DIFERENCIA ENTRE LA RESOLUCIÓN BANCARIA Y EL RESCATE BANCARIO

S

V

‟

Recalling the propositions presented in Table 1 above, consider their reorganization as displayed in Table 2. In Table 2 the propositions that constitute the focal discursive construction have been reorganized based on three causal themes that are both implicitly and explicitly present in the data itself.

More specifically this time, consider first how this reorganization of the data reflects on the first 28 propositions in Table 1 above. Note how all of them can be reorganized in Table 2 above by the three interrelated themes of violence, alienation and cross-institutional dysfunction. In fact, the interrelated nature of these themes makes it possible for some of the propositions to appear under more than one theme. So, for example, the mass media robbing control from parents (n. 17) can be implicitly framed or explicitly extended to be either a cause of alienation between parents and their children and/or an instance of institutional dysfunction between the mass media and the family (cf. similarly, n. 15 and n. 25). This further demonstrates the power of these three themes to constrain and thus partially account for the propositions within the focal discursive construction.

Similarly, though regularities in how different causal propositions co-occurred together in particular written texts was not the focus of this study, it is worth noting how these three themes were clearly interrelated in various culturally coherent ways in the kinds of

‗explanatory arguments‘ that were formed by combining the different propositions. So, for example, with (some kind of) alienation itself a typical effect of (some kind of) institutional dysfunction, one or both of these could then be proposed as the cause(s) that explained specific instances of violence, the general problem of violence and/or a general cultural value on violence. While the focus here is not on these kinds of ‗arguments‘, their recursive power as thematically repeating models of explanation is relevant to the larger point here.

Table 2. Organizing Themes in Causal Representations of Israeli School Violence

YOUTH PEERS FAMILY SCHOOL OTHER INSTITUTIONS SOCIETAL

PROBLEMS

Douglas J. Glick 160

These themes thus further reflexively constrain and support the ‗common‘ causal propositions by aligning them with each other in a number of ways as coherently related cultural logics explaining why school violence takes place at various levels of analysis.

At first glance it might appear that the semantic themes among the causal propositions emerge unmotivated from ‗within‘ the focal discursive construction itself. The overlapping and simultaneous presence of many different reflexively framing discursive constructions, however, should not be forgotten. In addition to the reflexively organizing nature of these themes themselves as they spread across and among the different causal foci, simultaneous processes of semantic generalization have them explicitly framing the propositions ‗from above‘ in the form of more general ideological propositions found within the focal discursive construction itself. At the same time, ‗from outside‘ this particular construction, a different discursive construction is mutually constraining and thus supporting this same propositional content. Each of these reflexively present types is considered below. Doing so requires consideration of propositions n. 29-36 in the extreme right hand column of Table 2.

Propositions n. 29-36 lack a specific causal source and causal influence. They are general in the sense that they are causal propositions that potentially apply at all times to all Israeli contexts of social practice, As discussed above, they are relatively conscious, ideological explanations for social problems in Israel and, as such, they have widespread applicability.

Where, though, do they come from? What, if anything, motivates their presence as ideological propositions in this discursive construction?

Note first, how some of the propositions in n. 29-36 generalize some of the other common causal propositions that constitute this particular discursive construction.

Specifically, they literally state in general form, the themes that have already been seen to be reflexively constraining the overall set of propositions. That violence is a societal-wide norm in Israeli society (n. 34) clearly generalizes one of the themes discussed above (in n. 1-28).

Similarly, general societal corruption (as part of n. 30) also generalizes one of these themes. It is, after all, a generalization of the idea of particular institutional dysfunctions. A loss of faith in society (also part of n. 30) is thus the resulting generalization of the alienation that institutional dysfunction is likely to cause in society at large. In this logical reconstruction, these three ideological propositions, then, seem to be coming in ‗from above‘ to both constitute additional common causal propositions themselves, while at the same time acting as general ideologies that constrain and support other propositions that are thereby more specific within this particular discursive construction.

Second, note how one can account for other ideological propositions (in n. 29-36) and for a further generalization of two of the themes as well by appealing to the framing influence of one of the most dominant ideologies circulating in modern Israel as a whole: the political ideology of democracy. This discursive construction at least in part defines the social entity as a whole and, as such, provides it with an official and thus powerful story about the principles that constitute it. Being such a central ideological formulation, its framing influence in and on a wide array of Israeli cultural practices is to be expected. The particular propositions of the focal discursive construction and the themes that have reflexively organized them to this point in the analysis find further constraint and support in its terms. Its influence on the focal discursive construction – as reconstructed logically here – again appears not only implicitly

‗from above‘ by structuring propositional material, but also explicitly in propositional form in the data itself.

How Israelis Represent the Problem of Violence in Their Schools 161 At the most general ideological level then, this particular ideological construction provides further reflexive organization. It frames the problem of school violence as an ideologically explicit ‗crisis‘ in a classic democratic sense. On one hand, one finds common propositions about there being no clear limits or moral boundaries (n. 29) as well as there being a weakening of respect for law and order (n. 32).

On the other, however, there are propositions about a lack of respect for the rights of individuals (n. 31, n. 33). The general result seems to be a loss of faith in the face of a corrupt society (n. 30). At least in Israeli ideological consciousness about ‗problems‘ in society, a clear demarcation of how the individual and the social body are to treat each other, or where the rights of one begins and those of the other ends, seems to be in a very general state of crisis. The government, schools, parents and their children are all caught in the center of an ideologically-reinforced discursive construction that is, as such, believed to be one of the most dominant and widespread in Israel today: there is a society-wide crisis in values that challenges the unity and for some even the existence of the nation.

Given the logic of the argument here, it is not at all surprising to discover the presence of this discourse in other cultural practices. Violence in schools thus finds its most general ideological account in the form of a democratic crisis in modern Israeli society. This specific problem is thus just one of many instances of what is believed to be one of the most general problems plaguing society as a whole. This ideological crisis, for example, thematically characterizes certain genres of academic work in Israel (cf. Katriel 1999 and references there for analyses of a number of institutions and ritual sites in which this fundamental tension between the individual and society is visible) as well as opinion polls of Israeli citizens on related matters (cf. Wolfsfeld 1988 and the tables therein for relevant facts about Israelis media habits and beliefs about their society as a whole).

Once made relevant to the framing of this social issue, the general ideology of democracy plays a reflexive role in constraining and supporting the propositions that constitute the focal discursive construction by reinforcing the previously discussed themes and their recursive cultural logics of explanation (in n. 1-28). It also reinforces both the folk model that relates the individual to society as well as providing explicit ideological framing ‗from above‘ (in 29-34).

Summarizing the argument up to this point, what partial explanations are there for the common propositions that were discovered by this study? The particular propositions were found to be common because they were mutually constrained, supported and framed by at least their own normative status as propositional elements in this verbal practice as well as by an explicit set of folk concepts about the relationship between the individual and society, an implicit causal folk model relating the individual to society, three general organizing semantic themes, general theories about ‗societal problems in Israel‘ and the dominant political ideology of democracy on the ideal relationship between the individual and society. Given the level of analysis here then, one must conclude that all of these reflexively overlapping discursive constructions join together to give relative stability to the others and, as such, all constitute mutually constraining and supporting causes and effects.

Douglas J. Glick 162