Radical Theories Of Violence

Terrorism, has as of yesterday, just stuck New York with a bombing and Minnesota with a stabbing spree that injured more than 30 people combined. ISIS is claiming responsibility for both of these attacks although it is unclear at this time whether or not they were telling the truth. It does not matter to ISIS if they committed the attack or not as long as they get credit for it. They need to stay active to keep up their fear to influence their soldiers and future recruits so they can look powerful. This means that for America and its citizens they are under constant threat of random attack. Applying symbolic interactionism, it is clear that terrorism is a learned behavior. Groups of terrorists are coming together to spread their label and promote

What has America come to? Although the articles, “We’re No.1(1)!” written by Thomas Friedman, and the article “Violence is Who We Are,” by Steven Crichley, have different overall subjects, they have a similar arguments. The world isn’t as great as it used to be, we are lacking good leadership, and we happily invite wrong doings into our lives.

How can power have a major impact on violent views and how can violence affect a person 's life? Violence is intended force to hurt another person physically, mentally and/or emotionally. Power is to have control over a person or group of people. When power and violence is collided together, it can cause major harm to others. Even though power can be used for good, it can also have a major impact on violence in a negative way as shown by three real-life examples which are ISIS, Hitler, and Malcolm X.

Burgess-Proctor (2006) indicated that, “radical feminism radical feminism identifies patriarchy, or male dominance, as the root cause of women’s oppression,” (p. 29). Individuals who perpetrate crime against women have deep discrimination towards them due to male-base power and privileges in that particular society. Radical feminists experience strong influence by the male dominance concept. Domestic violence is some of the radical feminist manifestation of male power. Socialist feminism provides that crime against women is a complex combination of sex and class oriented inequalities.

The artists and creators of violence in various forms of media have the ability to shape how people perceive violence as an art. While most people that art is used as a form of aestheticism, often the creators attempt to send a message through their work. Maggie Nelson explains in her work, “Great to Watch,” that the art of cruelty aestheticizes violence in order to invoke a feeling of guilt as they watch others suffering. People use violence as an art of expression to create a moral or idea of through their story. Nelson points out that violence is complex and she demonstrates this with her mentioning of Abu Ghraib which she implies that she wishes violence was true and simple. She also mentions that the reason violence is used to send messages is because people often find that being bad and committing malice acts is an easy way of life. She explains that people find that the dark side and dark emotions take over and being good is difficult. She explains that there is a pleasure and desire through violence. Nelson reflects on the idea that people admire the idea of violence and its’ explicitness and its’ ability to show that not everything is as perfect as seems. In her quote, “The moral of this dichotomoy is that distraction by banal obviates a necessary focus on the all-too-real-calamitous”, she explains that the beauty of violence that people create in their stories shows that the duality of people when dealing with moral issues, shows that people have both a dark and

In the first article by Thomas Teo called Epistemological Violence he talks about this concept called Epistemological Violence which he states the concept is using empirical evidence in either research articles, books, chapters to imply that one group is inferior or a problem group despite their being better explanations available. This concept angers me because I know it has been used and still very might be still be used today to claimed outrageous claims that whites are the superior race because they rigged or spun the experiment to make it seem this way. For instance, a lot of people claim that African Americans are the problem group that is why they live in the worst neighborhoods, uses drugs, teen pregnancy, poor education, gang activity so when a test comes between a white male and a black male the white does better they can say by nature whites are smarter and they can so call back up their claim with their study.

In a world that is continuously changing in every aspect of its existences, there has arrived a controversy involving prehistoric societies and modern societies. Some scholars believe that prehistoric societies were more violent than the present modern societies; whereas other scholars on the opposite side of the argument believe that today human beings are living in a far more violent society than those who preceded. The two sides of the ongoing debate have published several books and articles defending their standpoints. They both present very compelling evidence based on historical and recent data and use interdisciplinary fields in order to support their claims.

Radical and liberal feminist theories identify sexual assault as occurring due to women’s oppression through gender role socialization and patriarchal dominance (Burgess-Proctor, 2006). Radical and liberal feminists posit that sexual assault is an act of power and

generations of extreme violence from the state, and logical decisions about what kind of actions require political result.

A biological level is the analysis of a person’s behavior through genes. Children at a young age who grow up in violent families and, where they watched the use of violence be used can obtain the violence and the children may be likely to see violence as a legitimate means to get what they want. They may even use violence. Social norms of violence can be transmitted from parents to children.

Violence, as defined by the dictionary, is behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. So what is the root/origin of violence? This is an open ended question, with many possible directions you could answer it. Approaching it from a psychological view, violence is not something that is born into our nature; It is an acquired and taught behavior to the human race. It also could be something that is picked up by accident. It is not natural to respond to scenarios with forceful actions intended to damage, hurt or kill, but yet many do.

Political violence is the leading cause of wars today. Personal agendas have led to many of the political objectives that cause violence today this has caused many problems throughout the world and will continue to do so until a solution to this issue is found. Political objectives have been advanced involuntarily dependent upon the kind of government a nation exercises. For instance, in a democratic nation political groups must worry about convincing the majority in order to advance ethically. Those who try to influence the majority through acts of violence are considered today as “terror” organizations. Though perhaps if it were not because of the recent 9/11 terror attacks that maybe such warrants would not be seen as terror attacks,

The subculture of southern violence theory is just one of many cultural transmissions theories discussed in Miller’s text. Cultural transmission theories determine that the values, beliefs, and norms of subcultures (deviant or no) contrast with the dominant culture. Therefore, it is possible for a subculture to justify criminal behavior as normal or necessary when it comes to one’s reputation and self-defense. Because the southern region of the United States is known to have high crime rates than other regions of the United States and as a whole, the subculture of violence theory was hypothesized by Wolfgang and Ferracuti during the late 1960s. Other researchers: Ball-Rokeach, 1973; Erlanger, 1974; and Hartnagel, 1980 theorized what factors may be the cause of the high crime rates in the southern region as well. This discussion will explore the implications of whether or not their findings adequately support the existence of the subculture of southern violence theory.

A question that has been asked for years and years, to this day, that still remains unanswered, where is the origin of violence. Where is the line that is drawn from self defense to committing an act of violence? For years, cases on top of cases of violence have been reported. School shootings, fights, murder, acts of theft, and countless others, all in which happen on a daily basis, but where does the line get drawn from what is right and wrong in a situation. The origin of violence lies within the case itself, as no case of violence is ever exactly the same, the beliefs, the situation, and the scenario all have different origins for violence.

The term violence brings to memory an image of physical or emotional assault on a person. In most circumstances, the person affected due to violence is aware that a violent action has been performed on that person. There is another form of violence where the affected individual, in most cases are unaware of the violence inflicted upon them. These types of violence are termed as structural violence. Structural violence is a form of invisible violence setup by a well-defined system, to limit an individual’s development to his full potential, by using legal, political, social or cultural traditions (Winter and Leighton, 1).