Genocide Scholarship Research Articles

From Holocaust Studies to Atrocity Prevention: Genocide Studies and the Growth of Transdisciplinary Activist Scholarship

Abstract: This article examines the transdisciplinary, activist impulse in genocide scholarship by exploring several debates that have shaped and are shaping the field, along with their implications. Although the field of genocide studies certainly includes a number of scholars who are not concerned directly with the question of prevention, this article focuses on several ontological and epistemological debates regarding how genocide scholarship can contribute to prevention. The first debate concerns the question of what the field is actually studying. The second set of debates centers on how to study genocide and its prevention. These include debates on the methodological frictions that exist between focusing on the global, national, and local, as well as between a reliance on quantitative and qualitative research in the field.

The Ethics of Genocide Scholarship and New Trends in Rhetorical Manipulation in Genocide Studies

This article uses a more than decade of written and oral discussion with Herb Hirsch as the basis for an articulation of key concepts developed by Hirsch and an evaluation of the state of genocide scholarship and critical analysis of certain trends in the field. The dialogic Herbcratic Method disrupts normal, institutionalized, sterile genocide studies production by introducing challenging interventions against generally accepted viewpoints that are problematic and the over academicization of the field and supports a vibrant intellectual approach to addressing genocides of the past and preventing genocide in the future. This includes both a critique of claims of disinterest in scholarship and a rejection of the exclusion of interested activist-scholarship, as well as a defense of a philosophically-grounded yet workable notion of “objectivity” for genocide studies to be achieved through careful efforts. The article elaborates on Hirsch’s exposure of policy recycling regarding genocide prevention and the damaging consequences of apparently innocuous if annoying use of jargon in policy proposals. Building on Hirsch’s critical framework, the article exposes a new post-denial trend in perpetrator rhetorical falsification and manipulation, fabrication of false claims of genocide. False claims of genocide have the devastating effect of forcing victims of actual genocide and related oppression to appear to be genocide deniers when they refute the false claims.

Genocide and the Brain: Neuroscience, Mental Harm, and International Law

ABSTRACT Genocide scholarship rarely gives direct consideration to the Genocide Convention’s description of “causing serious bodily and mental harm” as an act of genocide. This article examines the historical rationales for including this act in the international legal definition of genocide. It shows that mental harm was included because of a concern for the impact of narcotics and other substances on cognitive functioning and brain health. Building off this observation, the article draws genocide research into a conversation with emerging neuroscience on brain injury, cognitive stress, and brain development. When the Genocide Convention was first written nearly eighty years ago, neuroscience did not exist, and politicians could not have anticipated the now well-demonstrated importance of environmental, social, nutritional, and linguistic enrichment for brain development and health. Contemporary neuroscience has revealed the profound vulnerability of the brain and body to multiple techniques of violence and observed that long-term damage to both an individual and their capacity to function in a social group may result from even low-levels of brain injury. As such, this article argues that genocide studies should to be more attuned to emerging neuroscientific literature because it has the potential to drastically change our understanding of the form, intensity, scale, and regularity of events of genocide. Moreover, emerging brain science greatly strengthens claims about the damaging, genocidal effects of cultural violence, intoxication, and residential schools in the context of colonial and indigenous genocide.

The Climate Emergency: A Statement from Genocide Scholars on the Necessity for a Paradigm Shift

Genocide scholarship is underpinned by an implicit revulsion at the suffering, violence and degradation perpetrated by human beings against other human beings. Those of us who work in the field may...

Genocide, the Bible, and Biblical Scholarship

This essay makes the case that the ongoing scholarly conversation around divinely sanctioned violence can be enriched by engaging with the emerging field of comparative genocide studies. The argument proceeds in four parts. Part 1 introduces the term genocide and the scholarly debates that have emerged around it. I posit the existence of two generations of genocide scholarship, with the first focusing on definitional issues and appropriate terminology and the second on the historical-structural conditions that make genocide possible. Regarding the latter, particular attention shall be devoted to the emerging consensus that, far from being an atavistic irruption outside the world of civilized modernity, genocide is made possible by the very structure of modernity itself. Parts 2 and 3 look closely at genocide in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament era, respectively. These parts will examine the extermination campaigns of ancient empires (Assyria, Babylon, Rome) that brought destruction upon the biblical Israelites and will compare these imperial actions with modern settler and colonial genocides. This is one area where biblical scholars could fill in a lacuna in comparative genocide studies, since the topic has received modest attention in that particular field. I pay attention to the ways that the Bible appears complicit in genocide, whether through the command to exterminate the Canaanites or through the Gospels’ tendency to cast blame upon the Jews for the death of Jesus. I also analyze a variety of hermeneutical approaches developed to respond to these thorny issues, paying particular attention to the presumed views of genocide in each hermeneutical position. The final part of the essay explores the issue of genocidal ideology itself, emphasizing that the content of genocidal ideology is much broader than usually assumed by scholarly critiques of anti-Judaism and that genocidal ideology maintains a complex relationship to the actual practice of genocide. This part encourages scholars to reexamine the widely held beliefs on the ways that biblical ideology led to horrific events like the Holocaust and to take seriously the widely held conclusion that ideology alone is an inadequate explanation for genocide. The essay will conclude by suggesting possible future directions that could be taken by scholars who wish to confront the legacy of genocide in the Bible and its interpretation.

Gender, memory and connective genocide scholarship: A conversation with Marianne Hirsch

Interview with Professor Marianne Hirsch (Columbia University): Marianne Hirsch’s groundbreaking work on the transmission of memories of violence across generations has deeply inspired many scholars working at the intersections of feminist theory, memory studies and genocide/Holocaust/war studies, including our- selves. Postmemory, a concept that she first introduced in the 1990s and continues to explore in novel ways, has added a whole new dimension to the debates on genocide, gender, and memory. On 30 September 2014, we were fortunate to come together in Budapest in the context of the COST Network Meeting ‘In Search of Transcultural Memory in Europe’ and have this stimulating conversation.

'Toxification' as a More Precise Early Warning Sign for Genocide Than Dehumanization? An Emerging Research Agenda

In genocide scholarship, dehumanization is often considered to be an alarming early warning sign for mass systematic killing. Yet, within broader research, dehumanization is found to exist in a variety of instances that do not lead to aggression or violence. This disparity suggests that while dehumanization is an important part of the genocidal process, it is too imprecise as a salient early warning sign. Genocide scholars have acknowledged such a conjecture in the past. This article initiates an embryonic research agenda that offers ‘toxification’ as a more precise early warning sign for genocide than dehumanization. It contends that while dehumanization signals that killing members of a particular group may be regarded as permissible, a more indicative early warning is one that flags when extermination is considered a necessity. Following a literature review of dehumanization, the purpose of this article is to introduce the idea of ‘toxificaton’, and to illustrate how the concept can work in practice, using two twentieth century genocides as examples.

Subsistence societies, globalisation, climate change and genocide: discourses of vulnerability and resilience

Anthropogenic climate change poses the possibility of total human extinction. Subsistence societies, however, have been threatened with extinction ­primarily as a consequence of systemic development ­ for a very long time. Recent genocide scholarship, more particularly in relation to indigenous peoples, has engaged with some of these issues, even while terminologies such as ethnocide, cultural genocide, and indigenocide may suggest a restricted field of vision. Here, we argue that the very nature of a neoliberal globalisation and concomitant nation-state building makes all subsistence societies vulnerable to what amounts to structural genocide. But how does climate change exacerbate or complicate this bleak picture? The political economy of ‘business as usual’ in its dialectical relationship with the biosphere (expressed in the rising concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions) poses an acceleration of subsistence society vulnerability with catastrophic potential for extreme violence. But another scenario also presents itself. The very ongoing, seemingly impossible existence of non-marketised societies in direct relationship with nature, poses the possibility of their resilience in the face of climate change rather than those operating according to standard globalised norms. In conclusion, we propose that the crisis of anthropogenic climate change directly challenges not only assumptions about the ‘inevitable’ trajectory of globalisation with its supposed cast of survivors and victims but more precisely the purposefulness of ‘techno-rational’ epistemologies as set against those which might help humanity recover the possibility of a ‘moral economy’.

Against the Grain: Critical Reflections on the State and Future of Genocide Scholarship

This article critiques certain trends in genocide studies, including scholarly misuse of Lemkin’s status and work, retreat from academic activism against genocide, dismissive approaches to victim groups’ political agency, relativist tendencies of the “memory politics” concept and its application, growing institutionalization of the field, the obscuring of genocidal violence against women and girls through the concept of “gendercide,” the focus on dehumanization as a condition of genocide, and the emphasis on early warning. The article also discusses a new genocide denial strategy. In light of this, genocide early warning is largely irrelevant and, far beyond political indifference accounting for the continued prevalence of genocide, the prevalence results because the current global order and many individual societies have been largely formed through genocide and related mass violence and oppression. The article contends that a global reparation process could help rework the current world away from its genocidal foundations and tendencies.

Review Essay: Old Concerns and New Plays in the Theater of Genocide

This review essay describes and evaluates the theatrical strategies and dramatic contributions of seven stage productions that represent recent examples of the Theater of Genocide. Taken together, they deal with Bosnia (Roel Adam), Cambodia (Catherine Filloux), Congo (Lynn Nottage), Darfur (Winter Miller), and Rwanda (Erik Ehn, J.T. Rogers and Dorcey Rugamba). The author focuses on a number of major issues in theater criticism: (a) the nature and effectiveness of empathy, (b) the use of white, Western characters to serve as surrogates for white, Western audiences' emotional investment in the stories, and (c) the artistic use of historical events for theatrical, humane purposes. The essay strongly articulates the need of genocide scholarship to include discussions of the arts as it addresses the universal problem of human violence and the wholesale murder of innocents.

A Step Forward

Introduction I begin this commentary with a general appreciation for the report of the Genocide Prevention Task Force (the Albright-Cohen Report).1 The contents of the report are a decisive step forward in the debate over how to prevent and stop genocide and other forms of mass violence. The report synthesizes in a coherent and accessible fashion a significant body of research, policy analysis, and insights from actors inside and outside government; it provides a menu of concrete and sensible policy options that are likely to frame debate on genocide prevention in the short term. These strengths, and a few more I shall discuss, constitute a major advance on policy and academic discussions regarding the question of genocide prevention. Such is my overall assessment, even if I will push back on a few points. Before moving to the substance of the report, I want to comment on the process of commenting. The Albright-Cohen Report brings to the fore a substantive tension in the field of genocide studies. On the one hand, many scholars in the field maintain and insist on a traditional scholarly approach to genocide-studies research. Their focus is on theory, evidence, methods, and argument. On the other hand, many scholars take a more normative and practical approach, often demonstrated by interest in the policy questions surrounding prevention and intervention. Scholars of the former rightfully approach their research topics from a valueneutral position, and they do not want policy concerns to drive the research design, results, and analysis. Indeed, a not particularly helpful but somewhat common response to scholarship is—I am paraphrasing—‘‘How will your theory help us stop genocide?’’ This response is not helpful for a number of reasons. To thrive as a field—to attract serious scholars, to advance research and understanding, and to earn recognition from and integration with other established scholarly arenas—a valueneutral scholarly approach that prizes theory, evidence, and methods is paramount. At the same time, it does not follow, as some researchers in the field maintain, that scholars should be uninterested in the normative and policy implications of scholarship. While researchers should aim for a value-neutral approach, the topic, in my view, is one that has unavoidable normative and ethical dimensions. Genocide studies is thus not a typical field of scholarly inquiry. The community of scholars in the field of genocide studies will benefit if there is room for the theoretical and normative approaches to cohabit a common intellectual space. To be sure, many scholars already bridge a theoretical/scholarly approach with normative/policy concerns, and, indeed, Genocide Studies and Prevention embodies that synthesis, as its title indicates. But there is also a need, in my view, to articulate the importance of a scholarly community that respects these two positions and aims for mutual engagement. In the end, the health of the field will improve if both positions thrive. The best scholarship will likely contribute the best ideas and information, which in turn will shape policy options for the better, even if the policy implications are not immediately clear. Genocide scholarship should not put policy first, but that does not mean that the former will not inform the latter. At the same time, it is a chimera to

The politics of genocide scholarship: the case of Bangladesh

ABSTRACT The massive communal violence that occurred in East Pakistan in 1971 received worldwide attention at the time, but has been largely ignored since. Some scholars and other writers have denied that what took place in Bangladesh was a genocide. Journalists’ reports, expatriate testimony, refugee reports and an investigation by the International Commission of Jurists in 1972 all indicate, however, that the Pakistani army did commit genocide in Bangladesh in 1971. The political and ideological circumstances that led to the secession of East Pakistan were conducive to religious and ethnic genocide. Beachler examines the treatment by memoirists and scholars of the 1971 crisis in East Pakistan and seeks to explain the reasons why the genocide in Bangladesh has been largely ignored since the early 1970s. No ideological or partisan faction in the United States has stood to gain much from the study of the Bangladesh genocide. And the governments of Bangladesh and Pakistan have not been interested in promoting study of the mass murder and rapes that took place in 1971.

Holocaust Controversies in the 1990s: The Revenge of History or the History of Revenge?

During the 1990s it was often remarked that controversies about the persecution and mass murderof the Jews between 1933 and 1945 had acquired an unprecedented volume and vehemence. Indeed, the esca...

Fundamentals of Genocide Scholarship.

Fundamentals of Genocide Scholarship.

The Politics of Uniqueness: Reflections on the Recent Polemical Turn in Holocaust and Genocide Scholarship

This article examines the debate over the uniqueness of the Holocaust as it has recently unfolded in the United States. It concentrates on two antagonistic camps: scholars such as Steven Katz, Deborah Lipstadt, and Daniel Goldhagen, who argue the Holocaust's uniqueness; and those like David Stannard, Ward Churchill, and Norman Finkelstein, who have recently attacked this notion. The latter have challenged the former in more sharply polemical terms than earlier critics, alleging that their position, among other things, reflects a Jewish ethnocentrism and implicitly denies the occurrence of other genocides (and is thus comparable to the work of Holocaust deniers). In order to elucidate this polemical shift, this article scrutinizes the origins and evolution of scholarly interest in the uniqueness concept. It concludes by evaluating the utility of the concept altogether.

Is the Holocaust unique?: perspectives on comparative genocide

* Foreword, by Isreal W. Charny * Preface * Acknowledgments * Introduction to the First Edition, Alan S. Rosenbaum * Introduction to the Second Edition, Alan S. Rosenbaum * 1. The Ethics of Uniqueness, John K. Roth * 2. Religion and the Uniqueness of the Holocaust, Richard L. Rubenstein * 3. From the Holocaust: Some Legal and Moral Implications, Richard J. Goldstone * 4. The Uniqueness of the Holocaust: The Historical Dimension, Steven T. Katz * 5. Responses to the Porrajmos: The Romani Holocaust, Ian Hancock * 6. The Atlantic Slave Trade and the Holocaust: A Comparative Analysis, Seymour Drescher * 7. The Armenian Genocide as Precursor and Prototype of Twentieth-Century Genocide, Robert R. Melson * 8. The Comparative Aspects of the Armenian and Jewish Cases of Genocide: A Sociohistorical Perspective, Vahakn N. Dadrian * 9. Stalinist Terror and the Question of Genocide: The Great Famine * 10. The Holocaust and the Japanese Atrocities, ???Tokudome * 11. Applying the Lessons of the Holocaust, Shimon Samuels * 12. The Rise and Fall of Metaphor: German Historians and the Uniqueness of the Holocaust, Wulf Kansteiner * 13. Uniqueness as Denial: The Politics of Genocide Scholarship, David E. Stannard * About the Contributors * Index