LIT 3.2 Eisner The use of violence an examination of crosscutting issues

Question 1

Why does eisner theorise that there should be a general theory of violence?

Answer 1

To understand the common mechanisms underlying diverse expressions of violence

Question 2

How should a general theory on violence look according to eisner?

Answer 2

Such a meta-theory should provide
- Identifying commonalities across different forms of violence (Motives, Participants, Organizations and dynamics)
- Explaining universal patterns of violence through underlying mechanisms
- Integrate biological and psychological and sociological theories in a unified explanation.
- Identifying shared principles underlying successful violence prevention strategies

Question 3

Why is violence a strategic instrument? Eisner

Answer 3

Eisner considers violence a strategic instrument to achieve specific goals. The author challenges the perception that violence is never a solution. Historically non state have had wide spread violence.

Question 4

What are the 3 perspectives for understanding violence as instrumental behaviour.

Answer 4

1. Judgement & Decision making
   Violence involves goal directed actions focussing on understanding cognitive and emotional processes to engage in violence.
2. Evolutionary perspective
   Violence and the motives related to evolutionary adaptation
3. Social Institutions
   Social Institutions such as the legal system shape when violence is seen as a viable strategy.

Question 5

What are the corss cutting themes in violence? Eisner

Answer 5

• Revenge and Protection
• Intrinsic Reward
• Justification
  Justification to reduce inhibition against violence.

Question 6

What is Bandura’s theory of moral disengagement.

Answer 6

Albert Bandura’s theory of moral disengagement explains how people can commit harmful acts and still feel good about themselves. Essentially, it describes the mental processes people use to justify their actions and avoid feeling guilty. Here are the key points:

1. Moral Justification: People convince themselves that their harmful actions serve a noble purpose.
2. Euphemistic Labeling: Using mild or vague terms to make harmful actions seem less severe.
3. Advantageous Comparison: Comparing their actions to worse behaviors to make them seem acceptable.
4. Displacement of Responsibility: Blaming authority figures or others for their actions.
5. Diffusion of Responsibility: Believing that the responsibility is shared among many people, so they are less personally accountable.
6. Disregard or Distortion of Consequences: Minimizing or ignoring the harm caused by their actions.
7. Dehumanization: Viewing victims as less than human to justify mistreatment.
8. Attribution of Blame: Blaming the victims for bringing the harm upon themselves.

These mechanisms allow individuals to disengage from their moral standards and act in ways that would normally cause them distress.