Search results

An attempt to give a classification of internal violence, occurring in 40 developing countries, in order to provide a 'structure of violence' for each country in the period 1950-67, & to r this structure to the changes in the real per capita income of these countries. For the collection of the various items of internal violence, Keesings Historical Archives (Dutch version) was used. They were classified as follows: (1) Diffuse SP unrest (strikes, demonstrations, riots, etc, in which people were wounded, killed &/or property was destroyed). (2) Coup d'etat-like activities. (3) Small guerrillas in the countryside & clusters of (anticolonial) violent actions in the towns. (4) Limited civil or anti-colonial war. (5) 'Endemic' guerrillas. (6) Situation of serious anarchy. (7) .1Pol'al' pogroms of total civil or anticolonial war. A 'profile of violence' for each country was constructed. In the Latin Amer couutries coup d'etat activities prevailed; in several African countries these activities became numerous some yrs after independence was obtained; in the Middle Eastern countries all types of violence occurred; & in the ethnically complicated Asian countries, small & endemic guerrillas frequently arose. A relation between types & extent of internal violence, & level of nat'l income & its yr'ly per capita growth could not be proved. The material suggests that nat'l income & changes therein as such, may not be very interesting variables. Distribution of income & changes therein might be more relevant. The difficulty, however, is to obtain reliable data on these variables. A number of suggestions are made. Modified IPSA.

It is assumed that it is the purpose of a theory to explain something. An explanation is an answer to a question of the linguistic form 'why 7'; its logical structure is of the following form: L1,....Ln That is, on the basis of a certain set of postuC1 ....Cn lates, or 'laws,' (L1,....Ln), & a set of given, observed 'circumstances' (C1,....Cn), 'E', the conclusion is deduced. Accordingly, the character of an explanation & consequently, of J a theory, is deductive. II - As regards the structure of a theory several elements should be distinguished. (1) The logical mathematical, or probabilistic system in which the theory is formulated. (2) The calculus which may be conceived as the axiomatic nucleus of the theory & which consists of a set of primitive concepts & postulates governing the use of the primitives. On the basis of primitives & postulates new concepts & theorems are deduced. It is to be noted that the content of the primitives (their 'meaning') consists of the way they are used within the relational structure of the calculus; that is they are defined implicitly. (3) An interpretative system of rules connecting the 'abstract' calculus with other structures of knowledge. In this way the calculus can be given cliff interpretations, which constitute models of the initial calculus. In order to explain empirical reality, there should at least be an empirical model of the calculus, that is, the calculus has to be connected with observable reality. In this case the interpretation is given by a set of 'operational definitions' as they are commonly called. It is shown that these definitions can be conceived as 'quickly decidable sentences' by means of which the empirical model can be falsified. III - The role which theory construction plays with regard to the formation of reality is indicated. Making explicit its logical structure & its empirical interpretation, theory formation leads to 'intersubjectively transmissible knowledge.' It results in the construction of a reality which transcends individual & parochial idiosyncracies & which is accessible to everybody. Of the conditions a theory should fulfill, 2 stand out: (a) it should be consistent, & (b) it should be falsifiable. Finally, it is shown that there is some ground to assume theory formation to be possible-even in the soc sci's-difficult though it may be. IPSA.