Quote:
|
"Political action" (violence) is almost always a crime to one side of the debate, isn't it?
|
not meaning to be a pain but the phrase in quotes and the word in brackets aren't synonymous.
anyway, it's true what you say, but my point went kinda beyond that. since we're talking on a meta-level about how to understand something about political action...what i was basically saying is that there's a perfectly reasonable debate to be had about which framework to use to get the understanding part up and running, yes?
the criminology approach is a choice---as is my more sociological approach---each comes with advantages and disadvantages.
so the logical next move i suppose would be to weigh them out.
the line between criminology and sociology more broadly is kinda murky, and i know that within crimonology there's more and less sociological approaches to understanding the same questions.
seems to me that reduction to a matter of how abstract or general social tensions converge on an individual is maybe best a way of thinking in general about how someone might snap...a political viewpoint then becomes one of a number of factors that can be used to explain the particular direction that a given snapping might go.
but that presupposes that the law defines the normal and actions which violate the law the abnormal in a kinda circular way.
the whole reason for the excursion into a hypothetical palestine was to argue that that assumption simply does not hold in many cases.
and a more sociologically oriented approach to the same intersection (law/legal institutions as over against political challenges or threats to those institutions whether real or imagine) relativizes this relationship even more.
so that's where i was heading.
yer up.