A Cross-Cultural Theory of Political Conflict and Violence

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.It is difficult to conceive of a human community where there is no conflict among the members or between persons in the community and outsiders. At the same time, the degree to which conflict is overt varies widely. This paper examines structural and psychocultural hypotheses to account for this variation, and then tests them using multiple regression with data from a worldwide sample of 90 preindustrial societies typically studied by anthropologists. While the statistical results provide some support for both explanations for internal and external conflict, more interestingly, the two are integrated to form a general theory of conflict behavior. Our argument is that pyschocultural dispositions determine a society's overall conflict level, while its structural features shape whether the targets of aggression lie within the same society, in other societies, or both. The common psychocultural roots of both internal and external conflict are harsh socialization patterns, low warmth and affection directed at children, and high protest masculinity. The structural roots of internal and external conflict differ. Internal violence is associated with weak cross-cutting ties, strong localized male groups (in uncentralized societies), and polygyny; while external conflict and warfare are found in societies which are high on socioeconomic complexity, where polygyny is absent, and in uncentralized societies with martial endogamy and weak cross-cutting ties. The theoretical aspects of this theory are elaborated on, drawing on anthropological and psychoanalytic theory.

War and the Socialization of Children

“…Because chronic or predictable scarcity had no independent effect on warfare frequency, and any threat of disasters predicted high frequency warfare, we suggested that the unpredictable nature of natural disasters and the subsequent unpredictable loss of resources arouses a high degree of fear that motivates people to try to take resources from others in advance, before the expected but unpredictable actual disasters (C. R. Ember & Ember, 1992a. Following Ross's (1986) factor analysis, we distinguished two major types of frustrating socialization as also possibly increasing the likelihood of warfare-punitive socialization and low need satisfaction. There was little or no evidence that punitive socialization predicted more war; however, there was some, albeit not completely consistent, evidence of a link between low need satisfaction and war.…”

Survivors of Political Violence: Conceptualizations, Empirical Findings, and Ecological Interventions

“…A review of the literature on the theories of conflict and political violence reveals that researchers have drawn on sociological, anthropological, psychological and ecological theories in their conceptual and empirical studies (Lupsha 1971;Ross 1986). Lupsha (1971) noted a few decades ago that political scientists were explaining the phenomena of political violence solely through a psychological framework.…”

“…Political scientists have since emphasized the importance of accounting for multiple factors when researching political violence (Ascher 1986;Ross 1986). In establishing the conceptual framework for his study, Ross (1986) posited that conflict is an integral aspect of political life, and that the presence of political violence in society should, therefore, be represented on a continuum.…”

“…In establishing the conceptual framework for his study, Ross (1986) posited that conflict is an integral aspect of political life, and that the presence of political violence in society should, therefore, be represented on a continuum. Indeed, literature suggests that manifestations of political violence are culturally determined (Anderson 1976;Miller et al 2006).…”

The Role of Evolution in Ethnocentric Conflict and Its Management

“…(1989, p. 60) The notion that culturally acquired dispositions are associated with different levels of within-and between-group conflict has received strong support in recent cross-cultural research. Ross (1985Ross ( , 1986, examining conflict and violence in 90 preindustrial societies, found that while a society's overall level of conflict was a function of psychocultural predispositions, the choice of targets was shaped by social structural factors. In particular, in societies where child-rearing practices produced an interpretation of the world as relatively trustworthy, supportive, and nonthreatening, and where male gender identity was relatively secure, conflict and violence were considerably lower than where these dispositions were absent.…”