The role of motivation
My conception of the origins of genocides and mass killings (see Table 1) is based on a theory of motivation and action, personal goal theory, that I have developed in other publications.4 According to this theory, both individual human beings and cultures possess a hierarchy of motives. Individuals and cultures do not always act on their most important motives. Circumstances can activate motives lower in the hierarchy. For example, the need for self-defense and the need for connection to other people can be important or relatively unimportant motives. The lower a motive is in an individual’s or culture’s hierarchy, the more extreme the life conditions needed to make it active and dominant.
Table 1. The origins and motivational sources of mistreatment
* The difficult life conditions, cultural and personal characteristics (preconditions), and organization of society shown in column one join to create the motives listed in column two. Especially the last two components also influence the methods employed (shown in column three) to fulfill these motives.
* Other results can be giving up or succumbing to feelings of hopelessness and depression.
Whether a motive is expressed in behavior depends on the skills and competencies of individuals, or on the social institutions. Even the intention to commit genocide cannot fully evolve without a machinery of destruction. Personal goal theory describes how individuals and cultures select goals to actively pursue and suggests ways to determine when it is likely that they will act to fulfill them.
This is a probabilistic conception. The combination of difficult life conditions and certain cultural preconditions makes it probable that motives will arise that turn a group against another. This combintion makes it probable that initial acts of harm-doing will be followed by further steps along the continuum of destruction. The behavior of bystanders can faciliate or inhibit this progression. Genocide arises from a pattern, or gestalt, rather than from any single source.
The outcome of this evolution and the immediate cause of the genocide is that perpetrators come to believe either that the victims have something they want or (more likely) stand in the way of something they want. In Germany the victims threatened an imagined racial purity and superiority and stood in the way of the nation’s (and humanity’s) improvement. In Turkey the victims seemed to threaten a pure national identity and a return to past greatness. In Cambodia the victims were seen as class enemies or judged incapable of helping to create a particular type of communist society. In Argentina the victims were seen as threatening national security, a way of life, and religious ideals, as well as the perpetrators’ own safety.
Leadership and followership
The genocide of the Jews could hardly have occurred without Hitler, but that does not mean the accident of his presence was responsible. There will always be individuals with extreme views, radical ideologies, and the willingness to use violence who offer themselves as leaders. Cultural preconditions, combined with difficult life conditions, make it probable that they will be heard and accepted as leaders. Hitler’s ideology and mode of leadership fitted important characteristics of German culture, tradition, and society.
Leaders also vary in personal characteristics, charisma, organizational ability, and the like. But even here culture has a role. Non-Germans always had trouble comprehending Hitler’s personal appeal.5 Leadership is crucial to move people and give them direction, but it is a transactional process, a relationship between group and leader. Because of shared culture, what a leader offers often naturally fulfills cultural requirements. Leaders also intentionally adjust their style and vision to the group. Hitler’s authoritarian leadership was effective in Germany (in the United States, for example, appeal to individualism seems required of a leader).
If difficult life conditions persist and the existing leadership and societal institutions do not help people cope at least with the psychological effects, the people are likely to turn to radical leadership. In general, our capacity to predict what kinds of leaders emerge and where they lead is limited. However, conditions conducive to genocide and mass killing are likely to give rise to the kind of leadership that plans and promotes these acts. If Hitler had not existed, Germans would probably still have directed violence against some subgroup or nation; the environmental and cultural preconditions were both present. But even in Germany, leaders might conceivably have emerged who provided more peaceful and cooperative solutions. Conversely, if Hitler had lived in a country with fewer of the cultural preconditions for genocide, he would have been much less likely to gain power. And if the society were not facing severe life problems, his capacity to influence would have been further reduced.
The individual and the system
Genocide is usually organized and executed by those in power, by a government or ruling elite. Governments will commit genocide if the way of thinking and motivations out of which genocide evolves are already consistent with the culture or if they become so under the influence of the government. What is the relationship between the characteristics of individuals and those of the system to which they belong? What is the relative contribution of each to cruelty (or kindness)?
Human beings have genetic propensities for both altruism and aggression. Which of these propensities evolves more depends on individual socialization and experience. A
