Antisocial Capital

Abstract

Although popularly perceived as a positive force important for objectives such as economic development and democracy, social capital may also be linked to less desirable outcomes. This article highlights a dark side to social capital by pointing to its role in a particularly pernicious phenomenon: genocidal violence. Drawing on a survey of residents from one community that experienced violence during Rwanda's 1994 genocide, I show that individual participation in the violence was partly determined by the features of residents' social networks. Perpetrators possessed larger networks in general and more connections to other perpetrators in particular. The quality as well as quantity of connections also mattered. Strong ties generally, and kinship and neighborly ties specifically, were strong predictors of participation. In contrast, possession of countervailing ties to nonparticipants did not reduce a resident's likelihood of participation. Drawing on in-depth interviews to explore the possible mechanisms behind these findings, I suggest participants' networks fulfilled functions of information diffusion, social influence, and behavioral regulation. More broadly, the findings suggest the importance of social structure and social interaction for participation in collective violence. Relational data should complement individual attribute data in predicting participation. The findings also suggest, contrary to the neo-Malthusian interpretation, that the role played by Rwanda's extraordinarily high population density in the violence may have been more sociological than ecological in origin. The diffusion, influence, and regulatory effects of social connections are likely to be amplified in communities where individuals live in close spatial proximity to each other.

The “Dark Side” of Community Ties: Collective Action and Lynching in Mexico

“…Fears about the negative effects of community ties are justified, as Putnam (2002 :11) recognized when he warned that communities with excessive bonding social capital may pursue “sinister ends.” Several authors writing on lynching have warned about the dangers of tightly-knit communities without systematically examining their suspicion ( Godoy 2006 ; Goldstein et al 2007 ). Previous studies have shown aggregate-level connections between bonding social capital and collective violence, including terrorism, gangs, and genocide ( Alcorta et al 2020 ; Krakowski 2021 ; McDoom 2014 ), but the present study provides robust evidence. Lynching often involves perpetrators who reside in the same location, making it an ideal form of violence to examine the “dark side” of community ties.…”

“…However, critical voices have warned about the “dark side,” or negative social effects, of social ties ( Cooney 1998 ; Levi 1996 ; Ostrom 2000 ; Portes and Landolt 1996 ; Putzel 1997 ). Prior research shows that social capital can contribute to diverse forms of anti-social behavior and violence ( Alcorta et al 2020 ; Cooney 1998 ; Krakowski 2021 ; McDoom 2014 ; Nussio and Oppenheim 2014 ; Satyanath, Voigtländer, and Voth 2017 ; Scacco 2012 ). The study of lynching provides particularly strong evidence of this effect.…”

Motivational change in the perpetration of genocidal violence

“…One of the main motivations for individuals to participate in genocide is the situational pressures that they experience as part of being in a social group (among many others see Browning, 2001; Fujii, 2009; McDoom, 2014; Straus, 2006). This is important for understanding motivational change too, as the social groups in which individuals are embedded are also key to shaping how one individual perceives the situation he or she is in, as well as giving interpretive cues in terms of how to understand any changes to this situation in directions where s/he does not know how s/he should act.…”

“…Within this study of the micro-dynamics of genocidal violence, there has been an important focus on the motivations of the people participating in violence, particularly in genocide, with many thought-provoking studies studying these men and women as cogs within a larger machine and endeavoring to understand their motivations for participating. There have been excellent studies conducted on the Holocaust (Browning, 2001; Dumitru and Johnson, 2011; Grabowski, 2013; Gross, 2003; Kühl, 2014; Lifton, 2000; Mann, 2000; Welzer, 2006), the 1994 genocide in Rwanda (Fletcher, 2007; Fujii, 2009; Hogg, 2010; Jessee, 2017; McDoom, 2013, 2014; Smeulers, 2015; Smeulers and Hoex, 2010; Straus, 2006; Verwimp, 2005), as well as on the Armenian genocide (Mann, 2005), Bosnia in the early 1990s (Clark, 2009; Lieberman, 2006; Mueller, 2000; Petersen, 2002), the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia in the late 1970s (Hinton, 2005; Williams and Neilsen, 2019; Williams and Pfeiffer, 2017), as well as on the microdynamics of intercommunal violence (Bergholz, 2013). These are complemented by more systematic and comparative approaches (Alvarez, 2001; Anderson, 2017; Waller, 2002; Williams, in press).…”

ICT Enabled Peace Network: Case Study of Conflict Early Warning System in Kenya

“…I use the concept of social capital in contexts of conflicts cautiously, on whether it contributes or not to peace (Avdeenko & Gilligan, 2015;De Luca & Verpoorten, 2015;Cassar et al, 2013;Blattman & Miguel, 2010;Ostrom & Ahn, 2009;Lederman et al, 2002;Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999;Brehm & Rahn, 1997) or whether it enhances conflicts (McDoom, 2014;Sambanis & Shayo, 2013;Grootaert et al, 2003;Szreter & Woolcock, 2004;Colletta, 2000;Narayan, 1999;Lemarchand, 1996). Dillahunt (2014) found that ICTs provide networking infrastructure that encourages the formation of social capital.…”