The sociology of terror

Recent global developments have given policy makers the world over reasons to question the posture of their individual security policies. The hardest hit by this dilemma is no doubt the United States and her allies, consequently culminating into what some analyst have described as the pursuit of a rather controversial unilateral security policy posture. In a monumental work of scholarly exuberance, Micheal Humphreh’s “The politics of atrocity and reconciliation” throws an unusually deep critique of what the contemporary global order looks like, with empirical reference to United States’ security standing.
In the wider scope, Humphrey highlights a number of themes which however exhibit a conspicuous leaning towards the questions of the impact of globalization on the contemporary cultural and social order. Beyond that, the reverberating questions surrounding the consequences these forces have on the practice of politics in the nation state. A number of disturbing paradoxes are explored here, with an inquisition into the immediate and remote factors that incite extremism and intolerance which is crystallized into violent radicalism by both state and non-state actors. The mention of this brings the United States and her war on terror to the limelight.
In the last few years the level of politically colored acts f violence has ascended over three folds. We read of it happening across, Africa, Asia, the Americas and Europe. In the same vein, efforts have also been galvanized in providing remedying effects by way of policies that will promote the establishment of platforms of reconciliation. A discussion of the success level or otherwise of the reconciliation process seeks to the identities and roles that define what the whole reconciliation process is all about. In tandem to what Humphrey has said then, there is credible grounds to believe that ultimately the process of reconciliation serves the purpose of the survivor to a very negligible scale.
The Concept of Reconciliation
In the annals of human civilization, the concept of reconciliation has been used to loosely describe what is otherwise a complex process of aligning a wounded past to an existing fractured conflicting human relationship. In many ways, it could be said to be ambivalent series of activities that provide a soothing effect. What this analysis presents is that in a typical reconciliation process there is evidence of competing and often conflicting claims of right. In many instances, social and singular interest is subsumed in these matters whereby social good is identified with individual benefit. In a related case, slippage tends to obscure the disparity between singularity and sociality, a laps which cannot simply be bridged (Alcoff & Gray-Rosedale, 1993). In order to make the process of reconciliation more sustainable, there should be considerable acknowledgement of the inherent capacity to weld social reunification on the institutional level with the individual recovery.

custom written essay