CHANGING DISCOURSES AND CONTEXTS OF VIOLENCE IN SOUTH AFRICA

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDIES ON MALE HOMICIDE/VIOLENCE:

Unlike the more deductive and theory-driven quantitative research discussed in Chapter Two, as well as the qualitative research conducted within the psychoanalytic tradition, phenomenological studies into male violence and homicide tend to adopt an experience-near focus (Kelly, 1999). These studies generally focus on thematic content analyses of forms of data produced by subjects in their understandings or accounts of social phenomena, behaviours and interactions. They therefore pivot on more inductive re-interpretations of subjects’ existing interpretations of social interactions within context. Because they are derived from such personal accounts, they are thus focussed on the description and analysis of the interiority of subjective human experience. They foreground human agency in the creation of meanings and therefore actions, as compared to the experience-distant approaches to understandings of social phenomena that are commonly found in social constructionist studies (Kelly, 1999).

DISCURSIVE STUDIES ON MALE HOMICIDE/VIOLENCE:

Unlike interpretivist studies that are located within phenomenology, discursive studies are firmly embedded within the co-ordinates of social constructionism. Rather than being preoccupied with the subjective accounts of social actors and the interiority of experience, social constructionism is concerned with understanding the manner in which the social world dictates, shapes and is represented in behaviours, actions, social interactions and communications. It is less focussed on establishing the underlying authorial intentions within subjective accounts of social phenomena and more engaged with the manner in which the social itself comes to be reflected within social actors’ everyday interactions. Within interpretivist studies, the possibilities of subjective interpretations of the social world are revealed, whereas in social constructionist studies, the possibilities of revealing various facets of the social world are realised through a range of analytical tools.

Homicide in the Foucauldian Tradition

Given the Foucauldian origins of critical discourse analytic studies, some consideration of homicide as an object of knowledge as well as the generation of a homicidal subject of knowledge is warranted from this perspective. As a formal subject of knowledge and social inquiry, the study of homicide or fatal interpersonal violence occurring outside of the parameters of war or civil conflict has developed substantially over the past five decades. Here, Wolfgang’s (1958) seminal work on “criminal homicide” is often cited as the landmark research that ushered in this formalised study of homicide. However, understandings and interpretations derived from this investigation together with many of our current representations, discourses, research and praxis can be historically traced to constructions of homicide within earlier social formations.

Masculinities and Male Homicide/Violence

Studies into masculinities and manhood emerged more formally in the 1970s and had a number of influences that differed from that of feminist studies into male violence. In the first instance, there was a growing concern that one element within the binary of gender relations had been almost exclusively focussed upon (female experiences), while the other had only fundamentally been engaged with as victimisers or perpetrators (male experiences) (Shefer, Ratele, Strebel, Shabalala & Buikema, 2007). Cleaver (2002) suggests that this was premised upon overly simplified ideas about gender and power relations, in which the focus on men occurred predominantly as a means of securing benefits for women. Shefer et al. (2007, p. 2) similarly argue for the importance of focussing on masculinities as an area of study, as men have tended to be “invisibilised by their normativity” and suggest that there is a need to “acknowledge alternative masculinities and femininities [… if we are to] challenge the dominant mode of gender identities and relations”.

READ Connection between aim and theory

Homicide and Murder

Given that the study focuses on fatal interpersonal violence as the primary vehicle through which to conduct an analysis of discourses, power, their social functions and ideological effects, both the concepts of homicide and murder require some extended consideration. While the study employs the construct of homicide, it also simultaneously engages with the construct of murder in the selection of participants as a specific (and convenient) cohort that is partially representative of those involved in homicidal encounters in South Africa. In its most basic form, homicide is essentially the act of killing one or more persons, through whatever means, by another person or 142 persons (Daly & Wilson, 1988; Polk, 1994; Wolfgang, 1958). This generic social definition is descriptive in character and therefore makes no implicit or overt attributions as to the nature of the event and its causes, its context, or the meanings attached to it.

TABLE OF CONTENTS :

DECLARATION
DEDICATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY/ABSTRACT
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND, RATIONALE AND SCOPE
- 1. INTRODUCTION:
- 2. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE:
- 2.1. CHANGING DISCOURSES AND CONTEXTS OF VIOLENCE IN SOUTH AFRICA
  - 2.1.1. Colonisation, Sovereign Power and Violence
  - 2.1.2. Disciplinary Power, Moral Orthopaedics and Violence
  - 2.1.3. Sovereign Power, Repression, Resistance and Violence
  - 2.1.4. Disciplinary Power, Transformation Politics and Violence
- 2.2. HOMICIDE AS A CRITICAL PRIORITY
  - 2.2.1. The Social and Economic Burden of Homicide
  - 2.2.2. The Extent and Magnitude of Homicide
  - 2.2.3. Limitations of Research and Intervention Practices
- 2.3. CHALLENGES FROM RECENT ANALYSES OF HOMICIDE IN SOUTH AFRICA
  - 2.3.1. Trends in Homicide Research
  - 2.3.2. Effects on Epistemology, Methodology, Theory and Interventions
- 2.4. REFRAMING THE PROBLEMATIC: RE-CENTRALISING POWER IN THE STUDY OF HOMICIDE
- 3. SCOPE:
- 3.1. SUMMARY OF THE PRESENT STUDY
- 3.2. RESEARCH AIMS AND QUESTIONS
- 3.3. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
3.4. CHAPTER ORGANISATION
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW – QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
- 1. INTRODUCTION:
- 2. ANTECEDENTS OF CURRENT QUANTITATIVE HOMICIDE RESEARCH:
- 2.1. INDIVIDUALLY-ORIENTED APPROACHES
- 2.2. RELATIONAL, INTERACTIONAL AND COMMUNITY APPROACHES
- 2.3. SOCIAL APPROACHES
- 3. RESEARCH FINDINGS IN QUANTITATIVE HOMICIDE RESEARCH:
- 3.1. INDIVIDUALLY-ORIENTED FINDINGS
  - 3.1.1. Physiological Factors
  - 3.1.2. Psychological Factors
- 3.2. RELATIONAL, INTERACTIONAL AND COMMUNITY FINDINGS
  - 3.2.1. Relational Factors
  - 3.2.2. Interactional Factors
  - 3.2.3. Community Factors
- 3.3. SOCIAL FINDINGS
  - 3.3.1. Socio-Structural Factors
  - 3.3.2. Socio-Cultural Factors
- 4. DISCURSIVE EFFECTS OF QUANTITATIVE HOMICIDE RESEARCH:
- 4.1. THE MALE AGGRESSIVE DRIVE DISCOURSE: IT’S IN MEN’S NATURE TO BE VIOLENT
- 4.2. DISCOURSES OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINISM: VIOLENCE STEMS FROM UPBRINGING
- 4.3. DISCOURSES OF SOCIAL DETERMINISM: SOCIETY CREATES VIOLENT MEN
CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW – QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
- 1. INTRODUCTION:
- 2. PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES ON MALE HOMICIDE/VIOLENCE:
- 3. PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDIES ON MALE HOMICIDE/VIOLENCE:
- 4. DISCURSIVE STUDIES ON MALE HOMICIDE/VIOLENCE:
- 4.1. HOMICIDE IN THE FOUCAULDIAN TRADITION
- 4.2. CRITICAL SOCIAL STUDIES ON MALE HOMICIDE/VIOLENCE
- 4.3. FEMINIST STUDIES ON MALE HOMICIDE/VIOLENCE
- 4.4. MASCULINITIES AND MALE HOMICIDE/VIOLENCE
CHAPTER FOUR: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
CHAPTER FIVE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE
CHAPTER SIX: REPORT