160 Douglas J. Glick
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.