concept map (click on blurry image and should see large, clear image)

Social psychology: The psychological, cultural and environmental roots of genocide and mass violence, using Rwanda and the Holocaust as examples

Abstract

This essay was posted in blog format, and examines the psychological, cultural and environmental factors that may cause genocide. The essay attempts to examine current evidence and present a fairly complete discussion of the different factors that can, in the worst case scenario, interact in such a way that creates genocide or mass murder. By attempting to examine, and understand the factors involved, perhaps we can prevent future genocide or at the very least try to lessen the impact of any future genocide. A concept map is included, which aims to visually present the main concepts. Also included is a self evaluation of the work, which can be found in the appendices.

Introduction

Genocide is defined as “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial or cultural group” (Obadina, 2007, p. 106). This essay will use examples from the genocide that occurred in Rwanda and also the Holocaust. Rwanda has two major ethnic groups: Tutsi (14% of the population) and Hutu (85%). Tutsi and Hutu have the same religions, culture, language, and are mostly physically similar (Adelman, 2000). Many factors contributed to the genocide that took place, mainly environmental and social psychological factors which will be discussed in this essay.

Basic needs

The road to genocide often begins with difficult living conditions (Staub, 1996). When children are neglected or treated badly, their basic needs are not being met, and they are more likely to take part in mass violence later. The child is brought up thinking that aggression is normal and that the world is a hostile and unsafe place. The child is more likely to see aggression in others, particularly towards themselves (Staub, 1999). Neglect, hostility, harsh treatment and abuse by parents or peers, lack of structure and guidance all contribute to aggression (Staub, 2003). A common reason for basic needs not being met is poverty.

Economy

It has been established that another contributing factor to the genocide was simply because of the extreme poverty in Rwanda at the time (Lemarchand, 2002). Traditional options for young men in Rwanda were declining. When the genocide began, it may have been tempting for Hutus to kill their Tutsi neighbours, and take their belongings, cattle and property (Jones, 2002). Comparisons between the in-group and the out-group, where one comes to the conclusion that they are being unfairly treated, can create anger and resentment, precursors to potential violence (Staub, 2003). Mironko (2004) discovered that some reasons that the perpetrators of Rwandan genocide gave for killing were protecting their wealth from the perceived threat the Tutsis and also to obtain wealth.

Group theory

When members of a group (such as the Hutu in Rwanda) differentiate between ‘them’ (out-group) and ‘us’ (in-group), it can be a starting point for violence directed at the out-group, such as genocide (Staub, 2003). When a group is separated from the rest of the world, there may be no moderating influences and extremist ideologies can develop (Staub, 2003). Reasons for commencing violence may be ideological, such as the belief that the members of the out-group really do deserve death (Sternberg, 2003).

Being a part of a group, and sharing their thoughts and values can help reduce our own uncertainty of who we are. Group membership may contribute to a sense of self-worth, especially if it is believed that the other group is less worthy (Staub, 1999). Group self-concepts of superiority and also weakness and vulnerability may contribute to the chances of genocide occurring (Staub).

Scapegoat

Before and during the Rwandan genocide, the Hutu majority blamed Tutsis for all of the problems in Rwanda, which was very similar to what happened in Germany in World War 2, blaming the Jews for the problems in Germany (Obadina, 2007). Creating a scapegoat helps to maintain a positive group identity, because it can reduce perceived responsibility for current problems. A scapegoat provides a common enemy (Staub, 1996). Propaganda, whether posters, radio or another medium, can help create and strengthen fear or hostility towards scapegoats.

Propaganda

Propaganda can be a very effective tool for inciting violence against other groups (Adelman, 2000). Propaganda broadcast over the Radio-Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) in Rwanda was controlled by Hutus. The broadcasts denounced Tutsis as “cockroaches” which needed to be exterminated (Obadina, 2007). The RTLM had an active role in upholding racist stereotypes and even directed specific killings. The radio appealed to the group unity of the Hutus. By calling the killing “work”, it may have made the violence seem noble (Li, 2004). Tutsis were portrayed by the RTLM in a similar way to how the Jewish were portrayed in Nazi propaganda (Sternberg, 2003). Much of the Nazi propaganda was designed to increase the “otherness” of the Jews, and widen the gap between them and the majority of the German population (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2005).

Perceived threat

The genocide in Rwanda may have been a by-product of the threat to the Hutu-majority by the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). We must consider the perceived threat from the Tutsis, the belief that all Tutsis in the region were on the same side as the RPF. Many people had suffered at the hands of the RPF, and therefore bore a hatred and desire for revenge (Lemarchand, 2002). Kuperman (2004) suggests that the RPF provoked the Hutu regime so much that it lead to the genocide. A possibility proposed by Kuperman is that they expected genocide to take place, but considered this an acceptable cost of fighting the Hutu regime.

Past conflicts

A history of aggression between different groups makes it more likely to reoccur in future, and violence can then seem a more desirable way of dealing with differences (Staub, 1996). Lemarchand (2002) states that without the Rwandan Patriotic Front invasion there would have been no genocide. Experiencing injustice contributes to a likelihood of violence occurring (Staub, 2003). The need to avenge something that has been done to the individual or the group is also a powerful factor (Sternberg, 2003).

Evil

A reason behind terrible events such as genocide occurring is simply “evil”. Staub (1999) focuses on the origins of evil, particularly in genocide. We want to imagine that evil is not ordinarily possible, however it is the result of ordinary psychological processes. Some individuals or groups evolve in a way that makes destructive acts more likely (Staub, 1999). Sternberg (2003) proposes that humans may have a death instinct, a fascination with death, which in extreme cases can show itself in genocides (Sternberg, 2003).

Social Psychological

Passivity in bystanders, from any group, can encourage violence. Other countries can be bystanders, and by continuing to trade, or by helping the party which is committing the genocide, they can be seen to be approving of their actions (Staub, 1999).

A number of other social psychological factors can be involved in genocide. Confirmation bias refers to the tendency to seek out information that confirms own views, and to disregard evidence that is contrary to our views. Belief perseverance, which is a reluctance to change beliefs once they have been formed. Fundamental attribution error refers to the tendency to attribute behaviour of members of an out-group to internal disposition, rather than environmental factors. These factors can lead to blaming the victim, or the out-group, for what has happened to them (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2005).

Cultural

Strong respect for authority is also important. For example, Germany had high respect for authority even before Hitler (Staub, 1996). Once a group has been created, people within it may wish to please their superiors, at any cost (Staub, 1999). Woolf & Hulsizer observe that there are three common patterns in cultures where genocide is more likely to occur: use of aggression as a problem-solving skill, conflict orientation with a perceived threat orientation, and an ideology of supremacy with a history of dehumanising and lack of acceptance for cultural diversity (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2005).

Dehumanising

When the other group are successful, they can be seen to have received their gains at the expense of the dominant group. This can evolve into seeing other groups as a threat to the survival of one’s own group (Staub, 1999). A major goal of the Rwandan genocide was to dehumanise the enemy, and make sure people knew it would be considered good to kill Tutsis (Sternberg, 2003). It is also easier to hate when one views members of a group as all being the same. The strongest stereotypes are often those with the least fact behind them (Sternberg, 2003).

Deindividualisation

Reduced feelings of personal responsibility appear to contribute to genocide. For example, in the Nazi death camps, each individual was just a small part of the whole. No individual was made to feel complete responsibility for what was happening around them (Sternberg, 2003). Mironko (2004) interviewed jailed perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide. Mironko found that the perpetrators often used the third person perspective to describe events that they had participated in, which appears to separate them from personal responsibility in their own minds.

Conclusion

Genocide is violence on a large scale, usually directed towards a minority group. A positive outcome from research on this subject is that by increasing awareness of how people can be influenced, particularly by social factors, we can hopefully prevent people from falling into those traps. By determining the factors that can lead to genocide, we can hopefully prevent it from happening, or at least reduce the impact it causes. The evidence so far seems to suggest that genocide could happen anywhere, when the social, cultural and environmental factors interact in a way which has such tragic consequences.

References

Adelman, H. (2000). Rwanda revisited: in search for lessons [Electronic version]. Journal of Genocide Research, 2(3), 431-444.

Jones, A. (2002). Gender and genocide in Rwanda [Electronic version]. Journal of Genocide Research, 4(1), 65-94.

Kuperman, A. J. (2004). Provoking genocide: a revised history of the Rwandan Patriotic Front [Electronic version]. Journal of Genocide Research, 6(1), 61-84.

Lemarchand, R. (2002). Disconnecting the threads: Rwanda and the Holocaust reconsidered [Electronic version]. Journal of Genocide Research, 4(4), 499-518.

Li, D. (2004). Echoes of violence: considerations on radio and genocide in Rwanda [Electronic version]. Journal of Genocide Research, 6(1), 9-27.

Mironko, C. (2004). Igitero: means and motive in the Rwandan genocide [Electronic version]. Journal of Genocide Research, 6(1), 47-60.

Obadina, E. (2007). Ethnic groups in Africa. Philadelphia: Mason Crest Publishers.

Staub, E. (1996). Cultura-societal roots of violence: The examples of genocidal violence and of contemporary youth violence in the United States [Electronic version]. American Psychologist, 51(2), 117-132.

Staub, E. (1999). The roots of evil: Social conditions, culture, personality, and basic human needs [Electronic version]. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 179-192.

Staub, E. (2003). Notes on cultures of violence, cultures of caring and peace, and the fulfillment of basic human needs [Electronic version]. Political Psychology, 24(1), 1-21.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). A duplex theory of hate: Development and application to terrorism, massacres, and genocide [Electronic version]. Review of General Psychology, 7(3), 299-328.

Woolf, L. M., & Hulsizer, M. R. (2005). Psychosocial roots of genocide: risk, prevention, and intervention [Electronic version].

End of essay

Please click here to view appendices

Please click here to view concept map (my mindmeister subscription ran out)

Genocide concept map

Appendices for Blog 1 (Genocide)

Self assessment

1. Theory

I performed a fairly extensive search of Academic Search Premier, and the psychological databases via EBSCOhost. I also used Google and did a search on the ACT Library's website for any books on Rwanda or genocide. I found a lot of different theories, and critiques of theories on my searches. I then went through and tried to summarise the main findings which would relate to genocide, and apply these to my essay. I believe that I found most of the main theories, however some have been omitted mainly due to word count restraints. In many cases I had to omit theories because I judged a lack of relevance to my topic.

2. Research

As above, I performed fairly extensive searches through a variety of sources, though the most useful sources were the online journal articles. Many of the articles that I ended up using in my essay were written by those who were actually proposing the theories. There may have been some important research that I did not end up using, either because my search was not extensive enough or because I discarded research that I thought was not relevant, though upon deeper inspection, it may have been.

3. Written expression

Readability (from http://www.ilovejackdaniels.com/resources/readability-score) follows:

Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease: 29
Ideally, web page text should be around the 60 to 80 mark on this scale. The higher the score, the more readable the text.

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 14
Ideally, web page text should be around the 6 to 7 mark on this scale. The lower the score, the more readable the text.

Gunning-Fog Index: 22
Ideally, web page text should be between 11 and 15 on this scale. The lower the score, the more readable the text. (Anything over 22 should be considered the equivalent of post-graduate level text).

Notes:
Average syllables per word: 1.87
Average words per sentence: 19.75

My comments:
I am a little surprised by this, as I would have expected it to be a bit more readable. Next time I write an essay/blog I will run it through a readability analysis earlier in the process! I did not even know such a thing as a readability analysis existed until recently.

APA style:

I believe that the only part of the APA style that I did not follow, was in my use of headings. As far as I can remember, headings are not usually part of psychological essays. I have been using the book that was recommended back during first year psychology, about how to write psychological essays (The Principles of Writing in Psychology, T. R. Smyth). As far as I can tell, I have followed the guidelines provided by Smyth, completely.

Concept map:

As was required for this blog topic, I have developed a concept map using the online software MindMeister. As not only the idea of a concept map, but also the creation of one via a website such as MindMeister is rather new to me, I believe I did fairly well. Had I started thinking about the concept map earlier, and perhaps learnt more about concept maps, I would likely have presented a better concept map. I have seen other concept maps, and believe that mine does not quite compare with the better ones.

Blog layout and style:

I created my blog on blogger.com, using a simple white background with black text template. I had actually used a high contrast black background with white text template, but in the process of publishing this blog posting (Appendices) had trouble getting all the text readable (for some reason the black background wasn't showing black text very well!). As I am fairly new to blogs, I believe this represents a basic, but functional blog. It should be readable, if perhaps a little un-exciting.

4. Online engagement

The idea of online engagement is fairly new to me (as I imagine it is for many of my classmates) and as such took a little while to get used to. Due to the large amount of blog postings coming through, I found it difficult to keep up with, and comment on all the blogs I would have liked to. I am fairly happy with my own blog postings, as I believe whenever I had something to say on the subject, or whenever I discovered something particularly interesting, I created a blog post. I probably could have done more blog posts, and certainly could have commented more on other people's blogs.

Here is an example of my most recent blog post, which I believe shows that I was thinking about some of the issues involved in genocide.