Last Lectures on the Prevention and Intervention of Genocide

Samuel Totten

• Editorial: Routledge
• Año: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781315409757
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Politics & International Relations
• Categoría: Politics

Last Lectures on the Prevention and Intervention of Genocide is a collection of hypothetical 'last lectures' by some of the top scholars and practitioners across the globe in the fields of human rights and genocide studies. Each lecture purportedly constitutes the last thing the author will ever say about the prevention and intervention of genocide.

The contributions to this volume are thought-provoking, engaging, and at times controversial, reflecting the scholars' most advanced thinking about issues of human rights and genocide.

This book will be of great interest to professors, researchers, and students of political science, international relations, psychology, sociology, history, human rights, and genocide studies.

Part I

Fundamental concerns

Humanity’s responsibility

1 Using norms, knowledge, and narratives for the prevention of crimes against humanity and genocide

Johanna Ray Vollhardt

I wrote this last lecture in the days following the presidential election in the United States in 2016, which was preceded by an election campaign in which threats and hate speech against various minority groups were used and normalized in the political and public sphere. Plans to take back or restrict rights of disadvantaged groups were part of both this election campaign and the newly elected president’s transition plan (NPR, 2016). Perhaps emboldened by these official stances and the normalization of derogating minority groups, the number of hate crimes surged in the days after the election (Southern Poverty Law Center, 2016). The FBI reports that hate crimes specifically against Muslims, a group that has been particularly targeted during the presidential campaign with suggestions such as to have Muslims register nationally, increased most dramatically over the last year, by 67 percent (Hate Crime Statistics, 2015). Against this backdrop, it is even more alarming that Stephen Bannon, the executive chairman of the far-right news website Breitbart, which he described as “the platform for the alt-right” – “a loosely organized group of mostly young men who believe in white supremacy, oppose immigration, feminism and multiculturalism; and delight in harassing Jews, Muslims and other vulnerable groups by spewing shocking insults on social media” (New York Times, 2016a) – has been appointed as the chief White House strategist. Extremist right-wing figures such as the chairman of the American Nazi Party and David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan have celebrated this appointment (New York Times, 2016a). Likewise, the nomination of Jeff Sessions – who was once deemed by a Republican-controlled Senate as too racist to become a federal judge and has called the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a “piece of intrusive legislation” (New York Times, 2016b) – as attorney general for the new government is concerning and incomprehensible.

And yet, there has already been a certain degree of normalization of these developments, with US President Barack Obama referring to president-elect Donald Trump as “pragmatic and not ideological” despite these choices (New York Times, 2016a). Many others have called for people to “calm down” and give the newly elected president and his team “a chance,” despite the threats and openly xenophobic rhetoric he used during the campaign.

We human beings tend to justify the systems we live in (Jost, Banaji, and Nosek, 2004), and to accept views that are normative in our surroundings or sanctioned by authorities (Cialdini and Trost, 1998). We also often underestimate risks because of an optimistic bias that serves us well in times of peace but can prevent us from acting upon early signs and stages of violence (Bilewicz and Vollhardt, 2012; Helweg-Larsen and Shepperd, 2001). It would be melodramatic to compare the situation in the US today with the rise of fascism in Nazi Germany or other societies that witnessed genocide and other crimes against humanity, and historical analogies like these are always oversimplified and problematic. Yet, the current climate in the US and the early warning signs we have witnessed vis-à-vis potential conflict are a good illustration of how civil and human rights abuses as well as violence evolve: because it is normalized and ignored at a stage where we could still intervene but think it is not yet warranted (Stanton, 2013; Staub, 1989). Coupled with a lack of democracy and/or contexts of instability and war (Harff, 2003), this normalization and gradual escalation of violence and human rights infringements can help explain how we arrive at genocide and crimes against humanity where intervention is difficult and too late for many.

In the remainder of this lecture I will provide a social psychological perspective on the prevention of genocide and other crimes against humanity. This perspective speaks to the critical need for us to pay attention not only to the actions of leaders and the state, or to political and economic interventions and sanctions, but also to what ordinary citizens think, feel, and communicate to each other. I will therefore focus on how our norms, knowledge, and narratives contribute to the evolution of violence, but can also be used for its prevention.

Norms

Human beings are social animals. We turn to other group members for information about how to think, feel, and act – in particular in situations that are new and when we do not yet have much information. Therefore, how we see and hear members of our group talking about or acting towards members of other groups matters. It shapes our own attitudes and behaviors. Even if we set out with a more tolerant point of view than others, their words and actions will often inadvertently influence us. There are two types of norms: injunctive and descriptive norms (Cialdini and Trost, 1998). Injunctive norms describe what we as individuals and group members should do, while descriptive norms are what we think other people in our surroundings actually do. Descriptive norms are very powerful. Even when there are injunctive norms such as “thou shall not kill” based on moral codes that are included in all religions, what others around us do often has a greater impact on our attitudes and behaviors.

Because of this crucial role of descriptive norms, we need to take derogatory, exclusionary, and other hateful speech and actions very seriously as early warning signs for the prevention of genocide and other crimes against humanity. If we allow people to derogate and dehumanize others, and especially if these actions and words go unpunished and unsanctioned, it sends the message that this is acceptable and normative in our society. In other words, it legitimizes and normalizes derogation, exclusion, and dehumanization. This is particularly influential when it comes from leaders, who are important entrepreneurs of identities (Reicher, Haslam, and Hopkins, 2005). While we may be opposed to what we see and hear, if we do not experience other members of our society speaking out we may (perhaps incorrectly) assume that nobody else is against it. The problem is that many individuals who are also opposed may be silently thinking the same thing. This is what social psychologists call pluralistic ignorance, and it can undermine what could be done early on to prevent violence. Therefore, in order to counteract these normative processes and use them in our favor, it is absolutely essential that we are vocal against derogation, exclusion, and hate speech very early on, before more severe violence and human rights abuses erupt. We need to communicate to others in society that there are more people who are opposed to the exclusion and violence, so that pluralistic ignorance is prevented and the perceived descriptive norms around these issues change. Then only is it possible to reach and reinforce a critical mass of people who are willing to act against exclusion and violence.

Why is it so important to act early on, even before violence has erupted? That is, as soon as we witness exclusion, derogation, and dehumanization? While some may believe that violence on the level of words is not yet serious enough to intervene, it is actually a key moment for intervention. This is because violence evolves gradually, and a clear division between “us” and “them” that is followed by derogation, dehumanization, and discrimination against those who are deemed as the “other” and blamed for problems in society is often, if not always, at the early stages of genocide (Stanton, 2013; Staub, 1989). Once a society has become used to a certain level of derogation and violence, the next incremental increase is less shocking than it would be if it went suddenly from 0 to 100. This habituation to hateful rhetoric is one of the reasons why it is so important to interrupt this norm. Another reason is that a solid body of evidence – case studies from genocides and other crimes against humanity as well as systematic survey studies and experiments from several societies engaged in structural or direct violence against minorities and in wars in other countries – shows that dehumanization of groups increases support for violence against them (Kteily et al., 2015). It has been argued that dehumanization is one of many ways in which people manage to morally disengage and justify violence against others while maintaining a positive self-concept and image of one’s group as moral (Bandura, 1999). For example, labeling others as “beasts” or “vermin” makes it easier to justify violence against them because in many religions and cultures “thou shall not kill” applies to human beings but not to animals (Kteily et al., 2015).

In sum, normative climates in society that enable dehumanization, delegitimization, and scapegoating of certain groups are early warning signs that need to be acted upon for the prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity. In this early stage it will hopefully also be easier to intervene, when it is still possible to introduce and work with existing counter-norms (Tankard and Paluck, 2016). For example, norms around tolerance, inclusion, and speaking out against derogation are crucial in the earliest stage(s); and once violence has begun it is important to strengthen and communicate in-group norms around helping those who are targeted (Reicher et al., 2006). Of course, there are several obstacles that work against this, which need to be overcome. This includes the optimistic bias I mentioned earlier that can lead people to want to wait it out, and realistic threats and fear in later stages when violence has erupted or authoritarian and repressive regimes have taken over.

For practical reasons, it is easier to intervene and less risky early on in the process that could lead all the way to genocide and other crimes against humanity. It is also the most efficient form of intervention when violence can be halted and/or prevented from escalating. However, psychologically it actually may be more difficult to recognize the impending dangers in these early stages, and many people may not make the connection between normative hate speech and the slippery slope to direct violence. Our tendency to hope for the best and believe that bad things will happen to others, not to us, can prove lethal in the context of war, genocide, and other crimes against humanity (Bilewicz and Vollhardt, 2012).

Knowledge

This leads directly to the next point I wish to make, which is that knowledge is crucial for preventing genocide and crimes against humanity. We can only try to prevent and resist against what we know. This may seem like an obvious point. However, the psychological tendency I just described, whereby we are less likely to believe that bad things can happen to us versus others, is an obstacle that needs to be overcome. Access to information is crucial in this process. For example, during the Holocaust, Jews in the ghetto in Łódź, which was more isolated and where people did not receive much information from outside, believed that they would survive if they followed the Nazis’ orders. In contrast, Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto had more information from outside and therefore could not ignore the knowledge of their sure death to come (Einwohner, 2009). Scholars have argued that this was one of the reasons why an uprising took place in the Warsaw Ghetto but not in the Łódź Ghetto (Tiedens, 1997). Today, modern technologies including GPS (global positioning system) and GIS (geographical information system) as well as social media and crowdsourcing have made conflict mapping much easier, allowing us to disseminate information about ongoing threats and violence that provides the knowledge basis for intervention (Leaning, 2016). Similar techniques are being used in early stages as well to raise awareness and provide knowledge about the extent of the danger, for example tracking hate crimes after the US elections in 2016 (Southern Poverty Law Center, 2016). This kind of knowledge is important because it leaves no doubt about the nature of the danger, which may help overcome the optimistic bias that can undermine resistance. Additionally, learning about examples of resistance in other places and similar situations can promote resistance against injustice and violence because these examples serve as role models and give people a sense that something can be done to change their fate (Bilali, Vollhardt, and Rarick, 2017).

Obviously, knowledge about ongoing human rights abuses and violence is crucial for motivating bystanders to intervene and help those who are being targeted as well. However, we need to be aware of the risk of people emotionally distancing themselves from this information, for example as the number of reported deaths increase. Bystanders in a position to help may actually become less compassionate in such cases, in order to protect themselves from negative emotions and the burden of perceived responsibility to help (Cameron and Payne, 2011). This means that knowledge has to be carefully presented and tailored for different audiences if we want to work effectively to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity. A second way in which knowledge can help counteract and prevent violence is through a process I previously addressed, pluralistic ignorance. Disseminating knowledge (e.g., through social media) about others who are also opposed to derogation, hatred, and violence makes people aware that such a stance is much more common than they may have thought. This reduces pluralistic ignorance and can shift the normative climate around these issues. In this way, norms and knowledge intersect in the prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity.

Narratives

Finally, groups’ narratives are also important to consider and address for violence prevention. Among the targeted group, as already mentioned, narratives of resistance can be helpful. These narratives provide role models and examples of what has worked in the past and elsewhere, as well as how a group can be effective in bringing about change (Bilali et al., 2017). They are also motivational and inspirational. For example, in the Warsaw Ghetto during the Holocaust, a poem about the ancient war over Masada and the resistance put up by Jews against the Romans inspired the ghetto resistance fighters (Patt, 2014). Among bystanders, narratives of one’s group as tolerant and inclusive, and as helpers rather than perpetrators, can have a similar effect. For example, appealing to Bulgarians’ inclusive national identity and reminding them of group norms as a nation of people who help others under attack arguably contributed to preventing the deportations of Bulgarian Jews during the Holocaust (Reicher et al., 2006). This shows how in-group narratives and norms are intertwined.

To conclude, when we think about the prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity, we often think about large-scale interventions such as by the UN peacekeeping forces, or the imposition of economic sanctions. We also tend to think about intervening after violence has already erupted. I hope to have convinced you of the importance of starting before we even think genocide or crimes against humanity could be a possibility; and to address processes we see unfold among individuals and groups, on a small scale. We cannot afford to overlook or underestimate the power of norms, knowledge, and narratives that involve derogating the “other.”

References

Bandura, Albert (1999). “Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 3: 193–209.

Bilali, Rezarta; Vollhardt, Johanna; and, Rarick, Jason (2017). “Modeling Collective Action through Media to Promote Social Change and Positive Intergroup Relations in Violent Conflicts.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 68: 200–211.

Bilewicz, Michal, and Vollhardt, Johanna (2012). “Social Psychological Processes Underlying Genocide and Mass Killing,” pp. 280–307. In Agnieszka Golec de Zavala and Aleksandra Cichocka (Eds.) Social Psychology of Social Problems: The Intergroup Context. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Broz, Svetlana (2004). Good People in an Evil Time: Portraits of Complicity and Resistance in the Bosnian War. New York: Other Press.

Cameron, Cameron, and Payne, Keith (2011). “Escaping Affect: How Motivated Emotion Regulation Creates Insensitivity to Mass Suffering.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100(1): 1–15.

Cialdini, Robert, and Trost, Melanie (1998). “Social Influence: Social Norms, Conformity and Compliance,” pp. 151–192. In Daniel Gilbert, Susan Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey (Eds.) The Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Einwohner, Rachel (2009). “The Need to Know: Cultured Ignorance and Jewish Resistance in the Ghettos of Warsaw, Vilna, and Łódź.” Sociological Quarterly 50(3): 407–430.

Harff, Barbara (2003). “No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust? Assessing Risks of Genocide and Political Mass Murder since 1955.” American Political Science Review 1: 57–73.

Hate Crime Statistics (2015). https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2015

Helweg-Larsen, Marie, and Shepperd, James (2001). “Do Moderators of the Optimistic Bias Affect Personal or Target Risk Estimates? A Review of the Li...

Índice

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Editor’s note
• Notes on contributors
• Acknowledgments
• Foreword
• Introduction
• PART I Fundamental concerns: humanity’s responsibility
• PART II Critical factors vis-à-vis issues of prevention and intervention
• PART III Lack of political will is not the only obstacle to preventing genocide
• PART IV Commentary on past and current approaches to prevention and intervention
• PART V Innovations still to be considered/implemented
• PART VI Holding perpetrators responsible: no impunity
• PART VII Now what?
• Afterword: the last word from a final journey: witness to the first genocide of the 21st century and the last genocide of the 20th century
• Index