Genocide

It is both intriguing and disheartening that in what is supposed to be an age of enlightenment, some societies and their citizens are willing to wage war upon their fellow man (and woman). This doesn't solely include conventional warfare, but also terrorism, and genocide. Genocide is defined by the deliberate and systematic act of terminating an ethic, religious, or national population. Unfortunately this immoral conduct was not uncommon in the last century. In WWII, NAZI soldiers killed 6, 000, 000 Jewish people throughout Europe in the Holocaust (http://www.ddaymuseum.org) Cambodia, under the Pol Pot regime suffered on estimate 2,200,000 to 2,500,000 fatalities (http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/deaths.htm). Rwanda lost 800, 000 Tutsi lives at the hands of Hutu extremists (http://www.whitehouse.gov). And more recently in Darfour, it is believed that already 400,000 Africans are dead and millions have lost their homes (http://www.genocideintervention.net). So what factors leads people to commit such murderous acts and mass violence?


In the context of genocide, it is important to note that there are social psychological factors acting on person as an individual in relation to other individuals, and as a member of a group (race, national, religious). These factors include group cultural history, situational factors, social psychological factors and context, and interpersonal factors: Stigmatisation, dehumanisation, moral disengagement, exclusion; impunity and bystander effects also play a role in the process of genocide (Woolf, L., & Hulsizer, M, 2005)


There is no doubt that aggression plays a role in genocide, through its manifestation of mass violence. A cultures attitude towards aggression dictates it use within society (Takehiro, et al 1999), and with regards to problem-solving (Bond, 2004), culture and aggression can contribute towards its use in genocide (Woolf, L., & Hulsizer, M, 2005). Additionally, the controlling variables for aggression when committing aggressive behaviour at an individual level is accountability (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Aggressive behaviour becomes in a war situation will not punished by society since it has become acceptable to do so, when used against the enemy. The unfullfilment of basic human needs (economic) can also foster feelings of hostility and aggression (Staub E, 2003). This was seen in the situation of Germany after WWI through to WWII when the country was in a state of economic depression.


Genocide occurs through the use of group effective power, and is best understood in group terms. Group behaviour includes the phenomenon of in-groups and out-groups. From a first person vantage, an in-group is the group that one is in, and an out-group is a group that one is not in (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). In-groups commonly provide a sense of affiliation, belongingness, security, and empowerment. On the other hand, an out-group is commonly seen as un-trust worthy, distinctively different from ones own group, inferior, and possibly to be feared. This group bias can often lead to prejudice of other groups, and is often seen in times of stress, when groups vent aggression upon smaller minority groups within their society (Allport, 1979, cited in Woolf, L., & Hulsizer, M, 2005).



When an individual becomes part of an in-group, it is known that as well as losing a sense of self, an individual acquires in-group biases (Brown, 2000). This is the belief that ones group is better than another’s - usually for the purpose of maintaining and raising self-esteem. Individuals also adopt the group’s cognitive habits; this can include group-think, which is the tendency for group members to think alike - believed to facilitate group cohesion. However, as well as facilitating group cohesion, group think can also inhibit ones self expression, in the advent of going against the groups plans and views, therefore being excluded. Groups also have a tendency to become polarised on issues. This entails the extreme position of ideas, facilitated by common characteristics and beliefs of members. The comfort of being in a group also facilitates ‘risky shift’. Risky shift is the behaviour of a group to take more risk than would an individual in the same situation.


A group needs its leader. Although leadership is not well understood, the role of a leader is to make group decisions and improve the performance of the group (Jacobs, Masson, Harvill, 2002). Ways that political leaders and their government gain compliance of their people to commit genocide are by manipulation and coercion. To begin with, many societies value and encourage conformity and obedience (Woolf, L., & Hulsizer, M, 2005). Through this predisposition the use of propaganda exposes vulnerabilities between in-groups and out-groups through stigmatisation – negatively assigned attributions of a group. This creates a dehumanising perception within the in-group, leading to easier acts of aggressive displacements by creating moral disengagement between the two groups.


The final characteristic that facilitates genocide are bystanders. Bystanders are a people who are involved in the event by proximity; however, have no immediate desire to help victims due to the presence of others (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Bystanders as a group have the potential power to aid in stopping genocide; however, by doing nothing they assist the genocide; as was demonstrated with the genocide of Rwanda by the United Nations.


In conclusion what prompts an individual to commit genocide begins with each individual, his or her culture, and the approach towards the expression of aggression within that culture. The individual is then influenced by situational factors at a group level, which includes economical, social psychological, and political variables. At a group level an individual loses old psychological behaviours and cognitions and gains new psychological behaviours and cognitions. At the group level, a group experiences a unison of thinking, extreme shifts in its stance on ideas, and a tendency to take risks. At this point an in-group is vulnerable to extreme perceptions of out-groups under stressful situations, which may be heavily influenced or exaggerated by their leader. By the use of propaganda in such stressful times a leader might influence all-ready present in-group out group biases to his or her favour which can result in genocide.





References


Baum, S.K. (2004). A bell curve of hate? Journal of Genocide research. 6, 4.

Baumeister, R.F., & Bushman, B.J. (2008). Social psychology & human nature. Thompson Wadsworth. NY.

Bond. M. H. (2004). Culture and aggression, from context to coercion. Personality and Social Psychology review. 8, 1.

Brown, R. (2000). Group Processes: Dynamics within and between groups (2nd ed.). NY. Blackwell Publishing.

Bush, G.W. (2005). The White House News & Policies. Retrieved September 1, 2007, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050407-2.html

Genocide Intervention Network, Washington DC, United States of America. (2007). Retrieved September 1, 2007, from http://www.genocideintervention.net.

Jacobs, E.E., Masson, R.L., Harvill. R.L. (2002). Group counselling: Strategies and skills. UK. Brooks/Cole. Thomson Learning.

Sharp, B. (2007). Counting hell. Retrieved September 1, 2007, from http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/deaths.htm.

Staub, E. (2003). Notes on cultures of violence, cultures of caring and peace, and the fulfilment of basic human needs. Political Psychology, 24, 1.

Takehiro F., Takaya, K., Manuel A. J., Martin, R.J. (1999). Justification of interpersonal aggression in Japanese, American, and Spanish students. Aggressive Behaviour, 25, 3.

The National World War 2 Museum. New Orleans, United States of America. Retrieved September 1, 2007, from http://www.ddaymuseum.org/education/education_numbers.html.

Woolf, L., & Hulsizer, M. (2005). Psychosocial roots or genocide: risk, prevention, and intervention. Journal of Genocide research, 7,1.


Click on to view Appendices.