The 'Perfect Storm' That Was The Rwandan Genocide

In 1994, genocide occurred in the small African country of Rwanda killing almost one million people (Taylor, 1999). The genocide of Rwanda has in some cases been dismissed as simply an age-old rift between Hutus and Tutsis (Parkes, 1996). However, there is no denying that the roots of such an evil process extend deeper than this. Indeed, the social psychological variables involved in genocide are multifarious and intriguing. Three key determinants of genocide are social influence, social cognition, and social relations. The socially influential factors are conformity, obedience, propaganda, and deprivation of basic human needs. Human beings typically act in certain ways according to a number of social cognitive processes including heuristics, illusory correlations, and the confirmation bias. The way groups and individuals relate to one another in a social society is another factor leading to genocide. Specifically, the link between prejudice and discrimination is vital. These complex variables interact and influence one another in a variety of ways that can contribute to the phenomenon of genocide.

The way in which humans socially influence each other can be instrumental in shaping the ‘perfect storm’ that is genocide. Humans tend to obey authority (Milgrim, 1963). This can be used by leaders to affect mass behavior, which may be manipulated towards genocide. In the classic obedience experiment conducted by Milgrim (1963), two-thirds of subjects were fully obedient to a perceived authoritarian figure, repeatedly shocking the victim despite the fact that disobedience would bring no material loss to the subject. In relation to the Rwandan genocide, Parkes (1996) indicates that the Rwandan culture is one of obedience and respect for authority. Such a culture of obedience helps, in part, to explain the acts of the Hutus under the extremist Hutu leaders.

Largely influencing people’s obedience to authority is the tendency towards conformity. In another classic social experiment by Asch (1988), the strength of social influence was evident. When reporting the length of lines, subjects would often conform to the majority, even when the answer was obviously wrong. In the case of the Rwandan genocide, Hutus that did not conform to their own Hutu extremist group were subject to verbal and physical abuse and hence may have felt “pressure to engage in hatred and violence, knowing only too well the ramifications of not conforming” (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2005, p.110).

A powerful tool used in genocides is propaganda, which has the ability to influence society and individuals alike. Propaganda was used extensively in the Jewish Holocaust by the Nazis, as well as the Rwandan genocide, in an effort to turn groups against each other and commit violent acts on the 'evil' group (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2005). For example, in the Rwandan genocide there was a radio station broadcasting to the Hutus, telling them to kill the Tutsi’s (Frontline, 2004). In turn, propaganda can aid the formation of groups, turning groups such as the Hutus and Tutsis against one another. When placed in groups, deindividuation occurs, which results in decreased self-awareness and responsibility for actions, and hence an increased likelihood of violence against the other group (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2005).

When conditions are such that individuals and groups suffer the frustration and neglect of basic psychological needs, the likelihood of violence is increased (Staub, 2003). Genocide appears when basic human needs, including feeling secure and effective, having a positive identity, and the need to have deep connections to others and autonomy or independence, are not met (Staub, 1999). Instigators of diminished basic needs include intense social changes, economic problems, and political conflict. These lead to social disorganisation and destructive psychological process in order to satisfy needs, ultimately turning groups of people against each other. The Rwandan genocide, in its simplest form, was two opposing groups turning against each other.

Mullen and Hogg (1999) investigated the role of subjective importance and uncertainty reduction in people’s motivations for group membership, which had important implications for genocide explication. People in this study sought group validation and were motivated towards group membership in order to reduce uncertainty on subjectively important decisions. Staub (1999) claimed that these difficult life conditions, including social uncertainty, are one of many major precursors for genocide. Through the formation of ‘in’ and ‘out’ groups, individuals tend towards the devaluation of others, destructive ideologies, stereotypes, discrimination, and a tendency to blame victims to affirm their own identities. Consequently, violence ensues and the risk of genocide is enhanced.

A number of other social cognitive processes exist that contribute to the plethora of variables that exacerbate genocide. Firstly, heuristics are used by people to make estimates when processing information about people and the world in a clear and simple manner (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). People also tend to seek out information that confirms one's beliefs rather than information that disconfirms their beliefs (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2003). This is known as the confirmation bias, and combined with the use of heuristics, can lead to preconceived judgments and discrimination against groups. Moreover, this can cause people to avoid thinking deeply about information about significant events, which is a contributing factor to the cause of genocide.

Furthermore, the illusory correlation phenomenon, in which formulations are made by connecting unrelated events as evidence to support belief systems, emphasizes the marginalisation of a group (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2003). An example of the illusory correlation was the shooting down of Rwanda’s Prime Ministers’ airplane, in which no group took responsibility. However, in order to reinforce the necessity of the genocide and to further dehumanise the Tutsis, the Hutu leader claimed it was the Tutsis who shot the plane down, although here was no evidence that this was true (Frontline, 2004). Finally, people are likely to use internal or dispositional factors to explain desirable behaviour and external or situational factors when the behaviour is undesirable (Klein & Licata, 2001). These numerous social cognitive factors can be viewed as playing a small part in the larger process of genocide.

Genocide can partly be attributed to social relations, namely the relationship between prejudice and aggression. Prejudice is “a negative attitude or feeling toward an individual based solely on that individual’s membership in a certain group.” (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, p. 403), and was ever present during the Rwandan genocide. Various explanations linking prejudice and aggression have been proposed (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2005). The scapegoat theory posits that negative thoughts and feelings towards an outgroup result from people blaming their problems on the outgroup, which can cause people to become aggressive and violent towards the marginalised group (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2005). In the case of the Rwandan genocide, the Tutsis, largely defenseless, were alienated and blamed, and consequently attacked by the Hutus.

Further research has strengthened the realistic conflict theory, which states that when resources are scarce, prejudice arises and causes conflict and aggression (Duckitt & Mphuthing, 1998). Leading up to the Rwandan genocide, the international price of tin and coffee (Rwanda's major export commodities) dropped sharply whilst rapid population growth occurred, combining to increase poverty, infighting, and competition for resources between the Tutsi’s and Hutu’s (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2005).

Through the interaction of social, psychological, economical, political, and cultural variables, the crisis of genocide ensues. The major social psychological variables that come together when genocide occurs can be grouped under social influences, social cognition's, and social relations. Although the identification and understanding of the variables, including the social psychological ones, which are involved in mass killings and genocide are important, future information about how to effectively intervene and help prevent the crisis should be the focus.

References

Asch, S. E. (1988). Opinions and social pressure. In L. Peplau et al. (Eds.). Readings in social psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 193-199). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology & human nature. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Duckitt, J., & Mphuthing, T. (1998). Group identification and intergroup attitudes: A longitudinal analysis in South Africa. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 80-85.

Frontline (2004). Ghosts of Rwanda DVD. USA: Public Broadcasting Service.

Klein, O., & Licata, L. (2001). Explaining differences between social groups: The impact of group identification on attribution. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 60(4), 244-252.

Milgrim, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.

Mullen, B-A., & Hogg, M. A. (1999). Motivations for group membership: The role of subjective important and uncertainty reduction. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 21(2), 91-102.

Parkes, C. M. (1996). Genocide in Rwanda: Personal reflections. Mortality, 1(1), 95-110.

Staub, E. (1999). The roots of evil: Social conditions, culture, personality, and basic human needs. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 179-192.

Staub, E. (2003). Notes on cultures of violence, cultures of caring and peace, and the fulfillment of basic human needs. Political Psychology, 24(1), 1-21.

Taylor, C. C. (1999). Sacrifice as terror: The Rwandan genocide of 1994. Oxford, UK: Berg.

Woolf, L. M., & Hulsizer, M. R. (2003). Intra- and inter-religious hate and violence: A psychosocial model. Journal of Hate Studies, 2(5), 5-25.

Woolf, L. M., & Hulsizer, M. R. (2005) Psychosocial roots of genocide: Risk, prevention, and intervention. Journal of Genocide Research, 7(1), 108-128.

Concept Map

Click here.

Appendix

Self-Assessment

· Theory

I have presented a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the social psychological varibales that are involved in genocide. Through the incorporation of the major theories involved, I have demonsrated a sound knowledge of the factors included in this area. I chose to provide a wide spread of different theories to highlight the extensive nature of genocide theories. Due to this fact, I may not have provided enough in-depth information in the various theories.

· Research

The main theories in this area have been presented using research from the leaders in the genocide field. However, due to the extensive amount of research in the area of genocide, it is possible I missed some of the relevent research. In the future, I could improve my essay by spending more time researching and also researching a wider range of sources.

· Written Expression

Under the constraints of using a blog to submit an essay and the requirements of the blog, my APA style is close to perfect. I decided to keep the format of an APA essay instead of dividing my blog with subheadings. Also, from the start I chose a very simple layout for my blog page to enable people to easily read my blog. Included in the blog is a concept map as required, and I attempted to make it simple to read whilst also covering all the major areas of genocide. Although again due to the large amount fo research available, I may have missed a couple of concepts. Finally, my reading ease statistic (below) was lower than the level expected. The reading level was as required for the blog. For future blogs, I should try and decrease the lengths of my words, sentences, and paragraphs to make my essay clearer. I could also make an effort to improve on presentation, which could make my essay more readable.

· Readability

Flesch Reading Ease = 20.8

Flesch-Kincaid Reading Level = 12

·Online Engagement (see links below)

I was one the first students to set up my active blog site early in the semester. I have made a number of blog posts, all of which have incited a number of comments. I have also made a number of comments that I have thought relevant to the issues on other classmate’s blogs. I believe I was the first person to post a rough draft of the topics I planned to talk about in my Rwandan genocide blog. I feel my online engagement in this unit has been exemplary, with the content of my blogs and comments being useful, and reflecting my specific interests in the subject. However, the demands of modern life has meant sacrificing time on submitting, reading and commenting on a variety of blogs for other competing commitments. I have enjoyed getting to know the world of blogging, and would give myself a distinction for this component.

· http://graham-mackay.blogspot.com/
· http://graham-mackay.blogspot.com/2007/08/blog-1-draft-rwandan-genocide.html
· http://socialpsychology-jessica.blogspot.com/2007/07/asch-conformity-experiment_31.html
· http://mikesocialpsychology.blogspot.com/2007/08/would-you-help.html
· http://fionasocialpsych.blogspot.com/2007/08/facebook-social-revoloution.html

Other

· A timeline of the Rwandan genocide of 1994.

· Map of Rwanda showing the capital Kigali, where most of the killings occurred.



Web Resources

1. Ghosts of Rwanda DVD Link.

2. The 8 Stages of Genocide.

3. Two books that help further enlighten the situation of the Rwanda genocide:
- Shake Hands with the Devil
- We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families

4. One definition of ‘genocide’, although debate exists as to a united definition.

5. General information about the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

6. Ghosts of Rwanda video excerpt.

7. United Nations article on the 10th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide.

8. Link to the Social Psychology class homepage, including links to blogs containing information about the Rwandan genocide.