Abstract
This theoretical chapter makes three points. Firstly, it develops a definition of forms of violence. Forms of violence are a specific subset of violent practices that a social actor routinely uses in making claims on others. Forms of violence link the very doing and exerting of violence with the violent actor who is doing and exerting violence. Actors employ one or more forms of violence, but they cannot be reduced to these forms. In turn, forms of violence consist of violent practices. Secondly, this chapter develops a relational approach to violence. The distinction of vertical from horizontal violence highlights that violence is socially embedded. The very nature of violence then does not depend on the actors’ motivation but on the actors’ interaction when making claims on each other. Thirdly, this chapter advocates a bridge between the two metaphoric riversides, namely between political economy approaches and culturalist theories. This bridge seeks to cross the river and thereby to encourage researchers to position themselves on the bridge between the two pillars to get a closer look at the waves and swirls, at forms of violence. The chapter elaborates on the political economy of economic rents and the capacity of rents to shape social relations. It gradually approaches culturalist theories. Subsequently, the chapter looks at forms of violence from the other riverside through the lens of culturalist theories. It introduces the concept of practices of violence. These practices, as theory of social practice suggests, follow rules and routines that are termed as cultural scripts of violence instructing social action by delivering the implicit knowledge of how to conduct violent practices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
However, this seems to be an exception. As an example, research on torture produced rich insights regarding this issue. In this light, it was even possible to distinguish different social habitus of torturers who specialize in a certain way of torturing their victims (Agger & Jensen, 1992; Huggins, Haritos-Fatouros, & Zimbardo, 2002; Inhetveen, 2011; Mackert, 2011).
- 2.
Drawing on the work of (Gramsci, 1971, p. 51) who distinguished the ruling class from the subaltern class, as “the historical unity of the ruling classes is realized in the State, and their history is essentially the history of States and of groups of States. But it would be wrong to think that this unity is simply juridical and political (though such forms of unity do have their importance too, and not in a purely formal sense), the fundamental historical unity, concretely, results from the organic relations between State or political society and civil society (…)”. In contrast, the subaltern classes “(…) by definition, are not unified and cannot unite until they are able to become a “State”: their history, therefore, is intertwined with that of civil society, and thereby with the history of States and groups of States.”
- 3.
In the broader field of conflict studies, especially two positions address how these patterns transform into violence. First, neorealism in international relations, initially developed by (Waltz, 1979), describes the international system as an anarchic structure due to lacking superior authorities that would theoretically be able to function as mediators. Hence, every single state has to ensure its security by reducing the risk for being attacked (Jervis, 1978). In a stylized situation, the security dilemma describes the unlikelihood of security coalitions arguing that the most rational option in the perception of involved actors leads to a defect of the coalition. Every task undertaken by involved states changes the nature of the security dilemma, possibly leading to its intensification and hence to escalations. War, in this sense, is the rational outcome of the intensified search for security. War becomes opportune if former modes of security production fail (e.g. alliance building and therefore balancing against rising superpowers) and peaceful actions are perceived as too risky. Recently, a similar approach was used to study the behavior of armed groups and terrorists (Vinci, 2009) as well as the violence of rebel groups against other rebel groups (Fjelde & Nilsson, 2012). Second, anthropology of warfare focuses on similar issues. (Helbling, 2006) argues that violence becomes possible because peaceful strategies are perceived as far too risky by involved conflict actors. Anthropology further concretizes how these structurally given situations lead to violent outbreaks.
- 4.
For instance, in dyadic conflicts, violent actors are not able to resort to mediation and settlement of violent conflicts since no third party exists that might be able to intervene. Horizontal violence then became opportune because “exit” was unavailable or implied high costs while “voice” equaled violence (Converse, 1968; Hirschman, 1970; Koch, 1976).
- 5.
- 6.
Vigilantism is a very vague and indefinite concept. Following (Johnston, 1996), vigilantism consists of six factors: (1) at least minimal planning on behalf of the agitators; (2) it has to be undertaken by private agents (police officers may participate as private persons; police officers commit acts that are illegitimate; officer follows a force policy that constitutes a form of violence or illegitimate coercion; (3) voluntary activity of active citizens; (4) violence as a necessary element; (5) the objective to control, either in the political, in the criminological, or in the social sense; and (6) as a reaction to a perceived (subjective) or objective collapse of the social order. Regarding the motivations for direct vigilante violence, vigilantism can be further subcategorized depending on its social scale either as crime-control vigilantism, as social-groups vigilantism, or as regime-control vigilantism (Rosenbaum & Sederberg, 1976). In the case of death squads, vigilantism is highly entangled with state authority and therefore located on a very high organizational scale. Concerning the relationship between vigilantism and state authority, it “presumes the existence of the state” (Abrahams, 1998, p. 9) although it has to be clarified that “some forms of violence that challenge the state’s monopoly come into being due to decisions of state agencies” (Schlichte, 2009b, p. 311) themselves.
- 7.
On a very basic level, resources are defined as “the media whereby transformative capacity is employed as power in the routine course of social interaction” (Giddens, 1979, p. 92). Resources therefore are “anything that can serve as a source of power in social interactions” (Sewell, 1992, p. 9). Two types of resources can be distinguished (Giddens, 1979, 100): Authoritative resources as “capabilities which generate command over persons” and allocative resources as “capabilities which generate command over objects or other material phenomena,” which will be defined in this study as material or economic resources and symbolical resources. Resources therefore are twofold: human and nonhuman. Nonhuman resources are “objects, animate or inanimate, naturally occurring or manufactured, that can be used to enhance or maintain power; human resources are physical strength, dexterity, knowledge, and emotional commitments that can be used to enhance or maintain power, including knowledge of the means of gaining, retaining, controlling, and propagating either human or nonhuman resources” (Sewell, 1992, p. 9). In this sense, the term resources combines elements on which political economy focuses, namely economic resources and forms of economic surplus as well as resources that practice theory approaches, namely symbolical resources in the sense of “actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition – or in other words, to membership in a group” (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 50).
- 8.
Social organization is commonly referred to as the antipode of violence. Brought into discussion from the Chicago School, social organization was associated with the control of violence (Janowitz & Burk, 1991), and eruptions of violence were precisely attributed to social disorganization (Shaw & McCay, 1942). In a certain sense, the Chicago School treated violence as something external to social organization. In contrast to the Chicago School and following the praxeological approach, violence is indeed entangled with social organization (Jackman, 2002, p. 407).
- 9.
Surplus can take either the form of rent or the form of profit. Capitalist profit, however, depends on specific market structures, which do not develop automatically. Kalecki (1971) shows that profit depends on net investment, which is ultimately based on rising mass incomes due to strong bargaining power of labor (Elsenhans, 1983).
- 10.
The state is one possible solution as it provides the administrative structure to organize the access to rents and at the same time centralizes and redistributes the economic surplus.
- 11.
Social closure was developed early on by (Weber, 1968, p. 43); the concept, however, did not enjoy primary attention in the reading of Weber. It describes the process of marginalization and exclusion of non-belonging, of distancing and disposing strangers, and finally the construction of we-groups. (Wimmer, 2013) relates social closure to ethnic boundary making processes.
- 12.
Conflicts vary in the quality of their object. They can either be classified as conflicts over divisible resources such as power, money, and territory or as conflicts about non-divisible issues such as norms and values, recognition, truth, ideology, or the arrangement of the future. In the former case, divisible conflicts are about more/less, in the latter case, they are about either/or and create a “winner-takes- all” mentality. The literature shows how initially perceived divisible conflicts shift towards non-divisible conflicts through mobilization, manipulation, and agency (e.g. in the case of ethnicity by ethnic entrepreneurs). In this process, divisible conflicts are reframed as non-divisible conflicts as a precondition for further mobilizations along ethnic lines.
- 13.
How practical knowledge arranged in cultural scripts is experienced, processed, and used individually as well as collectively remains traditionally outside the conventional research scope of social sciences. This is exactly the starting point where cognitive science comes into play. In recent years, authors of cognitive anthropology (Casson, 1983; D’Andrade & Strauss, 1997), social psychology (Schneider, 1991), and cultural sociology (Cerulo, 2002) have been doing ground-breaking and pioneering work explaining “how cultural processes enter into individual lives and how such processes enter into some kinds of collective behavior” (DiMaggio, 2002, p. 275). Results show that human beings dispose of much larger stocks of knowledge as they can translate into action. This stock of knowledge is divided into cultural scripts. In this line, a cultural script is defined in cognitive science as a “building block of culture,” and as “chunked networks of loose procedures and understandings which enable us to deal with standard and recurring situations” (Bloch, 1991, p. 185). Scripts are arranged hierarchically. These scripts are learned through practical experience and are subsequently (re)arranged into new cognitive networks, or they support and join yet existing ones. “There is (…) considerable evidence that learning is not just a matter of storing received knowledge, as most anthropologists implicitly assume when they equate cultural and individual representations, but that it is a matter of constructing apparatuses for the efficient handling and packing of specific domains of knowledge and practice” (Bloch, 1991, p. 189).
- 14.
Learning therefore functions as a path-dependent sequence of meaning production. Results in cognitive science point out that information that is already entangled with existing scripts or information that disturbs those scripts is noticed and processed more likely rather than information orthogonal to existing scripts (DiMaggio, 1997).
References
Abrahams, R. (1998). Vigilant Citizens: Vigilantism and the State. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Adelman, J. (2010). The Rites of Statehood: Violence and Sovereignty in Spanish America, 1789–1821. Hispanic American Historical Review, 90(3), 391–422.
Adloff, F., & Mau, S. (2005). Zur Theorie der Gabe und Reziprozität. In F. Adloff & S. Mau (Eds.), Vom Geben und Nehmen: Zur Soziologie der Reziprozität (pp. 9–57). Frankfurt a.M., Germany/New York: Campus.
Agger, I., & Jensen, S. B. (1992). Die gedemütigte Potenz: Sexuelle Folter an politischen Gefangenen männlichen Geschlechts: Strategien zur Zerstörung der Potenz. In H. Riquelme (Ed.), Zeitlandschaft im Nebel: Menschenrechte, Staatsterrorismus und psychosoziale Gesundheit in Südamerika (pp. 48–75). Frankfurt a.M.: Vervuert.
Appadurai, A. (1998). Dead Certainty: Ethnic Violence in the Era of Globalization. Public Culture, 10(2), 225–247.
Auty, R. M. (2001). The Political Economy of Resource-Driven Growth. European Economic Review, 45(4/6), 839–846.
Baberowski, J. (2012). Räume der Gewalt. Forensische Psychiatrie, Psychologie, Kriminologie, 6(3), 149–157.
Bates, R., Greif, A., & Singh, S. (2002). Organizing Violence. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46(5), 599–628.
Beblawi, H., & Luciani, G. (Eds.). (1987). The Rentier State. London: Croom Helm.
Black, D. (1990). The Elementary Forms of Conflict Management. In School of Justice Studies (Ed.), New Directions in the Study of Justice, Law, and Social Control (pp. 43–69). New York: Plenum Press.
Bloch, M. (1991). Language, Anthropology and Cognitive Science. Man, 26(2), 183–198.
Blok, A. (2000). The Enigma of Senseless Violence. In G. Aijmer & J. Abbink (Eds.), Meanings of Violence: A Cross Cultural Perspective (pp. 23–38). Oxford, UK: Berg.
Boehm, C. (1984). Blood Revenge: The Anthropology of Feuding in Montenegro and Other Tribal Societies. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bongaerts, G. (2007). Soziale Praxis und Verhalten – Überlegungen zum Practice Turn in Social Theory. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 36(4), 246–260.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 46–58). New York: Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Burchardt, H.-J., & Dietz, K. (2014). (Neo-)Extractivism: A New Challenge for Development Theory from Latin America. Third World Quarterly, 35(3), 468–486.
Casson, R. W. (1983). Schemata in Cognitive Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 12(1), 429–462.
Cerulo, K. A. (Ed.). (2002). Culture in Mind: Toward a Sociology of Culture and Cognition. New York: Routledge.
Collins, R. (1990). Violent Conflict and Social Organization: Some Theoretical Implications of the Sociology of War. Amsterdams Sociologisch Tijdschrift, 16(4), 63–87.
Collins, R. (2008). Violence: A Micro-Sociological Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Converse, E. (1968). The War of All Against All: A Review of the Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1957–1968. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 12(4), 471–532.
Coser, L. A. (1964). The Functions of Social Conflict. New York: Free Press.
D’Andrade, R. G., & Strauss, C. (Eds.). (1997). Human Motives and Cultural Models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dahrendorf, R. (1958). Toward a Theory of Social Conflict. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(2), 170–183.
DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and Cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1), 263–287.
DiMaggio, P. (2002). Why Cognitive (and Cultural) Sociology Needs Cognitive Psychology. In K. A. Cerulo (Ed.), Culture in Mind: Toward a Sociology of Culture and Cognition (pp. 274–281). New York: Routledge.
Dubiel, H. (1998). Cultivated Conflicts. Political Theory, 26(2), 209–220.
Elias, N. (1977). Zur Grundlegung einer Theorie sozialer Prozesse. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 6(2), 127–149.
Elias, N. (1994). Die Gesellschaft der Individuen. Frankfurt a.M., Germany: Suhrkamp.
Elsenhans, H. (1983). Rising Mass Incomes as a Condition of Capitalist Growth: Implications for the World Economy. International Organization, 37(1), 1–39.
Elsenhans, H. (1996). State, Class and Development. New Delhi, India: Radiant Publishers.
Elsenhans, H. (1997). Rente. In U. Albrecht & H. Vogler (Eds.), Lexikon der Internationalen Politik (pp. 439–447). München, Germany: Oldenbourg.
Elsenhans, H. (2015). Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists: World Capitalism and Global History. New Delhi, India: Sage.
Elster, J. (1990). Norms of Revenge. Ethics, 100(4), 862–885.
Elwert, G. (2002). Sozialanthropologisch erklärte Gewalt. In W. Heitmeyer & J. Hagan (Eds.), Internationales Handbuch der Gewaltforschung (pp. 330–367). Wiesbaden, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Feldman, A. (2008). Formations of Violence: Narrative of the Body and Political Terror in Northern Ireland. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fjelde, H., & Nilsson, D. (2012). Rebels Against Rebels: Explaining Violence Between Rebel Groups. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 56(4), 604–628.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. London: Macmillan.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Goldstone, J. A. (2001). Toward a Fourth Generation of Revolutionary Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 4(1), 139–187.
Gouldner, A. W. (1984). Reziprozität und Autonomie. Ausgewählte Aufsätze. Frankfurt a.M., Germany: Suhrkamp.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers.
Graziano, L. (1976). A Conceptual Framework for the Study of Clientelistic Behavior. European Journal of Political Research, 4(2), 149–174.
Gudynas, E. (2009). Diez tesis urgentes sobre el nuevo extractivismo: Contextos y demandas bajo el progresismo sudamericano actual. In J. Schuldt, A. Acosta, A. Barandiará, A. Bebbington, M. Folchi, A. Alayza, & E. Gudynas (Eds.), Extractivismo, política y sociedad (pp. 187–225). Quito, Ecuador: CAAP/CLAES.
Halbmayer, E. (2000). Socio-cosmological Contexts and Forms of Violence: War, Vendetta, Duels and Suicide Among the Yukpa of North-Western Venezuela. Sociologus, 50(1), 37–63.
Hanagan, M. (2003). Violence and the Rise of the State. In W. Heitmeyer & J. Hagan (Eds.), International Handbook of Violence Research (pp. 121–137). Dordrecht, The Netherlands/Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Helbling, J. (2006). Tribale Kriege: Konflikte in Gesellschaften ohne Zentralgewalt. Frankfurt a.M., Germany: Campus.
Hillebrandt, F. (2009). Praktiken des Tauschens: Zur Soziologie symbolischer Formen der Reziprozität. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Hillebrandt, F. (2014). Soziologische Praxistheorien: Eine problembezogene Einführung. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, Voice and Loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hirschman, A. O. (1994). Social Conflicts as Pillars of Democratic Market Society. Political Theory, 22(2), 203–218.
Huggins, M. K. (Ed.). (1991). Vigilantism and the State in Modern Latin America: Essays on Extralegal Violence. New York: Praeger.
Huggins, M. K., Haritos-Fatouros, M., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2002). Violence Workers: Police Torturers and Murderers Reconstruct Brazilian Atrocities. Berkeley, CA/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Inhetveen, K. (2005). Gewalt in ihren Deutungen: Anmerkungen zu Kulturalität und Kulturalisierung. Östereichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 30(3), 28–50.
Inhetveen, K. (2011). Towards a Body Sociology of Torture. In T. von Trotha, J. Rösel, & R. Geißler (Eds.), On Cruelty – Sur la cruauté – Über Grausamkeit (pp. 377–387). Köln, Germany: Köppe.
Jackman, M. R. (2002). Violence in Social Life. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 387–415.
Janowitz, M., & Burk, J. (1991). On Social Organization and Social Control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jervis, R. (1978). Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma. World Politics, 30(2), 167–214.
Johnston, L. (1996). What Is Vigilantism? British Journal of Criminology, 36(2), 220–236.
Kalecki, M. (1971). Selected Essays on the Dynamics of the Capitalist Economy 1933–1970. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kalyvas, S. N., & Arjona, A. (2005). Paramilitarismo: una perspectiva teórica. In A. Rangel Suárez (Ed.), El poder paramilitar (pp. 25–45). Bogotá, CO: Fundación Seguridad & Democracia.
Kerkvliet, B., & Scott, J. C. (1977). How Traditional Rural Patrons Lose Legitimacy: A Theory with Special Reference to Southeast Asia. In S. W. Schmidt, J. C. Scott, C. Landé, & L. Guasti (Eds.), Friends, Followers, and Factions: A Reader in Political Clientelism (pp. 439–458). Berkeley, CA/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Khan, M. H. (2000). Rents, Efficiency and Growth. In M. H. Khan & K. S. Jomo (Eds.), Rents, Rent-Seeking and Economic Development: Theory and Evidence in Asia (pp. 21–69). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
King, C. (2004). The Micropolitics of Social Violence. World Politics, 56(3), 431–455.
Koch, K.-F. (1976). Konfliktmanagement und Rechtsethnologie: Ein Modell und seine Anwendung in einer ethnologischen Vergleichsanalyse. Sociologus, 26(2), 96–129.
Krämer, M. (2007). Violence as Routine: Transformations of Local-Level Politics in KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa). Köln, Germany: Köppe.
Kurtz, M. J. (2000). Understanding Peasant Revolution: From Concept to Theory and Case. Theory and Society, 29(1), 93–124.
Liell, C. (Ed.). (2004). Kultivierungen von Gewalt: Beiträge zur Soziologie von Gewalt und Ordnung. Würzburg, Germany: Ergon.
Mackert, J. (2011). Im Auftrag des Staates: Die geheime Gesellschaft der Folterer. Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 21(3), 431–459.
Marx, K. (1972 [1894]). Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie: Dritter Band: Der Gesamtprozeß der kapitalistischen Produktion (MEW: Vol. 25). Berlin, Germany: Dietz Verlag.
McAdam, D., Tarrow, S. G., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Omeje, K. C. (Ed.). (2010). Extractive Economies and Conflicts in the Global South: Multi-Regional Perspectives on Rentier Politics. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Page, B., & Mercer, C. (2012). Why Do People Do Stuff? Reconceptualizing Remittance Behaviour in Diaspora-Development Research and Policy. Progress in Development Studies, 12(1), 1–18.
Pereira, A. W., & Davis, D. E. (2000). New Patterns of Militarized Violence and Coercion in the Americas. Latin American Perspectives, 27(3), 3–17.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Garden City/New York: Doubleday.
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A Development in Culturalist Theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.
Riches, D. (1986). The Phenomenon of Violence. In D. Riches (Ed.), The Anthropology of Violence (pp. 1–27). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Riekenberg, M. (2003). Gewaltsegmente: Über einen Ausschnitt der Gewalt in Lateinamerika. Leipzig, Germany: Leipziger Universitätsverlag.
Rosenbaum, H. J., & Sederberg, P. C. (1976). Vigilantism: An Analysis of Establishment Violence. In H. J. Rosenbaum & P. C. Sederberg (Eds.), Vigilante Politics (pp. 3–29). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Ross, M. L. (2001). Does Oil Hinder Democracy? World Politics, 53(3), 325–361.
Rössel, J. (2002). Die klassische Konflikttheorie auf dem Prüfstand: Determinanten der Intensität und Gewaltsamkeit von sozialen Konflikten. Schweizerische. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 28(1), 47–67.
Saar, M. (2008). Klasse/Ungleichheit: Von den Schichten der Einheit zu den Achsen der Differenz. In S. Moebius & A. Reckwitz (Eds.), Poststrukturalistische Sozialwissenschaften (pp. 194–207). Frankfurt a.M., Germany: Suhrkamp.
Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K., & Savigny, E. v. (Eds.). (2001). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London/New York: Routledge.
Schlichte, K. (2009a). In the Shadow of Violence: The Politics of Armed Groups. Frankfurt a.M., Germany/New York: Campus.
Schlichte, K. (2009b). Na krilima patriotisma: On the Wings of Patriotism: Delegated and Spin-Off Violence in Serbia. Armed Forces & Society, 36(2), 310–326.
Schneider, D. J. (1991). Social Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 42(1), 527–561.
Schröder, I. W., & Schmidt, B. E. (2001). Introduction: Violent Imaginaries and Violent Practices. In B. E. Schmidt & I. W. Schröder (Eds.), Anthropology of Violence and Conflict (pp. 1–24). London: Routledge.
Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sewell, W. H. (1992). A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29.
Shaw, C. R., & McCay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas: A Study of Rates of Delinquency in Relation to Differential Characteristics of Local Communities in American Cities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shaw, M. (2009). Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks for Organised Violence. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 3(1), 97–106.
Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How it Changes. Los Angeles: Sage.
Sigrist, C. (1979). Regulierte Anarchie: Untersuchungen zum Fehlen und zur Entstehung politischer Herrschaft in segmentären Gesellschaften Afrikas. Frankfurt a.M., Germany: Syndikat.
Simmel, G. (1992/[1908]). Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. In Soziologie. Gesamtausgabe (Vol. 11). Frankfurt a.M., Germany: Suhrkamp.
Spittler, G. (1980). Konfliktaustragung in akephalen Gesellschaften: Selbsthilfe und Verhandlung. In E. Blankenburg, E. Klausa, & H. Rottleuthner (Eds.), Alternative Rechtsformen und Alternativen zum Recht (Jahrbuch für Rechtssoziologie und Rechtstheorie, Vol. 6, pp. 142–164). Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Stegbauer, C. (2002). Reziprozität: Einführung in soziale Formen der Gegenseitigkeit. Wiesbaden, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Stewart, P. J., & Strathern, A. (2002). Violence: Theory and Ethnography. London: Continuum.
Stohl, M. (Ed.). (1986). Government Violence and Repression: An Agenda for Research. New York: Greenwood Press.
Stohl, M., & Lopez, G. A. (Eds.). (1984). The State as Terrorist: The Dynamics of Governmental Violence and Repression. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies. American Sociological Review, 51(2), 273–286.
Thompson, E. P. (1971). The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century. Past & Present, 50, 76–136.
Tilly, C. (2003). The Politics of Collective Violence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tilly, C. (2006). Regimes and Repertoires. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tilly, C. (2008). Contentious Performances. Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tönnies, F. (1922). Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundbegriffe der reinen Soziologie. Berlin, Germany: Karl Curtius.
Turner, B., & Schlee, G. (Eds.). (2008). Vergeltung. Eine interdisziplinäre Betrachtung der Rechtfertigung und Regulation von Gewalt. Frankfurt a.M., Germany/New York: Campus.
Tyrell, H. (1999). Physische Gewalt, gewaltsamer Konflikt und ‘der Staat’ – Überlegungen zu neuerer Literatur. Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 9(2), 269–288.
Vinci, A. (2009). Armed Groups and the Balance of Power: The International Relations of Terrorists, Warlords and Insurgents. London/New York: Routledge.
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Weber, M. (1968). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Ed.). Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Whitehead, N. L. (2004a). Introduction: Cultures, Conflicts, and the Poetics of Violent Practice. In N. L. Whitehead (Ed.), Violence (pp. 3–24). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.
Whitehead, N. L. (2004b). On the Poetics of Violence. In N. L. Whitehead (Ed.), Violence (pp. 55–77). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.
Willems, H. (2012). Synthetische Soziologie: Idee, Entwurf und Programm. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Wimmer, A. (2005). Kultur als Prozess: Zur Dynamik des Aushandelns von Bedeutungen. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Wimmer, A. (2013). Ethnic Boundary Making: Institutions, Power, Networks. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Winters, J. A. (2011). Oligarchy. Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wood, E. J. (2008). The Social Processes of Civil War: The Wartime Transformation of Social Networks. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 539–561.
Zinecker, H. (2007). Kolumbien und El Salvador im longitudinalen Vergleich: Ein kritischer Beitrag zur Transitionsforschung. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.
Zinecker, H. (2011). Gewalt- und Friedensforschung – funktioniert der entwicklungstheoretische Kompass? In P. Schlotter & S. Wisotzki (Eds.), Friedens- und Konfliktforschung (pp. 139–182). Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.
Zinecker, H. (2014). Gewalt im Frieden: Formen und Ursachen der Gewaltkriminalität in Zentralamerika. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Warnecke-Berger, H. (2019). Political Economy and/or Culture? Theorizing Forms of Violence. In: Politics and Violence in Central America and the Caribbean. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89782-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89782-0_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-89781-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-89782-0
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)