c I am not suggesting military intervention as a means of influence, but policies that respond to the disregard by a nation of essential values. For an extended discussion see the section on Minimalism in the Relations of Nations in Chapter 16.
15 Summary and conclusions: the societal and psychological origins of genocide and other atrocities
In this chapter I will discuss the extent to which the conception of genocide presented in Part I is confirmed or disconfirmed by the four instances described. What modifications and extensions of it are required? Can genocide be predicted? I will also discuss the psychology of perpetrators and bystanders in analyzing other atrocities, such as torture.
A comparison of the four instances
The model is substantially confirmed in all four instances, although elements vary. Table 2 provides a summary.
Difficult life conditions
In all four instances, life problems were great, although they differed in magnitude and kind. Inflation and deteriorating economic conditions existed in Germany before Hitler came to power, in Argentina, and in Cambodia, and Turkey suffered from persistent poverty. Violence was a common precursor. One common scenario was as follows: economic problems intensified by inequalities in their impact (in Argentina, in Cambodia, and to some degree in Germany), often occurring together with social and political changes, led to intense political conflict and violence (Argentina, Germany) or civil war (Cambodia). In Argentina there was much internal political violence; in the other three instances the genocides took place either during a war (Turkey, Germany) or right after a civil war (Cambodia). In the case of the Holocaust, difficult life conditions contributed by bringing a destructive movement to power. The violence of World War II then intensified the motivation for genocide and reduced inhibitions.
“Difficult life conditions” is an abstraction. Its realities include homelessness, loss of individuality in a mass of needy humanity or standing in line for a job, fear for one’s life and one’s family, the oppressive anxiety of an uncontrollable and unpredictable future, and the disconnection among people who have lost their bearing in the world. Persistent difficulties of life give rise to the complex of motives described in Part I (see Chapter 2, Table 1). In future analyses classification systems and assessment techniques may be developed to specify in more detail which life problems are the most important precursors of mass killing and genocide.
Table 2. Cultural preconditions and progressions in four genocides or mass killings
Cultural preconditions
The cultural preconditions summarized in Table 2 were present to a substantial degree in all instances. Some of them were most evident in the subsystem responsible for the genocide – the Nazis and SS in Germany, the military in Argentina, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. However, there were similar inclinations in the larger society as well. In Germany and Argentina at least, the groups that became the perpetrators were accepted and even admired by the majority of the populations.
The SS was a highly authoritarian, dominance-oriented system, and Germany a strongly authoritarian society. The military in Argentina was also highly authoritarian, as was the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Turkey was also a hierarchial, authoritarian society, although the subsystem responsible for genocide was less clearly delineated.
Cultural self-concept is the most complex of the cultural preconditions. It involves high self-esteem, a sense of entitlement, and underlying insecurity. The setbacks of Argentina and Germany and their belief in unfulfilled greatness,a the Cambodian memory of past glory contrasted with present misery and humiliation, and Turkey’s steady loss of power and influence – all produced societies especially devastated by life problems because of their self-concept. A more detailed specification of the relevant components of the self-concepts and a more formal assessment of the degree to which these characterize various groups are tasks for the future.
Devaluation of the groups that became the victims was always evident. In Germany and Turkey its primary source was deep-seated cultural devaluation, subsequently enlarged by ideology. In Cambodia and Argentina the main source was ideology, built on societal divisions. Again, a system of classification and assessment of the components of devaluation would be useful.
Ideology was important in all four instances. There were both nationalistic ideologies, glorifying the nation, its purity, and greatness, and better-world ideologies, providing a vision of the world and of a type of society meant to improve life for all who follow. Usually, the guiding ideology combined these two. In Turkey the stress was on nationalism, in Cambodia’on a better world. In Germany and Argentina the two were wholly intertwined.
In monolithic societies the group is more susceptible to a narrow ideology and a highly specific blueprint for society. In a pluralistic society people are exposed to varied values and beliefs and various ways of resolving conflicts; this makes it unlikely that a single cultural blueprint will be accepted and held with certainty. However, this issue is complex. Life problems and social disorganization may produce an apparent pluralism. The Weimar Republic that preceded Nazi rule was seemingly pluralistic in many ways. However, this “pluralism” bordered on chaos and the collapse of tradition. The underlying, powerful authoritarian cultural tendencies and the desire for order were only temporarily overshadowed by it. It intensified the needs evoked by life problems. Once the Nazis came to power they reestablished a highly monolithic culture and political system.
Ideology was important in all four instances. There were both nationalistic ideologies, glorifying the nation, its purity, and greatness, and betterciety, and a multiplicity of possibilities and identities. Tolerance is greater, and counterreactions to steps along the continuum of destruction are more likely. Pluralism in the larger society offers bystanders an independent perspective. It allows them to exert influence with less danger of ostracism and without having to fear for their lives. Inevitably, there will be potentially destructive elements in any pluralistic society. Even so, pluralism, with its ferment, is more beneficial than a monolithic culture or totalitarian society that limits prespective, prescribes a mode of existence, and insists on its brand of goodness and purity. The only “absolute” in a society should be respect for human rights,
