After the Genocide: Psychological Perspectives on Victim, Bystander, and Perpetrator Groups

Abstract

Interest in the aftermath of genocide and mass violence has increased in the last few years, and some researchers in various subdisciplines of psychology have begun to address this urgent social issue. Genocide and mass violence continue to influence intergroup relations, conflicts, and policy attitudes. Nevertheless, these topics are still understudied. We introduce this issue by providing a brief overview of the scarce psychological research on the aftermath of genocide among members of former victim, perpetrator, and bystander groups. Although this distinction is too simplistic to explain individual behavior during genocide and its aftermath, we hold on to it as a framework for organizing existing scholarship, and because of the ongoing relevance of these social representations in discourse on this topic. The introduction concludes with an overview of the issue and its organization, including a brief summary of each article.

Fostering Contact After Historical Atrocities: The Potential of Moral Exemplars

“…The rarity of intergroup encounters in postgenocide context is certainly alarming. Paradoxically, attempts to introduce intergroup contact in such contexts are particularly needed as it may help improve complicated and tense intergroup relations (Allport, ; Pettigrew & Tropp, ; Vollhardt & Bilewicz, ). Indeed, contact between groups with a history of violence has proven to be beneficial, as it facilitates perspective taking, increases intergroup trust, and improves mutual attitudes (Hewstone, Cairns, Voci, Hamberger, & Niens, ).…”

Becoming a Trustworthy Profession: Doing Better Than Doing Good

“…Being a bystander is not an innocent position. Indeed, the presence of bystanders can facilitate perpetration of abuse by at the very least legitimising the behaviour if not passively supporting it (Vetlesen, 2000;Vollardt & Bilewicz, 2013). …”

The Institutionalization of Genocidal Leadership: Pol Pot and a Cambodian Dystopia

“…Considering the persistence of genocide throughout the ages (Goldhagen, ; Volhardt & Bilewicz, ), there is no reason to be excessively optimistic about potential remedies but such realistic observation should not be a source of discouragement. As Karl Popper argued, “Not only do I hate violence, but I firmly believe that the fight against it is not at all hopeless” (Popper, , p. 3).…”

“…The lack of a charismatic representative should not be taken as an indicator that the process will fail due to the lack of the metaphorical leadership “spark” (Klein & House, ). The power to enforce the vision is distributed throughout the system and those who are led are often active or passive supporters of an evil vision (Kellerman, ; Volhardt & Bilewicz, ). As the case suggests, collective radicalism can be exacerbated by radical ideas rather than by radical leaders: radical ideas can propagate even without charismatic leaders in a context in which evil is more circular and institutionally distributed than it is concentrated in a malign leader (Cunha, Rego, & Clegg, ).…”

“…The persistence of institutionalized genocidal processes and evil leaders justifies research on a topic that is prevalent and tragic from a human perspective (Goldhagen, ). Genocide (“a crime with the intention to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group”; Volhardt & Bilewicz, , p. 1) is a highly organized process, knowledge of which is necessary to understand why people organize themselves around evil, inhuman visions, and follow malign leaders (Owens, Su, & Snow, ). Processes involving categorizations that divide people into the worthy and the unworthy on the basis of some marker, usually premised on some permutation of ethnic, linguistic, or religious identity, are at the core of genocidal programs.…”