“You Can't Give a Syringe with Unity”: Rwandan Responses to the Government's Single Recategorization Policies

Abstract

Rwanda's postgenocide government has implemented policies that resemble social psychological models of single recategorization, banning references to ethnic groups and replacing these with a superordinate, Rwandan identity. While social psychological research suggests problems with this approach, little is known about how people make sense of recategorization in the aftermath of ethnic conflict and genocide. The present interview study investigates the responses of 56 Rwandans to these single recategorization policies. Despite strong societal pressures, a variety of positions were apparent-showing how people actively construe categories, and the complexity of single recategorization in real-world settings. The findings suggest several novel insights and policy implications, including the need for context-specific approaches, utilitarian reasons for single recategorization, the role of malleability of identities in promoting social recategorization, and the potential use of recategorization models as transitional measures in postconflict societies.The year 2014 marked the 20-year commemoration of the Rwandan genocide, in which nearly a million people were killed-mainly the Tutsi minority targeted

Victim and Perpetrator Groups’ Divergent Perspectives on Collective Violence: Implications for Intergroup Relations

“…Dressler‐Hawke () found that a higher proportion of participants in a German student sample placed responsibility for the Holocaust on the Nazis (e.g., leaders and Nazi party) than on the general population. The attribution of the genocide to “bad leaders” is also common in Rwanda among both members of the victim and perpetrator group, and part of the official narrative that is used to legitimize the restrictive post‐genocide identity policies that are in place (Moss & Vollhardt, ).…”

“…Similarly, qualitative research in the aftermath of the Rwandan Genocide showed that the goal of developing the country was one way in which some participants justified the policy in Rwanda that ban the use of the ethnic labels (Hutu and Tutsi) that were implicated in the Rwandan Genocide. Other participants experienced this policy as a lack of acknowledgment of their history of victimization (Moss & Vollhardt, ). When rebuilding is seen as a more immediate group goal than commemoration of victimization, the narrative may shift accordingly.…”

Rwanda: In the Aftermath of Genocide Against Tutsis. Survivor and Non-Victim Position to the Subordinate Identity and "Rwandeity" Problem

“…This participant takes a neutral stance but insists that once the ethnic groups are maintained, care must be taken that they are not used to discriminate against some. This caveat reminds us that ethnic groups have been manipulated by the leaders of two former political regimes and corresponds to the version of icially conveyed by the current Rwandan government (Moss & Vollhardt, 2015).…”

“…Participant No. 9 raised arguments corresponding to those in the of icial version of the policy, that the distinction between Hutus and Tutsis is only arti icial (Moss & Vollhardt, 2015).…”

Beyond “Simple” Recategorization: A Commentary on Moss and Vollhardt

“…

This commentary on Moss and Vollhardt's (2016) article examines how their findings complement a study by Kanazayire, Licata, Mélotte, Dusingizemungu, and Azzi (2014), which also sought to assess the effectiveness of the Rwandan government's ethnic identity policy for improving reconciliation sentiments in postgenocide Rwanda.Moss and Vollhardt's article (2016)--"You can't give a syringe with unity": Rwandan responses to the government's single recategorization policies"-provides a precious insight on the way Rwandan people construe, and take positions toward, their government identity policy.This qualitative study based on face-to-face interviews conducted in Rwanda ventures beyond the usual setting in contrast of the two ethnic (or pseudoethnic) identities involved in the 1994 genocide. In that respect, it brings a welcome complement to existing studies.

…”