Representing Mass Violence

Abstract

Press, one of the most distinguished university presses in the United States, enriches lives around the world by advancing scholarship in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. Its activities are supported by the UC Press Foundation and by philanthropic contributions from individuals and institutions. For more information, visit www.ucpress.edu.

Roads diverged: An examination of violent and nonviolent pathways in the aftermath of the Bosnian war*

“…It is surprising, then, that although existing theory and research findings link exposure to violent contexts with violent behavior, the implications of coming of age in contexts of war and genocide have been given limited criminological attention. 1 See, e.g., the work of Hagan, Rymond-Richmond, and colleagues (Hagan & Rymond-Richmond, 2008;Hagan, Rymond-Richmond, & Parker, 2005), which has provided much of the foundation for building a theory of genocide within a criminological framework (see also Brehm, Uggen, & Gasanabo, 2016;Rafter, 2016;Savelsberg, 2015), as well as the work of others, which has resulted in broadening significantly the study of war's implications for crime and victimization, focusing on themes such as war profiteering (Ruggiero, 2008), sexual violence (Mullins, 2009), and the parallels between combat veterans and prisoners returning home (McGarry & Walklate, 2011;Walklate & McGarry, 2015).…”

Criminology and war: where are we going and where have we been?

“…First, and perhaps most obviously, war involves myriad criminal acts of interest and concern to criminologists: homicide, sexual violence, and the misappropriation and destruction of property, to name just a few. The act of genocide, in particular, marks the most egregious crime against humanity, but until very recently (see, e.g., Hagan & Rymond‐Richmond, ; Hagan, Rymond‐Richmond, & Parker, ; Rafter, ; Rymond‐Richmond & Hagan, ; Savelsberg, ) has been virtually ignored by the discipline . Second, in the decades since Nixon first declared a “War on Drugs” in the 1970s, the metaphor of war has figured prominently in criminological discourse, embedding itself in populist politics and the “criminological lexicon” (McGarry & Walklate, , 8) with phrases such as the “War on Crime” and the “War on Terror” (see also, Simon, ), which connote a sense of urgency and a need for an immediate call to action.…”

“…After decades of relative inertia following World War II (WWII), recent years have witnessed a renewed interest among criminologists in the subject of war, crimes against humanity, and state‐sponsored violence. The subject of genocide in particular has been the focus of much theoretical and empirical work, due in large part to the groundbreaking work of John Hagan, Wenona Rymond‐Richmond and colleagues (Hagan et al, ; Hagan & Rymond‐Richmond, ; Rymond‐Richmond & Hagan, ), which has provided much of the scaffolding for building a theory of genocide within a criminological framework (see, also, Rafter, ; Savelsberg, ). While this body of scholarship marks a critical crossing of disciplinary boundaries and a movement towards the systematic study of war, arguably, the subject continues to occupy a marginal position in the discipline…”