cross cultural theory of conflict

7/29/2019 Cross Cultural Theory of Conflict

1/44

A Cross-Cultural Theory of Political Conflict and ViolenceAuthor(s): Marc Howard RossReviewed work(s):Source: Political Psychology, Vol. 7, No. 3 (Sep., 1986), pp. 427-469

Published by: International Society of Political PsychologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3791250 .

Accessed: 13/12/2012 02:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

International Society of Political Psychology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to Political Psychology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:09:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ispphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3791250?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3791250?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ispp


2/44

Political sychology,ol.7,No. 3, 1986

A Cross-Culturalheory fPoliticalConflictndViolenceMarcHowardRoss'

It isdifficultoconceive fa human ommunityhere heresnoconflictmong hemembersr betweenersonsn thecommunityndoutsiders. t the ametime, hedegree o which onflicts overt arieswidely.his aper xaminestructuralndpsychoculturalypotheseso c-count orthis ariation,ndthen estshem singmultipleegressionithdata rom worldwideample f90preindustrialocietiesypicallytudiedbyanthropologists.hile he tatisticalesultsrovideome upportorboth xplanationsor nternalnd externalonflict, orenterestingly,hetwo re ntegratedoform general heoryf conflictehavior. ur rgu-ment s thatpyschoculturalispositionsetermine society's verallconflictevel, hilets tructuraleatureshapewhetherhe argetsf ggressionlie withinhe samesociety,n other ocieties, r both. The commonpsychoculturalootsof both internal nd externalonflictre harshsocializationatterns,ow warmthndaffectionirectedt children,ndhigh rotestmasculinity.he tructuraloots f nternalnd externalon-flictdiffer. nternal iolence s associatedwithweakcross-cuttingies,strongocalizedmalegroups in uncentralizedocieties),ndpolygyny;whilexternalonflictndwarfarere oundn ocieties hichrehigh nsocioeconomicomplexity,hereolygynysabsent,nd nuncentralizedsocieties ithmartialndogamyndweak ross-cuttingies.The heoreticalaspects fthis heoryreelaboratedn,drawingnanthropologicalndpsychoanalyticheory.KEYWORDS:politicalonflict;oliticaliolence;ross-cultural;ggression;bject elations.

'Departmentf Political cience, rynMawrCollege, rynMawr, ennsylvania9010.427

0162-895X/86/0900-0427$05.00/11986 nternationalocietyfPoliticalsychology

This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:09:58 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/44

428 RossINTRODUCTION

It sdifficultoconceivef humanommunityhereheres nocon-flictmongmembersr betweenersonsnthe ommunityndoutsiders.Atthe ame ime, hedegreeo which onflictsphysicallyiolent arieswidely. here re casessuch s theYanomamoChagnon, 967),wherefeudingnd warfarere anongoingonditionfdaily ife,ncontrastothe ore fNewGuineawherepenphysicalxpressionfdifferencessrareandstronglyiscouragedSorenson, 978).How can we bestunderstandsuchvariation?Theresearcheportedere ontrastswobroad ocietalevel xplana-tions ornternalndexternaliolencendconflict. ne view sstructural,accountingorpatterns f conflictn terms f social and economicorganization.he other ocusesnpsychoculturalispositions,xplainingviolentonflicts a result oth fculturallyearned ehaviorsndofper-sonalityonfigurationsypicalna society. ypothesesrederived romeachperspectivend aretested sing atafrom worldwideample f90preindustrialocieties.hese ocieties,ypicallytudiedy nthropologists,should lso be of interesto politicalcientistsoncerned ith hecom-parativetudyfviolence ndconflict.Thestatisticalesultsre consistent ith oth xplanationsor nter-nalandexternalonflict. ore nteresting,he nalysisntegrateshe wo oforma generaltheory f conflict ehavior.Our arguments thatpsychoculturalispositions,ootednearlyearningxperiencesndcrucialincreatingommonlyeldmages fthe elf ndothers,eterminesocie-ty's verallevel fconflict. ut fpsychoculturalispositionsead o a pro-pensityoengagenopen onflict,hey onotdetermineeryreciselyhoargues,ontests,ndfights ithwhom.Here he tructuraleaturesf thesocial, conomic,ndpoliticalystemeterminehepeoplewithwhomnecooperatesnd withwhom ne fights, eaning hetherhey re withinone's ociety,nanotherociety,rboth.A basicstartingointforthis tudys that nygeneralheoryfpoliticaliolencemustonsiderhe xperiencefsocietiesnwhich umanshave ived uringlmost ll ofourevolutionaryistory. s FriedrichndHorwitzrgue,Any roadlyomparativeheoryfpolitics eeds omakeallpossible seofthekind f dataconcerningrimitiveocieties hich n-thropologysable tofurnish"1968:545). o date,however,espitecca-sionalcalls forpolitical nalysis o include ata on traditionalocieties(Easton, 959;Friedrich ithHorwitz, 968), hishasoccurrednly cca-sionallye.g.,Scott, 972;Bates,1983;Masters, 964;Barkun, 968).Themost bvious esourcenthropologyanbringothe omparativestudy f politicss found n therichethnographicetails ollectednsocieties n all corners f theglobe. Whilemostethnographersftenhad



4/44

A Cross-Cultural heory fPoliticalConflict nd Violence 429little xplicitnterestnpoliticalifeper e, anthropologicaloncern ithdetailand descriptionftenmakes t possible o understand,t leastgenerally,asic spects fthe rganizationfauthority,ecisionmaking,leadershipelection,ndconflictnthe ommunitiesnwhichheyworked.Systematicallyoding ield atafrom worldwideange fcultures,ross-culturalistssometimesalled holoculturalists)ffer mpiricallyasedgeneralizationsbouthuman ehaviorna widenumberfareasrangingfrom conomic ubsistenceo childrearingnd evengames Murdock,1949;Naroll, 970;LevinsonndMalone,1980).Curiously,ross-culturalstudies fpoliticsresomewhatesscommonHarringtonndWhiting,1972;Tuden ndMarshell,972).Existing ork asmapped he tructureofformaluthorityrrangementsTuden ndMarshall, 972), ndhas ex-aminedhedynamicsfwarfareromeveral erspectivesOtterbein,968,1970;Ember ndEmber 971;Divale, 974).2There asbeen, owever,it-tlework eflectinghemore rocessualrbehavioralpproachopoliticsprominentn bothanthropologynd political cience n recentyears(Swartztal., 1966; wartz, 968;Easton,1959,1965), rtheperspectiveofGluckmanndhisstudentsnAfrica,whohavefurnishedherichestethnographicescriptionsfpolitics enowhave Gluckman, 954, 963,1965;Cohen,1968,1973,Turner,957).Political nalyses finternationalarfarend domestictrifefferrich uantitativenalysis hichughtobeusefulo the tudyfconflictnotherettingss well Gurr, 980;Wilkenfeld,973a).Barkun1968),forexample, uggestsherelevancefthe nalogy etweenhe nternationalsystemnd statelessocieties. ecauseoverarchinguthoritys absentnboth, onflictnd conflict anagementave mportantarallelsneach.While tudies f nternationalarfareenerallyayfarmore ttentionothenteractivespectsfrelevantctors nd othe haracterfthe nviron-ment hananthropologicaltudieshave done to date,there re morepoints fcontact etweenhe wo nconsiderationfdomesticourcesfstress nd violencehat hould e useful ere.

INTERNALAND EXTERNALVIOLENCE AND CONFLICT:WHATIS TO BE EXPLAINED?Conflicts anintegralspect fpoliticalife.t nvolvesffortsftwoormoremutuallypposed artiesoobtain carce esourcesteachother's

20f course here ave beenmany nthropologicalreatmentsfwarfare hich avenotbeencross-culturallyomparative.ora revieweeOtterbein1973,1977).Theclassic sTurney-High1948).Also eeFried t l. 1968),Nettleshipt l. 1975),Vayda1976); gooddetailed ~aetndv ikMparitt10771



5/44

430 Rossexpensethrough estroying,njuring, hwarting,r otherwise ontrollingotherpartiesMack and Snyder,1957). Societiescan differ reatlyntheirlevelsof conflict ehavior, heways nwhich onflicts replayedout, andthemechanisms ordispute ettlement hich re utilized ocontrol rdirectconflictswhentheyoccur. Our goal is to explainthis variation.Whyareconflictsn some societies r betweenmembers f a society nd outsidersviolent,while nother ases,where here reclearly isagreementsnddif-ferences,penviolence s rare?Politicalviolence,from hisperspective,snotsimply resent r absent na society.Ratherwe need to think bout acontinuum.At one endviolence s common,perhaps ndemic; t themid-pointconflicts common,but it takes more nstitutionalizedorms; t thelowend conflict arely ecomesphysically iolent.Hypotheses bout societal differencesn conflictbehavior are con-cernedwiththe broad constraints nder which more specificgroup, in-dividual,and contextual ifferences ithin society ome intoplay. Ouranalysisdoes not seek to explainthe outbreakof anyparticular ase ofviolenceor conflict; ather, tdirects ttention o forceswhichmake anysocietymoreor less pronethan anotherto certain evels of conflict ndviolence.Fromthisperspective,he same sortsof precipitatingncidentssuch as livestock heft, conomictension,or adultery ccurin manyset-tings,butin some cases theyunleash an escalatingpattern f violent on-flict,whilenother asessuch xpansionsseverely ore imited. nderstand-ing societaldifferencesn conflict ehavior nvolves xplanationshat arebroadin scope,but notnecessarilyimple.Whilewe consider he ndepen-dentvariablesone at a time ndeveloping urhypotheses,hesubsequentanalysis ection shows theimportance f specifying multivariatemodelwhich ooks at theeffects f theindependent ariables imultaneouslyounderstandtheirdifferent ontribution o an explanationof conflictbehavior.The sourcesofourhypothesesre varied.Some come from tatisticalstudies n anthropologynd politicalscience.Othersgrowout of com-parativeworkwhich slessquantitativeutmore ensitiveocontextual ac-torswithin ne or two cultures. ome are takenfrom heoretical r em-piricalresearchfromverydifferentettingswhichhas clear relevance orour problem. n some cases, thenwe are replicating indings romonestudywith nother ample;in otherswe are testing ypothesesn a cross-cultural amplewhichhave notbeenexamined hiswaybefore.To the ex-tentthatolder findings re repeatedhere,we can be more confident fthem;to thedegree hatourresults iffer,we need to understandwhetherthis s due to their ack of generalityr because of specificways nwhichthey re testedhere.



6/44

A Cross-Cultural heory f PoliticalConflictnd Violence 431To analyze ocietal eveldifferencesnpolitical onflict,webeginwithethnographicreportsof anthropologists,missionaries,travellers, ndothersfor a worldwide ample of 90 preindustrialocieties halfof theStandard Cross-Cultural ample (Murdock and White, 1969), whichislisted in Ross (1983). It was used for threemajor reasons: first, n-thropologistsecognize tsrepresentativenesshrough areful ampling fthemajor subregions nd culturalgroupsin thepreindustrial orld; se-cond, the sample societies are sufficientlyistinct nd distantfromoneanother o thatdiffusion, r Galton's Problem Naroll, 1970; Ross andHomer, 1976), does notpose a plausiblerivalexplanation or theresults;andthird, ublished odesfor hese ocieties rereadily vailable on a large

number f economic,social structural,nd socializationvariables Barryand Schlegel,1980). Our own codingefforts ould, therefore, ocusonpoliticalvariables.Ross (1983) contains reater etailon the ample, odingprocedures, nd questionsof reliability.MeasuringPolitical Violence

This study s partof a larger ross-culturalnvestigationf politicallife n preindustrialocieties.To consider hebroadpattern fworldwidevariation npolitical ife44 variableswerecoded forthe 90 societiesn thesample.Factoranalysisof thepoliticalvariableswas thenused to developfive cales Ross, 1983).Two of thesedescribe heorganization fpoliticalpower nd authority,ne describes atterns fcross-cuttingies, nd two,which re the focusof attention ere,groupvariablesmeasuringnternaland external iolence nd conflict.Table I shows the variables loading on the internal nd externalviolence and conflictdimensions n the factoranalysis. The variablesloadingoneachfactor re usedto form wo scaleswhich rethe um ofthescoresofthevariables n each dimensionfter heyhavebeenstandardizedand weighted ytheir quaredfactor oadings.The rawscoresforeachofthe omponent ariables s wellas thescoresfor achsociety n these om-posite cales are found nRoss (1983: Table IV). The six variables nthe n-ternalviolence nd conflict cale, in descending rderof importance,re:theseverityf conflict etweenresidents f differentommunitiesn thesame society, he acceptability f usingviolenceagainstmembers f thesame societybut outside the local community,he frequency f internalwarfare,heseverityfconflictwithinocal communitiesnthe ociety, hedegreeto whichphysicalforce s used as a mechanism ordispute ettle-ment, heacceptabilityfviolence gainstmembersf thecommunity,nd



7/44

432 RossTable . VariablesndFactor oading ornternalndExternal iolence easures"FactorVariable Loading

Internaliolencendconflict1. The everityfconflictetwenifferentommunitiesf the ame ociety(4-point easure) 0.942. The cceptabilityf violence hen irectedgainstmembersfsame ocietyoutside he ocal ommunity4-point easure) 0.903. Frequencyf nternal arfare4-point easure) 0.814. The everityf conflictithinhe ocal ommunity4-point easure) 0.685. The xtento whichhysicalorces used s a mechanismor isputeettle-ment3-pointmeasure) 0.676. The cceptabilityf violence hen irectedgainstmembersf theocalcommunity4-pointmeasure) 0.557. Degree fcomplianceithommunityormsnddecisionsymembersflocal ommunities3-point easure) 0.52External arfarendconflict1. Frequencyfexternal arfare4-point easure) 0.862. Degree fhostility-notustwarfare-expressedoward ther ocieties(4-point easure) 0.693. Acceptabilityfviolence hen irectedowardersonsnother ocieties(4-point easure) 0.64

"Completeefinitionsndrawdatafor hesemeasuresrepresentednRoss 1983).thevariabilityf compliance ithnorms nd decisions n thepartofmembersf the ocalcommunity.ocietiesn thehigh nd ofthis cale,such s theJivaro rSomali,havefrequentiolentonflictnd internalwarfareothwithinndbetweenommunitiesf he ame ociety.ocietiesatthemiddle fthe calesuch s theKikuyurComanche, averegularconflict,ut nternal arfarendthe seofviolencen ocaldisputess esscommon. tthe owpoint resocieties here onflicttselfs milder ndphysicaliolencenfrequent.he Mbuti ygmies,emangndPapagofallhere.Threevariablesmakeupthe xternal arfarendconflictcale:thefrequencyf external arfare,hedegree fhostilityxpressedo othersocietiesnot ust nwar), ndthe cceptabilityfviolence irectedopeo-ple nother ocieties.ocietiesuch stheBuganda,Maori,Comanche,ndJivarorehigh n this imension,hile owexternalonflictocietiesretheKungBushmen,heLepcha, nd theTrobriandslanders. hescoresfor achsocietynthe ample neachdimensionregivennRoss 1983).

HYPOTHESESIn theextensiveiteraturen violence ndconflicthere re at leastthreemajor xplanationsfobserved ariationsnviolence.ome nterna-



8/44

A Cross-CulturalheoryfPolitical onflictndViolence 433tional elationsheoristsrgue hat ations hich ifferntermsf nternalorexternalonflictrenotnecessarilyery ifferentntermsftheirnter-nalcharacteristics.orexample, ummel1968) ndHaas (1965), ookingat nationalorrelatesftheforeignonflictehaviorfnations, ind ewsignificantorrelationsetween he two.Midlarsky1975) got similarresultsna studyfhistoricalmpires. e finds hat he izeofthe eligiousbureaucracyredicts attle asualities nd thatthesize of themilitarypredictshenumberfyearsnempiresinvolvednwar.Buthefindsnabsence fdevelopmentalffectsnanyof hiswarfare easures,ndthegeneralhrustf his nalysissthatnternalredictorsf external arfarearepoor.

InMidlarsky'siew,nternationalarfares better nderstoods afunctionfalliances,onstraintsnthenternationalystem,ndstatusn-consistencyhannnationalharacteristics.innes1980)contendshat...no singlettributeakes nationroneowar.However,combinationftwogeneralypes fvariables-thosehat hange lowlygovernmentaltructure,evelofdevelopment,mountfresources)ndfast-changingnes unemployment,ivilstrife,uicide ates) does eem odiscriminateetweenationshat ecome eavi-ly nvolvednwar ndthose hat o not...we must otbecome bsessed itht-tributesfnationsothe xclusionfenvironmentalactors. emust akento c-count he act hat ationseacto nputsromnexternalnvironment1980:359)Incontrast,he wo therxplanationsgree hat herere nternalif-ferencesetweenolities ighnd owonviolence,utdisagreeboutwhatthedifferencesre.Someexplain iolencendwarfarentermsf struc-tural eaturesfsocietye.g.,Hibbs, 973;Otterbein,968, 970),dentify-ing spectsf the ocial, conomic,rpoliticalystemith atternsfcon-flict.Others mphasize sychoculturalispositionss key factors nunderstandinghebehavioralxpressionf aggressionndviolencee.g.,Montagu, 978;Gurr,1970;Cantril, 950;Durbin nd Bowlby, 939).Psychoculturalispositionsre culturallyhared esponseendenciesc-quired romhe arliesttagesf ife hrough echanismspelledut nbothpsychodynamicnd social earning heory. espite dentifyingery if-ferentmechanisms,he structuralnd psychoculturalerspectivessometimesroducehe amepredictions,hile nother asesthey o not.Forexample,tructuralheorieseegreaterifferencesetweenhe ausesof nternalndexternalonflict,hile ispositionalheorieseemore on-tinuityetweenhe wo.Whilet srelativelyasy ofind ighlyartisanupportersor itherthe tructuralrpsychoculturalosition,t s a gooddealmore ifficultofind lear-cutmpiricalvidence orone side or theother.Of course,anotherossible esults thediscoveryfwaysnwhichhepsychoculturalandstructuralxplanationsor onflictehaviorrecompatible ith achother, s a number f authorshave suggestedWhiting nd Child, 1953;



9/44

434 RossHarringtonndWhiting,972;Greenstein,967;Edgerton,971). nfact,Greenstein1967) and B. Whiting1980)warn gainst xpectingithertheoryo hold across ll behaviorsr situations. hatwehopeto deter-mineswaysnwhich achexplanationas an independentffectncon-flict ndhow he xplanationsnteract.

SOCIAL STRUCTURAL HYPOTHESESStructuralypothesesink onflicto forms f socialandeconomicorganization.uchhasbeenwrittenbout tructuralonditionsndthe n-

itiation rexpansionfconflictColeman, 957;BealsandSiegel, 966;Evans-Pritchard,940;Gluckman,954;Colson,1953),butthere s alsosome ttentiono the uestionf the evel fconflictssociated ith ar-ticulartructuralrrangementse.g.,Hibbs,1973).LeVine ndCampbell(1972), ntheir eviewfthe iteraturenethnocentrism,onsidertructuraltheories fconflictnddiscuss number fhypotheseselevant ere swell.What hese heories ave ncommonsthe dentificationfwaysnwhich hesocial structuralivisionsn a societyreate oliticalnterestsaroundwhichines fpoliticalleavagendconflictreorganized.Cross-Cuttingies

Thecross-cuttingies, rmultipleoyalties,ypothesissprobablyhemostwidely ited tructuralypothesesboutconflictGuetzkow,955;Coleman, 957;Gluckman,954;LeVine ndCampbell, 972:Chapter ;Colson,1953).Cross-cutting"ies ink ifferentembersfthe ame om-

munitynd differentommunitiesnthe ame ociety. ccordingothishypothesis,hese ies imit he xistence,rat least he everity,f overtconflict,nd promote ispute ettlementhroughnterests hich roupsand individualshare.Divided rmultipleoyalitesonnect iverse ndoften ispersed embersf a society;onversely,hepresencefsuch iesmakestdifficultoorganizeoalitions fpersonsndfactions howill eat odds with thers or xtendederiods f time, or here reprimarybonds cross ocialunits, roducingess uspicion, ore rust,ndgreatercooperationLeVine ndCampbell, 972:53). Onegoodmeasure flowcross-cuttingies nmodern ationss the xistencefseparatethnic ndlanguageminoritiesithin country. ibbs's nalysis f nternalonflictfinds hat xistencef largenumbersf suchgroupshas an effect n



10/44

A Cross-Cultural heory f PoliticalConflict nd Violence 435internalonflict,whenthesegroups re in a contextwherepoliticalmobilizationsoccurring1973:65-78).

Hypothesis: Thegreaterhe evel fcross-cuttingies, he owerhelevel f nternalonflict.While ross-cuttingies an imit he everityfconflict ithinsocie-ty, heymightncreasevert onflictetween societynd outsiders.yprovidingsocialbasisforpolitical nity,hey anemphasizeheboun-daries fa society. hegrowthfsolidarity,fcourse,might averootseither ithinhe ociety,r nthe ctions foutsiders,utfor hemomentthepoints that nternalocial inks,whateverheirrigin, ave mportantconsequencesor he tancedopted owardutsidersLeVine ndCamp-bell,1972).Hypothesis: Thegreaterhe evel fcross-cuttingies, he reaterhelevel fexternalonflict.Marriage.But whatproduces ross-cuttingies?Anthropologicaltheoryand ociobiologicalheoryswell) egins, ot urprisingly,y ook-ing tkinshipndmarriagelliances. inshiponds reatemutualbliga-tion ndsolidarity,hile he bsence fthese iesmakes orpotentialityhostile elationships.rom his iew, hen, preferenceormarriageut-side he ocalcommunitynhibitsonflictmong ifferentommunitiesfthe ame ocietyecause eoplewillnotwant ofight ithhosewithwhom

theyhare inshipndotherffectiveonds. urthermore,he heoryug-gests hat hepresencefmarriagexchange illberelatedo other ormsofexchangemongocalcommunities.hroughhe stablishmentftradeandotherinksevereonflicts nhibitednmuch he ameway hat unc-tionalistsuggestntegrationanbeachievedt thenternationalevele.g.,Haas, 1965; indbergndSchiengold,970).Ofcourse,nternaleacemayhave pricenterms fexternaltrife.ocieties ithtrongonds monglocalcommunitiesaybecomemore thnocentricndbrazenwhen acingoutsiders.When llianceswithneighborsre easilymobilized, ttacksagainst utsidersmaybe more ommon.Anemphasisn theperceptualfeatures f preferred arriagewithin he local communitytressessuspiciousnessnd distrustf outsiderslternativelys products r as



11/44

436 Rosscauses f n-group arriage,ut neitherasethe atternaneasily ecomereinforcing.ere hekeymechanisms that solationnd distrustfout-sidersmake teasy o take henext tep oopenconflict ith hem.

Hypothesis: Thegreaterhe evel f ocalcommunityntramarriage,the ower he evel f nternal,ndthehigherhe evel fexternal,iolenceandconflict.While his unctionalistiew fmarriageies ounds lausible,thassomeweaknesss well.Just ecausefightingith losekin spotentially

disadvantageousoes not mean twon't ccur.Alliances ndexchangeshave heirwn ensions,s themother-in-lawokes nwesternocietylear-lyreveal.Afterll,statisticsrom urown ocietyhow hat hevastma-jority f violent rimes re committedmong losekin ndgoodfriends.Anotherriticismf theexchangeiew fmarriages inhibitingiolencebetweenroupss the iteraturensocieties heret s saidthat wemarrywhowefight"Meggitt,977). nonestudynNewGuinea,Haano 1974)found hatfightingndmarriageookplacebetween he samevillages.Rather han ervings a deterrentofighting,esuggestshat articularmarriageatterns ay e more sefullyeen s a reactiono warfare1974:289).Women eizednwarfareanbedesirable arriageartnersecausekingroupdoes not have to giveup anyof its ownfemalesn return.Althoughhispatternftakingnemywomen s wives learlyccursnsome arts ftheworld,tremainsobe determinedowwidespreadhissas a source fmarriage artnersn a worldwideasis.Residence. nowingwhetherr nota society avorsnternalom-munity arriagenly ells spart f whatwe want oknow boutwho smarryinghom. n terms fthempactnviolencendconflict,everaln-thropologistsavefocusedarticularttentionnthe ispersionrconcen-tration fmales na societyince heyre almost niversallyominantnover ightingndwarfareLeVine ndCampbell,972: 2). Murphy1957)andLeVine 1965) argue hatmatrilocalruxorilocalesidenceispersemales, herebynhibitingonflictmong ommunitiesfthe ame ocietywhile romotingxternalighting.sing ross-culturalamples,mber ndEmber1971)andDivale 1974)also find hatmatrilocalitys associatedwithexternalwarfare,withpatrilocality orecommonwhen nternalfightingshigh. xactly hy his sthe ase sthe ubject fdisagreement,however.heEmbersnterestinglyypothesizehatwarfareatternshaperesidenceules.Divale 1974), nthe ther and, laces primaryole ntheeffectsfmigration:atrilocal roupswhichmigratentopreviouslypopulatedreas doptmatrilocalesidenceo ncreasenternaleace ndto



12/44

A Cross-Cultural heory fPoliticalConflictndViolence 437be better nitedn facing utside nemiesDivale, 1974).WhenEmbercompareshe wo xplanations,he findshat erhaps ivale's esultsrebestunderstoods a functionf societal omplexityndsize andarenotnecessarilynconsistentith hertheory1974). Van Velzenand vanWatering1960) ontentheres less nternalonflictnmatrilocalocietiesbecause rganized ower roupsre notpresent, hileMurphy'sxplana-tion, nd LeVine's pplicationf it, in contrast,ivea crucial oletopsychodynamic,s well s structural,actorsnthe hoice ftargetsor g-gression.

Hypothesis:Matrilocalityill epositivelyssociated ithxternal,ndnegativelyithnternaliolencendconflict.If matrilocalitynhibitsnternal iolence, atrilocalitys generallyvieweds enhancingt Murdock, 949;Divale,1974;Ember ndEmber,1971;OtterbeinndOtterbein,965;Otterbein,968).Bybringingogethergroups frelatedmaleswith erceivedommonnterests,he tructurefthe ocietyncouragespugnaciousnesshroughhe bsence f nhibitionson fighting.Whilethesesamegroupingsmayfight xternalnemiestogether,herewillnotbeasmuch istinctionetweennemiesnsidendoutside he society s there s in matrilocalocieties.Apparentlyhiscapacity o mobilizeocal fightingroups s offset y difficultiesn-counterednforminglliancesofightutside nemies,o thatOtterbein(1968)finds oconnectionetweenatrilocalityndexternalonflict.

Hypothesis: Patrilocalityillbe positivelyssociated ithnternalviolencendconflict,utunrelatedoexternal arfare.Intercommunityrade. hefunctionalistchool n nternationalela-tions dvocateshe xchangefpersonsndgoods s crucial o nhibitingwarfaremong ationsHaas, 1964).Developingnterdependenciesmongcommunitiesill, nthis iew,nhibitverfightingetweenhemnden-

courage hedevelopmentfpeacefulmechanismsorresolvingisputeswhenhey oarise.While eutsch ndothersgree hat xchangesre m-portantnthentegrativerocess,heyend oseethemsthe esults, orethan s causes, f ntegrationDeutsch, 957;Merritt,966).Butwhethertradeeads opeacefulelationsetweenommunities,rwhethertfollowsfromhem,herelationshipillbepositiveneitherase.



13/44

438 RossHypothesis: Thegreaterhe evel f ntercommunityrade,he owerthe evel f nternaliolencendconflict.

Fraternalnterest roupTheoryFraternalnterestroup heoryonnectsnternalonflicto theac-tions flocalized,malekinship roups rotectingommonnterestsvanVelzen nd vanWetering,960). n several ests fthishypothesis,tter-bein 1968)andOtterbeinndOtterbein1965)found hat npolitically

uncentralizedocieties he evels f feudingnd internal arfarearmedconflictetweenifferentommunitiesf the ame ociety)re relatedothepresencef fraternalnterestroups, perationallyeasuredythepresencefpatrilocalityndpolygyny.aigeandPaige 1981)proposemore efinedersion fthis heory,uggestinghefraternalnterestroupswill eparticularlytrong hen he esources ales rotectresignificant,nonmobilendstable. trong raternalnterestroupsrea structuralr-rangementaking ossible herapidmobilizationfrelatedmales ntofightingroups. ang 1976),however,resentontraryata howinghatthe evel ffeudingdefineds bloodrevengeollowinghomicide) asunrelated o thedispersal f malesthroughesidenceules, nd whenOtterbeinxamined he relationshipetween raternalnterest roupstrengthndexternal arfare,e found one t all (1970).Hypothesis:Fraternalnterestrouptrengthill epositivelyssociatedwithnternaliolencendconflictnuncentralizedocieties,utunrelatedo

externaliolencendconflict.Polygyny.olygynousystemsrecommonlyieweds warlike ndconflictidden or everaleasons. neview sthat olygynysusually up-ported ypatrilocality,ndconflictshigh ecause elatedmaleswithom-monnterestsregroupedogether,s spelledut nfraternalnterestrouptheory.tterbein1968)findshat olygynys a betterredictorf nternalwarfarehanpatrilocality.mber1974), na study fpolygyny,rguesthatwarfarendunbalancedexratioseadtopolygyny,ot he therwayaround. olygynys a responseohighmalemortalitys thecommunityneeds oreplenishtsmembers1976:204).Divale ndHarris1976:524)describe male upremacistomplexfwhich othpolygynyndhighn-ternalwarfarere a part, lthough anget al. (1979)notetheserious



14/44

A Cross-Cultural heory f PoliticalConflictnd Violence 439methodologicallawsntheir resentation,eaving oth heirheoryndfindingsndoubt.

Hypothesis: Thegreaterhe evel fpolygynousarriage,hegreaterthe evel f nternalnd externaliolencendconflict.Socioeconomicomplexity

Despitethepopular mageof violence nd anarchyn themostprimitiveocieties,vailable tudieshow hat hose ocietiestthe implestlevel ftechnolgocialomplexityrenomore rone oviolencehan hosewhichrehigh ncomplexity.ather,ome rgue hat ocial ndeconomicdifferentiationostersnternalonflicts more iversendcompetingn-terests roducemorefrequentisputes. urthermore,n more omplexsocieties here s morepotentialonflictimply ecausethere s moreavailable or llocation. t is notclear,however,hat reateromplexityproduces igheronflictevels, or fterll,greateronflictotentials notthe samething s actualconflict. orone thing,longwith he rise nsocioeconomicomplexityheres a parallel ise npoliticaloordinationandcontrolRoss, 1981).Therise npoliticalontrolhould henimit rchannelonflicto maintain stable ocial rder ermittinghosewithhelargesthareofthevaluedgoodstomaintainhemFried,1967).Bates(1983) lsosuggestshatmore omplexystemsistribute ore enefitsotheirmembers, akinghemaintenanceforder ewardingothem.Looking tsocieties hichreveryow nsocioeconomicomplexityprovidesoclear xpectation.omeofthewritingnhuntersndgatherersstresseshewaysnwhichoordinationndcoperationf the ntire om-munitynactivitiesuch shuntingre ssentialor urvival,ndoutbreaksofsevereonflict ithinhe ommunityrerareTurnbull,961;Marshall,1961;Draper, 978).Atthe ame ime,he nthnographicxamplesf omeofthemost onflict-riddenocietiesregroupswith similarlyow evel fcomplexityuch s theYanomamo nSouthAfrica rvarious roupsnNewGuinea Chagnon, 967;Meggitt,977;Koch,1974).Heresocietieslackingmechanismsfcoordinationndcontrollsohavefewmeans orlimitingpenconflictsncethey reak ut.Reviewinghe iteraturenmoderntates, immerman1980)findsthreeompetingypotheses-thatiolencesgreaternthe east evelopednationsLipset, 959;Feierabendtal., 1969), hat he elationshipillbecurvilinearHibbs,1973), ndthat ifferentormsfconflict,or xample,protest s. rebellion,willbe related o complexityn differentays.



15/44

440 RossOtterbeinindshe ameuncertaintyn hisreviewf materialromradi-tional ocieties1973),whereas ussell1972)finds veryowconnectionbetween iolencendcomplexity.

Hypothesis: It suncertainow he evel fsocial ndeconomicom-plexityna society illbe relatedothe evel f nternalonflict.Thecase ofexternalonflicteemsmore traightforward.iscussingevolutionaryheories f ethnocentrism,eVine and Campbell ontend

theresgood upportor hehypothesishat ocieties hich avebeenmorewarlike nd more uccessfulnwarfare avedisplaced hosewhich acksuch raits1972: 72-77).Looking t human volution ver longtimeperiod, igelow1973) rgues hat onflict as beenfunctionalorhumanevolutionnd that roupswhichuccessfullyngagednexternalonflictalso evolvedmore ophisticatedeans f nternaloordination.lso dop-tingan evolutionaryerspective, right 1942) finds hat ncreasingtechnologyndcivilizationreassociated ith parallel isenthe everityofwarfare.eanalyzinghe amedataBrock ndGaltung1966) lso findcorrelationetweenomplexityndbelligerence.ooking tmodern a-tions,Haas (1965)finds modestendencyormore eveloped ationsohavehigherevels fexternalonflict. atapresentednTextor1967) ug-gest t east weak endencyorwarfarendbellicositynotdistinguishingbetweennternalnd external ar) obegreaternmore omplexocieties.Incontrast,tterbein1970)didnotfind hisink, owever.ntheprefaceto his tudy,e aysheplannedotest numberfeconomicndecologicalhypothesesboutwarfare,utthese ariables ere uchpoorpredictorsthat heywere ropped romhe nalysis.

Hypothesis0:Thehigherhe evel fsocioeconomicomplexity,hegreaterhe evel f externaliolencendconflict.Politicalomplexityasreceived ore ttentions a correlatefcon-flict nd warfarehan ocioeconomicomplexity. right's1942) nalysisidentifiesshiftnthe ypendseverityfwarfare ith oliticalomplexi-ty, nd Brock ndGaltung1966)seepolitical rganizations a crucialshaper fincreasedelligerence.wanson'swarfaremeasurespositivelycorrelatedith oliticalentralizationna sample f45 culturesTextor,1967).MidlarskyndThomas' nalysisf65preindustrialationsuggeststhatpolitical omplexityas a clearerpositivempact nwarfarehandoes



16/44

ACross-CulturalheoryfPoliticalonflictndViolence 441socioeconomicomplexity1975). In his studyof internationalar,Midlarskyound hat oliticalentralizationsa crucial ariable. e sug-gestshat nereason or hisscentralization'sffectn ncreasingnation'sachievedtatus, hichncreasests spirationsutnot tsrecognitionntheinternationalystem1975: 140).Otherheoriesoint othe ame onnectionsithomewhatifferentunderlyingechanisms.penceruggestshat hedevelopmentfmilitaryleadershiproduces oliticaleaders ndsubsequententralization.omeput he ausal rrownthe ther irectionService,975).Materialistnter-pretationsf therise fthe tate rgue hat hedevelopmentfstratifica-tionand wealth reates heneedfor militaryo protect rivilegedn-terestsgainstnternalndexternalredatorsFried, 967).Theoriesfthestate s a mechanismfconquesteethegrowthfmilitaryophisticationas a way ocontrol eighboringeoples ndresourcesAdams, 966).

Hypothesis]a: Thegreaterhe evel fpoliticalomplexity,hehigherthe evel fexternaliolencendconflict.

A somewhatifferenterspectiveuggestshat venfmore entraliz-ed systemsremoremilitarilyophisticated,he oncentrationfpoliticalpowerna fewhands lacesgreaterontrolver he utbreakfviolence.Thisview mphasizeshe ole fthe tate s a conflictnhibitorhroughtscontrolver henstrumentsfviolenceService,975). fthe tate seffec-tive ncontrollingheoverallevel fviolence s well s itstargets,henpoliticalentralizationill eassociated ithower iolenceothnternallyandexternally.Hypothesis1b:Thehigherhe evel fpoliticalomplexity,he owerthe evel f nternalndexternalonflictndviolence.Some uthorsurposehat oliticalomplexityillhave nindirect,ratherhan irect,ffectnconflictndviolence.or xample, hile tter-bein1968,1970) ndOtterbeinndOtterbein1965)didnotfind irectf-fects fpoliticalentralizationn internalrexternalonflict,heirrgu-mentsthat entralizationsa crucialnterveningariable.tdoesnot ffectthe evel fconflict,ut he orrelatesfconflictredifferentt each evelofcentralization.orexample,nuncentralizedocietiesheexistenceffraternalnterestroupsspositivelyssociatedwith eudingnd nternalwar,but this s not thecase in centralized ocieties, hosewerepolitical



17/44

442 Rossauthoritys exercisedeyondhe ocalcommunity.nhis tudyfexternalwar,Otterbein1970) finds hatmorecentralizedocietiesdoptmoresophisticatedilitarytrategies,avehigherasualtyates, ndengagenwarmorefrequently,ut while here s no directffect fpoliticalen-tralization n thewarfare ariables, herelationshipetweenmilitarysophisticationndwarfareolds t bothevels fcentralization.imilarly,lookingtmodern ations,Wilkenfeld1973b) ndWilkenfeldnd Zinnes(1973) uggesthatwhile he oliticaltructurefa state oesnotnecessari-lydetermineo overallonflictevel,tdoes eem ohave n mpactnpat-ternscross ime,ndonthe orrelatesfconflict.his uggestshat if-ferentxplanationsre needed orwhat heyallcentrist,ersonalist,ndpolyarchictates. eVine ndCampbell1972:57)alsoargue hat ifferentexplanationsorviolence re neededforuncentralizednd centralizedsocieties.

Hypothesis1c:Politicalentralizationill e ndirectly,atherhan irect-ly,relatedo internalndexternalonflictnd violence.PSYCHOCULTURAL HYPOTHESES

Early tudies fpoliticalocializationuggestmany onnectionse-tween he ontentndmannerfwhatwas earneduringhildhood,ntheone hand and adultpolitical ehavior,n theotherGreenstein,965;Hess andEaston,1960).Laterworkhasbeenmuchmore autiouse.g.,Easton ndDennis, 969),fordespitehe heoreticalromisefthefirststudies,ome rgue hat esearchodatehasnot stablishedmpiricallyheimpact f political ocializationxperiencesn adult behaviorMarsh,1971; earingtal., 1973).Thishardlymeans hat ocializationracticesreunrelatedo adultactions, owever.orexample,hererea largenumberfcross-culturalstudiesfthe ffect fchild earingna varietyfdomains fbehavior,beginningithWhitingnd Child 1953).Thisresearchonsidershe m-pact fsocializationracticesn sexrole efinitionBarryt l., 1957;Bur-ton ndWhiting,961), rime atternsBacon tal., 1963), conomicub-sistenceBarrytal., 1959), hepresencef nitiationituals or oth exes(Brown, 963;Whitingt al., 1958;Paige and Paige, 1981), nd play(RobertsndSutton-Smith,962).In a review f thisfield,HarringtonndWhiting1972) dentifypoliticss one areawhich as beenalmost otally eglectedndcall forresearcherso analyze ystematicallyocializationn thesamewaythat



18/44

A Cross-Cultural heory fPoliticalConflict ndViolence 443otherareas have been investigatedross-culturallyHarringtonndWhiting,972:497-98).LeVine 1960, 1965) s one of thefewwho haveconsideredhe mpactf child earingnpoliticalife ross-culturally.isstudiesre controlledomparisonsetweenairsof societies, ot argerworldwideamples. or example,n his well-knownomparisonf theGusiiKenya)ndtheNuerSudan)heexplainshe reaterseofthe ourtsindisputeettlementmong heGusii ndgreateresorto theblood feudamong heNuer ntermsfGusii ocialization atternshich unishn-dividualggressiveehavior,tress hehierarchicalature f thefamily,andencouragehildrenobring roblemsoadults or ettlement1960).Early ocializationnfluencesdult ehaviory hapinghe ersonali-tyofthe ndividualWhitingndChild,1953;HarringtonndWhiting,1972).Shaping ognitions well s deepermotivations,arlyearningx-periences reparendividualsorpatternsf conflictnd cooperationntheir ociety. eVineand Campbell's1972)review f thewide-rangingtheories akes uch onnectionsnthe rea of ethnocentrismndprovidesseveral eyhypotheseselevanto internaliolence ndexternal arfare.Psychoculturalxplanationsorpolitical iolence nd warfareremore ommonutside oliticalcience hanwithint.Freud, fcourse,nCivilizationnd tsDiscontents1930), ees clear onnectionetweenheindividualepressionnresponseothe emandsforganizedocial ife ndthe xpressionfaggressionimed texternalargets.ven houghmost fhisfollowersejectedreud's otion faggressivenstances,heyharehisview hat ntra-nd ntersocietalonflicts rootedn ndividualersonalityformation.ornari1975) inkswar opsychologicalrocessesdentifiedyMelanieKlein seeSegal 1974)for goodsummaryfthisperspective].ForFornarihepsychologicaloots re n the ossof oveobjectsfelt ro-totypicallys thechildbegins o differentiateim- r herselfromtscaretaker).oss of the oveobject an beterrifyinghen ccompaniedystrongeelingsfguilt nd self-blame.s a defensegainsthis nnerer-ror, ndividualsevelop trongdentificationith heir wngroup, ndprojecthehostile uilt eelingsnto utsidersho re hen lamed or heoriginaloss.Thesemaneuverso both efendhe ove bject ndavoid heguilt feelings re what Fornari calls the "paranoidelaboration fmourning,"ndhistheoreticalxplicationuggestsources f socialandcultural ariationnoutcomes.

More social-psychologicalerspectivesttribute role to social,economic,ndpoliticalonditionss welle.g.,Horkheimer,950).LeVineand Campbell 1972) point out ways in which the structuralndpsychoculturalpproachesfferomplementaryxplanations,ndwherethey redivergent.n politicalcience,Gurr'swork npolitical iolence(1968,1970;Gurr ndDuvall,1973) ffers psychologicalxplanationn



19/44

444 Rosstermsfrelative epriviationnd frustration-aggressionheoryalso seeFeierabendndFeierabend,971).ButwhileGurr'sheoryspsychologicalhisdata arenot;heusesmeasures f social ndeconomiconditionsnasample fnations s a basisfornferringsychologicaltatesZimmerman,1980:211-212).Muller 1972)criticizes urr's xplanationorpoliticalviolences inadequateornever rovidingny ndividualevel ata.Mullerthen ffersurveyatashowingupportor hehypothesishat ropensityforpolitical iolences morerelated o political rust hanto relativedeprivation.n a more ecenttudy efinds hat "just esserts"easureffrustrations a better redictorr political iolence hanother elativedeprivationeasuresMuller, 980:80-81).

HarshSocializationSeveralpsychologicalpproachespsychoanalytictheoryand theauthoritarianersonalityork erivedromt), ocial earningheory,ndfrustration-aggressionheory-associate arsh nd severe hildtrainingpractices ithater ggressivity.lthoughhemechanismsnderlyingachofthe heoriesredifferent,hepredictionsre similarZiglerndChild,1969). or xample, heresychoanalyticndfrustrationggressionheoryconnectseverehysical unishmentfchildrenithater isplacementn-tooutgroups,ocial earningheoryooksmore oexplaining connectionin terms f imitation,modelling,nd reinforcement.n either ase,however, arsh ocializationxperiencesroducemore ggressivedultswhoengagenovert onflict ore eadily.A numberfspecificross-culturaltudies ind positivessociationbetween arshocializationracticesndphysicalggression,ellicosity,r

warfareLevinsonndMalone, 980: 49). na factornalysisfvariablesonwarfarendviolence rom extor1967),Russell erives warfareac-tor nwhich onindulgenthild earing racticeslso oad. He argueshataggressioneems odevelop romevere unishmenthroughnternalizedhostilityo ater ehavioralormsfviolence1972:290). nanotheractoranalysisfcross-culturalata, teward-Jones1972) inds factornwhichbellicosity,arcissism,chievementmphasis,ndwarfareoadtogether.Eckhardt inds connectionetweenevere iscipline,rustratinghildrearingractices,ndmilitarism1975:59). later1968)finds connectionbetween exualrepression,adism, nd militarism.urbin nd Bowlby(1939) ee hekeymechanismtwork s that f dentificationithhe tate sa consequencef ndividualepressionfprivateeelings.War s due tothe ransformedggressivenessf ndividuals"1939:41).Oneobvious ro-cess t work eresAnnaFreud's identificationithhe ggressor"Freud,



20/44

A Cross-CulturalheoryfPolitical onflictndViolence 4451937).Thehypothesisoesnot differentiatehetargetsfaggressionntermsf whetherheyre nside r outside ne'sown ociety,ndLeVineandCampbell1972)offer ropositionsuggestinghat vailability,ocialdistance,ndrelativetrengthll arerelevantere. ur rgumentssimilar,butfornowweonlywish osuggesthatwhile oliticalonflict ayhavecommon nderlyingsychoculturalase,choiceof targetss shapedbystructuralonditions.

Hypothesis2: The harshernd more everehe ocializationracticescommonn society,hehigherhe evel f nternalndexternaliolencendconflict.

WarmthndAffectionA differentet of socializationariables mphasizehe role ofaffection-, armth-,nd love-orientedhildrearing racticeswhosepresences associatedwith ow violencend conflict.n several actor

analyses,ncludingne we didwhich s citedunderAppendix later,variablesmeasuringarsh ocializationracticesoad ondifferentactorsthan ndicatorsfwarmthnd affectionRussell, 972;Steward-Jones,1972),meaninghese wodimensionsre not implypposite olesonthesame ontinuum.onceptuallyhedistinctionsperhapsarallelo the if-ferenceetweenermissivenessndpunishmentnthe ocializationfag-gression hich ears et al., (1958)findhave ndependentffects n ag-gressiveehavior. reaterxpressionfaffectionowardhildren,reateremphasisnvalues uch strust,onesty,ndgenerosity,ndcloser ather-child ies, or xample,anall becited s practices hichead ndividualstowardooperation,atherhan nimosityndaggressiveness.hehealthypsychosocialevelopmentf the ndividualntermsfearlybject elations(internalizedmages fothers ased nearlyxperiences)ndsecure ies oparental iguresreparehewayfor ocially ooperativexperiencesaterin ifeWinnicott,965;Guntrip,968,1971;Fairbairn,954).Theprofilesfsevenmall-scaleocieties,lllowon nternalonflictand aggressionn Montagu1978)presentomegoodethnographicx-amplesof thispattern.n these ocieties, reat ffections frequentlydirectedowardhe hild,whose verall eelingsfsecurityrehigh. vertexpressionfaggressionsdiscouraged,utnot hroughhysicalunishment.Finally,hese ocietiesackmodels fhigh ggressiveersonswhom hechild an mitate. s isthe ase withggressionndsocializationiscussedearlier,t seemsresponsibleorhighaffectionn socializationo be



21/44

446 Rossassociated ithower onflictothwithinne's ocietynd ndealingwithoutsiders. utual xpectationsndreinforcingequenceserveomaintainpatternsnce hey avebegun.

Hypothesis3:Thegreaterheuseofchild rainingracticesosteringaffectionnd ecurity,he owerhe evel f nternalnd xternaliolencendconflict.

Male Gender dentity onflictTheWhitingssethe ermprotest asculinity"oreferothe atternwhich inksuncertaintyoncerningender dentityo overt ggression(Whiting,965;WhitingndWhiting,975a). nmale-dominatedultures,where athersredistantnd alooffromheirhildren,rustrationevelopswhenyoung oysgrow pwith speciallytrongonds otheirmothers,andyet hese onds need" o besevered or hem omeet he ocietal x-pectationsfadultmalebehavior. neway his sattemptedsthroughn-itiationites,uch scircumcisionMunroet l., 1981: 14-616). secondsource ffrustrationsmaternalmbivalence. omenivingnpatrilocal,polygynousocieties aveneithertrongies to their atalfamilies orstrongffectiveondswith heirhusbands. later nd Slater all this"dilutedmarriage"(1965).omennthese ettingsevelop trong ondswithheirhildren,ut lso take utfrustrationn thems "themale hildwasalternativelyeduced ndrejected"Slater ndSlater, 965: 42).Theresultsthatmalesnsuch ulturesevelop erymbivalenteelingsowardfemales; arcissisticersonalitieshichrepreoccupieditharly evelop-ment asks, ride, ndself-enhancement,ndareprone o aggressivec-tions, recommonSlater ndSlater, 965; lso seeKernberg,975; ndSpotnitz, 976).Despite ulturalttemptso deal withmalegenderm-bivalence,hesolutions reonlypartial o that ompensatoryehaviorsseen nbellicosity,ggressiveisplay ehavior,ndopenfightingrecom-mon.Althougheveral ritics ave uggestedhat he amedatamight ebetterxplained yother heoriese.g., Young,1965;PaigeandPaige,1981), upportor hishypothesisswideranging.t suggestshat istantfather-childiespromoteggressivity,hile lose, ffectionateonds reassociatedwith ow overt onflictEmber,1980: 561-62;WhitingndWhiting,975a;West ndKonner, 976).Adorno tal., (1950)contendthat istantathersroducehildrenparticularlyoys)who re nsecuren



22/44

A Cross-Cultural heory fPoliticalConflictndViolence 447interpersonalelationshipsndaremore eadyoengagenopen ggressionagainst utgroups. .Whitingtal., (1958)show linkbetween longpostpartumex taboo between usband nd wife nd exclusivemother-infantleepingrrangementsnthe nehand, nd male ircumsitioniteson the other.B. Whiting1965), reviewingetailed ata from heSixCulturaltudy,hows hat arlyow dultmale alience asmostmarkednthe wo ultures ithhehighestates fphysicalssault ndhomicide.healso notes hecorrelationrequentlyoundbetween atherbsence ndjuvenille elinquencynwesternettings.och 1974) rgues hat hepro-testmasculinityodel rovides goodframeworkorunderstandinger-vasive onflictnd warfaren NewGuinea,which esays smarkedy heabsence fthird artiesnterveningndisputes,noutgrowthfthe arlypersonalityatternsWhiting escribes.Whitingnd Whiting1975b)report hat distant atherings associatedwithtraining oys to bewarriors,nd West and Konner ind clearrelationshipetweenowfather-childlosenessnd highwarfareWest ndKonner, 976:203).WhitingndWhiting1975a), eportinghe esultsfdetailed bservationsofchildrennsixculturess,ind hatwhat ifferentiatesulturesn theirsociable-intimatives. authoritarian-aggressiveehaviordimensionshouseholdtructure,articularlyhe role of thefather.n thesocietieswhere hechildren'sehaviorsre more uthoritarianndaggressive,heextendedamilyscommon,he atherasa smallerole nchild earing,spresentess,overt usband-wifeonflicts often igher,ndchild-fathercontact s lower 1975a: 120-23).Alcorta 1982)finds upport orthehypothesishat losefather-childies reassociated ithowerggressivityandconflictmong othhumanndnon-humanrimates.he ays heresnoticeablyess tressmongnfantsparticularlymongmales) nd owersubsequentggression,hemore dultmales re nvolvednchild earing.

Hypothesis4:Thehigherhe evel fmale enderdentityonflict,hegreaterhe evel f nternalndexternaliolencendconflict.

RESULTSProceduresThedataused ntestinghese 4hypothesesere oded, spreviouslynoted, rom thnographiceportsn 90 societiesocated hroughouthe



23/44

448 Rossworld,which rehalf he ocietiesnMurdockndWhite'standardross-Cultural ample 1969)ofpreindustrialorld ultures.he codesfor hepoliticalvariablesused below are found n Ross (1983), whilethesocioeconomicnd child rainingariablesre foundnBarryndSchlegel(1980),a collection f codesoriginallyublishedn Ethnology. hesesources lso considerroblemsf amplingndreliabilityhatmay e of n-teresto certain eaders.Appendix lists hevariables sed n thedataanalysiselow ndthewaynwhichach soperationallyefined. ultipleregressionsused nthe nalysis. ecause here remanymoderateorrela-tions mong he ndependentariables,tis especiallysefulnshowinghow achofthe ndependentariabless related o thedependentariablesafter he ffectsf the therndependentariablesreremoved.3 ithhisprocedure,earrivet results hich redifferentrom,ndmore traightforwardhan, hoseweget romimplyookingt the ivariateorrelationmatrix.4

FindingsTheregressionesultsrepresentednTableII. It shows hatboth

structuralndpsychoculturalariablesresignificantlyelated ointernaland xternalonflictnd n ombinationxplainonflictetterhan itheretof variableslone.A closer ookshows hatowaffection,arshocializa-tion,and malegenderndentityonflictncreasenternal nd externalviolence nd conflict,ut thespecifictructuralactors hich re asso-ciated with internal nd external onflict iffer.To explaintheseresultswepropose hat heres a dispositionalasis for ggressionndviolence ooted n early earningnd personalityormation,hile hetargetsfaggressionreshaped ythe tructuraleaturesfa society.nsome ases he argets illbeoutsidene's ociety,nsome heywillbe n-3Multicollinearitys not a problem ere.First, hecorrelationsmong he ndependentvariablesan,butdidnothere, roducearge tandardrrorsfthe egressionoefficients.Second, fcourse,multicollinearityoesnotbias he egressionoefficient,tonlyncreasedthe tandardrrors.4TheregressionsresentednTableII were electedromeveral ifferentpecifications.Because numberf researchersavesuggestedmportantifferencesetweenoliticallycentralizednduncentralizedocietiesn heirandlingf onflict,n dditionotheubstantivevariables,arlier ersionsncluded etsof interactionerms or ach variable o testforsystematicallyifferentffectsn uncentralizedndcentralizedocieties,s proposednhypothesis11.nteractionerms erepecifiedsthe riginalariable ultipliedy dummyvariable1 = uncentralized,nd0 = centralized).fthe egressionoefficientor n nterac-tive erms arge,he riginalariable asa differentmpactnthe wogroupsfsocieties.Societies ere oded s centralizednlyfTuden ndMarshall1972) coredhem s havingpoliticaluthorityxercisedeyondhe evel fthe ocalcommunity.ncaseswhere he n-teractionerms roducedmall egressionoefficients,hevariablewasdropped romhemodel resentedere.



24/44

A Cross-CulturalheoryfPoliticalonflictndViolence 449Table I. Multiple egressions:nternalnd Externalonflict

StandardizedRegression StandardCoefficient Error(Beta) of Beta Pearson Corr."Internal iolence nd conflictStrengthf cross-cuttingies scale -0.29b 0.11 -0.24b (90)Fraternal nterest roup strengthnuncentralizedocieties 0.22c 0.10 0.26b (90)Affectionateocializationpractices -0.31b 0.10 -0.35d (89)Harsh socializationpractices 0.22c 0.10 0.33d (82)Politicalpowerconcentration -0.11 0.14 -0.03 (90)Polygyny 0.12 0.10 0.20c (90)Male gender dentityonflict 0.13 0.10 0.05 (68)Intercommunityrade 0.04 0.11 0.03 (89)Socioeconomiccomplexity 0.09 0.14 0.08 (90)Matrilocalitye -0.07 0.10 0.05 (90)Maritalendogamy 0.01 0.10 0.04 (90)MultipleR = 0.60 R2 = 0.36

Externalviolence nd conflictStrengthf crosscutting ies nuncentralizedocieties 0.21c 0.10 0.20c (90)Fraternal nterest roupstrength 0.07 0.12 0.24b (87)Affectionateocializationpractices -0.39d 0.09 -0.41d (89)Harsh socializationpractices 0. 19c 0.09 0.30b (82)Politicalpowerconcentration -0.12 0.12 0.11 (90)Polygyny -0.12 0.09 0.03 (90)Male gender dentityonflict 0.32d 0.08 0.29b (68)Socioeconomiccomplexity 0.27c 0.13 0.24b (90)Matrilocality 0.11 0.09 0.14 (90)Maritalendogamynuncentralizedsocieties 0.43d 0.11 0.28b (90)MultipleR = 0.69 R2 = 0.47Sample ize= 90 n the egressions.eanshavebeen ubstitutedormissingata nthe egressions."Samplesizes nparentheses. orrelationsrefor ll cases,not ustuncentralizedocieties.bStatisticallyignificantt the 01 level.cStatisticallysignificantt the 05 level.dStatisticallyignificantt the 001 level.eResults re the same whenmatrilocalitys substituted orpatrilocality, ut the signisreversed.side t,whilenmanyituationsoth ormsfviolence ill ccur. heques-tion fthe elationshipetweennternalndexternalonflictsan impor-tant nd nterestingne.To treatthere na presentationhichsalreadytoo ong snotpossibleseeRoss,1985).Beforelaboratingnthegeneralargument,t susefulofirstxaminehe pecificesults.Internal iolence ndConflict

Twopsychoculturalndtwo tructuralariablesre ignificantlyelatedto the evel fviolencendconflict ithin society.heregressionesultsshow he ffectionatend warm ocializationractices,ntheonehand,



25/44

450 Rossandharsh,everenes, n the ther,renot implyppositeoles f singlecontinuumsee Appendix ).The more ffectionatendwarm ndthe essharsh he ocializationna society,he ower he evel fpolitical iolenceand conflict.houghwe will laboratehe inkagenthefinal ection,urargumentsthat onflict ehavior asan importantrojectiveomponent(J.Whiting,974;B. Whiting,980).Early xperiencesecome riticalnestablishingnindividual'sapacityocooperate ith thersndprovideframeworkornterpretingheir ehavior.ndividualshohave xperienc-edearlyackof affectionndharsh reatmentillhavemuchmore roubleinestablishingarm ooperativeondswith thers s adults ndwillbemore rone o view hebehaviorf otherss hostile ndthreatening.ro-jectinghreatndaggressionnto thers hen rovidesneasyustificationfor ne'sown ggressivections.Theresultsoncerningtructuralariableshow hat heweakerhecross-cuttingies na society,nd the trongerraternalnterestroupsreinuncentralizedocieties,hegreaterhe evel f nternaliolencendcon-flict. ross-cuttingies,byprovidingocial ndpoliticalinks mong if-ferentroups,ffer brake nthe xpansionfconflict,imit olarization,and essen hepossibilityfwidespreadiolence. raternalnterestroupsdothe pposite,ringingelatedmales ogetherheret seasy or hem oorganizeiolentctions,itherefendingheir wnperceivednterestsrattackingthers. tterbein1968)found hat hepresenceffraternaln-terestroups redictednternal ar nhissamplemong heuncentralizedsocieties,utnot hosewhich ere oliticallyentralized.urresults,singdifferenteasures,how he ame hing. raternalnterestroup trengthissignificantlyelatedo nternalonflictnlyntheuncentralizedases nthesample.Why?Otterbeins probably ightwhenhe saysthat n theabsenceof authorityt anylevelabove the ocal community,trong,organized alekin roups ill perates localpower roupso defendheirinterestsalsoseePaige ndPaige,1981).There reseveral ariables hich reworth iscussings part f themodel, lthoughheir oefficientsrenotstatisticallyignificant,ecausetheyreoftheexpectedign ndaretheoreticallynteresting.heoreticalimportance,ot tatisticalignificance,salwayshe riterionorncludingor excluding variable rom model Achen,1982).However,n theabsenceof definitiveheoreticaluides,we have been guidedby themagnitudef thestandardizedegressionoefficientnd itssignificancelevel.Ourdiscussiondentifieshree inds f variables:hosewhich restatisticallyignificantnd are included, hosewhich are not quitestatisticallyignificantnd are left n our exploratorytudy,nd thosevariables herehe oefficientseem o lowthat heirontributions trivialand we mustreject hehypotheseshattheyhave anysignificantndepen-dent ffect n thedependent ariable.



26/44

ACross-CulturalheoryfPolitical onflictndViolence 451Thehigherhemalegenderdentityonflictna society,s measuredby he engthfthe ostpartumex abooforwomen,hehigherhe evel finternalonflict.imilarly,hegreaterhepolygyny,hehigherhe evel f

internalonflict. lthoughhemeasuresf socioeconomicnd politicalcomplexitysedhere re tronglyndpositivelyelatedo eachotherRoss,1983),whenbothare includedn theregressionhe resultsuggesthatpoliticaloledifferentiations negativelyssociated ithnternaliolence,while ocioeconomicomplexityspositivelyelated oit.Perhaps oliticaldifferentiationwhich s highlyssociatedwithpolitical entralization)limitsnternalonflicthroughirect ontrol-theeacemakingunctionfthe tate-,whilencreasingocioeconomicomplexityncreasesonflictstheres more ovetingfwhat ne'sneighborossessesndmorenequalityinthedistributionf values bjects ndpositions. inally,hreendicatorsof cross-cuttingiesmatrilocalitysubstitutingatrilocalityroduceshesameresults,ut thesign s in theopposite irection),ntercommunitytrade,nd ntercommunityarriage-haveuch owcoefficientshat heireffectn internalonflicthould evieweds negligible.

ExternalWarfare nd HostilityThe results or xternal arfarehow he amepsychoculturalasisfor xternals for nternalonflict-lack faffectionate,ndpresencefharsh,ocializationandtheresstrongupportor hemalegenderdenti-tyhypothesiss a predictorfexternaliolence. tructuralactorsre m-portant ere oo,butthey re differentrom hose nvolvedn internalviolence. inally,here re some mportantifferencesetweenentralizedanduncentralizedocieties.The structuralariables elated o external iolence re highersocioeconomicomplexitynd, nuncentralizedocieties, preferenceorintracommunityarriagend strongross-cuttingies.WhileOtterbein(1970)finds hat ocioeconomicomplexitysassociated ithhegrowthfmilitaryophistication,edidnotfind thadanydirect ffectnwarfare.Ourresults,sing ifferenteasures,o. One explanation ighte thatmore omplexystemsavegreateresourcesomobilizenwarfare. utofcourse, or his o be validwe wouldneed o know omethingbouttheresources f potentialnd actualopponents,ot ustthestandingf asocietyna worldwidecale.Perhaps more sefulxplanationere estsonthree ey lements:1) thedevelopmentfoccupationalpecialization,includingheriseof militarypecialists,2) thegrowthf stratification,hierarchynd nequality,nd 3) theproblemfsocial ndpoliticalrderandcontrolFried, 967).External arfareevelopsut ofa combinationof theincreased apacityforfighting,he need forscarcegoods, and the



27/44

452 Rossproblemf nternalrder. xternalnemiesre seen s threateningnternalorder nd areacceptableargetsorfrustrationhich,ometimes,annotbeexpressedithin society.

At firsthe onnectionetweenighntracommunityarriagendex-ternalonflictupriseds,forweexpectocieties ithtrong aritalinksamongocal ommunitieso be betterble omobilizeightingorcesgainstexternalnemies. erhaps his s sometimeshecase,but theresults ereshow hat hose ocieties ith hestrongocalmarriageavethehighestlevel fexternalonflict. henwe ookat thedata more arefullyefindthat he ffectfendogamyn warfaresonly resentntheuncentralizedsocietiesre thosewhere he ocalcommunitys alsothehighestevel fpolitical rganization.ntercommunityarriagemeans inks o outsidegroups,whichwe wouldexpect o limit xternal ar,while ndogamystrengthensoundariesetweenroupsndmakeswarmoreikely.naddi-tion, herelationshipetweenndogamynd externalonflictndwarfaremay lso havea psychologicalspect. tmaynotbe that ndogamyro-duceshighwarfare,utratherhat oth reproductsfa particularistrustandsuspiciousnessfoutsiders hichmakes vert onflictndaggressionmoreikely.Strongross-cuttingies nuncentralizedocietieslso ncreaseheevelofexternaliolence, hile heyrenegativelyssociated ithnternalon-flict.While urmodel egardsnternalnityshavingneffectn externalconflict,therseversehe ausal equence.nternationalxamplesan becitedwherehepresencef anexternalnemy romotednternalnity,ndEmber ndEmber1971)suggesthat xternal arfareauses hangesnresidenceules.Althougheveraldditionalariablesre not tatisticallyignificant,it s worth otingheirelationshipoexternalonflict.ontraryoexpec-tations,olygynysnegativelyelatedoexternalonflictnce he ffectsftheother ariablesnthemodel re takennto ccountnote hat heresvirtuallyorelationshipt all atthebivariateevel). heres an nterestingcontrast ith hecase of internalonflict hich sweakly utpositivelyassociated ith olygyny.ertainlyhis indingscontraryowhat ivaleand Harris1976) eeas an integralart fthemale upremacistomplex,althoughhey efer ointernal ar whereurdatasupporthier attern)more han xternal ar.Thefindingeresperhapsest nderstoodnterms f he ifficultiessocieties ighnpolygynyave nachievingnternalnity,makinghemunable o opposeoutsiderss a cohesive nit.Alternatively,olygynymighte seen s a structuralluxury"hich ocietiesacingevere utsidethreatsannot fford.Theeffectfmatrilocalitys lessdifficultoevaluate.Whenwe runthe regressionwithout the interactionterm for cross-cutting ies,



28/44

ACross-CulturalheoryfPolitical onflictndViolence 453matrilocalitysstatisticallyignificant.henwe nclude his ermt snot.What hismeans heoreticallysthatmatrilocalesidences onemechanismfor chievingross-cuttingies. Thecorrelationetween atrilocalityndthe ross-cuttingies cale s0.17 N = 90),whichs ustsignificanttthe0.05 evel.)Thus, he ffectfmatrilocalitys subsumednder his roaderprocess nd is onewayofachievinginkagesmong ommunitiesnthesame ociety. hepoints thatmatrilocality'sssociation ithowconflictisthroughts reationf inkagesmong ommunities,utmatrilocalitysonly neway hese iesmighte formed.As inthe ase of internalonflict,here s a slight endencyor heconcentrationfpolitical owero benegativelyelated o externalonflictwhent s includedntheregressionlong he ocioeconomicomplexity.Finally,raternalnterestroup trengthakes o real ontributionowardexplainingxternaliolence.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONSThe modelsof internal nd external iolence nd conflictustpresentedupport n explanation hich ncludesbothpsychoculturaland structuralariables. ocializationreates ispositionsoward igh rlowviolencen society.articulartructuralonditionshen etermineheextento whichheviolencesdirectedtothers ithinhe ociety,t out-siders,r nbothdirections.nthis ection, e firsteviewhefindingsnterms fthe pecificypothesesresentedarlier; ethen laborate n thetheoreticaltructurefthemodels;ndfinally,econsiderriefly aysnwhich hemodelsmay eusefulnunderstandingoliticaliolencendcon-flictnpoliticalituationseyondhe ocietiesn this ample.

Structural ypothesesTheregressionesultsoint o severaltructuralonditionshich recrucialnshapinghe evel fpolitical iolence. he firstetofhypothesesinvolvedhempactfcross-cuttingies ndsuggestedhat he trongerheties, he ower he evel f nternalnd thehigherhe evel fexternalon-flict. heregressionesultsupporthe eneralypotheses.nternalonflict(inbothuncentralizedndcentralizedocieties)s lower s ties ncrease,while xternalonflictn uncentralizedocietiesncreases hen he tieswithinhe ommunityre tronger.heresults,owever,reonly artiallysupportivef themore pecificypothesesoncerningesidence, arriageandtrade.Martial ndogamysassociated ith igherxternal arfarenuncentralizedocieties,but we did not findany connectionbetween n-



29/44

454 Rossdogamy nd internal onflict.Matrilocality,hich largenumber fprevioustudiesdentifys a crucial redictorf external arfare,sonlyweaklyelated oexternalonflictnce he ffect ftheother ariablesnthemodel s taken nto ccount. imilarly,atrilocalitys notparticularlyrelatedo nternaliolencendconflictn hemultivariateodel. hepointis not omuch hat hese esidenceariablesre rrelevantounderstandingpatternsfviolence ndconflict,ut ratherhat hey o notoperatenisolationndtheir ffectseed o beconsideredithinhe ontextfotherstructuralndpsychoculturalariables. ur rgumentsnot hat he arliermodels re nvalid ourbivariateorrelationsre more r lessconsistentwithheir indingsbut hat heyre ncompletelypecifiednd thereforebiased.Fraternalnterestroup heoryormedhebasisfor he econd roupofstructuralypotheses,nd theresultsonfirmtterbein'sindingshatfraternalnterestroup trengths associatedwith nternal onflictnuncentralizedocieties. s healso found,here s no association etweenfraternalnterestroup trengthndexternaliolence. olygyny,hichwas oneofthe ndirectndicatorsffraternalnterestroup trengthhichOtterbein1968)used,hasonly weakrelationshipointernalonflict.talso hasa weak,but nverse,elationshipoexternalonflict.The iteraturencomplexityndviolencesconfused,utperhapsurresultsre ess so. Socioeconomicomplexityspositivelyssociated ithbothforms f conflict,utonly n thecase of external arfares itstatisticallyignificant.oliticalomplexity,easuredsthe oncentrationofpoliticalower,sweaklyegativelyssociated ith othnternalnd x-ternalonflict,espitehefact hat ocioeconomicndpoliticalomplexityarethemselvestronglyndpositivelyelated. heresultslsosupporthecontentionhat n adequate xplanationorconflict illbe differentnuncentralizedndcentralizedocieitiesOtterbein,977;Divale ndHarris:1976:531;LeVine ndCampbell, 972).Because heresnoauthorityx-erted eyondhe ocal evel nuncentralizedocieites,heorganizationffraternalnterest roups, xogamousmarriage,nd cross-cuttingiesamongocalcommunitiesfthe ame ocietyre all importantnshapingviolencentheseocieties, hereashese ame ariablesrenotmportantnthe entralizedases.

PsychoculturalypothesesAllthreefthe sychoculturalypothesesre upportedy he egres-sion nalysis.When arly ocializationsharsh ndphysicallyunishing,when t s ow n ffectionndwarmth,ndwhenmale enderdentityon-



30/44

A Cross-Cultural heory f PoliticalConflict nd Violence 455flictshigh,both nternalndexternal iolence nd conflictncrease.Whilethe samedispositional actors re related o internal nd external iolence,structuralactors nd local conditions re involved n thechoiceoftargetsforviolence n any particular ituation. t should be underlinedhatwhilethese hree imensions f socialization reconceptually elated, heresultsshowthat ach makes a statisticallyndependentontributionoexplainingconflict, or heregressionoefficientives he ffect f each variablewhenthe others re controlled.Identifyingsychocultural ispositions elated o conflictndviolencealso requires hespecificationf mechanismsinking ocialization o per-sonality ormationnd adultbehavior.Here wespelloutwhat uch inkagesmight e drawing eavily n psychoanalyticheory.Recognizinghat hereareother heoreticalinks s well,Ross (1985) considers onnectionswhichare essexplicitlysychodynamic.seful sychodynamicechanismsreparticularlyoundnobject elationsheoryGuntrip,971;GreenbergndMitchell,983).Centraln thisview re themechanismsfattachment,identification,epression,rojection,nddisplacement.ttachmentefersto theways nwhich young hilddevelops r fails odevelop onds oothers. arlydepriviationnd lack of nurturanceeverelympair hecapacityodevelop trongffectiveonds atern ife nbothhumanndnon-humanrimatesBowlby, 969;Harlow ndHarlow, 962,Harlow,1965).Mahler etal. (1975) describe heprocessofseparation nd individua-tion nthesecondyearoflife.The secure hild s capableofdifferentiatingitself romtsmotheror father)when hechild's nternalizedmageoftheparentspositive ndsufficientlyecure o that eparation oes notproduceoverwhelmingension nd anxiety 1975: 109). Winnicott1965) uses theterm good enoughmother" o refer o thecaretakerwhoprovides childwithearlyexperiences esultingn a positive enseof self,and trust ndopenness toward others. In contrast, f early relationships re highlynegative nd threatening,sychological rowth emains ixated t an earlydevelopmentaltageand bonds to others annotdevelop.Attachmentootherss crucial ater n ifewhether e arespeaking bouttheability f in-dividualsto form ntimate elationshipsr to join withothers n sociallycooperative entures.Most of thepsychoanalyticiteraturemakes the sexist nd ethnocen-tric ssumptionsnot onlythat childrearings notonlya female askbutalso that t is performed y thebiologicalmother.This view gnores hewidespread variation in organizationof child rearing (Weisner andGallimore,1977) and the verydifferent oles that fathersplay in thesocialization rocess ross-culturallyLamb, 1976).Freudian heory ivescentral role to fathers n the developmentalprocess, but Fisher and



31/44

456 RossGreenberg1977) rgue hat his sprobablyhe rea wherempiricalup-port or heFreudianheorys weakest.WhileFreud's xpositionftheresolutionfthe edipal risisFenichel,945) ests na young oy's den-tificationith stern nd aloof father asedonfearcastrationnxiety),FisherndGreenberg1977), ummarizingxistingesearch nthis ues-tion, rgue hat hefathers ithwhomdentificationsstrongestrethosewho re warm ndapproachable,otdistantndthreatening.This s particularlyelevanto themalegenderdentityypothesisdiscussedbove,and to theregressionesultshowinghe societies ithgreater armthnd affectionnd ess distant athersave ower iolenceandconflict.5ost fthewritingboutfathersndchildrenoesnotdwellon therelationshipetwenhusbands nd wives n the same context.However,t sworthuggestinghat istantather-childies refrequentlyassociated ith loof husband-wifeies WhitingndWhiting,975b) rwhat later ndSlater1965) alldilutedmarriage.ntheseettingschild,particularlymale, ecomeslternativelyhe ove bject ndobject or g-gressionorwomen homayhavefewntimateelationshipsnd ittle on-trol ver heirivescf.Chodorow, 978).Identifications theprocess f developingondsto an object ndalteringne'sactions ecause f these ttachmentsBronfenbrenner,960;Schafer,968).Much fpsychoanalyticheoryasemphasizedhewaysnwhich dentificationith rustratingbjects esultsndestructivections(e.g.,Freud, 937;Freud, 922).ButFreud lsowrote bout nother ormof dentificationhichwas more ositive,nd ncontrasto dentificationas a functionffear f the ggressor,nvolvesdentifications a functionof ossof ove Freud, 914;1917;Bronfenbrenner,960:16;Slater, 977:20).When he bject f dentificationsbenign,chaferays he hildnotonlyderives sense ... . ofmastery,ompetence,r independence... [but]There s an atmospherefpreciousntimacyurroundinghesedentifica-tionsa glow fwell-beinghats also seen nfond mbraces"1968:154).These twoaspects f identificationreparallel o our resultsug-gestingifferentases for inkingarly xperienceso adult ctions.Ag-gressivedentification,ormedutofthe nternalizationfdestructiveb-jects,providesn importantasisfor ater onflict.t thwartshe n-dividual'sapacityodeveloptrongffectiveies oothers, akingrusting51t houldbe underlinedhatthevariablemeasuringather-childloseness oaded onthe amedimensions high ffection,hildreneing aluedna culturendemphasisngenerosity,rust,ndhonestys values tressednchildhoodsee Appendix ). Themalegenderdentityonflict easure as heengthfpost artumex aboo, lthoughomemaychoose oseepolygynys an ndirect easurefthis ariable.nthe actornalysisengthfmaternalost artumex aboodidnot oadonthe ame imensionsfather-childloseness;the orrelationetweenhe wo sonly .13 N = 55).



32/44

ACross-CulturalheoryfPolitical onflictndViolence 457cooperativeelationshipsess ikely.Whiting's1965)connectionetweenprotestmasculinitynd aggressive ehavior s consistentwiththistheoreticalerspective,or tis the dentificationith fearprovoking,frustratingbjectwhich lants he eedsfordestructivempulsesnd ateraction.Identificationnd thedevelopmentf a superegowhichmonitorsbehaviorsndfeelingssa normalspect f he evelopmentalrocessroma Freudian erspective.s partofpsychological aturation,ndividualscome orepressmpulses hich retoofrighteningo admithey old taconsciousevel.While epressions a normal artofpsychologicalunc-tioning,t is necessaryo distinguishmong ndividualsn termsf thedegree o which epressionccurs, nd theconsequencesf thesedif-ferences.When superegos overly arsh, epressions severe,ndthepent pfeelingsanbehighlyestructiveor itherhe ndividualrthosearound im r her.Aggressivedentificationndsevere epressionre therawmaterialsor he xpressionfviolence.n some ases heyreturnedinwardSpotnitz,976),while nothersheyreprojectednto thers ndone's wn ggressiveeelingsredisplacednto vailableargetsAdorno,950).Finally, ornari's leinian sychodynamicheoryfwarcoincideswith our argumentn severalrespects. irst,he suggests hat whilepsychodynamicsan dentifyechanismsnderlyingonflictehavior,nanalysis f economic, olitical, r historicalircumstancess needed ounderstandnyparticularar1975:xxiv-xxvi).ubstantively,is heorysa rich rticulationfsome f the inkagesowhichwehavepointed. on-flict,nhisview,sa defensegainstnner ears ndpersecutoryantasiesprojeced utward.

Themost nigmaticspect fthisystemould eem o be tsdesire ocontrolheuncontrollabley translatingnternalsychoticnxietiesnto ealdanger. havecalledparanoidlaborationfmourninghat roup fmaneuvers..emergingntheformf a sense fguilt or hedeath fthe oveobject... Theexperiencefmourninghen ecomes ot orrowor he eath f he oved erson,ut hekillingofthe nemy ho s falselyhoughtobe thedestroyerfthe oved bject. xviii)

Earlyrelationshipsith heenvironmentrovide templateorresolvingsuch onflictsatern ife 101).Highhostilityulturesught ocreate hegreatestevel fguilt,he reatestevel foutwardlyrojectedostility,ndthehighestevel fviolence, hich urdata have hown.PsychoculturalispositionsndStructures

Intheong ebate etweensychologicalndculturologicalxplanationorsocialbehavior,heresalwaysomeonewhowill riticizetheoryuch sthe one we are offering erebyarguing hatsincesocialization s a social



33/44

458 Rossprocessweoughto understandtsroots ocially. fterllHarringtonndWhiting1972) argue hatchildrearings bestviewed s a product fsocietalmaintenanceystemseconomic,ocial, ndpoliticalrganization),andBarryt l., 1959)have hown ifferencesnchild earingetweenif-ferent eans fsubsistence.avewefailed o ookhard nough or ocialvariablesoexplain urresults?Wedo not uggesthat ocializationatternsevelopuigeneris,orthedata show patternfconnectionsimilar o whatBarrytal. (1959)found. utthemagnitudef these orrelationss lowtomodest,lthoughthey re statisticallyignificantHendrix, 985).Our data also show,however,hat he ocializationariablesreas goodpredictorsfconflictas the ocial reconomic ariablesre.Forthis riticismo be correctheremust e a closer it etweenheneeds fsocial nd economicystemsndpsychologicalunctioninghanwe found.nstead fthinkinghat ifferenttypes fsocial ystemsequire particularype fpersonalityrientationamongtsmembers,t sbettero realize hat ifferentocial tructuresfthe ame ype anprobablyunctionquallyswell, fnotbetter,rom nevolutionaryoint fview,with ifferentersonalityypesnitsmember-ship.

Yes,theres a tendencyor edentarygriculturalistsobe more be-dientnd ess elf-reliant,ut he orrelationsere remodestnda rangeof behavior an be tolerated o that owerobedience nd higherelf-reliance,longwithertaintherraits, ighteadvantageousn ome ar-ming ituationsoo.It sprobablysefulothink fa range fpersonalityonfigurationswhichmightll beadaptivenparticularettings,atherhan raits hichare simply resentr absent. n addition, ecauseof social,technical,economic,ndpoliticalhange,here recertainlyituations here ocialorganizationndsocializationracticesave volvedndifferentirectionsandrates o that clear orrespondenceetweenhe wowhichncemayhave xistedmayhavegraduallyisappeared.ince he orcesor hangercontinuityneachdomainmay equitendependent,t sfoolish oalwaysseeka correspondenceetween hem ased on a one-to-oneelationshipwhen he inkagesmaybe more enuous.Finally, rom his erspectivetseems aive oexpecthat tructuralor psychoculturalariableswillnecessarilye superiorn explainingllsocial and political ehaviors. othGreenstein1967) and B. Whiting(1980)have uggestedituationshere ispositionalariables re ikelyobeparticularlymportant.attersfgreatmportanceopeoplentermsftheirives, uestionswhich recentral o theirelf-concept,mbiguous,unstructuredituationsre all likelyoengagendividuals'ersonalityorprojective ystems)more than situationsswithoutthese characteristics.



34/44

ACross-CulturalheoryfPolitical onflictndViolence 459Crucialityroduces ngagementnd investmenthile mbiguityeavesroom orntepretationndthe mpositionf ndividualnnerworlds nahazy,but mportantituation.Insuch ettingse would xpect roup rocesseso beespeciallym-portants individualseek oanswer ifficultuestionsbout hemeaningoftheirives.Groups,fterll,provideocial upportellingeopleboththat heyrenot lone nd that articularnswersreright. ecause herecannot ecertaintyoncerninguchmatters,ocial onsensusndsupportbecomerucial. orWhiting1980) reas uch sreligionndthenterpreta-tion f llnessre areasof human ehaviorroducingrojectiveehaviorswhich rebest nderstoodspsychologicalroducts.Weproposehat on-flict ndviolencehould requentlyeseen nthis ameframeworkswell.Conflictituationsreoften ighncrucialitynd mbiguity.heresgreatroom orndividualsointerprethemnterms f their wnneeds.Groupsupportndsocialdynamics ithinroupswhich eginwith erhaps,c-curate, ut cantynformationoncerningsupposedlybjectiveituationprovide reat oomforprojectiverocessesomanifesthemselvese.g.,Janis, 972).

Problems nd Future esearchThe model developedhere is based on secondary odingofethnographicata. thas the dvantagefprovidingvery ifferentatabasefor xaminingypothesesboutpoliticalehaviorhan oliticalcien-tists ften se. It extends urunderstandingf politics o thekinds fsocietiesnwhich umans ave ived ormost four volutionaryistory.Interms fconflicthoery,owever,hese atadonotpermitveryareful

evaluation fpropositionsbout he nterstateystem hichnternationalrelationsheoristsaveproved speciallyruitfulZinners, 980;Midlar-sky, 975; ingerndSmall, 972).Perhapshebestway oapproachhisgivenhe vailablethnographicaterialssthroughcomparativenalysisof several maller egionsf theworldwhere heres sufficientaterialavailable oallow reconstructionfsystemevel ariables. lthoughhiswas not hisgoal,Meggitt'sase study1977)showswhat omponentsfsuch nanalysismightook ike.Similarly,hebroadregionalerspectiveadopted yLeach 1954) s alsohelpful.The mplicitausal equencesmong hevariables ehavepresumedview onflicts aproductfstructuralndpsychoculturalorces. here resome whoviewthepatternn theopposite irection, ith onflictndviolences thendependent,otdependent,ariables,sEmber ndEmber(1971,1974)havedone.Whileuch formulationscertainlylausible,t s

http://w

cross cultural theory of conflict

Documents