• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
Bibliography
Apfel R J, Simon B (eds.) 1996
Minefields in Their Hearts
. YaleUniversity Press, New Haven, CTBell C C, Hildreth C J, Jenkins E J, Levi D, Carter C 1988 Theneed for victimization screening in a poor, outpatient medicalpopulation.
Journal of the National Medical Association
80
:853–60Bell C C, Jenkins E J 1993 Community violence and children onChicago’s southside.
Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes
56
: 46–54Cooley-Quille M C, Lorion R P 1999 Adolescents’ exposure tocommunityviolence:Sleepandpsychophysiologicalfunction-ing.
Journal of Community Psychology
27
: 367–76Fox N A, Leavitt L A 1995
The Violence Exposure Scale forChildren (VEX)
. University of Maryland, College Park, MDGottlieb G 1992
Indi 
idual De
elopment and E 
olutions: TheGenesis of No
el Beha
ior
. Oxford University Press, NewYorkHillH M,MadhereS1996ExposuretocommunityviolenceandAfrican American children: A multidimensional model of risks and resources.
Journal of Community Psychology
24
:26–43Jenkins E J, Thompson B 1986 Children talk about violence:Preliminaryfindingsfromasurveyofblackelementaryschoolchildren. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Convention of the Association of Black Psychologists, Oakland, CALorion R P 1998 Exposure to urban violence: Contamination of theschoolenvironment.In:EliottD S,WilliamsK,HamburgB (eds.)
Violence in American Schools
. Cambridge UniversityPress, New York, pp. 293–311Lorion R P 1999 Community prevention and wellness. In:Herson M, Ammerman T (eds.)
Ad 
anced Abnormal Child Psychology
. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 251–66Lorion R P 2000 Theoretical and evaluation issues in thepromotion of wellness and the protectionof ‘wellenough.’ In:Cichetti D, Rappaport J, Sandler I, Weissberg R (eds.)
ThePromotion of Wellness in Children and Adolescents
. Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1–28Lorion R P 2001 Exposure to urban violence: Shifting from anindividual to an ecological perspective. In: Schneiderman N,Tomes H, Gentry J, Speers M, Silva J (eds.)
IntegratingBeha
ioral and Social Sciences With Public Health
. AmericanPsychological Association, Washington, DCLorion R P, Brodsky A E, Cooley-Quille M 1998 Exposure topervasive community violence: Resisting the contaminatingeffects of risky settings. In: Biegel D E, Blum A (eds.)
Inno
ations in Practice and Ser
ice Deli 
ery Across the LifeSpan
. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 124–44Lorion R P, Saltzman W 1993 Children’s exposure to com-munityviolence:Followingapathfromconcerntoresearchtoaction.
Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes
56
:55–65MartinezP, Richters J E 1993 The NIMH Community ViolenceProject: II. Children’s distress symptoms associated withviolence exposure.
Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes
56
: 22–35Osofsky J D, Wewers S, Hann D M, Fick A C 1993 Chroniccommunity violence: What is happening to our children?
Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes
56
: 36–45Raviv A, Erel O, Fox N A, Leavitt L A, Raviv A, Dar I,Shahinfar A, Greenbaum C W 2001 Individual measurementof exposure to everyday violence among elementary schoolchildren across various settings.
Journal of Community Psy
-
chology
29
Richters J E, Martinez P 1990
Checklist of Child DistressSymptoms: Self-Report Version
. National Institute of MentalHealth, Rockville, MDRichters J E, Martinez P 1993 The NIMH Community ViolenceProject: I. Children as victims of and witnesses to violence.
Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes
56
: 7–21Richters J E, Martinez P, Valla J P 1990
Le
onn: A Cartoon-based Structured Inter
iew for Assessing Young Children’sDistress Symptoms
. National Institute of Mental Health,Washington, DCRichtersJ E,SaltzmanW1990Surveyofexposuretocommunityviolence—Parentreportversion.Unpublishedmeasure.Childand Adolescent Disorders Research, National Institute of Mental HealthRubinetti F 1996 Empathy, self-esteem, hopelessness. and belief in the legitimacy of aggression in adolescents exposed topervasive community violence. Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation. University of Maryland, College Park, MDSaltzman W 1992 The effect of children’s exposure to violence.Unpublishedmaster’sthesis.Universityof Maryland,CollegePark, MDSaltzman W 1995 Exposure to community violence and theprediction of violent antisocial behavior in a multi-ethnicsample of adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.University of Maryland, College Park, MDScarpa A, Fikretoglu D, Luscher K 2000 Community violenceexposure in a young adult sample: II. Psychophysiology andaggressive behavior.
Journal of Community Psychology
28
:417–26Shahinfar A, Fox N A, Leavitt L A 2000 Preschool children’sexposure to violence: relation of behavior problems to parentand child reports.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry
70
:115–25Singer M I, Anglin T M, Song L, Lunghofer L 1994
The Mental Health Consequences of Adolescents’ Exposure to Violence
.Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OHSingerM I,AnglinT M,SongL,LunghoferL1995Adolescents’exposure to violence and associated symptoms of psycho-logical trauma.
Journal of the American Medical Association
273
: 477–82Song L, Singer M, Anglin T M 1998 Violence exposure andemotional trauma as a contributor to adolescents’ violentbehavior.
Archi 
esofPediatricAdolescentMedicine
152
:531–6
R. P. Lorion
Violence, History of 
Violence in its various forms has been an aspect of historical descriptions since Thucydides, but to thisday there is no independent specialty in historicalresearch on violence. The history of violence is thuswrittenaspartofmilitaryandwarhistory,ofresearchonrevolutionandprotest,andofthehistoryofgenderand the body. In Europe and elsewhere, it cuts acrossthe institutional and disciplinary logic of the study of history. This lack of independence has two conse-quences for historical research on violence. First, it isalways interdisciplinary and includes approaches16196
Violence as a Problem of Health
 
propertopoliticalscienceandsocialhistory,aswellasissues of cultural history. Second, it cannot look backon a unified development, but on disparate traditionsin the individual disciplines. While revolutionaryviolence, for example, is discussed primarily in thecontext of the French Revolution, research on socialprotest has developed under the influence of 1950sAnglo-American social history and of the reactions tothe 1960s urban riots in the USA. The historiographyof research on violence is thus many-stranded andinternational.
1. Definitions of Violence
The definitions of violence are as varied as itsmanifestations. The term itself takes on disparatecoloring in the context of each respective nationallanguage.English,French,andItalianreflecttheLatinand emphasize the injuries caused by violence and itsviolation of corporal integrity. By comparison, theGerman term ‘
Gewalt
’ is less negatively charged, alsobeingusedasasynonymfor‘power’or‘
 pou
oir
’.Onlyits extension ‘
Gewaltta
 W 
tigkeit
’ captures the injuriouscharacteroftheAnglo-Americanterm.Acomparativeexamination of the history of terms is a desideratumfor research.The spectrum of scholarly definitions of violence isbroad. The distinctions between direct and indirect,collective and individual, legitimate and illegitimate,concrete and structural, physical and psychological,and manifest and symbolic violence reflect varyingaccentsinthediscussion.Dependingonthedefinition,the focus can be on the manifestations, the justifica-tions, or the effects of violence. The term has beenspecified further in accordance with its intended usefor qualitative or quantitative studies. Modern re-search on protest sees collective violence when at least20personstakepartinactsinwhichpersonsorobjectsare damaged.Inthecurrentdiscussionamonghistorians,violenceis widely understood as injury to people’s physicalintegrity,causedbyvarioushistoricalactorsinvariouscontexts. Here, violence is not seen as an anthro-pological constant, nor as a universal historical traitheld in common, but tied to the actions of specificgroups and conditions that are subject to change invarious national societies and epochs. The Germansociologist, Heinrich Popitz, has advanced this view(Popitz1986).Heseesviolenceas‘anactofpowerthatleadstotheintentionalbodily injury ofothers’. In thisview, corporality distinguishes violence from othermeans of domination, such as orders, though itcontributes to their effect.Since violence injures bodily integrity, it possesses amassive potential for threat and evokes fears. Thesecancontributetotheavoidanceofactsofviolence,butcanalsoamplifythem.Thepairofterms‘physical’and‘psychological’violencetouchonthisconnection.Notonly does the experience of physical violence, such astorture or rape, have psychological consequences;psychologicalviolence,suchasbrainwashing,canalsohave physical effects. Popitz’ definition also points tothe concept of power. It thus designates the contentof violent conflicts as an often unequal structuralsituationofvictimsandperpetrators.Thisunderscoresthat the history of violence is also always a partof societal processes in which the distribution andresources of power are up for discussion.Beyond its physical core, the term violence hastakenonvariousmeaningsinthecourseofthemodernage.(a) In the process of forming states, legitimateviolence is distinguished from illegitimate privateviolence, independent of whether the latter is wieldedinrevolutionsorindefenseofthestatusquo.Thestatehas defended and extended its monopoly on violenceasaconstitutingcomponentofbeingastatesinceearlymodern times. This monopoly prevailed through thedisarmament of the feudal rulers. With the army and(since the eighteenth, and especially the nineteenth,centuries) the police, state organs exercised the mon-opoly on legitimate violence. This monopoly required justification in its form and degree, but not in itsexistence. Lindenberger and Lu
  $ 
dtke saw the hallmarkof modernity in the network of relationships betweenphysically suffered violence, on the one hand, and thestate monopoly on violence, on the other (Lindenber-ger and Lu
  $ 
dtke 1995). Thus they not only claim anincrease in the state’s practice of control and re-pression,but also touch upon the everyday experienceof violence. In the modern age, citizens can come intoconflict with state regulations and sanctions, which inturn provoke violent actions. In modern protestresearch, Charles Tilly, among others, has held statereactions to unrest responsible for the extent of counterviolence (Tilly 1975).(b) The experiences of dependency and inequalitybetween the centers of power, colonies, and the so-called‘ThirdWorld’ledtheNorwegiansocialscientist,Johan Galtung, to develop the concept of ‘structuralviolence’ (Galtung 1975). From the perspective of peace politics, he drew attention to a discrepancy. Hesaw a chasm between the existing potential fordevelopment based on technology and available soc-ietal wealth, on the one hand, and the respectivelevels of development of disadvantaged groups andcountries, on the other. His concept emphasizes, notindividual perpetrators, but social structures, and notprimarilyphysically-experiencedviolence,butpovertyand exploitation. He was not so much concerned withlegitimating counterviolence, as vehemently defendedby the Algerian sociologist, Frantz Fanon, but withsocialpeace,whichhethoughtwouldbesecuredforallthrough equality and opportunities for development(Fanon 1961).The term ‘structural violence’ flourished in the1970s, but also met criticism. It was accused not only16197
Violence, History of 
 
of failing to define ‘structure,’ but also for lackingspecificity in its analysis of violence. ‘By tendentiouslydeciphering all relations as relations of violence, theserelations are leveled,’ wrote Wolf-Dieter Narr (1973);i.e., the analyses of violence and of society areindistinguishable. Galtung was able to demonstratethattheterm‘violence’canbeappliedmeaningfullyinthe analysis of acts in the context of the forciblerelations effective in acts of exchange, in inculcatingliteracy, and in migrations.(c) The concept of symbolic violence is beset withsimilar problems of distinction. Pierre Bourdieu andClaude Passeron used it in their theoretical analysis of the French school system and thus designated ‘thatform of violence’ that ‘is exercised against a socialactor with the complicity of this ‘‘actor’’’ (Bourdieuand Passeron 1970). The experience is violent in thatthe actors are subjected to a code of language andbehavior alien to them; it is symbolic through theverbal and semiotic form of its mechanisms. Theseshape the school’s demands and enable or preventscholastic careers. According to Bourdieu, by accep-ting this code, the actors contribute to the lastinglegitimation of the scholastic system of selection. Thisterm rightly touches on the linguistic and semioticdimensionof violence, but expands it to the point thatit no longer has clear contours.(d) In the course of the development of genderhistory in the 1990s, the concept of violence has beenextended to private forms of violence within thefamily. Feminist literature has used the term ‘sexualviolence’. This refers to actions that appear in a formtying societies to sexuality. They are carried outagainst the will of persons who do not have the samepowerresourcesastheperpetrators.Sexualviolenceisthus analyzed as part of the inequality effective in therelationship between the sexes. It shifts from anexceptional phenomenon to one in terms of which theparadigmatically prevailing ideas of power relationsand sexuality, and the experiences of women and girlscan be grasped. This extension of the concept of violence not only opens new fields to scientific re-search, but, since the 1980s, has also been taken up inthe penal codes of individual societies.
2. Historical Research on Violence
In the past, experience with violence was subsumedagain and again in theoretical sketches. Amongthem, the theories of Thomas Hobbes, Max Webber,and Hannah Arendt were doubtless the most influen-tial, though they arose under disparate conditions(Hobbes 1914, Weber 1919, Arendt 1970). But,especially since the 1950s, their influence on historicalresearch on violence has been superseded by that of Norbert Elias, Michel Foucault, and most recentlyClifford Geertz (Elias 1976, Foucault 1975, Geertz1973).Thomas Hobbes was the primary inspirer of his-torical research on violence (Hobbes 1914). Inseventeenth-century English society, which was nolongerintegratedbyreligion,hedemonstratedintermsof contract theory the necessity of the state’s use of violence.Hobbespostulatedthat,topacifyan Englishsociety composed of private persons hostile to eachother, these persons relinquished their rights to theLeviathanstate,i.e.,intheEnglishcase,totheabsolutemonarch. In return, they received protection fromhostile others and the guarantee of societal peace.The double function of the state’s monopoly onviolence—on the one hand, to protect the interests of individuals,andontheother,tolimittheirpossibilitiesof self-realization and their rights—has become thecommon possession of most analyses of violence sinceHobbes.Theindividual’srelationshiptostateviolencethusoftendevelopsfromhisspecificexperienceseitherwith the state’s protection or with its limitation of hisfreedom.Norbert Elias has provided important stimuli forhistorical research on violence (Elias 1976). EliasdescribedEuropeanhistorysincetheMiddleAgesasahistoryofcivilization.Thishypothesisis basedon twocentral assumptions. First, Elias says that, in thecourse of the expansion of the trades, commerce,transportation, and the activity of the state, theinteraction among members of society became morefrequent and more dense. To the degree that theycompeted for influence and shares of power, agree-ments on behavior, and behavioral norms were re-quired. In this process, civilized manners prevailed.On the other hand, the state monopoly exercised anincreasedexternalcompulsionoverthebehaviorofthemembers of a society. This found its most completeform in courtly society. In the realm regulated bycourtlyetiquette,theindividual’ssuccessdependedonnew civilized modes of behavior. To the degree thatpeoples’ definition of themselves conformed to thisframework, forms of self-compulsion and control of feelings resulted. Violent structures of interpersonalsocietal relations receded as the model of civilized andinner-directed acting spread from the upper strata tothe rest of society. Elias’ historical periodization hasbeen criticized by Hans-Peter Duerr, but his secular-basedhypothesishasnonethelessbeenveryfruitfulforresearch (Duerr 1988–96).Michel Foucault emphasized the shift in form andcontentinstatepracticesofpunishment,whichshapedboth societal reality and the individual’s life practicelastingly (Foucault 1975). In his view, the practices of domination targetingthebody haveshiftedsince 1800to strategies targeting the mind. The disciplinarymeasures carried out on the human body in clinics,psychiatric facilities, and prisons took on a more totalcharacter in the modern age. As in Jeremy Bentham’s‘Panoptikum,’ the individual is now subjected tocontrol by institutions and the effects of techniques of power, which in turn are provided by the fields of 16198
Violence, History of 
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...