The Place of Moral Issues in Violence Studies | What place do morality and moralizing have in violence studies? First, it is important to clarify that morality and moralizing are different concepts. Morality refers to the code of conduct of a society and moralizing refers to self-righteous expressions of those standards. Sociological analysis emphasizes that the social construction of reality extends to morality. Recall Reiman's argument that American society has successfully sustained non-structurally oriented, status-quo thinking about violent behavior by condemning individual intent more than resultant damage. In other words, morality can become an ideological tool to reinforce current definitions. Gilligan supports this position:

Moral approaches to violence do not help us to understand the causes and prevention of violence; and what is worse, some of the moral assumptions about violence actually inhibit us in our attempts to learn about its causes and prevention. The most popular moral ways of thinking about violence lead to the mistaken conclusion that to understand violent behavior is to excuse it. It is easier and less threatening to condemn violence (morally and legally) so that we can punish it, rather than seeking its causes and working to prevent it (1996: 24).

Moral arguments make it easy to punish violent offenders, and therfore they are understandably attractive. However, they also block the analysis necessary to develop effective prevention. More, they can be a form of claims-making, in which advocates argue for the correctness of positions not on the basis of fact but on the basis of moral evaluation. Because this impedes prevention, Gilligan advocates a non-moralistic approach that "neither supports nor opposes the 'forgiveness' of violent behavior—since one has not condemned in the first place" (1996: 93).

Consistent with the social construction of morality, a task confronting violence studies curricula is the formulation of an improved moral stance toward violence in society. According to Gilligan, American violence is the result of our collective "moral choice" to maintain those social policies that in turn maintain our uniquely high level of violence; and I call that choice a moral choice because it is very explicitly rationalized, justified, and legitimized on moral grounds, in moral terms (1996:23).

In sum, the challenge to those undertaking violence studies in the undergraduate curriculum, and to researchers and policy-makers alike, is twofold. First, it is incumbent upon anyone advocating against violence to broaden definitions to include Turpin and Kurtz's "web" idea. Regardless of specific levels, structural dimensions must be recognized and addressed. Second, despite cultural tendencies to the contrary, it is important to recognize the impoverished state of cultural morality toward violence and the dysfunctional consequences of moralizing about violence. Only careful causal analysis can provide sound prevention policies and, ultimately, sounder moral principles. Only then will the media reports on high-school violence and church shootings disappear.

REFERENCES

Becker, H. S. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press.

Berger, P. L. 1963. Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective. New York: Anchor Books.

Bernstein, B. 1971. Class, Codes and Control: Theoretical Studies Towards a Sociology of Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Berkowitz, L. 1993. Aggression: Its Causes, Consequences, and Control. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Brock-Utne, B. 1997. Linking the micro and macro in peace and development studies. In J. Turpin and L. R. Kurtz (eds.) The Web of Violence: From Interpersonal to Global. Urbana, Ill: University of Illinois.

Currie, E. 1985. Confronting Crime: An American Challenge. New York: Pantheon.

Derber, C. 1996. The Wilding of America: How Greed and Violence Are Eroding Our Nation's Character. New York: St. Martin's.

Eisler, R. 1997. Human rights and violence: Integrating the private and public spheres. In J. Turpin and L. R. Kurtz (eds.) The Web of Violence: From Interpersonal to Global. Urbana, Ill: University of Illinois.

Ellwood, D. 1988. Poor Support. New York: Basic Books.

Epp, J. R., and A. M. Watkinson (eds.) 1997. Systemic Violence in Education: Promise Broken. Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press.

Fagan, J., and S. Wexler. 1987. Crime at home and in the streets: The relationship between family and stranger violence. Violence and Victims 2: 5-23.

Galtung, J. 1975. Peace: Research, Education, Action. Vol. 1: Essays in Peace Research. Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers.

Gelles, R. J. 1987. The Violent Home. Newbury Park, Cal.: Sage.

Gilligan, J. 1996. Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic. New York: Vintage Books.

Kohn, M., and C. Schooler. 1983. Work and Personality: An Inquiry into the Impact of Social Stratification. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

Mills, C. W. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.

Newman, K. S. 1988. Falling from Grace: The Experience of Downward Mobility in the American Middle Class. New York: Free Press.

Reiman, J. 1998. The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison. 5th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Rubin, L. B. 1976. Worlds of Pain: Life in the Working-Class Family. New York: Basic Books.

Spector, M., and J. I. Kitsuse. 1977. Constructing Social Problems. Menlo Park, Cal.: Benjamin Cummings.

Turpin, J., and L. R. Kurtz (eds.) 1997. The Web of Violence: From Interpersonal to Global. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press.

1 | 2 | 3 | back to TOC