Theorizing Destruction: Reflections on the State of Comparative Genocide Theory

Abstract

This article reviews the current state of comparative genocide theorizing, focusing on theories that attempt to account for the causes of genocide and the processes of genocidal killing. The literature is divided into three broad categories, based on the relative weight given to (a) individual or group agency, (b) structural factors, or (c) processes of identity construction in accounting for the origins and unfolding of genocidal destruction. The discussion of agencyoriented approaches focuses on theories that suggest that genocide is driven, in terms of decision making and perpetration, by elite decision makers, front-line perpetrators, and societal behavior. The literature on structural approaches is broken down into theories that stress the importance of culture, institutional organizations, societal cleavages, structural crises, regime type, modernity, and ideology. The final section reviews the literature on processes of collective identity construction. The article suggests throughout and in conclusion that although comparative genocide theorizing has come a long way in proposing a number of different explanations for the onset of genocide and the nature of genocidal processes, more work needs to be done with respect to the precise operationalization and testing of theories according to more rigorous comparative methodological practices.

The Complexity of Evil

“…The lit er a ture identifies po liti cal upheaval and direct threats to governments as one of the key determinants of genocide occurrence (Chalk and Jonassohn 1990;Goldsmith et al 2013;Harff 2003;Hiebert 2008;Krain 1997;Melson 1992;Nyseth Brehm 2017;Rost 2013;Rummel 1994;Ulfelder and Valentino 2008;Weitz 2003), with emphasis put on vari ous diff er ent forms of domestic unrest, such as assassinations (Uzonyi 2014), revolutions (Krain 1997;Melson 1992), and coups (Uzonyi 2014). In her landmark study, Harff defines po liti cal upheaval as "an abrupt change in the po liti cal community caused by the formation of a state or regime through violent conflict, redrawing of state bound aries, or defeat in international war" (2003,62).…”

“…Several of these categories overlap strongly with the categories I have identified, such as intergroup relations and societal tensions, regime type and the state, hardship/upheaval and uncertainty/war, and ideology. A less nuanced differentiation is made by Hiebert (2008) among (1) individual or group agency, (2) structural factors, and (3) pro cesses of identity construction, whereby most of the contextual conditions discussed here are subsumed in her category of structural factors. For further overviews, see also Owens, Su, andSnow (2013) andStewart (2011).…”

Religion, Mass Violence, and Illiberal Regimes: Recent Research on the Rohingya in Myanmar

“…Genocide. Over the years, this legalistic approach has also broadened to encompass sociological and political dimensions of such phenomena and opened the way for comparative genocide theorising, which systematically identified agents, structures, and processes that lead to them (Hiebert, 2008;Kim, 2016). The flourishing of the field, however, sits uneasily with the international community's frequent paralysis in the face of new outbreaks of mass violence and the inability of the United Nations to enforce its responsibility to protect (Janssen, 2008).…”