The Definition of Holocaust and Genocide - Assignment Example

This paper will attempt to examine and distinguish between Holocaust and genocide. The two events although are similar in their inhumanity but they have certain structural peculiarities which differentiate one from the other. It can also be argued that the scale, extent, brutality, legitimization, acceptance, organization, routinization and systematic dehumanization of Holocaust can be categorized separately from other events of genocide. However Historians have tended to bracket these two different typifications in one bracket and tend to treat holocaust as an extension of extreme Nationalism of Totalitarian states (Astourian.1990; Chalk and Jonassohn.1990; Maier.1988). But it is argued that the events in Balkans and Africa lacked the organization and sophistication of execution of Holocaust. Moreover they were perpetrated by ragtag militias, military dictators, mercenaries; there is little evidence that it had legitimate and popular support. They were propelled by undiluted hatred. Whereas Holocaust and the ‘final solution’, was a coherent and legally legitimized state policy. Therefore the objective of this paper is to conceptualize Holocaust as a deliberate ‘Social Construct’ as opposed to other genocidal events. Two Greek words; holos, (completely) and kaustos (burnt) have been combined together to bring the tragedy of German Jews, in the realm of words. Six Million Jews were systematically exterminated by the National Socialist, Third Reich during a span of less then a decade (Donald.2000). The term was not applied to Jewish experience in Germany till 1950s (Bauer.1978). The collective conscious of human civilization is still reeling under the shame of what happened in those few years. In order to examine Holocaust and further our argument it is suggested that the event of Holocaust may be viewed through an academic heuristic device. The theoretical framework chosen for the purpose of this paper is ‘Social Constructionist’ theory of a social problem. It is argued that The Holocaust came about as a result of implementation of Endlosung; The Final Solution. Before we sketch out the solution let us focus on how the Jews of Germany became a problem, requiring solution in the first place. The Nazi perpetrated Holocaust was ‘essentially an incomprehensible event’ (Freeman.1991, pp.187). How could a modern quasi-Democratic state organize such an inhuman public policy with brutal efficiency? It has to be considered here that National Socialist party was a popular party and had won a majority, although it preached and followed a Fascist Ideology; yet it carried democratic legitimacy. Historically ‘Intentionalists’ view that Hitler himself had actually planned out the Holocaust in advance, as outlined in Mein Kampf ( Marrus.1987, pp.35). Whereas the ‘Functionalists’ argument is that Hitler was not the ‘sole strategist’ but it was the German Bureaucracy, which ‘improvised and competed with each other’ for thinking of new ways of extermination of Jews (Berger.1993). Yet a convincing explanatory framework is yet to be evolved (Hayes.1991). The ‘moral certainty’ of the implementers of the program, the behaviour of men towards other men, is inscrutable (Hilberg.1991). The evil was successfully accomplished by ‘ordinary persons acting in ordinary contexts’ (Schmitt.1989). It was the very “banality of evil”, which defies comprehension. This paradox of pervasive evil is the core theme of this paper. In order to offer an explanation, we will now attempt to situate our discussion in the theoretical framework of Social Constructivism. We will ask ourselves that, how the presumption of a social problem emerges and permeates itself through a society at a given time. All social problems are, “The activities of individuals or groups making assertions of grievances and claims with respect to some putative condition” (Spector& Kitsuse. 1987, pp.75). These problems or percepts of problems are then ‘identified’ crystallized, perpetuated and ‘translated in to action’(Rafter.1992). Therefore the Jewish Problem was a deliberate social construct. This social construction had its genesis in various sources. Let us now examine these sources. It is argued that Social Constructs primarily have a ‘natural history’(Berger.1993). This is particularly true in the case of Jewish problem. It has deep-set and ingrained historical roots. The Jewish Socially constructed problem was, “publicly standardized cultural categorization system” (Loseke.1992, pp.3), which ‘constructed’ a causal relationship between that certain category of people and overall problems, being faced at that time. This categorization construct allots a homogeneity to the causative object; the Jews, robbing them of individual humanity. It permeates a social interpretation which becomes pervasive. Nazism drew upon a rich anti-Semitic tradition. Christian theology awarded a profane status to Jews. ‘The slayers of Christ’, “the plague, pestilence and misfortune of Germany” (Martin Luther, quoted in Rose.1990, pp.7). German virtuosity was constructed and portrayed as opposed to Jewish profanity, banality and evil. ‘Hostility towards Jews played a constructive role in establishment of German self-identity’ (Tal.1975). This religious construct was further cemented and granted legitimacy through ‘pseudoscientific interpretations of biology and anthropology’ (Rose.1990). It can be argued that the Nazi percept of Aryan racial superiority was complementary derivative of anti-Semitism. Thus the Race superiority theory was the next-step of anti-Semitism, which became inclusive; Gypsies, Slavs, Blacks and other racially inferior groups also entered the Nazi race matrix, but Jews remained the primary focus of hatred (Milton.1990). The race theory thus became all encompassing. Joseph Goebbels, through Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda efficiently used the new tools of mass media to ‘crystallize the Race theory and anti-Semitism’ (Baird.1974). It can be argued that for the first time in Human History the mass media’s effectiveness was demonstrated. Ironically the mass media’s tools of Propaganda came of age during the Nazi regime. It is also argued that this can be one of the first instant, when propaganda was translated in to public opinion. The extent of effectiveness of mass media can be measured by behavioural change it brought. The incidence of Denunciation became rampant. It was not the public indifference and apathy towards Jewish hardships but the ‘active participation of citizens by identifying specific individuals who constituted the Jewish problem’, which is unique and relevant to our argument. “Anti-Jewish Law enforcement operated much like conventional law enforcement, where police intervention occurs in response to citizen initiatives” (Reiss.1971). Law enforcement brings us to the legal construction of Jewish Problem and Final Solution. It has been argued that the Final solution was deliberate but incremental legal construct. Initially the extermination of all the Jews was not envisioned (Berger.1993).The discriminatory laws were put in place as early as 1933 (Yahil.1990). The Nuremberg Laws however finally, legally defined Jews as ‘non-kindered blood’ (ibid), thus depriving them of all the rights of citizenship. This legal definition granted legitimacy to the final solution. Hitler’s desire for Lebensraum (living space) began to unfold after conquest of Poland. Deportation was becoming problematic, due to non-acceptance of USA and Great Britain’s refusals to accept immigrants (Wyman.1984). During the Soviet campaign SS was assigned the task of liquidating the civilians of conquered territory. This indicated a policy shift by the Nazi regime (Berger.1993). The lessons learnt and methods used during the Soviet campaign were assimilated and incorporated in the policy problem regarding Jews. The methods of gassing etc for liquidation were developed during Soviet campaign ( Milton.1990). “ Thus the ‘natural history’ of claims and solutions to the Jewish Problem had evolved to a point where it was now possible to construct a final solution” (Berger.1993) The bureaucracy which implemented the final solution was not a Nazi construction. They were ordinary civil servants working in various departments, engaged in the most ordinary daily operations. ‘Nazis never had to restructure or change extensively the beaureaucratic set-up (Mommsen.1986), they inherited it. The embedded organizational roles were used to implement the final solution with characteristic efficiency, rationality and inhuman dispassion. ‘No need arose within the German bureaucracy to justify or make sense of their actions’ (Miller & Holstein. 1989). All that was done was within the context of legal authority. The legal authority transmitted through signed orders absolved the implementer and created denial of responsibility. The generic bureaucratic social process of authority infused a distancing effect. ‘Authorization norms’ allowed the role occupants to abject avoidance of any responsibility’, (Kelman & Hamilton. 1989), “...Thought of refusing order just did not enter one’s head, regardless of what kind of order it was..”(Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz, quoted in Gilbert.1950, pp.255). ‘In addition to authorization norms’ the ‘routinization’ in bureaucracy also acted to absolve the bureaucrats from decision-making which involves personal or moral considerations (Kelman & Hamilton. 1989). Moreover it is also asserted that, the rule-bound bureaucratic structure permits little independent thought or action space. The paper pushing and exchange of memos with any implications is not considered as an act having moral bearings. The use of euphemism in the bureaucratic language also creates smoke screens. The Jews were routinely booked in the Reichsbahn,(German railways) for transportation to Concentration camps even the fare was paid by the SS (Hilberg.1989). The inhuman way in which these doomed passengers were herded in to box-cars was overlooked completely. It has been suggested that status of being human in itself is a social construct which is relative and subjective to interpretation of the dominant social group (Rubenstien & Roth.1987). The Jews were dehumanized and objectified by the German bureaucracy. Dehumanization of enemy is common in war (Kelman & Hamilton. 1989) and by the same token the enemy within; Jews were dehumanized. This dehumanization manifested itself in the erasing of all signs of humanity in the inmates of concentration camps. Shaved heads, uniforms, emaciated and mere numbers; it was easier to send face less nonpersons to their deaths without remorse. Such was the organization and implementation of the Holocaust. Conclusion: It has been argued in this paper that Holocaust as Final Solution was a product of a social construct. Emanating from Anti-Semitism and developed in to racial superiority this hatred was translated by Nazi regime in to a systematic program of extermination. It was sophisticated in design and execution. The Nazi propaganda machine for the first time very effectively employed mass media to permeate this hatred. The legal sanction of a modern state provided legitimacy to these horrors and an efficient bureaucracy without any moral qualms executed it. Holocaust was indeed unique. Genocides in Rawanda and Balkans can be classified or categorized as expressions of tribal and sectarian hatred, organized for control of scarce resources. These genocidal events lack the organized sophistication, coherence and coordination of a modern state public policy. They also did not have any documented legal sanctions in the form of defined laws. At the end it is argued that holocaust was unique and it is hoped that it is an isolated event in Human History. References & Bibliography: 1. Donald L.N. (2000), The Columbia Guide to Holocaust ; Columbia University Press. 2. Bauer, Y. (1978), The Holocaust in Historical Perspective, Seattle; University of Washington Press. 3. Austorian, S. (1990), The Armenian Genocide: An Interpretation, The History Teacher 23: 111-160. 4. Chalk, F., Jonassohn, K, eds. (1990), The History and Sociology of Genocide: Analyses and Case Studies; New Haven CT; Yale University Press. 5. Maier, S.C., (1988), The Unmasterable Past: History Holocaust and German National Identity; Cambridge MA; Harvard University Press. 6. Freeman, M. (1991), The Theory and Prevention of Genocide; Holocaust and Genocide Studies 6; 185-199. 7. Hayes, P. ( 1991), Lessons and Legacies: Meaning of Holocaust in Changing World; Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. 8. Berger, J. R. (1993), The Banality of Evil Reframed : The Social Construction of the “ Final Solution” to the “Jewish Problem”; Sociological Quarterly 34: No.4; 597-618. 9. Marrus, R. M. (1987), The Holocaust in History; New York; New American Library. 10. Schmidt R. L (1989), “ Sharing the Holocaust: Bitburg as Emotional Reminder”. Pp. 239-289,in Studies in Symbolic Interaction , Vol. 10. eds by N. Denzin. Greenwich CT Jal. 11. Spector , M. & Kitsuse ,J.I. (1987), Constructing Social Problem, New York, Aldine de Gruyter. 12. Yahil, L. (1990), The Holocaust: The Fate of European Jewry, 1932-1945, Oxford; Oxford University Press. 13. Rose P.L. (1990), Revolutionary anti-Semitism in Germany: From Kant to Wagner. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 14. Tal, U. (1975), Christians and Jews in Germany: Religion Politics and Ideology in the Second Reich, 1870-1914. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 15. Wyman D. S. , (1984), The Abandonment of the Jews; America and The Holocaust, 1941-1945; NY; Pantheon. 16. Reiss A. (1971), The Police and the Public. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 17. Rafter N.H. (1992), Claims making and Socio-cultural Context in the First US Eugenics Campaign: Social Problems 39: 17-34. 18. Milton, S. (1990), The Context of The Holocaust”; German Studies Review 13: 269-283. 19. Mommsen, H. (1986), “ The Realization of the Unthinkable: The Final Solution of the Jewish Question in the Third Reich.” Pp. 97-144 in the Politics of Genocide, eds. G. Hirschfeld. London. Ellen and Erwin. 20. Loseke. D.R. (1992), The Battered Women and Shelters: The Social Construction of Wife Abuse. Albany; State University of New York Press. 21. Kelman H.C. & Hamilton V.L. (1989) Crimes of Obedience: Towards a Social Psychology of Authority and Responsibility. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 22. Hamilton R. F. (1982), Who Voted for Hitler? Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. 23. Gilbert G. M. (1950), The Psychology of Dictatorship: NY; Ronald Press. 24. Rubenstien R.L. & Roth J.K. (1987), Approaches to Auschwitz: The Holocaust and Its legacy. Atlanta: John Knox. 25. Hilberg. R. (1985), The Destruction of European Jews. Revised ed. NY: Holmes and Meier. 26. Baird. J. (1974), The Mythical World of Nazi Propaganda, 1939-1945, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press Read More