categorization theory: maps the social-cognitive mechanisms of how groups are represented psychologically.

People join groups and seek social identities to construct a coherent and positive sense of self. Two key motives for why we join a group are:
Uncertainty reduction: this means uncertainty about our sense of self, who we are and our place in the world. This makes us thirst for guidance and direction. The groups we identify with act as a sense-making framework guiding our thoughts, feelings and actions. Especially true of entitative groups, that are distinctive and clearly defined around and unambiguous and consensual central core and provide a coherent framework for self-definition
Collective self enhancement: this means the need to compare ourselves with the out- group and the desire to win and be better than them. Think about the studies where they showed that we tend to favour our own group member over another groups member (even if we barely know the group were in). This shows in-group favouritism.
Group relative deprivation: feelings of angry resentment toward the out-group. This can be conceptualized as a reaction to a group status threat because the group is not perceived to be sufficiently positive and distinct relative to the out-group. Group relative deprivation is a factor that is commonly included in models of radicalization.
Processes that explain why high prototypicality (these members are viewed by others as the best source of identity-related information) increases leaders influence and effectiveness:
Self-categorization and depersonalization based on the group prototype lead group members to conform to a shared group prototype and likewise to the behaviour of group members who are perceived to best embody group-defining attributes
High prototypical members tend to be liked more than their less prototypical members, which increases the likelihood that others will be influenced by them
Prototypical members embody the groups norms, and because of that they tend to be highly identified with the group
Delegitimization and dehumanization: when group members undermine the human essence or uniquely human characteristics to out-group members. Doing this allows in-group members to justify atrocities against them.
Zahn et al. (2004). Violence: from theory to research (page 252-257) Five criteria for a good theory are:
Parsimony: when there is a simple statement that offers the greatest explanatory power. So it must be stated in a way that adds clarity rather than confusion
Originality: when a theory offers ideas that provide an explanation of violent activity or behaviour that advances previous theories
Testability: it must be testable if it is to be useful
Generalizability: is the theory of violence also applicable to collective violence?
Validity: does a theory seem reasonable on its face (face validity)
There is a strong disconnect between the existing theories and the empirical studies of types of violence. For the most part, these existing theories treat violence as a variation of crime or. De oefenexamen moet geschreven zijn in de Engelse taal. Onderin staan de antwoorden. Het aantal vragen dat het oefenexamen moet bevatten is 20.

Antwoord rapporteren