I took this from a blog that I subscribe to. The author is talking about street warfare in the inner cities, and uses the comparison with "real" warfare, i.e war between nations, as an illustration. Both, despite the suffering they cause, have an attraction for those who choose to get involved (as distinct from the bystanders/civilians who get caught up in it). Are his comparisons and his assessment of human nature valid? This is the link to the article on Chris Hedge's book, cited in the text above: An Enticing Elixer, Sojourners Magazine/January-February 2003
What he doesn't seem to have appreciated is the study of subcultures that goes back to Durkeim, and the fact that this manifestation that he describes is just a variation on a theme. Rather than comparing "real" and "street" viloence as comparative categories, he should be examining historical and cultural variations. I might even say gender too. Infact gender has started to play a much more significant part in violence and subcultural studies because of the rise, and visibilty, of girl gangs who seem to emulate and/or out-do the male counterparts. One could also ask whether this type of behaviour, and its attraction, is hard wired into our psyche and so is normal, and that the rest of society has to be socialised out of it. Territorial gain and control, hierachical structures, violence as a means of settling arguements etc? All sound like the rest of the animal kingdom, and at the end of the day, we are animals too. But what I find the most interesting aspect of this is what gives it legitimacy? As outsiders, we see this type of behaviour as generally unacceptable - more often than not because it can affect our lives too. But what if they only acted in this way amongst themselves? Would we mind or care. Didn't the Italians hold the Mafia in certain regard, even though they were constantly killing each other, because their violence tended not to affect the general population (that is befiore they did start killing outside their groups)?
