| dc.description |
This study responds to the endemic lack of clarity and consensus afflicting
academic and policy discussions on the causes of ideological violence and, by
extension, the appropriate means for preventing/containing it. I trace,
conceptualise, and problematise the long-standing debate between two deeply entrenched oppositional camps or ‘paradigms’ – heuristically dubbed the
‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ paradigms of ideological violence, respectively –
that propose competing explanations for the causation of ideological violence; the
former considering it a product of irrational individual dysfunction, the latter
viewing it as a rational (if often misguided) response to societal dysfunction.
Further, I show that extant attempts at reconciling/synthesising these paradigms
have, to date, proven problematic. I explore how and why these opposing
paradigms emerged and why debate between them persists. I argue that they are
shaped, perpetuated and marred by multiple extra-academic dynamics and
naturalised assumptions and conclude that clarity and consensus is unlikely
unless we can ‘reset’ the debate, making a conscious decision to ‘step back’ from
our extant paradigms/assumptions and approach the phenomenon with fresh
eyes. I propose and demonstrate two methodological approaches that – used in
conjunction – can contribute towards this end. Firstly, I propose that – and
demonstrate how - Genealogical Analysis can aid in this ‘stepping back’ by
denaturalising our entrenched assumptions on the causes of ideological violence
(i.e., our extant paradigms) by uncovering how and why those assumptions came
to be held and reified. Secondly, I propose and demonstrate Comparative
Historical Analysis’ utility as a tool that can aid in re-approaching the phenomena
with fresh eyes by helping - gradually and collaboratively - to construct a new set
of more methodologically-rigorous assumptions (i.e., a new paradigm) upon
which extant research built upon either extant paradigm can be resituated,
reinterpreted, de-limited, and synthesised, and further research can be premised. |
|