As I have repeatedly stressed, even when the destruction of a group serves privilege, the perpetrators’ motivation is usually broader than self-interest. The privileged come to see their privilege as in the natural order of things, and the social arrangements that maintain it as just. Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines probably believed a statement that he made during the election campaign that led to his downfall: “God is with us. God knows that to protect the Filipino people (we) must win.”1
Movements and ideologies often arise in response to injustice and cruelty. Victims of injustice and cruelty and their sympathizers need a vision of a better society or a better world to create and maintain the motivation to act. In the face of repression or tyranny, violence is sometimes the only means for change. The violence of the Argentine guerrillas and the Khmer Rouge began in attempts to improve genuinely unjust social conditions. But the danger inherent in a violent movement is great. When such a movement develops a sharply delineated abstract blueprint, with a total commitment to an ideology and sharp differentiation between the worthy “us” and the evil “them,” its destructive potential will be great. Any means become acceptable in the name of “saving” one’s nation or humanity or creating justice. The lives of real people become unimportant.
Leaders and followers
All along I stressed the importance of followers. The four cases I have discussed also show the crucial importance of leaders. They shape the progression of events and make the decision to kill whole groups of people. Leaders have choice. In no instance did the steps along the continuum of destruction make the final step of genocide or mass killing inevitable. However, usually at some point few avenues except mass killing remain available to fulfill motives of great importance to leaders, their followers, and the population as a whole.
The relationship between leaders and followers in genocide or mass killing is not primarily a case of obedience to authority in the classic sense elucidated by the experiments of Stanley Milgram. Followers are not simply “agents” and their psychology “agentic.” Usually, followers join the leaders, and the direct perpetrators often unite with them in a highly authoritarian subsystem of society. Many of the followers freely join the group – many members of the Nazi Party and SS and officers in the Argentine military did. The Turkish leaders demanded cooperation by military, police, and administrative officers, but there is little indication that they had to overcome much reluctance. In Cambodia some members of the Khmer Rouge were inducted by force. Probably little continuing force was required to maintain their participation in genocide.
In a tightly operating system such as the Khmer Rouge or the SS, members are shaped by the system and adopt its goals. Pressure to conform is inherent in the system. Identification with the group gives it great power over members. Coercion is normally not required. Often the beliefs, values, and aims of the whole group evolve together. Given their shared culture, shared difficulties of life, and similar evolution along a continuum of destruction, the motivation for destruction develops in both leaders and followers (and even in bystanders).
The psychology and motives of perpetrators
A complex of motives discussed in Parts I and II is the starting point for genocide (see Chapter 2, Table 1); motives evolve further with steps along the continuum of destruction.
Motives of control and comprehension are important all along. Scapegoating, subordinating the self to authorities, joining a movement and adopting an ideology, assuming power over others through dominance and violence can all provide people with feelings of comprehension, control, and power. Some of these also satisfy the need for connection and support. Fear of the victims who are the designated enemy is important. It may have a realistic component, but the victims’ power or evil intentions are usually exaggerated. Although the fear is in part culturally and ideologically induced, it is also a defensive process whereby anxieties about life problems are projected onto a convenient target. Fear of an identifiable object is more bearable than unspecified anxieties. Anger, hostility, and hate that arise from frustration, threat, and attack of many kinds are focused on a culturally or ideologically selected scapegoat. Over time, the boundaries of this group enlarge and frequently more people are assigned to the victim group. Both leaders and followers invest themselves in an ideology or movement that comes to define their core identity. This helps to integrate and organize the followers’ motives, greatly contributing to their sense of wholeness and well-being.
The psychological processes of groups
Psychological processes in groups may have different meanings from those of individuals. If an individual blames members of a minority group for his problems and his beliefs are not shared, he will be seen as paranoid rather than visionary. Individual solutions to frustration, threat, or incomprehension may include individual violence, psychotherapy, or a new religious faith. Only shared problems, motives, and “solutions” will lead a group to turn against another. Eric Hoffer has suggested that “a rising mass movement attracts and holds a following not by its doctrines and promises, but by the refuge it offers from the anxieties, barrenness and meaninglessness of individual existence.”2 I agree that joining mass movements fulfills important personal needs, but in part it does so by providing doctrines and promises that offer hope, a vision, and a sense of significance.
Membership in a group changes people. The change is greater in groups that exert more control over members and require more total commitment, more extreme actions, or greater sacrifice.3 Individual goals are supplanted by or integrated with group goals. The desire to achieve, loyalty, self-sacrifice, and the inclination for violence are invested into serving the group and its ideology. The enjoyment of violence and the breaking of social rules become acceptable in the service of the group. Not all personal goals can be integrated with group purpose. Some must be relinquished. After an initial commitment, sacrifice or suffering for
