The Year..: 2014 is the year of ENDKILL. A 365 day journey into my research archive and active agenda, reflecting on what we know and do not know about mass atrocities and how to stop them (delivered once weekly so as not to burden the viewer/reader/audience).
Frustrated from reading social science literature related to the topic of why political violence exists and what could be done to stop it. Just seems like folks are just running with what they know.
The pessimists: nothing works. stop looking.
The optimists: what problem? it'll stop - eventually.
The Freudian scholar: if you can bring their parents to the negotiation table, they might stop.
The social movement scholar: change framing, gut mobilizing structures and reduce the perception of opportunity.
The bargaining scholar: come up with a dollar amount that would compel them to stop.
The quantitative IR scholar: intervene (depending upon context and strategy).
The qualitative comparative scholar: it's complex. Let me tell you a story.
The psychological scholar: the answer lies in the human mind. Make the perpetrator feel comfortable.
The economics scholar: it's the economy stupid and/or incentive manipulation.
The history scholar: it's complicated stupid. Let me tell you a story.
The sociology scholar: it's the society, networks or the various non-governmental organizations stupid.
The political scientist: it's political stupid.
I think that we need an "integral conflict studies" program. We need individuals, perceptions, ideas, organizations and relationships involved. Whatever happened to developing a test which compares all explanations against one another but allowing factors to concatenate or operate sequentially and reciprocally? I don't want to go back to cybernetic models but they seemed more dynamic somehow.
Frustrated from reading social science literature related to the topic of why political violence exists and what could be done to stop it. Just seems like folks are just running with what they know.
The pessimists: nothing works. stop looking.
The optimists: what problem? it'll stop - eventually.
The Freudian scholar: if you can bring their parents to the negotiation table, they might stop.
The social movement scholar: change framing, gut mobilizing structures and reduce the perception of opportunity.
The bargaining scholar: come up with a dollar amount that would compel them to stop.
The quantitative IR scholar: intervene (depending upon context and strategy).
The qualitative comparative scholar: it's complex. Let me tell you a story.
The psychological scholar: the answer lies in the human mind. Make the perpetrator feel comfortable.
The economics scholar: it's the economy stupid and/or incentive manipulation.
The history scholar: it's complicated stupid. Let me tell you a story.
The sociology scholar: it's the society, networks or the various non-governmental organizations stupid.
The political scientist: it's political stupid.
I think that we need an "integral conflict studies" program. We need individuals, perceptions, ideas, organizations and relationships involved. Whatever happened to developing a test which compares all explanations against one another but allowing factors to concatenate or operate sequentially and reciprocally? I don't want to go back to cybernetic models but they seemed more dynamic somehow.
Reminds me of the Akira Kurosowa film Rashomon (like many things - actually) with each of the characters telling you something that was directly in line with making themselves look good/nobel. Just once I would like to see a psychologist say that something is not psychological in nature. Political scientists frequently yield to the relevance of other disciplines. Sociologists occasionally defer to politics or psychology. This said, where are the arguments and models that integrate insights from all disciplines. Perhaps specific combinations work for onset and others work for variation whereas others work for termination? Within the current way that the
RSS Feed
