On the Academic Classifications of Genocides

Abstract

Discussion continues over the subject of genocide, the boundaries of the crime, as genocide scholars debate its key concept, the term genocide. Some of them have contributed their own definitions of the phenomenon, which cannot have legal force. Disputes continue over whether the massacres can be considered genocide or not. It can be summed up that most scholars are in the middle ground between the two farthest approaches (if some argue for the uniqueness of the Holocaust, then the other camp offers a broad, almost universal inclusion of mass murder cases under the definition of genocide). There is almost complete consensus on the four major genocides: the Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust, the Cambodian Genocide, and the Rwandan Genocide. But many more other cases are the subject of academic and often political debate. To clarify this debate, comparative genocide studies and the classification of genocides can be helpful. The classification of Vahakn Dadrian is essential for us. He divided genocidal cases into four groups: Cultural, Latent, Retributive, Utilitarian and Optimal genocide, based on the outcome of the genocide. In parallel with this process, several terms continue to be used that do not correspond with genocide, but help explain related issues: politicide, gendercide, eliticide. However, we should remember that genocide is a legal term; the others are not.