Content area
Full Text
Abstract
Although typologies of violence have become more common, relatively little attention has been given to Donald Black's (1983) distinction between moralistic and predatory violence. Moralistic violence is rooted in conflict; predatory violence is rooted in exploitation. We elaborate Black's typology and show how it is similar to, but distinct from, other typologies of violence. We also address the criteria by which typologies of any kind might be judged. Borrowing from the literatures on typologies and on standards of scientific theory, we argue that explanatory typologies should be evaluated according to four criteria: the degree to which they are powerful, theoretical, general, and parsimonious. Applying the criteria to Black's typology, we argue that the distinction between moralistic and predatory violence is an important contribution to the arsenal of the student of violence.
Key Words: Typology; Violence; Moralistic; Predatory
In recent years, many scholars have come to argue that violence is not a single entity. What do serial killings, school massacres, barroom brawls, robbery-killings, and gang drive-bys have in common? Increasingly, the answer is: only that they are crimes. Students of violence have therefore proposed several typologies. Some advocate a typology based on the offender's motive (C. Block and R. Block 1991), others on the victim-offender relationship (Parker and Smith 1979), while still others merge motivational and relational approaches (Williams and Flewelling 1988; R. Block and C. Block 1992).
In this paper, we draw attention to another typology of violence that, though close to some existing typologies, is separate and has received much less attention in the literature: Donald Black's (1983) distinction between moralistic and predatory violence. Initially, we set out to write a paper elaborating Black's distinction. As our work progressed, however, we were led to a larger, and logically prior, issue: Why support Black's typology? Is preference - ours or anybody else's - for a typology a matter of subjective intellectual taste? Or are there objective standards by which we might evaluate a typology? If so, what are those standards?
Surprisingly, the literature provides no answers. That cannot be because the standards for evaluating typologies are uncontroversial. Sociology is full of debates about where conceptual boundaries lie. Often underlying these disputes are unarticulated deployments of different standards of evaluation.
Although the...