![]() with adults and the other in Poland with high-school students - we found that one thing really matters when it comes to linear versus catastrophic escalation: complexity. In two studies - one conducted in the U.S. My colleagues and I have studied this in our conflict dynamics labs. The big question is, of course, why? Why do some types of political tensions and violence increase slowly and incrementally - and therefore are much easier to anticipate and block - while others seem to jump to terrible levels suddenly, almost out of nowhere? This outburst erupted quite suddenly, but only after years of more gradual, low-level increases in interethnic hostilities between Tutsis and Hutus had been instigated and tolerated. It was also observed in the horrific outbreak of genocidal violence that occurred in Rwanda in the 1990s, where almost 1 million Rwandans were killed, many by their neighbors, over 100 days. This scenario is sometimes seen in interpersonal conflicts between siblings, coworkers or romantic partners. This is also how some types of catastrophic violence erupt. In other words, nothing much seems to be changing until everything changes (as the curved line depicts.) This is, of course, what we have been seeing in our communities recently with the spread of the virus. This type of change typically shows little evidence of increase until it crosses some threshold, and then we see a sudden, runaway increase. The good news about linear change is that you can see it coming.Įxponential change is different. This is how most of us think about change unfolding in our world: a straight, diagonal line. Linear change is when we see a gradual rise in cases of the virus - or in hate crimes - over time, that is proportional to changes in some variables, like contact with strangers. One of the collateral benefits of the coronavirus pandemic is that it is teaching us all about the difference between linear and exponential change. Research suggests slowly and then suddenly. ![]() democratic institutions, sets us up for the worst-case. This, combined with the well-documented increase in public rhetoric that condones violence and attacks the legitimacy of U.S. However, when asked to imagine an electoral loss of the presidency in 2020, support for violence jumps to 18 percent for Democrats and 13 percent for Republicans - a significant slice of our citizens. A 2019 study showed that 9 percent of both Republicans and Democrats say that violence is at least occasionally acceptable. is experiencing a sustained rise in hate speech, hate groups and hate-inspired violence. ![]() Our nation has seen widespread political violence going back to class-based clashes in the late 1700s, racial and ethnic turmoil in the 1800s and 1900s, and anti-government violence in the 1970s and beyond. 4, 2020, the day after our next presidential election, is a horrible scenario. ![]() The possibility of political violence erupting on Nov. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |