TOPIC: Blog 1: Genocide

ABSTRACT: "Genocide can be seen as occurring when a 'perfect storm' of social psychological variables come together. What might these social psychological variables be and how do they influence one another?"

Genocide in Rwanda - An Explanation of Social Psycholocial Vaiables That Came Together to Influence the Planning and Implementation of Genocide in 1994

INTRODUCTION

In April 1994, the world observed one of the most violent acts of genocide of the twentieth century (Smith, 1998). During the course of 100 days an estimated 800,000 (Barker, 2004) Hutu liberals and Tutsis were massacred in Rwanda. The genocide was planned and co-ordinated by the Hutu government (Gigliotti, 2007; Levine, 2000; Smith, 1998) and was implemented by up to 150,000 Rwandan military personnel, gendarmes and civilians (Smith, 1998).

In order for genocide to have taken place in Rwanda, several variables have come together to influence both the Hutu government’s decision that genocide was necessary (Smith, 1998), and participation by Rwandan citizens in the genocide (Sperling, 2006). According to Smith, the variables that came together to influence the genocide were modern and complex, and included pre colonial, colonial and postcolonial structural factors such as authoritarianism, anti-authoritarianism and ethnocentrism.

KEY VARIABLES THAT INFLUENCED GENOCIDE IN RWANDA

Authoritarianism occurred politically (Smith, 1998; Wessels, 1999) and culturally in Rwandan society (Smith, 1998), and evidence suggests that authoritarianism was a key variable in making genocide possible in Rwanda (Smith, 1998). Politically, authoritarian practices were normative during pre-colonial, colonial and post colonial period as successive governments used hierarchical political and social practices put in place by Belgian colonialists (Smith, 1998; Gigliotti, 2007; Wessels, 1999). Culturally, Rwandan families were authoritarian in nature, existing under patriarchal and centralised frameworks that encouraged tension, factionalism and conflict between family members (Smith, 1998).

Evidence suggests that a positive correlation exists between authoritarianism and violent tendencies (Benjamin, 2006). For example, a study has been undertaken by Oklahoma Panhandle State University to measure the correlation between authoritarianism and attitudes towards war (Benjamin, 2006). For this research 150 students (84 females and 64 males) were tested using the revised Attitudes Towards Violence Scale to measure attitudes towards war, penal code violence, and corporal punishment. Results of this study suggest that there is a “strong positive link between authoritarianism and attitudes toward war” (Benjamin, 2006, p. 925).

Another key variable influencing the genocide in Rwanda was prejudice which is a response based on stereotypical and derogatory beliefs about those who are different (Johnson, Terry & Louis, 2005). Prejudice was displayed by successive governments in Rwanda from the time of colonial rule (Smith, 1998). For example, when Belgium handed over political power to Rwanda in 1962 (Smith, 1998), they placed the Tutsis in government as they believed Tutsis looked more Caucasian than Hutus and were therefore racially superior (Sperling, 2006). Tutsis displayed prejudice towards Hutus while in government (Smith, 1998), and when Hutus came to power in 1973 they displayed prejudice towards the Tutsis in retaliation for treatment received in the past (Smith, 1998).

Two possible explanations for the prejudice displayed in Rwanda are the theory of political splitting and racial attitudes related to political change. Political splitting occurs when surrogate rulers have been put in place (du Preez, 1997) as occurred when Belgium placed Tutsis in government (Sperling, 2006), and when one section of a population is held responsible for disasters that occur to others (du Preez, 1997). One consequence of political splitting is that surrogates such as the Tutsis “become the targets of a hatred that combines opposition to the regime and any historical enmity that may already exist (du Preez, 1997, p. 246). Also, research on the relationship between racial attitudes and political change indicates that political change significantly influences levels of prejudice expressed towards others (Johnson, Terry & Louis, 2005). For example, research has been undertaken in Australia to measure predictors of prejudice by white Australians against Asian Australians based on racial attitudes and stereotypes (Johnson et al., 2005). For this research 265 participants answered questions relating to authoritarianism, instability, permeability, status, and subtle and blatant prejudice. Results of this research indicate that prejudice increases when political and economic environments change.

In Rwanda there were significant political and economic changes between 1988 and 1994 (Smith, 1998), as the Hutu government became increasingly greedy for wealth (Smith, 1998). Policies were put in place forcing landowners to grow coffee for export (Smith, 1998) and, based on in-group bias (Cohen, Montoya & Insko, 2006), profits from these crops went directly to the government (Smith, 1998). As a consequence of such government actions there was increased impoverishment, people were forced from the land, there was wide-spread famine, and there was a significant rise in anti-authoritarian attitudes towards the government (Smith, 1998).

According to Smith (1998), antiauthoritarian sentiment was the “single most acute source of the state’s murderous anxiety” prior to the genocide in 1994. This murderous anxiety was based on ethnocentric ideals (Smith, 1998), and resulted in the intricate planning of the genocide (Sperling, 2006), importing shipments of weapons (Sperling, 2006), training thousands of militia (2006), using propaganda to promote hatred for the Tutsis (Ogletree, 2003; Smith; Sperling), murdering the president (Barker, 2004; Smith, 1998; Sperling, 2006), and encouraging and participating in the genocide (Smith, 1998; Sperling, 2006).

PARTICIPATION IN THE GENOCIDE

Up to 150,000 Rwandans (Smith, 1998) including women and girls (Sperling, 2006), participated in the genocide. For genocide to occur on such a scale several social psychological variables have come together to influence individual desire to kill, and actual participation in the killing (Smith, 1998). Such variables may include in-group and out-group bias (Cohen, Montoya & Insko, 2006), retaliatory motivation (Topalli & O’Neil, 2003), external locus of control (Alegre & Murray, 1974), obedience (Geher, Bauman, Hubbard & Legare, 2002), behaviour imitation (Bandura, Ross & Ross, 1961), contagion (Levy, 1993), crowd behaviour (Patten & Arbolaeda-Florez, 2004), and weapons effect (Turner, Simons, Berkowitz & Frodi, 1977). One significant variable that may have influenced participation in the genocide was propaganda, which was used by the government to promote Tutsi hatred (Ogletree, 2003; Sperlin, 2006). For example, for several years government radio stated that Hutus had been victimised by Tutsis in the past, that Tutsis were subhuman (Sperling, 2006), and that genocide would cure all ethnic problems in Rwanda (Ogletree, 2003).

RELUCTANCE OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO INTERVENE

According to Ogletree (2003), while several variables influenced participation in the genocide, one variable stands out as significant in enabling the genocide to actually take place. That variable is the failure of the international community to intervene. For example, the international community was informed of what was happening prior to and during the genocide (Barker, 2004), but both the United Nations and United States stated that they would not intervene. Consequently, the Hutu government were able to plan and implement the genocide knowing there would be no opposition from the international community (Barker, 2004).

One possible explanation for the lack of intervention by the international community is correspondence bias which occurs when individuals “underestimate the impact of social forces on behaviour” (Forsyth, 2004, p. 42), fail to realise that individuals can experience significant pressure to obey (Forsyth), and perceive that the actions of individuals are “freely chosen” (Forsyth, 2004, p. 42). Research has been undertaken in the United States to assess correspondence bias (Forsyth, 2004). For this research 221 students (144 females and 69 males) provided their own responses and their view of other’s responses to an essay they had read. Results of this research indicate that people justify their own actions based on their own perceptions of a situation (Forsyth, 2004). In the case of Rwanda, it is possible that correspondence bias occurred because it has been argued that the international community was told what was going on, but they didn't understand (Barker, 2004).

Another possible explanation for the lack of intervention by the international community is prejudice combined with social influence (Vescio, Gervais, Heidenreich & Snyder, 2006). Research has been undertaken in the United States to measure the relationship between prejudice and social influence amongst white Americans. For this research 61 participants (28 males and 33 females) participated in a supervisory task based on their assessments of stereotypical weaknesses. Results of this research indicate in part, that “[p]owerful people will exhibit stereotype-based judgements and behaviour when cultural stereotypes of the groups to which low power people belong match and inform their goal-seeking strategies” (Vescio et al., 2006, p. 448). In the case of Rwanda, prejudice combined with social influence were demonstrated by the actions of the international community including the United Nations which refused to intervene, in part, because it was planning interventions based on United States interests (Barker, 2004), and the United States and Britain who “deliberately tried to stop countries [from] sending troops…” (Barker, 2004) to Rwanda. According to Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Barker, 2004) such prejudice existed in the international community because the international community discriminated against Rwanda, believing that Rwanda was a “second-class” operation, and also believing that African people did not deserve the assistance that had been given to others.

CONCLUSION

Had the international community intervened in Rwanda it is possible that many lives could have been saved. While this may be the case, it still remains that there were several social psychological variables that influenced the genocide in Rwanda (see Appendix A). Some variables such as authoritarianism and prejudice existed from the time of Belgian colonial rule, while others such as government anxiety and propaganda were created as a consequence of variables such as authoritarianism and ethnocentrism. Some variables such as prejudice and stereotyping existed, not only in Rwanda, but also within the international community. As a result of the social psychological variables that came together in Rwanda in 1994, the world was witness to one of the most violent acts of genocide of the 20th century, a genocide that was planned, implemented and participated in by Hutu government officials and citizens in the knowledge that the international community would not intervene.

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Owner/Desktop/concept%20map.mht

References

Alegre, C. & Murray, E. J. (1974). Locus of Control, Behavioural Intention and Verbal Conditioning [Electronic version]. Journal of Personality, 42(4), 668-681.

Bandura, A., Ross, D. & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of Aggression Through Imitation of