Contradictory Behavior During Genocides1

Abstract

In all large-scale genocides, rescuing occurs alongside killing. Some members of the aggressors' ethnic group even risk their own lives to save members of the targeted group. Killing and rescuing occur closely together, and even the same persons may engage in both behaviors-killing on one occasion and rescuing on another. This article examines such cases-where the same individuals kill and rescue-and discusses their relevance to the explanation of genocide. Both collectivistic and individualistic theories of killing and rescuing-which explain these behaviors with the properties of groups or persons-are inadequate in accounting for those who do both. Using Donald Black's (1995, 2000) strategy of pure sociology and my theory of genocide (Campbell, 2009), I offer an explanation of contradictory behavior by individuals during genocide. The behaviors themselves occur in different structures-killing where there is social distance and rescuing where there is social closeness. Individuals who exhibit contradictory behavior thus kill those who are distant and save those who are close. One feature of this analysis is its demonstration of the explanatory power of pure sociology, which is uniquely capable of explaining extreme variations in individual behavior.

Suicide as Social Control1

“…However, it has been applied most often to various forms of social control, including avoidance (Baumgartner, 1988:Ch. 3; Black, 1998:79–82), therapy (Horwitz, 1982, Tucker, 1999), lynching (Senechal de la Roche, 1996, 1997), and genocide (Campbell, 2009, 2010). The theory presented in the following pages contributes to this body of work by explaining the use of suicide to handle conflict.…”

“…But not all anomalies are simply the result of inadequate measurement: some arise because of limitations of the theory. Many can be solved by minor revisions to the theory, but some are resolved only with the advent of a new theory using a new strategy of explanation (see, e.g., Campbell, 2010).…”

Microaggression and Moral Cultures

“…Since it includes any response to deviant behavior, even behaviors that are themselves deviant might also be social control and can be explained as such. A number of scholars have therefore begun to examine deviant behaviors such as crime (Black 1998: Chapter 2), genocide (Campbell 2009;, suicide (Manning 2012;; forthcoming a) forthcoming b), interpersonal violence (Cooney 1998;Jacques and Wright 2011;Phillips 2003), lynching (Senechal de la Roche 1996;2001), terrorism (Black 2004;Hawdon and Ryan 2009), and employee theft (Tucker 1989) as social control. The pub licizing of microaggressions is similarly a form of social control -a reaction to the deviant behavior of others -as well as a form of deviant behavior -a behavior that many others condemn.…”

Genocide as a matter of degree1

“…But the key is to treat genocide and other phenomena as variable. This has been the focus of my previous work, which offers a theory explaining several variable aspects of genocide – not only its occurrence, but also variation within genocides, such as specifically who participates, who is killed, and who is spared or rescued (Campbell 2009; 2010). Participation in genocide is variable, for example, and much more so than suggested by traditional classifications of people as perpetrators, bystanders, or rescuers.…”

“… Abstract This article employs Max Weber's ideal‐type method to classify genocides based on their degree of mass killing, unilateralism, and ethnic liability. The identification of the elements of genocide draws from a general theory of genocide (Campbell 2009, 2010) and from theories of social control employing Donald Black's (1995, 1998) theoretical approach, known as pure sociology . Because these theories identify the social features associated with each element of genocide, they can explain the form genocides take. …”