Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Conflict and class inequality
Class conflicts and inequality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Conflict and class inequality
INTRODUCTION
This essay will try to analyze reasons behind violence during revolutions as studies have shown that peaceful revolutions are more successful than violent ones (53% vs 26%) (Lakey, 2012). It is necessary to point out where exactly violence comes into action so the essay will deal with six possible causes that startle violence amongst demonstrators: inequality/class conflict/instability, individual(public) desire for leadership, lack of dialog/compromise, lack of democracy, violation of human rights/extremism and lastly, escalation.
“Since the source of violence rests with reaction, whether or not it will appear depends not so much upon the will to use it but rather upon the capacity to use it.” (Aptheker, 1967)
It is important to study why are people behaving violently in order for the government or anyone with influence to take precautions reducing forceful actions.
INEQUALITY, INSTABILITY (CLASS CONFLICT)
Edward N. Muller says that since ancient times (Aristotle up to de Tocqueville) social philosophers thought that economic inequality (hand in hand with relative deprivation and resource mobilization) causes revolutions and political violence. (Muller, 1985:47) However, latest researches suggest that the importance is lower but still significant and it also takes regime repressiveness into account. (Muller, 1985:48) “A high level of inequality and a regime structure that is neither democratic nor totalitarian appear to be two potent ingredients of a recipe for political instability.” (Muller, 1985:60)
Class conflict, associated with the above-mentioned, is the division between the poor and the rich –the gap is increased during revolutions, social order breaks down, chaos follows, citizens feel less se...
... middle of paper ...
...s of civil war [Online] Microcon. Available from: http://www.microconflict.eu/publications/RWP46_FS.pdf [Accessed 04/01/2014]
Sutherland, C. (n.d.) Haitian Revolution (1791-1804) [Online] BlackPast.org. Available from: http://www.blackpast.org/gah/haitian-revolution-1791-1804 [Accessed 05/01/2014]
The Economist (2011) The economics of violence [Online] The Economist, 16th Apr. Available from: http://www.economist.com/ [Accessed 05/01/2014]
World Health Organization (2002) World report on violence and health: summary [Online] WHO. Available from: http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/summary_en.pdf [Accessed 04/01/2014]
Zagorin, P. (1973) Theories of Revolution in Contemporary Historiography. Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 88, No. 1 (Mar., 1973), pp. 23-52. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2148647 [Accessed 03/01/2014]
Violence, although at times is morally wrong, is sometimes the best way to solve a problem, to reach a goal. Because violence is an exhibition of a man's powers, violence allow an individual to show his might and his prowess. Therefore, both violence and power are attributed to an individual's or society's ability to achieve what they yearn to accomplish.
Wieviorka, M (2009) Chapter 1, “violence and conflict” Violence: a New Approach. Pp 9-26. SAGE: London
Social inequality is characterized by the existence of unequal opportunity for various social positions or statuses within a given group or society. It is a phenomenon that has a long history as social inequalities has a wide range of varieties. From economic, gender, racial, status, and prestige, social inequality is a topic often disputed by classical theorists. Sociologists Karl Marx, Max Weber, W.I. Thomas, and Frederic M. Thrasher have formed varying thoughts on this recurring phenomenon. Marx believed that social inequality synthesized through conflicts within classes and in modern society those two classes were the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. In contrast, Weber disputes Marx’s simplistic view of the conflict and theorizes that social
A great revolutionary once said, “The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall.” The revolutionary in this quote, Che Guevara, epitomizes the notion that revolutions are not a random occurrence but rather a continuous push for a fundamental change. In the framework of revolutions that have occurred in the world, most notably those that have occurred in Britain, America, France, and Haiti; one realizes that the elements of competition and mass mobilization are intrinsic to understanding the successes of each revolutionary movement. Yet, the catalysts and societal implications for each of these revolutions provides different venues of implementation that separates it from others.
Throughout history, revolutions have started because of new ideas that change thinking and disrupt what has come to be considered normal. During 1700s, the American, French, and Haitian Revolutions were no exception. The Enlightenment ideas that were spreading around this time lead people of these three nations to question their ruling elites, and to begin considering breaking free. Of these three, though, no one revolt can be seen as more radical when compared to the other two. Each was faced with the challenging task of successfully separating from the oppression that had been brought upon them by to powerful empires and monarchies who had lost sight of what the American, French, and Haitian people alike considered important, as well as being some of the first revolts to use radical Enlightenment ideas to justify each of their rebellions. They considered these rebellions their one shot at being able to break free.
Violence has been recorded down in our history from the dawn of time; it seems that in the past, violence was the answer for all disputes. Though time has progressed, “violence has been in decline … and today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species’ time on earth” (Pinker). This decline in violence helps illustrate that mankind has been able to change, by dealing with conflicts in a peaceful manner, for violence is now not the first option to deal with issues. This turnaround also shows an evolution in mankind’s thinking process and ethics. Mankind now has understood value in living; thus, this has allowed for peace to play an integral part in society’s culture today.
Throughout human history, violence, for the most part, has been a perpetual struggle we’ve faced. It does not discriminate against location, color, or creed, and it has an impact, lasting or not, on each of us at some point during our lives. Living in a Western country, many of us have become accustomed to the idea that true violence only lives in the ravaged lands of warring countries or the dilapidated streets of rundown neighborhoods, but in truth it can be found anywhere. Community center’s, schools, churches, and even the most secluded towns all encounter violence, though sometimes behind closed doors, everyone is vulnerable to it. But what prompts it to occur exactly? Violence itself stems from the causality of several different factors,
“See, people with power understand exactly one thing: violence” (Chomsky). The history of the world is full of blood, greed, and violence. There has only been wars instigated by the rich, powerful and greedy. Violence often lead to more violence which will cause pain everywhere or somewhere in this world (Solter). Just as Issac Asimov once said, “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent” but things tend to heat up and move up to the next level. Violence, especially in wars, only leads to further violence due to many different elements, especially vengeance, political and economic greed.
In cities, suburban areas and even small towns, people are fearful and concerned that violence has permeated the fabric of their communities and degraded the quality of their lives (Albert J. Reiss). There is aggression everyday and it can be seen in all different forms. Where ever you go there will be some type of aggression. While doing research, I learned new things about psychological aggression and affects aggression has on people.
Violent crimes occur for many different reasons. Students who rampaged through the high schools throughout the United States have all said to have one thing in common; their peers did not respect the attackers. These students say they have felt bullied, or not belonging or not fitting in to what the “popular” standards are. So why resort to anger? Many said it feels it gives them the respect that they were deprived of and what they felt they deserved. These students make national and world news headlines, and they feel they have power and control when resorting to violence. Other reasons include drugs and gangs, which are at the top of the list followed by disagreements.
While using violence to counteract violence may seem like a contradiction of sorts it is possibly the only recourse for the oppressed. It is impossible to create a formula of what works and doesn’t work in terms of emancipation because it is highly dependent on the particular situation but it is quite apparent that counterviolence is a necessary tool in this struggle. As we have seen, violence is not the only tool in liberation; the reconstruction of human ethics and perceptions is as, or more, important. Furthermore, it has been shown that sometimes nonviolence can create systemic change and that violence is not always applicable. Other times, violence is the only means to achieve true human emancipation.
The first research that I encountered was James Gilligan’s M.D. book (1996) titled, "VIOLENCE." Gilligan separates the "epidemic" of violence into three areas; "The Pathology of Violence," "The ‘Germ Theory’ of Violence," and "The Epidemology of Violence." His research shows that people act violently as a means to attain, what to them is, justice. Gilligan found that most violent males, on an individua...
...d non-partisan nature, Skocpol could ably elevate Sewell’s ideology to a position of substantially greater importance within the case study. Perhaps the greatest contribution of Skocpol and her methodology is the willingness to consider all the possibilities of a revolution’s sources without weighting one factor too heavily at the outset or relegating others as non-attributable to the genesis of the revolution or its course. This approach then may aid other researchers and serve as a flexible approach (and way of thinking) for further historical, comparative analysis of social revolutions.
Throughout history, countless uprisings have occurred. Historians classify any forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system as a revolution. The success or failure of a revolution is directly related to the revolution’s causes and consequences. The French Revolution was more successful than the Nicaraguan Revolution, because the Nicaraguan Revolution left the country in social and financial ruin, foreign powers had much greater interference, and it precipitated a period of political unrest with multiple leadership changes. One cause of both revolutions was that people from all social classes were discontented.
According to France (2010) this can have an impact on the welfare of individuals, groups and community and of the whole nation. Curran and Renzetti (1996) further asserted that conflict is not necessarily bad for society since it is a vital source for social change, but inequality itself has serious consequences on the lives of individuals. Majority of people in a society suffer from the effects of inequality, while the few reap tremendous benefits from it. Karl Marx found out that the bourgeoisie can accumulate massive resources, and can control livelihoods of the proletariat. These allow them to dominate the society by political corruption hence exposing the non-owners to unemployment and poverty (Macionis and Plumber, 2005). Those people at the top of the social class hierarchy can also use their greater economic and political resources to preserve their advantageous position. According to Gilchrist et al (2007), in conflict theory there are few basic conflicts which are class, race and ethnicity and gender. There are low and high ranks that give certain groups more power and prestige over others which cause conflicts in