This paper examines briefly some sociological theories about violence, taking into account that there are different types of violence, and focusing specifically on collective violence. The analysis departs from three classic paradigms: the instrumental dimension; the interpretation of violence as an answer or a reaction to some situation, especially a crisis; and finally those studies that insist on the idea of a culture of violence. These three paradigms contain a deterministic bias which postulates a causality or a collection of causes to explain violence, thus making it difficult for the social sciences to clarify the conditions that make violence possible. The paper also emphasizes the importance of avoiding "psychologisms" and "sociologsms" in the analysis of violence, introducing instead two other perspectives: in the first one, interactionism is discussed - with the intersubjectivity component - indicating some of its positive aspects, and, above all its limits; the focus of the second one is a theoretical view centered on the subject (actor, individual), the subjectivity and the desubjectivity. The need for a definition of the concepts of subjectivity, subject, subjectivation and desubjectivation is postulated, whilst four types of subject hat may co-exist within the same actor are proposed. Finally, the paper shows the shortcoming of the concept of subject and proposes an analysis based instead on the subjectivity and the subjectivation and desubjectivation processes, avoiding the essentialization or naturalization of the subject.
violence; subject; subjectivity; subjectivation; desubjectivation