Siniša Malešević

The Sociology of War and Violence

Introduction: war, violence and the social Part I. Collective Violence and Sociological Theory: 1. War and violence in classical social thought 2. The contemporary sociology of organised violence Part II. War in Time and Space: 3. War and violence before modernity 4. Organized violence and modernity 5. The social geographies of warfare Part III. Warfare: Ideas and Practices: 6. Nationalism and war 7. War propaganda and solidarity Part IV. War, Violence and Social Divisions: 8. Social stratification, warfare and violence 9. Gendering of war Part V. Organised Violence in the 21st Century: 10. New wars? Conclusion.

Rational choice theory and the sociology of ethnic relations: a critique

This article is a critique of the main principles of the rational choice theory in the way they have been developed and applied in the sociology of ethnic relations. The general argument of the essay is that although rational choice theory is presented as a successful explanatory alternative to post-essentialist criticism of social science, its explanatory value is limited. The author focuses on four central criticisms of the theory: its circularity, its wide and vague understanding of rationality and intentionality, its insensitivity to cultural values and its neglect of politics. Consequently, it is argued in the article that the rational choice theory is unable to provide a comprehensive explanation of ethnic phenomena.

The Rise of Organised Brutality: A Historical Sociology of Violence

The Rise of Organised Brutality is the latest book in a series of books and articles on the sociological study of war and violence written by the University College Dublin professor, Siniša Malešević. The author uses historical sociological approach to address the question if (organised) violence is really in decline? The book hence is a part of a larger social and philosophical debate about the decline of violence in history. Malešević is firmly opposed to authors such as Steven Pinker or Azar Gat, claiming that violence in human history is not in decline, on the contrary, it increases. Historical sociological method in examining the long-lasting social structures is the cornerstone of understanding why violence increases, despite the long period of peace in the second half of the 20th century.

Ethnicity in Time and Space: A Conceptual Analysis:

The study of ethnicity has largely developed in two different and for the most part incommensurable directions of research: the temporal and the spatial. The main aim of this paper is to critically engage with these two dominant paradigms of research in order to articulate a more coherent sociological concept of ethnicity. The author argues that the principal weaknesses of the temporal perspective are cultural reductionism and historical determinism whereas the spatial perspective suffers from analytical particularism and inflexible collectivism. To circumvent these epistemological problems it is necessary to articulate an alternative general understanding that conceptualizes ethnicity as a universal, interactive social situation.

How Pacifist Were the Founding Fathers?: War and Violence in Classical Sociology

Most commentators agree that the study of war and collective violence remains the Achilles heel of sociology. However, this apparent neglect is often wrongly attributed to the classics of social thought. This article contests such a view by arguing: (1) that many classics were preoccupied with the study of war and violence and have devised complex concepts and models to detect and analyse its social manifestations; and (2) most of the classical social thought was in fact sympathetic to the ‘militarist’ understanding of social life. In many respects, classical social thought shared the analytical, epistemological and even moral universe that understood war and violence as the key mechanisms of social change. The structural neglect of this rich and versatile theoretical tradition is linked to the hegemony of the normative ‘pacifist’ re-interpretation of the classics in the aftermath of two total wars of the twentieth century. The author argues that the contemporary sociology of war and violence can gain much by revisiting the key concepts and ideas of the classics.

Forms of brutality: Towards a historical sociology of violence

Most analyses of violence in the different historical periods tend to view the modern era as significantly less violent than all of its historical predecessors. By focusing on such apparently reliable indicators as the decrease in homicide rates, the disappearance of public torture or growing civility in inter-personal relationships, many authors contend that our ancestors inhabited a substantially more violent world. In this article, I argue that since such blanket evaluations do not clearly distinguish between different levels of violence analysis, they are unable to provide an accurate picture of historical reality. To properly understand violence, it is necessary to compare and contrast its historical transformation at the interpersonal and intra-group (micro), the inter-group and intra-polity (mezzo), and inter-polity (macro) levels. When violence is comparatively analysed on these three interrelated levels, it becomes clear that the scale of collective brutality gradually and dramatically increases with the rise of modern social organizations and ideologies while the character of inter-personal and intra-group violence remains essentially constant.

The Disfigured Ontology of Figurational Sociology: Norbert Elias and the Question of Violence

This article scrutinizes Norbert Elias’s figurational sociology by focusing on its ontological foundations. The analytical spotlight is on the inherent tension between Elias’s stance of normative neutrality and detachment, his naturalistic ontology, and an unyielding commitment to directional development. We show how Elias’s social theory does not stand apart, as an external observer, from the figurations it seeks to explain. On the contrary, it constitutes its own outside, and this has consequences when it comes to explaining the ‘dark sides’ of the present, and in particular the social sources of organized violence in modernity. It is our contention that Elias’s ontology incorrectly posits violence as the absolute Other of civilization, so that his theory of the ‘Civilising Process’ fails to adequately account for the persistence and proliferation of warfare in the modern age.

“DIVINE ETHNIES” AND “SACRED NATIONS”: ANTHONY D. SMITH AND THE NEO-DURKHEMIAN THEORY OF NATIONALISM

This article is an analysis of the epistemological foundations of Anthony D. Smiths theory of nationalism. The author argues that Smiths theory can be properly understood only when one engages more directly with the broader sociological worldview that his position is an integral part of—Durkhemianism. Although Smiths vision of the social world goes a step beyond classical Durkhemianism, the historicist, collectivist, and idealist nature of his argument is still chained to the Durkhemian legacy, which prevents it from developing an all-inclusive account of nations and nationalism.

HOW OLD IS HUMAN BRUTALITY? On the Structural Origins of Violence

Given the paucity of evidence available, scholarship in archaeology and the social sciences is deeply divided over the question, how old is human violence? Some scholars have concluded that humans are intrinsically violent, and others that they are basically nonviolent, but in both interpretive schools there is a pronounced tendency to rely on simple naturalist epistemology. In contrast, this article offers an interpretation focusing on the structural foundations of violent action. Instead of tracing violent or nonviolent behavior to “human nature,” the origins of violence are linked to the rise and proliferation of complex social organizations.

Is Nationalism Intrinsically Violent

This article analyzes the complex and contradictory relationships between nationalism and organized violence. The author challenges the approaches that see nationalism as being inherently linked with violence and demonstrates that nationalist ideology by itself is rarely a main cause of hostile acts. The article focuses on the different forms of organized violence including wars, revolutions, terrorism, and genocide. It aims to show that the relationship between violence and nationalism cannot be properly captured by the dominant intentionalist, naturalist, and formativist perspectives. Instead the case is made that the emphasis should be given to the long-term historical processes and the relative modernity of both nationalism and organized violence. The author argues that it is very difficult to generate sustained and organized violent nationalist action. The mutation of nationalist doctrines into violent acts is generally a product of unintended structural circumstances and is characterized by its temporary nature and volatility. More specifically, this process is usually generated by the coercive bureaucratization, centrifugal ideologization, and their capacity to be embedded in the networks of microsolidarity.