What do you think?
Rate this book
Violence: A Micro-sociological Theory
In the popular misconception fostered by blockbuster action movies and best-selling thrillers--not to mention conventional explanations by social scientists--violence is easy under certain conditions, like poverty, racial or ideological hatreds, or family pathologies. Randall Collins challenges this view in Violence, arguing that violent confrontation goes against human physiological hardwiring. It is the exception, not the rule--regardless of the underlying conditions or motivations.
Collins gives a comprehensive explanation of violence and its dynamics, drawing upon video footage, cutting-edge forensics, and ethnography to examine violent situations up close as they actually happen--and his conclusions will surprise you. Violence comes neither easily nor automatically. Antagonists are by nature tense and fearful, and their confrontational anxieties put up a powerful emotional barrier against violence. Collins guides readers into the very real and disturbing worlds of human discord--from domestic abuse and schoolyard bullying to muggings, violent sports, and armed conflicts. He reveals how the fog of war pervades all violent encounters, limiting people mostly to bluster and bluff, and making violence, when it does occur, largely incompetent, often injuring someone other than its intended target. Collins shows how violence can be triggered only when pathways around this emotional barrier are presented. He explains why violence typically comes in the form of atrocities against the weak, ritualized exhibitions before audiences, or clandestine acts of terrorism and murder--and why a small number of individuals are competent at violence.
Violence overturns standard views about the root causes of violence and offers solutions for confronting it in the future.
Collins gives a comprehensive explanation of violence and its dynamics, drawing upon video footage, cutting-edge forensics, and ethnography to examine violent situations up close as they actually happen--and his conclusions will surprise you. Violence comes neither easily nor automatically. Antagonists are by nature tense and fearful, and their confrontational anxieties put up a powerful emotional barrier against violence. Collins guides readers into the very real and disturbing worlds of human discord--from domestic abuse and schoolyard bullying to muggings, violent sports, and armed conflicts. He reveals how the fog of war pervades all violent encounters, limiting people mostly to bluster and bluff, and making violence, when it does occur, largely incompetent, often injuring someone other than its intended target. Collins shows how violence can be triggered only when pathways around this emotional barrier are presented. He explains why violence typically comes in the form of atrocities against the weak, ritualized exhibitions before audiences, or clandestine acts of terrorism and murder--and why a small number of individuals are competent at violence.
Violence overturns standard views about the root causes of violence and offers solutions for confronting it in the future.
584 pages, Hardcover
First published January 7, 2008
27 people are currently reading
643 people want to read
About the author
Randall Collins
58 books108 followers Dr. Randall Collins is an American sociologist who has been influential in both his teaching and writing. He has taught in many notable universities around the world and his academic works have been translated into various languages. Collins is currently Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. He is a leading contemporary social theorist whose areas of expertise include the macro-historical sociology of political and economic change; micro-sociology, including face-to-face interaction;and the sociology of intellectuals and social conflict. He has devoted much of his career and research to study society, how is it created and destroyed through emotional behaviors of human beings. He is considered to be one of the leading non-Marxist conflict theorists in the United States, and served as the president of the American Sociological Association from 2010 to 2011.
Dr. Collins' first position in academia was at UC Berkeley, followed by many other universities including the University of Wisconsin-Madison, followed by the UC San Diego, the University of Virginia, then UC Riverside, and finally the University of Pennsylvania. He took intermittent breaks from academia, as a novelist, and as a freelance scholar. He has also been a visiting professor at Chicago, Harvard, and Cambridge, as well as various schools in Europe, Japan, and China. Collins has published almost one hundred articles since finishing his undergraduate education. He has also written and contributed to several books with a range of topics such as the discovery of society to the sociology of marriage and family life.
Dr. Collins grew up in a slew of different cities and countries, his father being a diplomat (and possible spy) with the US State Department during the Cold War. They lived in Germany immediately following World War II, and later in Moscow, among other places such as Uruguay.
Dr. Collins' first position in academia was at UC Berkeley, followed by many other universities including the University of Wisconsin-Madison, followed by the UC San Diego, the University of Virginia, then UC Riverside, and finally the University of Pennsylvania. He took intermittent breaks from academia, as a novelist, and as a freelance scholar. He has also been a visiting professor at Chicago, Harvard, and Cambridge, as well as various schools in Europe, Japan, and China. Collins has published almost one hundred articles since finishing his undergraduate education. He has also written and contributed to several books with a range of topics such as the discovery of society to the sociology of marriage and family life.
Dr. Collins grew up in a slew of different cities and countries, his father being a diplomat (and possible spy) with the US State Department during the Cold War. They lived in Germany immediately following World War II, and later in Moscow, among other places such as Uruguay.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
Read
July 9, 2020Randal Collins' "Violence" is a theory of what happens when humans (in individuals or groups small enough to be individually interacted with) find themselves in potentially violent situations, what physical actions they take there, and what emotions take them from one place to another. Why they find themselves in potentially violent situations in the first place (why wars start, say) is more or less entirely placed to the side, but that is fine - there are already plenty of books about why wars start, or whatever, and this is book is already an ambitious one. He is also only interested in direct, physical violence in which one human being seeks to physically injury or kill another with their own body or tools directly held by them. (Sorry, SJWs and libertarians; neither hate speech nor theft count as violence.)
Collins' philosophical anthropology, more fully elaborated in "Interaction Ritual Chains" (which I highly recommend) is a highly, almost hypertrophically, socially oriented one. What people want (at a basic, fundamental level) is emotional energy, which they get from holding common attention with others in ritualized ways, and which is invested in the objects of this ritual attention. For an example of a very straightforward and indeed intentionally designed interaction ritual, consider how reciting the pledge of allegiance creates emotional attachments to the flag, that can then be met with violence when the sacred object is disrespected. The same thing applies to sports teams, popular bands, and actual religious symbols, and in a comparatively attentuated (but more ubiquitous) form in common objects of attention that are not worshipped at mass gatherings, but in smaller, less emotionally intense interactions. Even introverted and iconoclastic individuals are constantly obsessed with the objects of attention in their subculture, and in receiving attention from their fellows. And all of this is possible, moreover, because humans are intensely aware of the feelings of people around them, and subconsciously want to be in sync with them.
This is Collins' philosophical anthropology; his evidence base is mixed, but overwhelmingly consists of individual reports, photographs, and videos. (Not all of this evidence is ideal, but I will address that later.) This book is a product of the WorldStar era; we can directly observe to the second people's reactions and their actual behavior, far more so than before photography and especially video. And the philosophical anthropology is marshaled to explain the data: people overwhelmingly avoid conflict. Most situations are not violent, most situations in which violence is threatened come to nothing, most situations in which violence happens, happens in a very underwhelming way, and most people present do not participate. The human tendency to seek emotional rapport with each other is too strong and typically wins out. Collins looks at three broad classes of violence: the "forward panic" of mobs and cowboy cops, "heroic combat" such as between boxers or duelists, and the "cold" violence of specialists such as flying aces, snipers, and contract killers.
"Forward panic" describes a specific pathway: a sustained period of adrenal stress and tunnel vision which is presented with the sudden opportunity for resolution with a weak opponent. This is the most typical kind of violence - unexpected, incompetent, and uneven. Soldiers fire wildly and inaccurately, cops or protestors kick men down on the ground. This is matched by a certain stance by victims - crumpled, accepting of violence, fleeing wildly or lying fetal, even when a moment before they were engaged in the same bluster as their opponents; the violence of forward panic usually only begins after one side has folded, and among the victors, only a few engage in it, the others cheering them on or looking about as in a stupor.
Of all the forms of violence Collins looks at, this is the most common, and also the form that most fits his main thesis, which is that it is the logic of the immediate situation - rather than that of the persons or broader social structure - that is the determinant of how things play out. (In this moment of (rightly) highly politicized discussion of police killlings it's worth emphasizing that Collins really does see police violence as unexceptional and driven by the same factors as every other kind of sordid violence.) The other forms of violence fit less easily into this broad characterization, because they draw on particular kinds of participants and particular kinds of social institutions or subcultures.
The staged, fair violence of "heroes" involves confrontation between evenly matched fighters between an audience. This is sometimes explicitly entertainment - medieval jousts, MMA fighting rings - but also includes real attempts to hurt each other by people who are really angry at each other, such as in aristocratic duels or in high school fights of the "fight! fight! fight!" sort; either way, this kind of violence follows certain rules. This is the only form of violence in which participants are "evenly" matched beyond differences of size or skill (and even too great a difference in that would be regarded as disqualifying); and there are limits to the kinds of violence that can be employed. (Collins gives the examples of a Mike Tyson's biting his opponent's ear off, which inspired rage from his opponent and from the audience even though it was far less objectively harmful than many boxing injuries; and of a high school fight between two girls in which a larger boy entered to wail on one of the combatants and was chased by the whole audience and eventually turned over to the police.) The winner gains prestige especially from these fights, but even the losers have been the focus of sustained crowd attention, and their status as members of the fighting elite is sustained; this, in particular, allows for this form of violence to settle for the settling of grudges. When participating in this kind of violence serves as marker of more generalized (e.g., class) elite status, boundary policing may occur - that only a samurai may wield a sword, or that only a gentleman may challenge another to a duel.
The "cold" violence of solitary specialists has the least obvious audience, as well as the least obvious emotional involvement. The sniper or hitman, unlike the hero or man in forward panic, does not experience tunnel vision, but patient analytical involvement in his techniques. But the audience and the emotional involvement are there after all - they are interested in performing for the elite of others who know and appreciate the techniques, in cultivating their reputation of other specialists, and in their own sense of mastery over the craft of killing. Moreover, they seek to kill without a real combat situation arising; it is this that prevents tunnel vision or forward panic from arising, or from getting too emotionally involved with their victims.
There are a few sections where Collins relies on a few dubious sources, or one source alone; Elijah Anderson's "Code of the Street" (aside from some accounts of violent episodes) forms his basis for one long section, Anderson is a sociologist in good standing but I don't know how theoretically laden or controversial his account is; SLA Marshal (who a friend suggests is unreliable) and David Grossman (in the news now as a peddler of seminars designed to make cops more violent) form the basis of much of the forward panic literature. This, combined with my ignorance of the literature on this subject and (luckily) lack of direct experience, means I'm a poor evaluator of it. My official if tentative recommendation is to read "Interaction Ritual Chains" first, because it's mind-blowing and serves as the theoretical background to this.
Collins' philosophical anthropology, more fully elaborated in "Interaction Ritual Chains" (which I highly recommend) is a highly, almost hypertrophically, socially oriented one. What people want (at a basic, fundamental level) is emotional energy, which they get from holding common attention with others in ritualized ways, and which is invested in the objects of this ritual attention. For an example of a very straightforward and indeed intentionally designed interaction ritual, consider how reciting the pledge of allegiance creates emotional attachments to the flag, that can then be met with violence when the sacred object is disrespected. The same thing applies to sports teams, popular bands, and actual religious symbols, and in a comparatively attentuated (but more ubiquitous) form in common objects of attention that are not worshipped at mass gatherings, but in smaller, less emotionally intense interactions. Even introverted and iconoclastic individuals are constantly obsessed with the objects of attention in their subculture, and in receiving attention from their fellows. And all of this is possible, moreover, because humans are intensely aware of the feelings of people around them, and subconsciously want to be in sync with them.
This is Collins' philosophical anthropology; his evidence base is mixed, but overwhelmingly consists of individual reports, photographs, and videos. (Not all of this evidence is ideal, but I will address that later.) This book is a product of the WorldStar era; we can directly observe to the second people's reactions and their actual behavior, far more so than before photography and especially video. And the philosophical anthropology is marshaled to explain the data: people overwhelmingly avoid conflict. Most situations are not violent, most situations in which violence is threatened come to nothing, most situations in which violence happens, happens in a very underwhelming way, and most people present do not participate. The human tendency to seek emotional rapport with each other is too strong and typically wins out. Collins looks at three broad classes of violence: the "forward panic" of mobs and cowboy cops, "heroic combat" such as between boxers or duelists, and the "cold" violence of specialists such as flying aces, snipers, and contract killers.
"Forward panic" describes a specific pathway: a sustained period of adrenal stress and tunnel vision which is presented with the sudden opportunity for resolution with a weak opponent. This is the most typical kind of violence - unexpected, incompetent, and uneven. Soldiers fire wildly and inaccurately, cops or protestors kick men down on the ground. This is matched by a certain stance by victims - crumpled, accepting of violence, fleeing wildly or lying fetal, even when a moment before they were engaged in the same bluster as their opponents; the violence of forward panic usually only begins after one side has folded, and among the victors, only a few engage in it, the others cheering them on or looking about as in a stupor.
Of all the forms of violence Collins looks at, this is the most common, and also the form that most fits his main thesis, which is that it is the logic of the immediate situation - rather than that of the persons or broader social structure - that is the determinant of how things play out. (In this moment of (rightly) highly politicized discussion of police killlings it's worth emphasizing that Collins really does see police violence as unexceptional and driven by the same factors as every other kind of sordid violence.) The other forms of violence fit less easily into this broad characterization, because they draw on particular kinds of participants and particular kinds of social institutions or subcultures.
The staged, fair violence of "heroes" involves confrontation between evenly matched fighters between an audience. This is sometimes explicitly entertainment - medieval jousts, MMA fighting rings - but also includes real attempts to hurt each other by people who are really angry at each other, such as in aristocratic duels or in high school fights of the "fight! fight! fight!" sort; either way, this kind of violence follows certain rules. This is the only form of violence in which participants are "evenly" matched beyond differences of size or skill (and even too great a difference in that would be regarded as disqualifying); and there are limits to the kinds of violence that can be employed. (Collins gives the examples of a Mike Tyson's biting his opponent's ear off, which inspired rage from his opponent and from the audience even though it was far less objectively harmful than many boxing injuries; and of a high school fight between two girls in which a larger boy entered to wail on one of the combatants and was chased by the whole audience and eventually turned over to the police.) The winner gains prestige especially from these fights, but even the losers have been the focus of sustained crowd attention, and their status as members of the fighting elite is sustained; this, in particular, allows for this form of violence to settle for the settling of grudges. When participating in this kind of violence serves as marker of more generalized (e.g., class) elite status, boundary policing may occur - that only a samurai may wield a sword, or that only a gentleman may challenge another to a duel.
The "cold" violence of solitary specialists has the least obvious audience, as well as the least obvious emotional involvement. The sniper or hitman, unlike the hero or man in forward panic, does not experience tunnel vision, but patient analytical involvement in his techniques. But the audience and the emotional involvement are there after all - they are interested in performing for the elite of others who know and appreciate the techniques, in cultivating their reputation of other specialists, and in their own sense of mastery over the craft of killing. Moreover, they seek to kill without a real combat situation arising; it is this that prevents tunnel vision or forward panic from arising, or from getting too emotionally involved with their victims.
There are a few sections where Collins relies on a few dubious sources, or one source alone; Elijah Anderson's "Code of the Street" (aside from some accounts of violent episodes) forms his basis for one long section, Anderson is a sociologist in good standing but I don't know how theoretically laden or controversial his account is; SLA Marshal (who a friend suggests is unreliable) and David Grossman (in the news now as a peddler of seminars designed to make cops more violent) form the basis of much of the forward panic literature. This, combined with my ignorance of the literature on this subject and (luckily) lack of direct experience, means I'm a poor evaluator of it. My official if tentative recommendation is to read "Interaction Ritual Chains" first, because it's mind-blowing and serves as the theoretical background to this.
July 31, 2024
La violenza dei pochi
Libro che, in centinaia di pagine e con analisi approfondite e dettagliate, conferma quanto già scoperto in precedenza da altri studiosi dell'argomento: contrariamente alla credenza comune, nell'essere umano la violenza è dei pochi, e ancor meno sono gli individui che arrivano a usarla in maniera "efficace" (l'autore usa il termine "competenza").
Se nel quotidiano le situazioni che possono a portare a uno scontro tra esseri umani sono tante, nella grande maggioranza dei casi le persone coinvolte non riescono a superare la barriera, forse biologica, indotta da tensione e paura (i sentimenti predominanti che si arrivano a provare in questi casi), e al di là della voce grossa e delle minacce raramente si arriva a colpire fisicamente, lo scontro fisico, quando c'è, di norma è di breve durata, e spesso goffo e impreciso, con pugni o armi proprie e improprie che faticano ad arrivare a segno. I casi eclatanti che le cronache seguono sin nei dettagli sono, appunto, eclatanti perché fuori della norma.
Partendo da qui l'autore rigetta con gran decisione le spiegazioni che riconducono la violenza o determinate forme di violenza a presunti contesti culturali più ampî. La violenza è soprattutto figlia della situazioni specifiche e particolari in cui esplode, frutto del convergere momentaneo, se non fortuito, di determinate circostanze che spingono a superare la barriera di tensione e paura, quella che di norma frena la violenza più letale. Le spiegazioni di tipo culturale o generalizzante sarebbero quindi giustificazioni appiccicate a posteriori da perpetratori o osservatori per fatti difficili da decifrare nel loro svolgersi più minuto.
Tra la serie di raccomandazioni che l'autore offre a fine volume, c'è proprio la necessità di agire non tanto sulla psicologia degli individui che si immagina siano particolarmente violenti, o su presunti fattori culturali che porterebbero alla violenza, ma su quelle situazioni locali che rischiano di innescare in chiunque vi prenda parte quel meccanismo che porta allo scatenamento della violenza più letale. Molto interessante, ad esempio, il discorso sulle circostanze (ad es. la quantità di individui presenti sul posto, le modalità in cui si effettuano le operazioni) che possono portare le forze dell'ordine a esorbitare dal proprio ruolo, coi conseguenti pestaggi (anche mortali) verso arrestati o indiziati.
Un approccio spassionato e ragionato che richiede la capacità di guardare al di là dei nemici di turno a cui, con troppa facilità, di solito si fa risalire il fenomeno della violenza nell'uomo.
Libro che, in centinaia di pagine e con analisi approfondite e dettagliate, conferma quanto già scoperto in precedenza da altri studiosi dell'argomento: contrariamente alla credenza comune, nell'essere umano la violenza è dei pochi, e ancor meno sono gli individui che arrivano a usarla in maniera "efficace" (l'autore usa il termine "competenza").
Se nel quotidiano le situazioni che possono a portare a uno scontro tra esseri umani sono tante, nella grande maggioranza dei casi le persone coinvolte non riescono a superare la barriera, forse biologica, indotta da tensione e paura (i sentimenti predominanti che si arrivano a provare in questi casi), e al di là della voce grossa e delle minacce raramente si arriva a colpire fisicamente, lo scontro fisico, quando c'è, di norma è di breve durata, e spesso goffo e impreciso, con pugni o armi proprie e improprie che faticano ad arrivare a segno. I casi eclatanti che le cronache seguono sin nei dettagli sono, appunto, eclatanti perché fuori della norma.
Partendo da qui l'autore rigetta con gran decisione le spiegazioni che riconducono la violenza o determinate forme di violenza a presunti contesti culturali più ampî. La violenza è soprattutto figlia della situazioni specifiche e particolari in cui esplode, frutto del convergere momentaneo, se non fortuito, di determinate circostanze che spingono a superare la barriera di tensione e paura, quella che di norma frena la violenza più letale. Le spiegazioni di tipo culturale o generalizzante sarebbero quindi giustificazioni appiccicate a posteriori da perpetratori o osservatori per fatti difficili da decifrare nel loro svolgersi più minuto.
Tra la serie di raccomandazioni che l'autore offre a fine volume, c'è proprio la necessità di agire non tanto sulla psicologia degli individui che si immagina siano particolarmente violenti, o su presunti fattori culturali che porterebbero alla violenza, ma su quelle situazioni locali che rischiano di innescare in chiunque vi prenda parte quel meccanismo che porta allo scatenamento della violenza più letale. Molto interessante, ad esempio, il discorso sulle circostanze (ad es. la quantità di individui presenti sul posto, le modalità in cui si effettuano le operazioni) che possono portare le forze dell'ordine a esorbitare dal proprio ruolo, coi conseguenti pestaggi (anche mortali) verso arrestati o indiziati.
Un approccio spassionato e ragionato che richiede la capacità di guardare al di là dei nemici di turno a cui, con troppa facilità, di solito si fa risalire il fenomeno della violenza nell'uomo.
April 5, 2018
In Violence: A Micro-sociological Theory, Randall Collins offers important insights into his subject from an empirical standpoint. Since those of us who work with René Girard’s mimetic theory try to confirm and/or critique the theory through scientific evidence, Collins’s finding are quite important.
Girard emphasized humans’ loss of the instinct to yield that animals have that prevent most fights from ending in death. Humans, by contrast, fight to the death. Collins provides evidence that humans generally have an instinct against killing another human. He refers to the studies of Dave Grossman who documented this phenomenon in On Killing and added further research on the matter. In combat, most soldiers don’t fire, and if they do, they shoot badly. This reluctance to kill is not the same thing as an instinct to yield. More usually, rivals meet in “confrontational tension” where they feel each other out in what amounts to an instinctual ritual. The working of mimetic rivalry in such situations comes through strongly. Most confrontations stop short of deadly violence or even of a fight of any kind, but opponents locked into conflict as Girard analyzes it is clear. The instinct against killing shows itself in many ways that violence works itself out, the most important of which is that few humans do the actual killing. I would suggest, however, that the numerous times that conflict leads to killing show that the power of mimetic rivalry is strong enough to overcome the natural reluctance to kill.
Much of the most atrocious violence results from “forward panic.” This comes from a tense situation between individuals or groups that suddenly unravels in the collapse on one side. Into this collapse, the other side runs, energized into acts of violence that have no rationale to them. This is what happens if one army overruns the other, even though they were of equal strength. This is how we get atrocities such as the My Lai massacre. It is the tense chase of Rodney King that released violence of the policemen against their quarry. However, even in forward panic, it is only a few who commit the actual violence, but the violence is energized by the group behind it. So again, we have a strong mimetic process. Also important to note is that Collins says that confrontational tension turns into forward panic most often when suddenly the situation ceases to be a fair fight. That is, it is processes and situations that rend somebody or some people helpless that leads to violence. Collins says very little about collective violence, but he does mention this situation as an example weakness leading to violence.
Collins discusses various situations, among them domestic violence and bullying in schools. Much of this violence results from a domestic partner or a student being psychologically vulnerable to a person inclined to bullying. This notion borders on blaming the victim but Girard also discusses the dynamics of masochistic relationships where one person submits to abuse on an ongoing basis. Actually, the intertwining of desires between persons that Girard has uncovered as “mimetic desire” go a long way in showing us why victims have a very hard time pulling out of abusive situations and also points to a victim’s need for powerful social support to have much of a chance to escape. Not surprisingly, then, victims usually have weak social networks. This applies to bullies as well except for their little groups where the prime bully is energized by his coterie. Bullying is also supported by the social structure of the school where indifference outside one’s own clique reigns, as Dumouchel describes in his book The Barren Sacrifice. As further evidence of unfair fight situations, Collins notes the very high rate of violence (though not always abusive) perpetrated against children.
The two basic takeaways from this book are: 1) violence is committed by a small minority of persons in all circumstances (ca. 5-7% at most) and far fewer than that achieve competence at being effective and lethal in that violence; 2) The small minority of actively violent people require strong social support to commit the violence they do. In a riot featuring looting, it is a few who start the looting while the rest of the people loudly encourage them. If the police lose control of the crowd, a secondary group will be emboldened to loot as well. In the one particular instance of collective violence against a victim that Collins discusses, a lynching works the same way. A small group of people do the actual violence of lynching the victim but the people of the community provide active support that energizes the violence so that one can rightly see this as a case of what Girard calls “unanimity minus one.”
The meticulous study of data makes this book a valuable one for gaining an understanding of the dynamics of violence and I strongly recommend it to anyone seeking further insight into this subject.
Girard emphasized humans’ loss of the instinct to yield that animals have that prevent most fights from ending in death. Humans, by contrast, fight to the death. Collins provides evidence that humans generally have an instinct against killing another human. He refers to the studies of Dave Grossman who documented this phenomenon in On Killing and added further research on the matter. In combat, most soldiers don’t fire, and if they do, they shoot badly. This reluctance to kill is not the same thing as an instinct to yield. More usually, rivals meet in “confrontational tension” where they feel each other out in what amounts to an instinctual ritual. The working of mimetic rivalry in such situations comes through strongly. Most confrontations stop short of deadly violence or even of a fight of any kind, but opponents locked into conflict as Girard analyzes it is clear. The instinct against killing shows itself in many ways that violence works itself out, the most important of which is that few humans do the actual killing. I would suggest, however, that the numerous times that conflict leads to killing show that the power of mimetic rivalry is strong enough to overcome the natural reluctance to kill.
Much of the most atrocious violence results from “forward panic.” This comes from a tense situation between individuals or groups that suddenly unravels in the collapse on one side. Into this collapse, the other side runs, energized into acts of violence that have no rationale to them. This is what happens if one army overruns the other, even though they were of equal strength. This is how we get atrocities such as the My Lai massacre. It is the tense chase of Rodney King that released violence of the policemen against their quarry. However, even in forward panic, it is only a few who commit the actual violence, but the violence is energized by the group behind it. So again, we have a strong mimetic process. Also important to note is that Collins says that confrontational tension turns into forward panic most often when suddenly the situation ceases to be a fair fight. That is, it is processes and situations that rend somebody or some people helpless that leads to violence. Collins says very little about collective violence, but he does mention this situation as an example weakness leading to violence.
Collins discusses various situations, among them domestic violence and bullying in schools. Much of this violence results from a domestic partner or a student being psychologically vulnerable to a person inclined to bullying. This notion borders on blaming the victim but Girard also discusses the dynamics of masochistic relationships where one person submits to abuse on an ongoing basis. Actually, the intertwining of desires between persons that Girard has uncovered as “mimetic desire” go a long way in showing us why victims have a very hard time pulling out of abusive situations and also points to a victim’s need for powerful social support to have much of a chance to escape. Not surprisingly, then, victims usually have weak social networks. This applies to bullies as well except for their little groups where the prime bully is energized by his coterie. Bullying is also supported by the social structure of the school where indifference outside one’s own clique reigns, as Dumouchel describes in his book The Barren Sacrifice. As further evidence of unfair fight situations, Collins notes the very high rate of violence (though not always abusive) perpetrated against children.
The two basic takeaways from this book are: 1) violence is committed by a small minority of persons in all circumstances (ca. 5-7% at most) and far fewer than that achieve competence at being effective and lethal in that violence; 2) The small minority of actively violent people require strong social support to commit the violence they do. In a riot featuring looting, it is a few who start the looting while the rest of the people loudly encourage them. If the police lose control of the crowd, a secondary group will be emboldened to loot as well. In the one particular instance of collective violence against a victim that Collins discusses, a lynching works the same way. A small group of people do the actual violence of lynching the victim but the people of the community provide active support that energizes the violence so that one can rightly see this as a case of what Girard calls “unanimity minus one.”
The meticulous study of data makes this book a valuable one for gaining an understanding of the dynamics of violence and I strongly recommend it to anyone seeking further insight into this subject.
January 16, 2011
A little bit different than his Interaction Ritual Chains since it uses a more wide array of evidence as to how violence happens (or does not happen).
The use of micro-sociological analysis on photographs and video recordings of violence is interesting and a novel approach.
The main thesis can be summarized as such: violence is an interactional accomplishment in a situation structured by emotions, most commonly what he calls "confrontational tension/fear". He also argues that violence is difficult, not easy and is for the most part confined to bluster or threats of violence. Basically, violence is not about inheretly aggressive or violent individuals but rather about certain situations where a specific set-up will cause violent acts.
I liked this book very much, it's highly readable and the examples from a wide variety of violent situations such as sport events, police car-chases, military operations and the "cool. technical" violence conducted by contract killers are very interesting. I will definately check out more books by Collins!
The use of micro-sociological analysis on photographs and video recordings of violence is interesting and a novel approach.
The main thesis can be summarized as such: violence is an interactional accomplishment in a situation structured by emotions, most commonly what he calls "confrontational tension/fear". He also argues that violence is difficult, not easy and is for the most part confined to bluster or threats of violence. Basically, violence is not about inheretly aggressive or violent individuals but rather about certain situations where a specific set-up will cause violent acts.
I liked this book very much, it's highly readable and the examples from a wide variety of violent situations such as sport events, police car-chases, military operations and the "cool. technical" violence conducted by contract killers are very interesting. I will definately check out more books by Collins!
July 18, 2013
Very good attempt to understand physical violence through what actually happens during various violent encounters. The author claims that violence is not natural for humans, who are programmed for mutual understanding and become extremely anxious in every violent encounter. He also points out that actual violence is extremely rare, much more so than we usually think. The author also analyses situations in which violence becomes viable, the least pleasant of which is a situation when the victim proves much weaker than the perpetrator/perpetrators, who initially assumed they are headed for a real battle.
July 15, 2008
An astonishing encyclopedia of the causes and dynamics of violence, all pointing to one conclusion: far from being intrinsic to human nature, violence goes against our biological and psychological design.
February 26, 2018
MEH. Interesting micro-sociology, bad causal analysis. Other awkward features include essentialism, lack of historicity, and trying to say racism doesn't really play into police brutality.
October 24, 2017
Very detailed read about how violence is situational and dependent on the emotional energy of the circumstance.
January 3, 2018
Awesome book. It reshapes my understanding to the society.
September 21, 2022
Comprehensive and fascinating theorising of violence that is, maybe, a little hung up on its definition of violence as only direct and physical.
May 20, 2024
This is what qualifies a truly insightful scholar: boldness in proposing a new paradigm for contemplating issues that we somehow assume the preexistence of a "consensus".
May 4, 2025
Very interesting. Agreed with many of the findings.
April 4, 2010
A tremendously interesting book on how violence happens. Collins focuses on what makes situations violent, not people violent and the result is a very strong case that violence is naturally self-limiting and very hard to carry out in most situations.
Unfortunately, the weakest section of the book was that on domestic violence and bullying, where the author largely fell back on generalizations (most likely because his preferred form of evidence - direct observations, videos, pictures and firsthand accounts - is going to be slender for violence that happens largely in private situations or closed institutions).
Very definitely worth reading.
Unfortunately, the weakest section of the book was that on domestic violence and bullying, where the author largely fell back on generalizations (most likely because his preferred form of evidence - direct observations, videos, pictures and firsthand accounts - is going to be slender for violence that happens largely in private situations or closed institutions).
Very definitely worth reading.
September 12, 2012
Very dry, with only an occasional flash of wit, but riveting throughout, which is something special for a sociology book. The subject matter and the material presented within keeps it interesting for the general reader, i.e., me.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews