Why They Kill by Richard Rhodes: analysis in regard to gender and class - Book Report/Review Example

Why They Kill: Analysis in Regard to Gender and The book Why They Kill is a discussion of the theories of Lonnie Athens and the way in which he developed those theories about violence. From his own socialization within an Appalachian town, he observed that his community developed their violent and aggressive nature through a set of socialized beliefs which led to problem solving and goal acquisition. Through developing beliefs about research through symbolic interactionism as introduced to him as a student by Berkley professor Herbert Blumer, Athens developed qualitative research techniques in which he studied interviews with murderers to construct his theories on the construction of violent behaviors. However, there are problems with his methodology and his conclusions defined by influences of his own experiences. In an investigation of the book Why They Kill through the use of exterior resources, the theories and methodologies of Lonnie Athens are examined for their validity and continuity across cultural lines. Lonnie Athens was born in a small Appalachian town, his history within his childhood filled with what Rhodes calls ’colorful scenes’. His life outside his home and inside his home were filled with imagery and emotions of violence, even when violence was not actually committed. Where he could have followed the climate of his culture, instead Athens became a part of the academic world, an observer of the causes of the nature of violence as an expression, indoctrinated into each generation as they grow up believing in the socialization of problem solving through violent dominance. The story that Rhodes writes is the history of the academician and theorist as a way in which to examine Athens as the subject of a study of his life, which in turn was dedicated to the study of criminology and the use of violence of a means of social interaction. According to DeLisi and Beaver, the theories of Lonnie Athens were not prominently in the public consciousness until Richard Rhodes brought them to the forefront in his book Why They Kill (221). The theories of Athens are formulated based upon a need to explain extremely violent behaviors. DeLisi and Beaver state that the motivations for extreme violence can be defined for “situational definitions conducive to violence, self-images consistent with violent behavior, self-conversations with phantom communities that provide moral justification for violence, and corporal (physical) communities whose norms favor the use of violence in domestic disputes“ (221). Through an analysis of violent offenders who committed crimes such as rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, Athens developed theories that were based upon the work of Herbert Blumer from Berkley and the combined works of Blumer and Mead (DeLisi and Beaver 221). Athens creates a term for the socialization that is connected to violence to a concept of he calls ‘violentization’. This concept is based up a progressive indoctrination into violence that is begun by brutalization of the individual which is developed through a three step process. This type of dominance can be experienced through threat against the individual which is considered subjugation, through doing violence to another to provide an example of the willingness to go through with that threat termed personal horrification, and violent coaching in which the individual is given methods with which to dominate others. The next step occurs through defiance where the individual then accepts the coaching and begins problem solving through violence. The third step occurs when occasions of violent dominance engagements begin and the individual is successful in dominating others by the use of violent means. The final step is virulency. In this stage the individual is known to use violence, uses violence, and is in an incendiary position where violence can emerge at most any level to solve problems and reach goals (Delisi and Beaver 221). In looking at the way in which Athens developed his theories, it is apparent that he took the perspective of a culture of violence as it is focused on the transference of violence from one individual to the next. He focuses on the idea that violence is initiated through social interactions in which the individual becomes used to violence, and then begins to use it as a resource. The idea seems to be centered on looking towards the situations of his own home world in which interactions were based upon threat and commissions of violence. In researching his ideas, Athens seems to have been focused on cultures of violence, high levels of overt acts being the result of being socialized towards this type of social interaction and problem solving. The use of the phantom community, the idea that supports the concept of violentization as a form of constructed conformity to violence, is one of the ideas that is put forward by Athens. This concept relates the internal narrative and dialogue that goes within each person as they make choices to an entity that balances choices against the socialized belief systems. In other words, the individual determines the choices available in a situation and the ’phantom community’ provides social reasons and context in which to finalize the choice. Athens states “It’s where your coming from “ Rhodes reports and goes on to quote Athens who says “When you ask where someone is coming from - they’re coming from their phantom community” (83). In other words, the phantom community is an internal mechanism in which the socialization of an individual is running as a resource in which decision making processes are developed through what has been learned what has been given from the influences of community and family. Tobe Levin is highly critical of the theories on violence presented by Athens. He believes that the theories do not have enough of an explanation to truly define ultra-violent behavior, but that it serves only as a bare bones “mechanism sketch”. He describes the theory as “insufficiently precise” and therefore cannot be considered the best possible definitions of violent behaviors (20). Levin goes on to discuss violent behavior in that it is not easily defined by any one discipline or system. He goes on to discuss that violence when not used for the defense of one’s self is unlikely to fit into a single category, but is a phenomenon that represents a series of different types of situational conventions and reactions. Because of this wide variety, Levin determines that an overall theory such as the one proposed by Athens will never be sufficient to explain violent behavior. In looking at the nature of the identification of violence that Athens has made, it is clear that he has created a narrow focus on a wide system of behaviors. It is unfortunate, but in looking at his family life, it is clear that he has only looked at the idea of social interaction as a way in which to develop violent tendencies. This leaves out a great number of incidents in which violence has been created without the influences of socialization that takes place through interpersonal actions. While his theories could be adapted to the situations, it is unclear by their ambiguity whether they truly frame the situation of violence as an outlet or resource from which goals are attained. His social framework does not explain the overt violence of one individual over that of another in the same cultural climate. In fact, it does not explain that from his own experiences why he now is an observer of violence, rather than a violent offender. The primary theoretical framework used by Athens is discussed at length in the book written by Herbert Blumer called Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. The perspective of symbolic interactionism is from the point of view that the study of human group life and human group behavior will provide a framework from which to understand behaviors. Symbolic interactionism is based upon the ideas promoted by three concepts. The first premise that this theoretical framework is based upon is that actions that humans take are based upon the meanings that things have within them. This can include objects, other people, or even institutions. The second premise is based upon the idea that meanings that are associated with different things are built upon the social interactions with others in relationship to those things. The last premise is based upon the idea that things are given meaning through a continuing process of interpretation that takes place during interactions that are related (Blummer 2). The theoretical framework of symbolic interactionism provides a solid basis for studying concepts within the social framework. Meanings are a profoundly important part of the way in which cultures interact with the world. The social framework relies upon the construction of meanings so that the interpretations of the world become conformed within the structure of society. As an example, water falling within a built structure is a form of public pleasure. A fountain means something to the society because it has been determined that water as it cascades provides pleasure in sound and sight. However, without this definition and meaning conferred upon it through a communal understanding of the thing that is the fountain, it is meaningless. Water means purity and refreshment because it has been determined that it symbolizes those things. Therefore, in creating social theories using meaning as the core of the definitions provides a useful and profound form of observational framework. However, in creating beliefs solely on the concepts of meaning and defined by situations that are specific only under defined circumstances means that the framework has been improperly applied. Athens seems to take the situations of his home region and apply them universally, ignoring the facts about the use of violence on a greater scale. While there are many specific circumstances where his theories absolutely apply, the individuals from his own region being an example, his theories seem to best apply within those specific areas, but do not explain many other paradigms and situations. The methodology for his inquiry is based upon qualitative practices. He fought for the right to interview his participants without a survey instrument, his methods being defined by the concept of the phenomenon of experience. This method of inquiry is a valuable tool for research, one that has the capacity to understand experience over just statistically quantifying it. The qualitative method of inquiry “brings the reader and the viewer into the story”, the experiences put into context through research that is meant to relate the experience to others through observance and interviews who represent the topic of inquiry (Irorio 13). This method of understanding puts sociological concepts into perspective of real life understandings, the method providing context and meaning for the information that cannot be quantified through numbers and statistical relations. This method is not appreciated by all academicians. The unfortunate bias comes from believing that too much of the observer becomes embedded in presumptions that occur during the interview process. Validity and reliability are the most important factors in creating qualitative research. Qualitative research is defined through the capacity of demonstrating that what has been determined as data and factors are supported by an unbiased observation of the truth. The difficulty is that it is based upon assumptions about social interaction, theories that are built upon belief systems and through understandings of meanings (Denscombe 296). Most frameworks are built upon social concepts that are defined through belief, which is why those who do not believe in qualitative reliability dismiss it as valid. However, Athens and his supporting theoretical frameworks by Blummer considered questionnaire formatted investigation through the quantitative form of research to have the same type of validity problems. Athens is quoted by Rhodes as saying “Instruments prejudge the situation. They’re damaging” (40). The nature of inquiry is to suggest a direction towards a hypothesis. The use of a questionnaire can often lead towards answers that frame an inquiry the way that a research has already determined that the answers will conform to a result. However, this can be true in qualitative study as well, thus the disparities from both camps are valid, providing for the question as to how it might ever be possible to formulate valid and definitive research. Deviant behavior as it is seen through gang indoctrination, violently based family influences, and communities that are built upon aggression and dominance are supported by the theories that Athens has promoted. The subculture-of-violence theory fits into the theory proposed by Athens, suggesting that variables that support violence, beliefs and attitudes that are in favor of violence, and peer interaction, especially when associated with a code of violence, contribute to the development of acceptance of the belief that violence has value in the social system (Cook 3). Theories about group deviant behavior in regard to violence are in line with the theories presented by Athens. However, the theories of Athens does not explain all violent behavior, thus it has some difficulty in being used as a way to support ultra-violent behavior. An example of the fault within this theory can be seen through the events on April 20, 1999 at Columbine High School. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shot and killed 21 students before turning the guns on themselves. They had intended on setting off enough bombs to destroy the school and kill most of the students, but they faulty detonators had ended that goal. Instead, months of planning culminated in a small portion of the planned carnage being executed. Columbine is a peaceful community, one entrenched in the mundane lifestyle of middleclass America without extremes and without a culture of violence. Films such as the Matrix were blamed, but millions saw the movie and were not indoctrinated into overtly violent behavior (Larkin 11). Harris and Klebold were not driven by a phantom community, but by their own demons created through mutual experiences of being bullied in which they created their own version of revolution. Lonnie Athens constructed a framework in which social violence can be examined. While the theory has validity within cultures that have a climate of violence, they are more difficult to reconcile with isolated incidents of violence that are outside of the norms within specific cultures. As an example, the incidents in Columbine are not well explained by his theories. The use of symbolic interactionism provides a solid theoretical framework, but requires a mores specific targeting of culture, rather than an overall universal assumption about the development of violence. It is because the theories are intended for universal interpretive values that Levin believes they are too general and without specificity. The methodology is solid, but not in context with universality. While valid and interesting as a framework for cultures of violence, the theories that Athens promotes do not universally explain overtly violent acts by individuals who have not been acculturated in violent communities. Works Cited Blumer, Herbert. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986, c1969, 1986. Print. Cook, Philip J. Criminal Violence. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1986. Print. DeLisi, Matt, and Kevin M. Beaver. Criminological Theory: A Life-Course Approach. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2011. Print. Denscombe, Martyn. The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects. Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2007. Print. Irorio, Sharon H. Qualitative research in journalism: taking it to the streets. New York: Taylor and Francis, Inc. Larkin, Ralph W. Comprehending Columbine. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press, 2007. Print. Levin, Tobe. Violence: 'mercurial Gestalt'. Amsterdam Netherlands: Rodopi, 2008. Print. Rhodes, Richard. Why They Kill: The Discoveries of a Maverick Criminologist. New York: Vintage Books, 1999. Print. Cook, Philip J. Criminal Violence. Beverly Hills [u.a.: Sage, 1986. Print. Read More