The Thesis of Norm Transformation in the Theory of Mass Atrocity

Abstract

Abstract.Theoretical accounts of genocide and mass atrocity commonly embrace the thesis of norm transformation. This thesis holds, first, that individual and institutional participation in such crimes is at least partially explained by transformations in basic norms that structure social and political life. It holds, second, that preventing future occurrences of such crimes requires changing norms that currently govern the actions of particular individual and institutional actors. This paper clarifies, defends, and extends the thesis of norm transformation. It clarifies this thesis by providing a general account of the nature and dynamics of norms. It defends this thesis against charges of circularity and against the claim that norms are not, in fact, fundamental guides to action. Finally, it extends this thesis by arguing that changes in norms before, during, and after mass atrocities count among the considerations that ought to be included in assessments of legal and moral accountability for such crimes. Keywords

Agent-Based Simulation of Socially-Inspired Model of Resistance against Unpopular Norms

“…Social norms are concepts and practices prevalent in a society [7]. Formally, "Norms are practical prescriptions, permissions, or prohibitions, accepted by members of particular groups, organizations, or societies, and capable of guiding the actions of those individuals" [21].…”

“…However, there is a contradiction in the viewpoint of the notion of existence. One view of norms existence (acceptance) is internalized that incorporates it into individuals' identity [21,1]. The other view uses the intentions of individuals' as the criterion for norm acceptance instead of the identity of individuals [21].…”

“…One view of norms existence (acceptance) is internalized that incorporates it into individuals' identity [21,1]. The other view uses the intentions of individuals' as the criterion for norm acceptance instead of the identity of individuals [21]. Therefore, conforming/accepting a norm corresponds to the first view while following a norm relates to the second view [3].…”

“…Therefore, conforming/accepting a norm corresponds to the first view while following a norm relates to the second view [3]. This distinction allows thinking of a norm even without accepting it [21]. Norms describe a collective behavior of groups, organizations, or societies but they are the collective outcome of individuals' cognition.…”

“…Similarly, they differentiated between avoiding and acting opposite to norms. These actions are norm guided and in the absence of a norm, an action would not be performed or it would be performed but not in a similar fashion [21].…”