The Limits to Social Structure: Social Structural and Psychocultural Explanations for Political Conflict and Violence

Abstract

Social structural explanations for conflict, violence, and warfare abound because there is, indeed, an association between the social organization ofa society and the levels, targets, and conflict management techniques it uses. At the same time, social structural explanations are inadequate in at least two important ways. First, on the empirical level, recent research on political violence and conflict (Ross 1985, 1986) shows that social structural models for conflict are incompletely specified. Second, theoretically, many social structural theories ofconflict fail to articulate how the apparent interests of social groups are converted into organized political action. Failure to consider the psychological dimensions of social action on the empirical and theoretical levels renders many structural theories arbitrary and tautological.