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.