Violence has been a central preoccupation for political and social scientists, and this paper begins with a critical appraisal of the classical approaches to the phenomenon of violence, showing how despite their considerable differences, they are not necessarily contradictory. Via engagement with the recent work of Randall Collins, the paper pays particular attention to the limits of symbolic interactionism. The paper then places the subject central to sociological analysis, showing how it is possible to avoid the determinism of classical sociology by exploring the meaning of violence for the subjects who use it, and how these meanings relate to the processes of subjectivation and desubjectivation.
AdornoT.Frenkel-BrunswikE.LevinsonD. J. and SanfordR. N., (1950), The Authoritarian Personality, New York: Harper.
2.
CollinsR., (2004), Interaction Ritual Chains, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
CollinsR., (2008), Violence: A Micro-Sociological Theory, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
CollinsR., (2011a), ‘The invention and diffusion of social techniques of violence: how micro-sociology can explain historical trends’, Sociologica, 2. doi: 10.2383/35863
5.
CollinsR., (2011b), ‘Reply to Kalyvas, Wieviorka and Magaudda’, Sociologica, 2. doi: 10.2383/35867
6.
DubetF. and WieviorkaM. (eds), (1995), Penser le Sujet. Autour d'Alain Touraine, Paris: Fayard.
7.
FoucaultM., (1984), The Care of the Self (Le Souci de Soi), Paris: Gallimard.
8.
FoucaultM., (2001), Histoire de la Sexualité, vol. 3, Le Souci de Soi, Paris: Gallimard.
9.
GaddD. and JeffersonT., (2007) Psychosocial Criminology: An Introduction., Los Angeles: Sage.
10.
GirardR., (1972), La violence et le sacré, Paris: Hachette.
11.
GurrT. R., (1970), Why Men Rebel, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
JoasH., (2001 [1992]), La créativité de l'agir, Paris: Cerf.
13.
JoasH., (1996), The Creativity of Action, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14.
KalyvasS. N., (2011), ‘Comment on Randall Collins/2. Linking the micro and the macro in the study of violence’, Sociologica, 2. doi: 10.2383/35865
15.
KatzJ., (1999), How Emotions Work, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16.
LyotardJ.-F., (1979), La condition post-moderne, Paris: Minuit.
17.
MagauddaP., (2011), ‘Comment on Randall Collins/3. The circulation of violence: techniques and the role of materiality in Randall Collins's violence theory’, Sociologica, 2. doi: 10.2383/35866
18.
MarshallS. L. A., (1947), Men against Fire, Washington: Infantry Journal.
19.
McDermottR.TingleyD.CowdenJ.FrazzettoG. and JohnsonD. D. P., (2009), ‘Monoamine oxidase A gene (MAOA) predicts behavioral aggression following provocation’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (7), 2118–2123.
20.
MilgramS., (1974), Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View, London: Tavistock.
21.
TardeG., (1993 [1890]), Les lois de l'imitation, Paris: réédition Kimé.
22.
TillyC., (2003), The Politics of Collective Violence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
WieviorkaM., (1978), From Mobilization to Revolution, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
24.
WieviorkaM., (2003), The Making of Terrorism, 2nd edn, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25.
WieviorkaM., (2009 [2006]), Violence: A New Approach, London: Sage.
26.
WieviorkaM., (2011), ‘Comment on Randall Collins/1. An approach to violence’, Sociologica,2. doi: 10.2383/35864
