Skip to main content

Political Fractionality and Epistemological Violence

  • 186 Accesses

Part of the Perspectives on Children and Young People book series (PCYP,volume 11)

Abstract

Researching youth violence raises difficult questions about normative assumptions and the ethical problems of universalising and relativistic epistemologies. Furthermore, the study of youth as not simply an abstract concept, but as an idea that concerns real, feeling and conscious subjects, raises questions for violence studies about the focus of the research and its participatory nature. In this chapter, I examine these issues and raise the possibility of ‘epistemological violence’ (Teo, 2010) when studying youth violence. I begin the chapter with by clarification my use of the terms ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ concerning violence and epistemologies. Having clarified these terms, I turn to examine the strengths and weaknesses of universalising and relativising epistemologies for studying youth violence. Subsequently, I argue that Political Fractionality offers a framework that avoids synergistic solutions and requires researchers to examine the effects of their political and ethical orientations.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-981-15-5542-8_7
  • Chapter length: 18 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-981-15-5542-8
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

References

  • Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be?. Frenchs Forrest, NSW: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. S. (1967). Whose side are we on. Social Problems, 14(3), 239–247.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bufacchi, V. (2005). Two concepts of violence. Political Studies Review, 3(2), 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9299.2005.00023.x.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (2010). Performative agency. Journal of Cultural Economy, 3(2), 147–161.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, B. (1991). The concept of agency: A feminist poststructuralist analysis. Social Analysis: The International Journal of Social and Cultural Practice (30), 42–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrugia, D. (2013). The possibility of symbolic violence in interviews with young people experiencing homelessness. In K. Te Riele & R. Brooks (Eds.), Negotiating ethical challenges in youth research (pp. 111–121). Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1986). The foucault reader. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1988). Politics philosophy, culture; interviews and other writings 1977–1984 (A. Sheridan & L. D. Kritzman, Trans.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1997). Ethics, subjectivity and truth (Vol. 1). New York: The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace and peace research. Journal of peace research, 6(3), 167–191.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (1990). Cultural violence. Journal of peace research, 27(3), 291–305.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis (Vol. 241). Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1982). Sociology: A brief but critical introduction. London: The Macmillan Press LTD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, V., & Robinson, Y. (2012). Developing creative research methods with challenging pupils. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 15(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2012.649407.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, P., & Kamp, A. (2014). An ‘untimely’ youth studies? In P. Kelly & A. Kamp (Eds.), A critical youth studies for the 21st century (pp. 526–533). Boston: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1999). On recalling ANT. The Sociological Review, 47(S1), 15–25.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London: Routledge.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. (2008). Sociology and STS. The Sociological Review, 56(4), 623–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.2008.00808.x.

  • Law, J., & Urry, J. (2004). Enacting the social. Economy and Society, 33(3), 390–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/0308514042000225716.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lomax, H. (2005). Contested voices? Methodological issues in visual research with children. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 15(2), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2012.649408.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, R. (2006). Social exclusion, youth transitions and criminal careers: Five critical reflections on ‘risk’. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 39(3), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.39.3.371.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, R. (2009). Precarious work: Risk, choice and poverty traps. In A. Furlong (Ed.), Handbook of youth and young adulthood: New perspectives and agendas (1st ed., pp. 167–175). Oxon, UK: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, R. (2016). Precarious work: The growing precarité of youth. In A. Furlong (Ed.), Routledge handbook of youth and young adulthood (2nd ed.). Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mol, A. (1999). Ontological politics. A word and some questions. The Sociological Review, 47(1), 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.1999.tb03483.x.

  • Nico, M. (2014). Beyond ‘biographical’ and ‘cultural illusions’ in European youth studies: Temporality and critical youth studies. A critical youth studies for the 21st century (pp. 53–69). Boston: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, J. L., & Edwards, M. (2003). Risk and youth: A critical sociological narrative. International Journal of Sociology and Social policy, 23(12), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443330310790417.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, S. (2014). Making sense of everyday life. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sercombe, H. (1992). Youth theory: Marx or Foucault response to Tait. Youth Studies Australia, 11(2), 51–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sercombe, H. (2010). Youth work ethics. London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shildrick, T., MacDonald, R., & Furlong, A. (2016). Not single spies but in battalions: A critical, sociological engagement with the idea of so-called ‘troubled families’. The Sociological Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954x.12425.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Strega, S. (2005). The view from the poststructural margins. In L. A. Brown & S. Strega (Eds.), Research as resistance (pp. 199–235). Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teo, T. (2010). What is epistemological violence in the empirical social sciences? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00265.xC.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, L., & Black, R. (2014). The ambiguous mobilities of young Australians. In P. Kelly & A. Kamp (Eds.), A critical youth studies for the 21st century. Brill: Leiden, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, R., & Wyn, J. (2011). Youth and society: Exploring the social dynamics of youth experience (2nd ed.). South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieviorka, M. (2005). Violence: A New Approach (D. Macey, Trans.). London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieviorka, M. (2014). The sociological analysis of violence: New perspectives. The Sociological Review, 62(S2), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12191.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Woodman, D., & Threadgold, S. (2011). The future of the sociology of youth. Youth Studies Australia, 30(3), 8–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodman, D., & Threadgold, S. (2014). Critical youth studies in an individualized and globalized world: Making the most of Bourdieu and Beck. A critical youth studies for the 21st century (pp. 552–566). Brill: Leiden, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyn, J., & White, R. (1997). Rethinking youth. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youth Affairs Council of Western Australia. (2003). Code of ethics for youth work. West Leederville, Perth, Australia: Youth Affairs Council of Western Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zizek, S. (2008). Violence: Six sideways reflections. London, UK: Profile Books LTD.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ben Arnold Lohmeyer .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lohmeyer, B.A. (2020). Political Fractionality and Epistemological Violence. In: Youth and Violent Performativities. Perspectives on Children and Young People, vol 11. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5542-8_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5542-8_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-15-5541-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-15-5542-8

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)