In Ross'/s article about conflict and violence, a measurement of internal and external violence was done using 44 variables for the 90 societies. The areas of interest for the table are those measuring internal and external violence. The factor loading is determined by the sum of the scores of each society for each variable and is weighted individually for each society. The six variables in the internal violence and conflict scale, in descending order of importance, are/:/./ The severity of conflict between different communities of the same society (v767), the acceptability of violence when directed against members of the same society outside the local community (v782), frequency of internal warfare (v773), the same severity of conflict within the local community (v764), the extent to which physical force is used as a mechanism for the dispute settlement (v770), the acceptability of violence when directed against members of the local community(v781) and degree of compliance with community norms and decisions by members of local communities(v775). Societies that scored high on this end of the scale, for example Jivaro or Somali, frequently engaged in violence and internal warfare both within and between communities of the same society. Societies that fell into the middle of the scale engaged in regular conflict, but internal warfare and violence in local disputes occur less frequently than the previous category of societies. The 3 variables that compose the external warfare and conflict scale are frequency of external warfare(v774), degreee of hostility(v780), and the acceptability of violence directed to people in other societies(v783). The Maori, Comanche and Jivaro are societies of the high end of the scale.
From the large amount of research done on violence and conflict, there exist 3 characteristics of societies that are agreed upon by the majority. Some theorists argue that nations that have differences within internal and external conflict are not always different in terms of their internal composition/how is that an explanation?/. The other two explanations agree upon the existence of internal differences, but disagree on the differences themselves. Some would describe violence and warfare as an aspect of the structural features of the society giving reference to aspects such as social, economic, or politics. Others would argue psycho-cultural characteristics as the factors that define "behavioral expression of aggression". The environment that one is raised in will explain violent tendencies/:/;/ "psychocultural deposits are culturally shared response tendencies acquired from the earliest stages of life through mechanisms spelled out in both psychodynamic and social learning theory (Ross, 433). /make the argument earlier/ Some would agree to each idea that within the structure of society there are many differences for the causes of internal and external conflicts. Others would argue differently/:/,/ the psychological aspect of society views the causes for both the internal and external conflict having many similarities. The hypothesis given by Ross deals with the relationship between social and economic organization. The factors of social structure within each society deals with cross-cutting ties, actions of male kinship groups with common interests and socioeconomic complexity. /could be more coherently argued/also:needs a transition sentence to next paragraph/
/heading Hypotheses about Causal Factors/
Cross-cutting ties deals with the relationship between different members of a community and the different communities within the same society. These groups promote the settlement of disputes with groups of shared interests. The loyalty to each group can be divided by the individual, which would connect different members and groups of a society. The existence of these ties would make it difficult for the differences of opinion to last for long periods of time because of the bonds between groups which produces less suspicion, more trust and greater cooperation. Therefore, we can hypothesize that the greater level of cross-cutting ties, the lower the level of internal conflict. The existence of cross-cutting ties with a society may lower the amount of conflict within the society, but this unity may increase the amount of conflict between a particular society and other societies. A political stance toward outsiders would therefore be agreed upon by the society as a majority. /move up as topic sentence/ We can hypothesize that the greater the level of cross-cutting ties the greater the level of external conflict. Cross cutting ties are caused by means of several marriage residences and intercommunity trade. Marriage creates alliances between families regardless of whether they share common interests or not, "Kinship bonds create mutual obligation of solidarity, while the absence of these ties makes for potentially hostile relationships (Ross, 435)". Marriage outside one's local community is encouraged which greatly reduces the occurrence of conflict between the communities because people do not want to fight with those that they are related to or share these types of bonds. We can also assume that other forms of exchange will exist between the different communities. The price of internal peace has the possibility of becoming expensive when such alliances forces communities to defend their kin communities against an enemy whether it be a common enemy or only an enemy of the other community. Their enemies become your enemies and attacks form or towards all enemies may be more common. Therefore, we will hypothesize that the greater the level of local community intramarriage, the lower the level of internal, and the higher the level of external, violence and conflict.
/NewPara/The weak point of this argument is that not all families get along. Statistics from Western societies show that the majority of violent crimes are between close kin and good friends. Residence is defined by the location where newlywed couples live whether it is by the mother, father, both or neither. A concentration of males within a patrilocal society will cause such a society to engage in a higher level of internal warfare, whereas, a matrilocal/ residence, establish/ed with /ing residence by/ the mother, has been associated with external warfare. Some theorists believe it is the other way around/:/ that warfare patterns shape residence rules. Groups that migrate from patrilocal residence adopt matrilocal residence to increase the level of internal peace/,/ resulting in unity to face their enemies as whole. Therefore we hypothesize matrilocality being positively associated with external and negatively with internal, violence and conflict. If matrilocality inhibits internal violence, patrilocality is generally viewed as enhancing it. Although the majority may share common interests, it is the nature of man to engage in some type of physical interaction. They may fight external enemies together, but this alliance would not necessarily stop them from fighting with one another. With this in mind, it may be difficult to gather together to fight against outside enemies. Therefore, we can hypothesize patrilocality will be positively associated with internal violence and conflict, but unrelated to external warfare. Intercommunity trade can be described by the exchange of goods to keep good relations and reduce the likelihood of warfare among nations. If disputes do arise, the good feelings between the groups should encourage peaceful resolution more readily. It can also be seen that trade would be the result of integration rather than the opposite. Whether it follows that trade leads to good relations or vice versa, the outcome is positive either way. The information is strong enough to hypothesize that the greater level of intercommunity trade, the lower the level of internal violence and conflict.
The second factor of the social
structure hypothesis is fraternal interest group theory/,/.
the level /of FIG stength /being directly
to it's presence/ in politically uncentralized
societies measured by the existence of patrilocality and polygyny. Fraternal
interest groups are stronger when the resources the group must protect
are significant, non-mobile and stable. Gathering people to form fighting
groups would be easy with the presence of strong fraternal interest groups.
Studies show that the level of feuding was unrelated to the division of
males /as to whether it is a patrilocal or
matrilocal society. When the relationship between fraternal interest groups
strength and external warfare was studied, there was no relationship found.
Therefore, we can hypothesize that fraternal interest group's strength
would be positively associated with internal violence and conflict in uncentralized
societies, but is unrelated to external violence and conflict. Polygynous
systems are commonly found to be warlike and seem to have a high level
of conflict. Polygyny is usually supported by patrilocality. Conflict is
high because related males with common interest are grouped together, as
described by the fraternal interest group theory. Studies have shown that
warfare and unbalance/d sex ratios lead to
polygyny, not vice versa. Polygyny is a response to a high death rate among
males to replenish the number of males in a given society. We can therefore
hypothesize that the greater the level of polygynous marriage, the greater
the level of internal and external violence and conflict.
//I am stopping my editing here, Josh. See written paper for further comments, where byou tie in with findings or tables, so what you have on the web page is mostly a review of the literature.//
The last factor of social structure hypothesis is socioeconomic complexity. Studies have shown that whether a society /has a low or high level of complexity neither is prone to violence. Some theorists would argue that difference of opinion regarding social and economic issues breeds internal conflict as differing and competing interests create more disputes. In societies that are higher in complexity, the potential for conflict is higher because of more resources available for allocation. It does not directly follow that greater complexity produces a higher level of conflict because potential for conflict is different from actual conflict. High socioeconomic complexity can be good because of the parallel rise in political coordination and control. The stability of social order can only be maintained if those with the largest shares use their political control wisely. Conversely, low socioeconomic complexity does not give clear results. Some hunting and gathering societies stress coordination and cooperation of the community as a whole in their primary activities that are necessary for survival. Severe conflict is rarely found within this type of community. There also exist communities, such as the Yanomamo of South Africa, with a low level of complexity yet contain a higher level of internal conflict. The lack of coordination and complexity will directly result in the low level of methods to control conflicts when they occur. Therefore, we cannot be certain how the level of internal conflict relates to the level of social and economic complexity.
A society's level of socioeconomic or political complexity can determine its level of external conflict. In support of socioeconomic complexity being a factor to the level of external conflict, humans adapt to survive in the changing world. Those who engage in successful external conflict adapted better ways to fight with internal coordination. At the same time, technology and living standards increased resulting in a rise towards the severity of warfare. There exists a tendency for more developed nations to have higher levels of external conflict. From the information presented, it can be seen that the higher the level of socioeconomic complexity, the greater the level of external violence and conflict. Political complexity has been seen to have more of a correlation to the level of conflict and warfare than socioeconomic complexity. Through studies of centralized societies, the development of military leadership leads to the need for political leaders. An alternate theory is conceived in a stratified society where the wealth has a necessity for a military to protect them from internal and external predators. When the society's main goal is conquest, the expansion of the military is used to control neighboring people and their resources. We can, therefore, hypothesize that the greater the level of political complexity, the higher the level of external violence and conflict.
We will now discuss the other side of the psychocultural argument why societies would engage in conflict, either external or internal. The psychocultural hypothesis can be summed up in two general areas: content and method of what was taught throughout their childhood and their political behavior as an adult. These two areas can be encompassed by three general partitions: harsh socialization, warmth and affection towards the child, and the search a male must go through to find his identity.
Harsh socialization can be defined as the different theories of how extreme and severe child training is associated with aggression as an adult. A child learns socially that physical punishment is accepted, in a given society, he would then carry that into his adulthood. Connections have been found between severe child rearing and societies that engage in a high level of warfare. The level of militarism in a society is reflected in the development of the children due to the aggressiveness of the adults as they punish their children. We can further hypothesize that the more severe the socialization practices in a society, the higher the level of internal and external violence and conflict.
In a society where the adults show affection to their children, the society is found to have a low level of violence and conflict. Those societies will give emphasis on values, for example trust, honesty, generosity and develop closer ties in the relationship between the father and son, which lead to cooperation as opposed to aggressiveness. When a child is given a great deal of affection, the child will have a high sense of security. If the child were to express his dislike or show signs of aggression he is discouraged by an adult, but without physical punishment. To maintain this type of society adults must agree on what they want for their children and make certain that the cycle will continue for their children's children. To sum up these points, the greater the use of child training practices fostering affections and security, the lower the level of internal and external violence and conflict.
Boys who grow up with a distant
relationship from their father have seen to have a tendency to be aggressive
to satisfy the needs of that society. In a study done by Whiting, he found
that a close relationship develops between a mother and son in the absence
of the father. This results in a feminine identity that is not accepted
as a norm in most societies. This conflict of roles leads to hypermasculine
behavior in the form of violence. In patrilocal, polygynous societies,
there exists the case where the mother similarly develops a close relationship
with her son, but relieves her frustrations on him. This leads to aggressive
males who form an indifference towards the feelings of women. Pride, narcissism
and self-enhancement develop in these stages which eventually lead to aggression.
Ember discusses how there is a low level of conflict associated to societies
where the father and son share a close relationship. With the lack of the
father, a child (mainly boys) is insecure in relationships that become
too personal. Within the extended family, conflict between the husband
and wife is common. This results in a weak child-father relationship and
leads to a high level of aggression within the society. We will therefore
hypothesize that the higher the levels of male identity conflict the greater
the level of internal and external violence and conflict.
In conclusion, the reasons behind aggression in any given society can be divided into two main categories: psychocultural and social structure. Within each category, there exist similarities behind internal and external warfare on the psychocultural side, but on the side of social structure the reasons for internal and external warfare differ. We will generalize the points made on the psychocultural side of aggression: affection for the child will lead to strong bonds of cooperation between the adults and their children. The lack of affection and with the presence of harsh punishment leads to emotional isolation and hostile tendencies. When the individual uses his aggression on others he justifies it because of the fact that that was his upbringing and he was never taught otherwise. The structural variables of aggression are weak cross-cutting ties and the existence of strong fraternal interest groups within uncentralized societies that have a high level of internal violence and conflict. The presence of strong cross-cutting ties limits the spread of conflict due to the close relationship between families and different communities. Fraternal interest groups have another source to their actions; they share a common interest or enemy and gather together to defend or attack to achieve their goal. The strength in fraternal interest groups is related only in societies that lack a centralized system. With the absence of authority in many societies studied, the related male groups will normally band together to defend their goals. The higher the male identity conflict or the greater the polygyny in many societies leads to a high level of internal conflict. Although the psychocultural basis for conflict is similar both internally and externally, social structure differs internally and externally. External violence is associated with higher socioeconomic complexity and preferences for intracommunity marriage and strong cross-cutting ties in uncentralized societies. Enemies can be viewed as a threat to the order of a society, which makes them acceptable targets to relieve their frustration on.