One of Deborah Thomas’s central arguments is that “violence generally is not a cultural phenomenon but an effect of class formation, a process that is immanently racialized and gendered.” While I partly agree with this claim, since the attribution of violence to culture can be problematic. Culture is often viewed as a set of ingrained traditions, practices, and traits of a group of people. In this sense, citing a culture as a cause of violence prompts prejudiced views and social stigma toward the people within that culture. Moreover, as Deborah pointed out, it often results in a cursory examination of the issue. Lastly, attributing a culture to violence implies that violence will persist so long as the culture exists, thereby discouraging attempts to mitigate or eliminate the issue. However, I wonder whether it is possible to shift from a restrictive view of culture to a more expansive one. Instead of thinking of culture as a static concept, what if we conceptualize it as something that evolves with time and both shapes and be shaped by political and historical forces? What is the idea of culture is inclusive of the traces of British colonization, the formation of garrisons, and the socio-economic division in Jamaica?
I also find it interesting how Deborah Thomas reveals that “older
structural underpinnings are often obscured by more recent pressing concerns about the development of democratic political participation after
the Second World War.” The author seems to describe this process as happening naturally. Yet, what if obscuring previous structural underpinnings in favor of recent issues is purposefully done? If so, what might be the hidden agenda? While Deborah Thomas’s effort to reveal and raise awareness of this neglect is enlightening, a step further might be to question why this is the case and how we can shift attention to the other direction.
Lastly, I question who might be Deborah Thomas’s intended audience and what impact she hopes to make. The book’s language and content points to an audience of scholars. However, these scholars may not be the decision makers who can adopt insights from the book to make positive influences in Jamaica. The book surely carries a lot of practical implications for those working toward social change, yet its language and style might limit its accessibility to these groups.