1

QUESTIONS

What role does violence and conflict play? Use at least two theorists to explain their

respective paradigms, how does each theorist feel we should act in order to comply with

social order? 

Many theorists differ in their interpretation of the role of violence and conflict in the

society. George Mead, one of the most popular American philosophers, claimed that violence

and conflict in the society reflects the people living within it. This bases of this idea is the

symbolic interactionist paradigm “focuses on the role of the self in aggressive situations,

interpreting aggression as face saving behavior that occurs when one perceives oneself as having

been intentionally attacked” (Felson, 1984). There are basic premises associated with this

theory.

One is that man’s interaction with things is associated with how he interpreted these

things. According to the symbolic interactionist theory, group interaction, reflecting the

psychology and internal dynamics of social action, influences individual action (Alver and

Caglar, 2015). Moreover, man responds to things and people in his environment based on the

personal meanings he associated with them. In addition, people associate meaning on individual

behaviors, and develop explanations for these behaviors based on their previous experiences.

Mead theorized that in contrast to reacting and responding to others, people generally interpret

and define actions. Based on this premise, an individual’s constant exposure to violence and

conflict in the community may result in the development of violent behavior. This is derived

from the meaning that a person develops as a result of his social interaction with other people in

the society. In addition to his response and reaction to other people’s violent behaviors, a person

interprets and modified these experiences to develop his own responses and behavior.

1
 2

This is plausible because the individual and society have a dialectical influence on each

other. This means that conflict in a society may have a negative influence on individual behavior.

I associate this with the dynamic relationship between an organism and its environment. The

activities and events within an environment can affect the organism, similarly that the organisms

affect their environment. Further, the theory of social interactionism can also explain Mead’s

concept of the role of conflict and violence. It explains that social interactions have a significant

impact in the development of self-image. According to Mead, social experiences forms part of an

individual’s personality, and people developed their self-image according to how others see

them. This means that an individual’s exposure to a violent society may cause the development

of a personality prone to give in to a violent behavior.

Consequently, an examination of the role of violence and conflict according to Mead’s

social interactionist paradigm shows that it also used to achieve goals. For example, history

reveals how violence was used in many societies to coerce people to comply with government

policies. In some countries, the military resort to the use of violence to produce compliance,

while the people also engage in conflict to protect themselves from coercive governments.

In order for us to comply with the social order, Mead suggested the importance of self-

awareness. While our environment and the society have influenced our development, it is

everyone’s duty to reflect about our responses and how we are feeling. Further, self-development

arises along with our interaction with other people, and we are most likely to mirror other

people’s perception of us. We learn not only the social norms within our society, but these social

factors also shape our awareness of ourselves. Therefore, to conform to the social order, it

becomes necessary to develop self-awareness and determine the social factors that may affect

our personality and behavior.

2
 3

On the other hand, Hobbes theorized that violence and conflict emerged in the absence of

control measures imposed by the state. While men are rational beings, they cannot cooperate and

keep agreements within the state intervention. In contrast to Mead, who theorized about the

influence of society on individual development, Hobbes believed in men’s state of nature. That

is, prior to commonwealth formation, man’s natural condition reflects equality despite the

existence of minor differences in the physical built and mental ability. This level of equality

results in conflict because of three factors: competition, glory, and distrust. Each person will try

to subdue the other to gain a desired object.

In line with his theory of man’s state of nature, Hobbes developed his disagreement

theory. According to this theory, the absence of a sovereign power will cause people to come

into conflict against each other. For example, man competes for limited resources and conflict

ensues from the fact that in the absence of a sovereign state to govern them, people will naturally

resort to violence in their pursuit of personal gain (Hobbes, 1989). People become enemies as

they complete for the limited resources. The prevention of violence is possible, only with the

intervention of a state that will regulate their behavior and responses.

Many critics suggest that man is by nature rational, and may not need the state

intervention to regulate their behavior. However, while men are rational beings, it is also their

nature to seek their own survival over the others. Thus, Hobbes believed that the tendency of

man to seek his own survival first may force them to engage in violence and conflict with their

competitors. This is also inherent with the nature of man as a rational being, because his

rationality will allow him to work for his survival. Given the competition over a scare resource

and the need to survive, a rational being is expected to subdue his competitors to ensure his

survival.

3
 4

On his part, Hobbes believed that in order for us to comply with the social order, we have

to conform to the first law of nature, which is to prevent engaging in acts that may result in

adverse consequences. While it is natural to man to act towards his desires, he should always do

so after a communal agreement with other people. In contrast to giving in to his self-seeking

desires, man should instead endeavor live in peace and harmony with others. This highly relates

to the Gold Rule, which suggests that you should do unto others what you want others will do

unto you. Hobbes theory of social contract further validates this concept, wherein there is a

mutual agreement in the transfer of rights. In the natural state of man, everyone has the right to

the things around them, and there are no limitations to these rights. However, in order to comply

with the social order, man has to abide with the social contract. Under the social contract, men

understand that they must engage in a mutual transfer of rights to maintain order. These contracts

are not explicit but integral in civil society with its laws and norms.

Obeying the sovereign is another means for man to comply with the social order. In order

to avoid violence and conflict with others, people should commit to the agreements with other

men. This is considered as a mutual promise made with the state, and Hobbes supported the idea

of subjugation under a political authority. According to Hobbes, avoiding violence and conflict

translates to allowing the transfer of natural rights to the sovereign (Hobbes, 1989). Many

critics also suggest that unlimited obedience can be challenging as many people may not have

the tolerance to put up with undue subjugation. However, Hobbes reasoned that commitment to

abide and obedience boils down to societal peace and harmony. The maintenance of civil order is

for the best interest of everyone. He recognized that while life under the authority of the state can

never be perfect, it remains as the best option for us.

4
 5

A neighborhood watch also called a crime watch or neighborhood crime watch, is an

organized group of civilians devoted to crime and vandalism prevention within

a neighborhood. The aim of neighborhood watch includes educating residents of a

community on security and safety and achieving safe and secure neighborhoods. Use two

theorists to analyze what makes neighborhood watch effectively and how it can promote

social order.

The works of Max Weber has greatly contributed to our understanding of the social world

and our interactions with one another. Weber focused on factors that contributed to the

development of a capitalist society in the western world. He argued that the development of

modern society reflects the current worldview, including man’s interpretation of world issues.

Weber’s theory of bureaucracy can help explain the reasons why neighborhood watch is

effective in promoting social order. According to Weber, bureaucracy is the foundation of an

organization’s systematic structure, which helps to ensure the completion of efficient and

effective activities. As a rational being, man establishes bureaucracy to allow for the application

of principles to respond to human problems and other factors causing instability (Serpa and

Ferreira, 2019)

An analysis of the neighborhood watch that includes educating residents about safety to

achieve security within the community reflects man’s endeavor to work for self-improvement.

This can be associated with the idea of task specialization under the bureaucratic theory, where

tasks are divided according to function. The civilian volunteers who created the neighborhood

watch focuses on their function to educate the members of the community about safety and

security measures. Rather than depend on the law enforces, they consider it as their function to

preserve the security of their community.

5
 6

The neighborhood watch is an effective means to promote social order, because it allows

the group to communicate the tasks of each of the members of the community. Rather than

consider themselves as dependent on the law enforcers, they will also take an active part in

creating a more peaceful and secure environment. For one, security measures are important in

almost any neighborhood, and every member of the community should participate in this

process. However, Weber suggested that this endeavor lacks the religious focus, and people

engages in this activity, mainly for their own sake. Nonetheless, despite the lack of religious

focus, the members of this group depict a rational and industrious type of personality suited for

the modern capitalist society.

Most likely, Weber will interpret the community efforts to maintain security as

something that emerged out of compelling events. In response, the members of the community

felt it necessary to work hard, and be methodical and disciplined to prove their self-worth and

seek acceptance from others. Weber refers to this as the concept of iron cage, where man lives in

a society defined by efficiency, predictability, and rationality.

The group of civilians who are organized to prevent crime and vandalism create in

themselves a sense of authority. This is likened to the layer of management under a bureaucratic

system. While the group do not intend to impose rules to the community members, they hold a

special position that allows them to communicate certain policies for the betterment of the

neighborhood. While community watch group is not a form of government, they reflect a line of

authority because they communicate policies. The process of communicating the residents to

educate them about security and safety exemplifies a modern-day form of bureaucracy that is

less formalized. Should the group want to communicate other information, they can meet and

talk among themselves about how they can go about it.

6
 7

Emile Durkheim’s functionalist perspective suggests the importance of interconnectivity

of societal elements. He likened the society to a living organism that needs the normal

functioning of its organs to be alive. However, he also explained that people in the modern world

are connected mechanically, and referred to this type of connectivity as mechanical solidarity.

That is, people maintain an effort to connect, not out of true concern for each other, but because

of the society’s collective consciousness to unite.

An examination of the neighborhood watch according to Durkheim’s functionalist

perspective show that people engaged in this peace-related activity because the society dictates

the community members to do so. The residents organized a group to watch over the safety and

security of the neighborhood and this reflects the concept of structural functional theory. Under

this paradigm, the members of the society are defined as interrelated parts that works to meet the

needs of its members. Consequently, the neighborhood watch reflects how the community

members engage in collective efforts to meet their individual and social needs. The reason for

this is that people within a society function and work to maintain social order. In response to the

threat of crime and vandalism, the members decided to evolved to get over this issue. This is

associated with how societies change with the passage of time.

The members of the whole community have developed an interrelated relationship, and

also shows their interdependence with each other. With the neighborhood watch, the members of

the community are aware that, other than the law enforcers, volunteer residents are exerting

efforts to maintain order. The development of the neighborhood watch also depicts the

importance for each member to contribute towards social stability. While people make up the

community, it is also important to look at factors that influence them such as the values and

existing policies.

7
 8

In a similar manner as the organs in the body, the neighborhood watch plays an important

role in maintaining a functional society. The organized groups of civilians help in educating the

members of the community about crime prevention and security. Under Durkheim’s functionalist

perspective, the civilian’s organized group helps to promote stability and social integration.

Further, the functionalist theory provides insight about how people adapt to changes and events

in their society. The members of the society engaged with each other because of their shared

values and interest that keep them bonded together. The need of the community to keep their

neighborhood and themselves safe resulted in their efforts to form a group to enhance their

security. Their shared values and interest are factors that encouraged them to form a group for

the betterment of their community.

8
 9

References

Aver, F., & Caglar, S. (2015). The impact of symbolic interactionism on research studies about

communication science. International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 8(7).

Felson, R. (1984). Patterns of aggressive social interaction. Social Psychology of Aggression.

Hobbes, T. (1989). The causes of quarrel: Essays on peace, war, and Thomas Hobbes. Beacon

Press.

Serpa, S., & Ferreira, C. (2019). The concept of bureaucracy by Max Weber. International

Journal of Social Science Studies, 7(2).