Article 6a: Radicalization as cause and consequence of violence in genocides and mass killings (McDoom, 2020) Flashcards
Background
Radicalisation would be better theorised not only as the antecedent of violence, but also as the consequence of it. Killing transforms individuals: not only do attitudes drive behaviour, but behaviour also shapes attitudes.
Design of the sutdy
This paper reviews perpetrator testimonies from different genocides and mass killings.
The ordinary killer theory
Every killer is just an ordinary, normal man, but psychological and sociological mechanisms (group pressure, diffusion of responsibility) made him commit the act of killing someone.
This theory also implies that the perpetrator doesn’t need to have any negative attitudes about the victims beforehand, which is in conflict with many other theories.
(This article states that these 2 views can exist together).
Radicalisation
The process leading to intensely negative beliefs or attitudes towards the victim group.
2 different theories on why people commit violence
- Situation theories (ex post): people commit violence due to external (sociological) circumstances.
Ex post = the radicalisation is observed after the violent act. - Disposition theories (ex ante): people commit violence due to their own negative attitudes about the out-group.
Ex ante = the radicalisation is observed before the violent act.
McDoom states that these 2 individual dispositions are not fixed, but that they can exist together.
Escalating commitments
An individual begins willingly with a small act –> this leads to the next bigger act –> an individuals willingness to participate increases because of their previous actions (it’s the action that leads the attitude).
How dissonance reduction shapes bahviour
Justifying and rationalising what one does leads to more of it an to do it more easily.
Rwandan genocide
During the Rwandan genocide, many Tutsi were killed by Hutu. Development of this:
- North Rwanda: Hutu developed negative attitudes about the Tutsi even before the start of the war.
–> Radicalisation as an antecedent of violence.
- South Rwanda: Hutu and Tutsi lived together in peace and had no negative attitudes about each other. First they did use violence on them because they were coerced, and then they started to develop negative attitudes about them.
–> Radicalisation as a consequence of violence.
The Cambodia genocide
Involved many civilians who participated in Pol Pot’s regime, due to genocidal priming: breakdown of moral restraints and discriminatory political changes made genocide more likely. Besides this, dehumanisation and ideological intake also increased this.
After the violence, desensitisation to violence occurred and psycho-social dissonance was used.
Genocide in WWII
Peer pressure, conformity and deference to authority made the ‘ordinary man’ a killer. Besides this, violent acts made it easier to commit even more violence, and caused more radicalised views about the Jews.
Doubling also played a role: men who were capable of terrifying cruelty were able to display human kindness in another situation.
But are these mechanisms and the ability to kill universal to all humans?
There is evidence of heterogeneity in this: individuals differ in their vulnerability to violence and not everybody radicalises. Some just become habituated to it and others really embrace it. Besides this, the scale of violence committed (once or routinely) and the degree of participation als matters.
Research difficulties
Interviews with predators are almost always conducted ex post (after the violence). This may in part explain why individuals seem ‘ordinary’ when interviewed outside of the contexts in which they commit violence.
Conclusion
Some people are drawn to violence through psycho-social processes, but once engaged in violence, they develop negative attitudes and beliefs about their victims.
This also explains non-instrumental violence, because perpetrators attain to the idea that the out-group is bad, which causes no moral constraints to hurting them.
