Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Transforming the moral landscape: the diffusion of a genocidal norm in Rwanda

2004; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 6; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/1462352042000194737

1469-9494

Lee Ann Fujii,

Political Conflict and Governance

The Rwandan genocide presents a surfeit of troubling questions, not the least of which concerns the participatory nature of the crime.What do we know about this aspect of the genocide?First, we know that motives for participation varied (Des Forges, 1999;Lemarchand, 2002; Prunier, 1995).Although greed, coercion and obedience were in abundant supply, they cannot account fully for either the magnitude or style of participation (i.e.why some participated and others did not and why some inflicted atrocities during the course of killing).Second, we know that the genocide, like all mass undertakings with clear goals, depended on discipline and organization for its successful implementation.When either element was missing, the violence usually strayed from its original purpose, thereby undermining the very ends to which it had been put.As Des Forges (1999, p 425) chronicles, for example, despite his commitment to the genocidal project, the burgomaster of Nyakizu, Ladislas Ntaganzwa, was not above murdering three Interahamwe for their Suzuki jeep.Third, it is known that contrary to popular accounts at the time, Rwandans were neither culturally nor historically programmed to committing genocide (which is not to say that history, or rather myths of history, were unimportant in the implementation of the genocidal project-to the contrary).As many scholars have established, the labels Hutu, Tutsi and Twa did not start out as ethnic categories and certainly not as polarized ethnic identities that were conducive for genocide, but at one time constituted fluid and context-dependent labels that variously denoted a person's status, wealth, or place of origin (Gravel, 1968;C. Newbury, 1988;D. Newbury, 1997;Rennie, 1972).In other words, the logic of genocide-the need to exterminate an entire group of people because of some innate and immediate threat the group poses-had to be taught; it could not be assumed.But in proselytizing the genocidal message, the ge ´nocidaires also had to teach people that genocidal killing was "normal" in the sense of being an acceptable and legitimate course of action to take in certain contexts.Put simply, genocidal leaders had to transform the normative environment such