Nation Structure as Part of Norms of Violence

To begin the examination of the structural context of norms of violence, the structural indicators of violence are compared. As discussed in previous chapters, these are the formal conditions within a nation that either promote a culture of pro-violence or abdicate violence. The conditions include aggregate levels of violent socialization, laws prohibiting the use of corporal punishment on children, laws abolishing the death penalty, and homicide rates. The conditions are indicators of violence, a context in which violence is either more normalized or not. While these conditions may seem limited, as discussed in the Methodology section, transnational measures are challenging due to the lack of comparable definitions and consistency in measurement for such variables.

The Context of Life Circumstances

Table 5.5 lists indicators of violence, by nation. There appears to be variation in the scores for each of these indicators of violence across the different nations. However, by focusing the analysis on nations with higher scores and lower scores among these various indicators of violence, there are some patterns. Some nations hold consistently high scores across the indicators of violence. But there are also some nations with low scores on the indicators of crime.

An example of a nation with higher scores on the indicators of violence is Mexico. This nation has an overall higher mean violent socialization score (16.32) compared to other nations’ mean violent socialization scores. Mexico has no laws prohibiting the use of physical discipline against youth (no). And although Mexico does not formally use the death penalty (no), there is a high homicide rate (13.24) compared to other nations. Brazil reflects similar statistics: higher mean violent socialization score (13.99), no laws prohibiting the use of physical discipline against youth (no), and a high homicide rate (33.80). The difference in these nations is that Brazil supports the use of the death penalty

Table 5.5 Indicators of Violence, By Nation (IDVS)

¹ Nations with—had less than 10 years of data for the homicide rate: Brazil (3 years), China (4 years), Malta (6 years), South Korea (6 years). Nations marked with—had no data available for homicide rates.

^b Poland and South Korea retain laws that support the use of death penalty.

(yes). These countries, among others, appear to hold structures in which violence is a more accepted use of social control, creating a context in which youth criminal behavior would also be expected to be higher (compared to other nations). These countries could be nations in which violence is a normative standard, and this “norm” spills over into other domains of society. The norms supporting violence are reproduced within socialization processes.

Sweden is a nation with low scores across the indicators of violence. Within Sweden, the overall mean violent socialization score (11.88) is low compared to other nations’ mean violent socialization scores. Sweden has laws that prohibit the use of physical discipline against youth (yes) and does not use the death penalty as a form of criminal sanction (no). The mean national homicide rate is also low (1.03) in relation to the mean homicide rate for other nations. It would appear, overall, that there may be less violence in Sweden. Belgium is another example, and the statistics mirror Sweden: lower mean violent socialization score (11.93), laws prohibiting the use of physical discipline against youth (yes), not using of the death penalty (no), and a low homicide rate (2.10). The norms within these northern European nations may influence socialization such that violence, in any form, may be considered an unacceptable method of social control.

The analysis of indicators of violence across different nations preliminarily offers a general sense of violence occurring within a context specific to any given nation. By separating data by nation, the results can be compared to show the specific differences within each nation and make a superficial comparison across nations through OLS regression. Yet, there may be a contextual effect in which criminal behavior varies as a function of violent socialization processes. But as discussed previously in this book, OLS regression analysis is not sufficient for analyzing such a contextual effect (Hamilton, 2013). In order to determine if a contextual effect does exist within these 32 nations, the complete data need to be explored using multilevel modeling regression analysis in order to examine the degree to which criminal behavior varies across different nations as a function of violent socialization processes. MLM regression analysis needs to confirm the presence of a contextual effect while controlling for these structural indicators of violence. Therefore, the analyses continue with MLM regression, examining whether or not violent socialization processes, as part of norms of violence within any given nation, are significantly associated with youth criminal behavior. The analysis includes the extent to which variance in youth criminal behavior can be explained by violent socialization processes. This analysis is expected to lend support to the norms of violence thesis, by demonstrating that the structurally supported culture of violence theoretically spills over into multiple dimensions of life circumstances and renders social control ineffective. Multiple dimensions of violence are interrelated in such a way that a context is created within nations that either reinforce or reject violence.