Different types of genocide victimise different groups of the„others“. The process of dehumanising, objectifying and giving the perpetrators a victim hood varies a lot. Something all genocide have in common besides the fact that people are victimised, might be: There are people responsible for the genocide.
This essay tries to analyse the different levels of responsibility and will provide answers by looking at different type of genocide and several stages within different genocide.
But first it seems to be useful to discuss what responsibility is and how to distinguish between different levels and components. Furthermore it will be discussed the boarder between legal and moral responsibility.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 The essays approach to responsibility
1.2 Different levels of responsibility
2. Crimes according to the Geneva Convention
2.1.Legal and moral responsibility
2.2. No legal but moral responsibility
3. The ingridients for Genocide
3.1 The arisen of the Nazi Party/ NSDAP
3.2. Bystanders, companions, accomplices and participants
4. Memorialisation in Literature/ Another aspect of responsibility
4.1 “Der Vorleser”
4.2. A perpetrators’ responsibility
5. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This essay explores the complex question of responsibility in the context of genocide, aiming to differentiate between various levels of accountability among perpetrators, bystanders, and society at large. By analyzing historical cases like the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, and events in Rwanda, the research seeks to understand how the process of dehumanization and the construction of victimhood influence individual and collective moral obligations.
- Distinction between legal and moral responsibility in genocidal contexts.
- The role of government policy and societal participation in facilitating genocide.
- The impact of "routine" and dehumanization on individual participation.
- Memorialization in literature and its influence on national responsibility.
- The responsibility of bystanders and the ethics of "doing-nothing" (Nichtstun).
Excerpt from the Book
3. The ingredients of Genocide
Genocide needs to be prepared. A soil of ancient hatreds fastens the process. From different angles a population is driven more and more into a routine, that finally allows to abolish the victims. One process is the dehumanisation, which starts with the defining the victims as “the others” and therefore separates them. The Language is than used to express their non-humanity (“inyensi (cockroaches)” (Cyprian 1998: 21) in the Genocide of Rwanda, “Jundenpack” in the Holocaust). So that abolishing the frightening object becomes easy. In the meantime a victim hood is created for the perpetrators. The others are “Sündenböcke” (guilty for everything) and therefore a kind of revenge is needed. (see also Vetlesen 2000:254)
Both processes (Dehumanisation and the construction of the victim hood) in combination are able to spread out as a “cancerous” tumour conquers sometimes unseen, unrecognised the whole body and infects every part of it. Compared to a society an unconscious brainwashing takes place while the realisation of what actually happens starts too late.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter defines the scope of the study, introducing the analytical framework of responsibility and the distinction between legal and moral accountability.
2. Crimes according to the Geneva Convention: This section utilizes international legal standards to provide a model for distinguishing between legal guilt and moral responsibility in the face of mass crimes.
3. The ingridients for Genocide: The author examines the foundational elements of genocide, focusing on dehumanization and the rise of totalitarian regimes like the Nazi Party.
4. Memorialisation in Literature/ Another aspect of responsibility: This chapter analyzes how literary works, specifically "Der Vorleser," and national memory processes shape a nation's understanding of its historical responsibility.
5. Conclusion: The concluding chapter summarizes that there is no singular answer to responsibility, emphasizing the importance of remaining vigilant to prevent future atrocities.
Keywords
Genocide, Responsibility, Holocaust, Dehumanization, Moral Accountability, Perpetrators, Bystanders, Victimhood, Geneva Convention, Memorialization, Nazism, Ethics, Collective Action, Rwanda, Armenian Genocide
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper examines the multifaceted nature of responsibility during genocide, investigating how accountability is distributed among different actors, including perpetrators, elites, and bystanders.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
Key themes include the dehumanization of victims, the role of legal versus moral obligations, the influence of state-sponsored ideology, and the importance of remembering and memorializing past genocidal acts.
What is the primary research goal?
The objective is to analyze different levels of responsibility by looking at various stages and types of genocide, moving beyond simplistic legal categories to include broader moral implications.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The research adopts a qualitative, analytical approach by comparing different scholarly perspectives and historical case studies to demonstrate that responsibility cannot be viewed through a single, generalizable lens.
What does the main body of the work address?
It covers legal definitions of war crimes, the sociological preparation for genocide, the culpability of the ordinary population, and the cultural reflection of guilt through literature.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Genocide, moral responsibility, collective action, dehumanization, and historical memory are the defining concepts of the analysis.
How does the paper differentiate between "legal" and "moral" responsibility?
It suggests that while legal responsibility follows formal statutes like the Geneva Convention, moral responsibility is broader and involves an ethical duty that exists even when legal frameworks fail to hold individuals accountable.
How does the author interpret the concept of "Nichtstun" or "doing-nothing"?
The author argues that apathy or inaction by bystanders effectively supports perpetrators, making them responsible to a certain degree because they allow the dehumanization and killing processes to continue.
Why is the novel "Der Vorleser" highlighted in the study?
It serves as a case study to demonstrate how post-war society uses literature to grapple with the concepts of obeying orders and personal guilt, reflecting a national awareness of historical heritage.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Frank Weinert (Autor:in), 2006, Genocide Studies - Analyse the question of resposibility, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/180143
