Human Rights, Global Wrongs - Essay Example

To what extent do “ordinary” people participate in crimes of genocide? Over the years, many scholars continue to advance possible explanations to why “ordinary” people are inclined to participate in genocide crimes. The term “ordinary” refers to well-adjusted citizens with no prior intent to commit heinous crimes against other people; the term excludes criminals, people afflicted with psychological, and personality disorders that predispose them to hurt others intentionally. No unified theory exists to explain this phenomenon, as various academic disciplines advance different perspectives with regard to the issue. In 1948, members of the United Nations (UN) convened at a convention aimed at addressing prevention strategies and legal implications against those found guilty of genocide crimes. It was during this convention that members defined the term as systematically planned annihilation of a group of people based on their nationality, race, ethnicity or religion. Examined in this essay are the external and internal factors, which predispose well-adjusted individuals devoid of personality or severe clinical psychological disorders to engage in heinous genocide crimes against humanity (Clapham 2007). It is the presumption of most scholars that the prevention of genocide crimes hinges on the identification of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators that predispose individuals to engage in mass violence. Structural and individual theories of genocide attempt to explain these factors and conditions, which make it conducive for people with no prior intent of hurting others to participate in mass violence. Structural theories encompass cultural, situational and institutional explanations, which are specific to a given society at a particular time (Charny 1982). Conversely, theories relating to individuals encompass situations specific to an individual and the psychology of individuals in a mob (mob psychology). Combined, these theories provide a holistic view with regard to the extent “ordinary” individuals perpetrate genocide crimes. Structural theories The basic presumption of structural theories centres on contextual factors, which mobilize individuals to participate in mass violence. According to proponents of structural theories, the occurrence of genocide crimes hinges on the existence of the right structural context. The contextual factors include characteristics of a specific culture, state or the existence of a specific historical situation. Entrenched in this theory exists institutional explanations concerning individuals participation in genocide. The state represents an example of an institution whereby, these theorists argue that a state’s structure plays a pivotal role in moulding citizens’ motivation. In addition, they infer that institutional hierarchy and the state’s capacity controls citizens’ inclination to perpetrate mass violence. For example, during Hitler’s reign, Germany was an authoritarian state characterized by societal adherence to directives given by the government (Harff 2003, p. 57). Authoritarian states require unquestioned compliance from all their citizens; therefore, when asked to participate in genocide crimes, citizens in such countries comply despite the actions contradicting their personal philosophies. Straus (2006) inferred that the inclination to participate in mass violence is heightened when a powerful authority figure sanctions such actions. Influential leaders and states, which easily embrace violence, function as a useful tool in legitimizing genocide crimes, which compels ordinary individuals to participate without the fear of negative repercussions (Strauss 2006, p. 56). Politicization of genocide by leaders remains a key factor that predisposes individuals to participating in genocide. More often than not, leaders advance their personal agendas at the expense of their subordinates. They are conscious of the influence they have on swaying the public’s perspectives. Therefore, they choose to either exert their dominance to achieve favourable or unfavourable results for their followers. Unfortunately, majority of the leaders gravitate towards the latter, which requires compliance, and unquestioning loyalty from the followers. In an attempt to win a leader’s admiration, well-adjusted individuals abandon their personal principles making it easier to engage in brutality at the request of the leader. The indiscriminate actions compel a similar reaction from other leaders whereby, they encourage their subordinates to follow suit terming the move as self-defence. This creates a vicious cycle, which leads to high death toll and rampant spread of torture and rape. The delayed intervention by external parties might also trigger retaliation by ordinary citizens. For example, the 1975 genocide in Cambodia persisted for several years under the leadership of Pol Pot. External parties delayed intervening, as they believed the conflict was of an external nature. On the contrary, the Khmer Rouge overworked innocent civilians to death in the massive plantations, arrested, tortured and killed those imprisoned. Those who rallied behind Pol Pot concurred with his decision to cleanse Cambodia in spite of the decision having any justified merit. An estimated 2 million people lost their lives during Pol Pot’s rule (Charny 1982). DeLat et al (2006) states that there are limitations pertaining to external parties intervention in the civil affairs of a specific country. Characteristics of a specific culture also predispose ordinary citizens to execute genocide crimes. Goldhagen (1997) postulates that the prevalence of genocide is specific to cultures characterized by deep social divisions, institutionalized racism, and cultural anti-Semitism. The deep social divisions encompass segregation based on ethnic, race, and gender differences. Conversely, institutionalized racism refers to societal patterns, which culminate in oppressive or negative treatment of individuals based on racial differences. The 1994 Rwandan genocide was fuelled by both deep social divisions and institutionalized racism whereby, the majority Hutu massacred scores of Tutsi natives and their sympathizers. Instigated by Hutu extremists opposing President Habyarimana and the Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF) 1993 peace treaty, ordinary Hutu natives turned against their neighbours and families (Andre et al 1998, p. 3). Finally, cultural anti-Semitism refers to discrimination against a specific culture by disregarding its autonomy as a group; anti-Semitism compounded the merciless massacre of Jews during Hitler’s reign over Germany. Cultures that are permissive to discrimination and oppression of different groups along racial, ethnic or gender lines make it possible for ordinary people to engage in crimes of genocide. Such individuals use culture as a buffer against their innate instinct of refraining from perpetrating inhumane actions against innocent individuals (Goldhagen 1997). In addition, the historical context of a given country predetermines an ordinary citizen’s likelihood of participating in genocide crimes. It is evident that genocide is rampant in environments with a prior history of extreme civil unrest or interstate warfare. Cultural and societal breakdown results from internal and external conflict, which predisposes an individual to re-evaluate the safety precautions they undertake (Bhavnani 2006, p. 655). They automatically shift their mind-set towards executing harmful actions against those who threaten their security and the survival of their group. For example, the on-going civil war in South Sudan best exemplifies the role of historical context in predisposing individuals to participating in heinous crimes against their fellow compatriots. Individual theories According to individual theories, the predisposition to engage in genocide crimes hinges on dispositional factors. Unlike structural theories, individual theories infer that the context plays a minimal role in predisposing individuals to committing heinous, genocide crimes. Psychologist scholars remain pivotal in explaining dispositional traits specific to an individual, and traits assumed by the individual when operating within the confines of a mob. Initially, psychologists concurred that individuals afflicted with personality or severe clinical psychological disorders were more likely to participate in genocide compared to well-adjusted (ordinary) individuals (Waller 2001, p.5). This presumption failed to give a comprehensive explanation pertaining to the factors that compel ordinary individuals to execute violent attacks on a massive scale on others. In response, social psychologists advanced the concept of mob psychology, which focused on uncovering the impact of group influence on individuals’ behaviours. According to these scholars, people in a mob assume the qualities of the entire group in favour of their unique dispositions (beliefs, attitudes, and personality traits) increasing the probability of them executing genocide crimes (Waller 2001, p.5). De-individuation refers to the process an individual undergoes when losing his individuality after becoming affiliated to a group. It encompasses the loss of one’s sense of creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. Factors of anonymity, arousal and group unity weigh down on an individual’s personal control of guilt and shame. As a result, individuals distance themselves from their personal identities, which functions to reduce their concern for evaluating social situations. The arousal of an individual’s interest only occurs when outcomes meet the goals the group is seeking to achieve (Gavreliuc, 2007). Ordinary people have the potential to become perpetrators of genocides due to the eroding of their individuality after joining a group. Individuals in a group are not able to think independently and assess situations before acting; they move with the general flow of the group’s actions. While participating in immoral actions, feelings of shame and guilt fail to surface, as members justify their behaviours using a group’s norms, rules or traditions (Waller 2002, 140). In addition, diffusion of responsibility occurs whereby, each member of the group bear the burden of the actions. No member is accountable for specific actions undertaken within the context of a group. In fact, each individual assumes that another member of the group will assume responsibility of a certain action (Gavreliuc, 2007). In the case of genocides, ordinary individuals are less likely to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions as they presume that someone else in the group will take responsibility for them. Even with victims of antisocial misdoing, they are likely to assume that a relative or a friend should be the one responsible for assisting them (Waller 2002, 159). Diffusion of social norms occurs when members of a group identify and internalize norms and attitudes of influential members of the group. During the identification process, a person’s attitudes and beliefs undergo a transformation whereby, a person embraces those of an admired leader in favor of their own. Conversely, internalization encompasses the association of changing one’s beliefs and attitudes with intrinsic feelings of accomplishment arising from admiration given by the person one seeks to emulate. In addition, within the context of a group, an individual carries out actions with others due to social proof. Social proof refers to the universality of norms whereby, group members think that the actions performed by the entire group are right simply because the group approves of them. Ordinary people are capable of committing antisocial behavior when they internalize beliefs, values and attitudes that act as motivators to antisocial behavior. Such individuals ignorant to the group leaders’ personal motives whereby, the latter seek to advance their personal agendas at the expense of the group members. More often than not, these leaders impart their own radicalized perceptions on their followers (Waller 2002, 145). The concept of anonymity encompasses the misconstrued perception held by members in a mob whereby, they believe that their identities are concealed. Due to the expansive nature of a mob and its rowdiness, it becomes almost impossible for outsiders to identify members of the mob (Ratner et al 2009). The latter find solace in this and continue to perpetrate inhumane actions against innocent people. Anonymity lessens social inhibitions of members of a group. In addition, it also contributes to de-polarization, which refers to the process of unification or alignment of group members’ beliefs and attitudes. De-polarization seeks to ensure uniformity in thought processes and behaviors displayed by individuals. In all groups including mobs, there is pressure on all members to conform. Individuals who deviate from the norm find themselves ostracized. The conforming bunch perceives the actions of non-conformers as a sign of disrespect and a deterrent to their progress. De-polarization consequently leads to self-censorship where members censor any ideas that deviate form group consensus. Most people in these groups, in order to reduce or avoid conflict, conform to these views. The factors of anonymity and de-polarization are quite capable of influencing individuals to engage in antisocial actions such as genocide crimes. In a group, de-polarization takes place when leaders spread propaganda about another external group portraying them in bad taste, which might transcend to the dehumanization of these groups. Members of the group overcome the normal fear of murder and thirst for the blood of the external group. Propaganda is further spread through broadcasts or pamphlets further ostracizing the said group and making them less and less human and worthy of life (Waller 2002, 140-144). Perpetrators of genocide take reprieve in the knowledge that their actions are irretraceable to them. Ordinary people willingly participate in genocide crimes, as they are confident that nobody will be able to identify them. The “safety of numbers” mind-set predisposes individuals to engage in cruelty against others without fearing negative backlash (Waller 2001, p.5). Increased energy in a group caused by emotional arousal leads members to take part in activities that they normally would refrain from doing. Scholars describe the energy of charged crowds as being contagious based on its ability to attract bystanders with no prior intent of joining the crowd. Riots like the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, California in 1992 are an example of increased energy causing group thinking. After the acquittal of police officers who brutally beat Rodney King, riots broke out in South Los Angeles spreading into areas over six days resulting in cases of arson and looting. They were the worst riots to hit the US after a period of 30 years (Sen 1999). In the same light, ordinary citizens may be involved in genocide in situations where events elicit the same reaction in them. This is especially true where individuals converge due to factors such as religion, social class, ethnicity/race or nationality. Instances of social injustice may also cause people to act in a similar way. Victims of lawlessness may resort to violence or genocide to seek revenge for injustices perpetrated against them (Waller 2002, 160-165). Conclusion In conclusion, ordinary men are capable of engaging in genocide crimes. Different theories allude to various factors, which predispose individuals to participating in genocide crimes. The structural theories infer that contextual factors such as characteristics of the state, culture and the historical context play a pivotal role in predetermining an individual’s intent to participate in genocide crimes. In addition, leaders play a crucial role in instigating well-adjusted individuals to engage in genocide crimes (Verwimp 2005). The delayed intervention from external parties and the need for self-defense trigger the vicious cycle, which predisposed ordinary individuals to engaging in genocide crimes. Conversely, individual theories focus on dispositional factors and the psychological qualities assumed by an individual within the context of a group. According to different scholars, the latter best explains how an ordinary individual can undergo a psychological transformation whereby, they abandon their personal principles and assume fundamental principles of the group. Through concepts such as de-individuation (loss of personal identity), diffusion of responsibility, social norms, anonymity and a surge in energy, ordinary individuals gravitate towards brutality against innocent people. In most cases, they justify their behaviors are necessary to achieve the group’s ultimate goal. Outside the confines of the group, individuals lack the confidence to participate in any criminal actions, as they are accountable for their own actions (Donnelly 2003). References Andre, C., and Jean-Phillippe, P. (1998). "Land Relations Under Unbearable Stress: Rwanda Caught in the Malthusian Trap." Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 34(1): 1-47 Bhavnani, R. (2006). "Ethnic Norms and Interethnic Violence: Accounting for Mass Participation in the Rwandan Genocide." Journal of Peace Research 43(6): 651-669 Charny, I. (1982). How Can We Commit the Unthinkable? Genocide, the Human Cancer. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Clapham, A. (2007) Human Rights – A Very Short Introduction New York Oxford University Press. DeLaet, Debra L., (2006) The global struggle for human rights: universal principles in world politics Thomson / Wadsworth. Donnelly, J. (2003) Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice Cornell University Press Gavreliuc, A. (2007). From Interpersonal Relationships to Social Communications. Goldhagen, D. (1997). Hitlers Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. New York: Vintage Press. Harff, B. (2003). "No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust? Assessing Risks of Genocide and Political Mass Murder since 1955." American Political Science Review, February 97(1):57 -73 Ratner, Steven R. and Abrams, Jason, S. (2009) 3rd ed. Accountability for human rights atrocities in international law: beyond the Nuremberg legacy Sen,A (1999) Development as Freedom Oxford University Press Singh, Ujjwal Kumar, (2009) Rights and peace: ideas, laws, institutions and movements Verwimp, P. (2005). "An Economic Profile of Peasant Perpetrators of Genocide: Micro-level evidence from Rwanda." Journal of Development Economics 77:297-323 Waller, James (2001). "Perpetrators of Genocide: An Explanatory Model for Extraordinary Human Evil" Journal of Hate Studies, 1 (1): 5 Waller, J. (2002). What is the Nature of Human Nature. In J. Waller, Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit genocide and Mass Killing (pp. 136-168). New York: Oxfrod University Press. Read More