Considering Person-First Language in Genocide Studies

Abstract

Numerous researchers, policymakers, and activists have advocated for the use of person-first language when referring to people who engaged in crime or violence. Such advocacy is rooted in firm evidence that person-first language (e.g. a person who committed a felony rather than a felon) is associated with lower rates of recidivism, more robust reintegration into communities, and less fear amongst members of the public. In this article, we extend this important discussion to genocide studies. Specifically, we suggest that genocide scholars — as well as policymakers, reporters, and other professionals — should consider the power tied to labelling people by their actions, as well as the impacts of these labels. To do so, we rely upon interviews with 165 people who were incarcerated for genocide in Rwanda, whom we interviewed both during their incarceration and upon their release. Given that the movement toward person-first language hinges on how people want to be labelled, we emphasize how those who committed genocide speak about themselves. Ultimately, we encourage consideration of person-first language following violence, which would involve departing from terms like perpetrator and genocidaire. We simultaneously acknowledge the discomfort in this discussion and underscore that person-first language does not remove responsibility for heinous actions. Rather, scrutinizing common terminology is part of our ethical duty to reflect upon the impact of our words.