Heartland

... I'm currently training my English for the next interpreter's job at a conference reading through stuff written by the lecturers ...
I need to know, what they'll be talking about ... ... so far so fine, but this sentence goes way beyond my understanding ... I don't
even get a grip on the grammar (what is verb and what is subject) .... ...

So please, if any of you could help me out and re-formulate this sentence in a way, that is more easy to understand ... please ? Here it is:

"While the applicability of the strategic interaction thesis to asymmetrical
contests pitting states against unarmed populations makes intuitive sense,
it is nevertheless important to contend with the structural perspective."

... ... HELP ... PLEASE ...

Being645 wrote:
"While the applicability of the strategic interaction thesis to asymmetrical
contests pitting states against unarmed populations makes intuitive sense,
it is nevertheless important to contend with the structural perspective."

I'll have a go but I am not sure I fully understand the speaker's point (is it on the topic of the morality of modern conflict ?), but I see it as :

Whilst it might seem like common sense to view one sided fights between a whole nation state (on one side) and unarmed citizens (on the other) in the context of the theory of "strategic interaction", one must also consider the "structural perspective"

Sorry about the bits left in the inverted commas, but they may be technical terms in this field, or on the other hand linguistic s**t intended by the speaker to give some gravitas to a very simple concept.

Nikolas Vitus Lagartija wrote:

Being645 wrote:
"While the applicability of the strategic interaction thesis to asymmetrical
contests pitting states against unarmed populations makes intuitive sense,
it is nevertheless important to contend with the structural perspective."

I'll have a go but I am not sure I fully understand the speaker's point (is it on the topic of the morality of modern conflict ?), but I see it as :

Whilst it might seem like common sense to view one sided fights between a whole nation state (on one side) and unarmed citizens (on the other) in the context of the theory of "strategic interaction", one must also consider the "structural perspective"

Sorry about the bits left in the inverted commas, but they may be technical terms in this field, or on the other hand linguistic s**t intended by the speaker to give some gravitas to a very simple concept.

OK. Thank you very much ... ...

It's on the topic of violent resistance compared to nonviolent resistance, their outcome, and the reasons for their success or failure ... Strategic interaction thesis holds that "the interaction of the strategies employed by the different sides engaged in asymmetrical conflict - as opposed to the relative power between the two sides - is the decisive variable in determining outcome."

I think basically the content of the sentence then is (with explanatory additions in brackets):

While it might seem like common sense that the theory of strategic interaction in asymmetrical (violent) conflict
is also applicable to pitting states against unarmed (nonviolent) populations, one must also consider the structural
perspective (structural conditions).

... * sigh, nothing very difficult, indeed ... scholars ... ... still for me, it's an interesting read ... mostly.


EDIT:
I guess you are aware now, why I didn't get further with the From Eden part in the SistersWiki ... I'll do it tomorrow. Definitely ... ...

I can only say something about the greek words that are used in this text

"While the applicability of the strategic interaction thesis to asymmetrical
contests pitting states against unarmed populations makes intuitive sense,
it is nevertheless important to contend with the structural perspective."

thesis: the closest to that in English is "position"

Asymmetrical has nothing to do with violence, as i read in a parenthesis somewhere in posts, it has to do with sizes and shapes. It is the opposite of symmetrical that means similar in shape and size. When you describe something as asymmetrical you describe two or more things that can not match in size or shape or in other dimensions and properties.
When you use it to describe a contest, it is more likely to characterize the parties of the contest-conflict that do not much each other.

I wonder if that was written by a non-English speaker. Especially German scholastic texts try to sound as pompous and impenetrable as possible, because where is the point in studying something if if Jenny Common can still understand you afterwards? /headdesk
(also: marketing speak. Highly inventive crimes against clarity.)

"pompous and impenetrable"

tbh most academic texts are written that way. it's infuriating, exclusive and perpetuates the detached, navel-gazing, ivory-tower elitist reputation of academia.

wankers.

@ being: wow, even as a native english speaker with a decent-enough reading-age (:lol:) that's agony to read. goods luck making something meaningful from that

@ nikolas: good effort sir

iesus wrote:I can only say something about the greek words that are used in this text

"While the applicability of the strategic interaction thesis to asymmetrical
contests pitting states against unarmed populations makes intuitive sense,
it is nevertheless important to contend with the structural perspective."

thesis: the closest to that in English is "position"

Asymmetrical has nothing to do with violence, as i read in a parenthesis somewhere in posts, it has to do with sizes and shapes. It is the opposite of symmetrical that means similar in shape and size. When you describe something as asymmetrical you describe two or more things that can not match in size or shape or in other dimensions and properties.
When you use it to describe a contest, it is more likely to characterize the parties of the contest-conflict that do not much each other.

I would also like to add that an 'unarmed population' is not by definition 'nonviolent'......it just makes it easier for the other side to win.(just to make things more confusing )

Quiff Boy wrote:"pompous and impenetrable"

tbh most academic texts are written that way. it's infuriating, exclusive and perpetuates the detached, navel-gazing, ivory-tower elitist reputation of academia.

Indeed. As far as I can tell it's a bunch of academic jargon with semantic content approaching zero.

A translation of the sense (as opposed to words) would appear to be "Governments can kill their people a lot more easily than people can kill their governments."

markfiend wrote:

Quiff Boy wrote:"pompous and impenetrable"

tbh most academic texts are written that way. it's infuriating, exclusive and perpetuates the detached, navel-gazing, ivory-tower elitist reputation of academia.

Indeed. As far as I can tell it's a bunch of academic jargon with semantic content approaching zero.

A translation of the sense (as opposed to words) would appear to be "Governments can kill their people a lot more easily than people can kill their governments."

I thought it was a description of Minecraft.

you might be right.

I've tried reading it about 10 times now and my head still hurts.

... ... Thanks for all your replies ... ... it's hard stuff but I like the issue ... so what ... ...

iesus wrote: Asymmetrical has nothing to do with violence, as i read in a parenthesis somewhere in posts, it has to do with sizes and shapes...

True, but the guy who did that research and formed the "Strategic Interaction Thesis" only referred to armed conflict of any kind,
whereas the author of this book concludes that the latter thesis would also apply to states vs. "unarmed populations" ...

rien wrote:I wonder if that was written by a non-English speaker.

American. Winner of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation Award From the American Political Science Association ...

markfiend wrote:

Quiff Boy wrote:"pompous and impenetrable"
tbh most academic texts are written that way. it's infuriating, exclusive and perpetuates the detached, navel-gazing, ivory-tower elitist reputation of academia.

Indeed. As far as I can tell it's a bunch of academic jargon with semantic content approaching zero.

A translation of the sense (as opposed to words) would appear to be "Governments can kill their people a lot more easily than people can kill their governments."

Fact, the topic here is, however, whether violent or nonviolent resistance is more likely to be successful and under which circumstances ... interesting ... ...

As to the - indeed - semantic (and what more) academic language, I could easily do without that. Thankfully, there's wikipedia ... ...

Being645 wrote:EDIT:
I guess you are aware now, why I didn't get further with the From Eden part in the SistersWiki ... I'll do it tomorrow. Definitely ... ...

OK, no time so far today. I'll do it later tonight, after 10pm ...

Sounds like one of those Markov-chain generated semi-random texts.

The "Structural perspective" bit isn't that the fact that Governments are supported by the people and without them they are nothing.
Also the people, even unarmed, are a lot bigger than the Government.

million voices wrote:The "Structural perspective" bit isn't that the fact that Governments are supported by the people and without them they are nothing.
Also the people, even unarmed, are a lot bigger than the Government.

Yes, something in this direction:

Why Civil Resistance Works wrote:In sum, the structure of the political environment necessarily shapes and
constraints the perceptions of resistance leaders; at the same time, the
actions of reisistance movements will often have distinguishable and
independent effects on the structure of the system.

for example by dividing the regime from its most important pillars of support ...

Being645 wrote:

Being645 wrote:EDIT:
I guess you are aware now, why I didn't get further with the From Eden part in the SistersWiki ... I'll do it tomorrow. Definitely ... ...

OK, no time so far today. I'll do it later tonight, after 10pm ...

Done ... ...

markfiend wrote:

Quiff Boy wrote:"pompous and impenetrable"

tbh most academic texts are written that way. it's infuriating, exclusive and perpetuates the detached, navel-gazing, ivory-tower elitist reputation of academia.

Indeed. As far as I can tell it's a bunch of academic jargon with semantic content approaching zero.

Yep, all of that. However, there appeared to be some specific references in there, and a search turned up the following. I'll include the link at the bottom so your heads can hurt even more.

The strategic interaction thesis: "According to this thesis, the interaction of the strategies actors use during a conflict predicts the outcome of that conflict better than competing explanations. If … when actors employ similar strategic approaches … relative power explains the outcome … when actors employ opposite strategic approaches … weak actors are much more likely to win…."

Just as pompously written, but the short version is, when groups in violent conflict use the same strategies as each other, the more powerful group will usually win, but when they use opposite strategies to each other, the weaker group will usually win. Don't ask me to back that up, I'm just the messenger. However, it gives the example of Russian military force failing to quell Afghan guerrillas. When you look at it like that, it starts to make some sense.

Here's the link I took that quote from
http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blo ... 001074.php

In this context, asymmetrical contests = conflicts where one group is more powerful than the other.

A structural perspective is one that sees a system in terms of the sum and interaction of its parts rather than each part individually eg an arm doesn't work independently of a body - you have to see the body as a whole system and understand how all its parts interact.

http://www.hemantjha.in/content/3/struc ... ition.html

I think the passage you originally quoted is saying that applying the same argument to a case where the state comes into conflict with an unarmed population, it might seem to follow that the unarmed population could win; but you have to look at the situation as a whole and realise that, for instance, if the state has guns and the unarmed population is, well, unarmed, there might just be an advantage there that makes any amount of "opposite strategy" a bit redundant.

Hopefully that helps. (And hopefully I've got it right!)

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

stufarq wrote:The strategic interaction thesis: "According to this thesis, the interaction of the strategies actors use during a conflict predicts the outcome of that conflict better than competing explanations. If … when actors employ similar strategic approaches … relative power explains the outcome … when actors employ opposite strategic approaches … weak actors are much more likely to win…."

Ah, when you make it clear like that...!

It actually sounded ok to me. Though i do spend half my life trying to figure out artist's statements so i'm kind of immune to jargon. At least there isn't a Foucault quote.

markfiend wrote:I think you've hit the nail on the head.

But the nail won.

abridged wrote:At least there isn't a Foucault quote.