Since the 1980s, scholars have turned their attention from studying individual genocides to studying comparative perspectives on the origins and processes of this pernicious and intractable human behavior. Comparative studies are necessary because we do not understand this terrible human propensity to wipe out those we believe are different from ourselves. With the liberation of the Nazi camps and the discovery of mounds of bodies and other abominations, the world seemed to shudder and the Jews declared “ Never again.” This may have been a declaration of their own change of psyche after centuries of oppression, but internationally there was broad consensus that this could not be allowed to happen again. Yet it did. And it continues. It is necessary to study comparative genocides because we do not understand this most human propensity to wipe out those we consider “Other.”
When the Nazis murdered the Jews of Europe, it was certainly not the world’s first genocide, but it was a crime sufficiently horrendous on a scale so unimaginable that a word had to be created to describe it. It is tempting to suggest that we study comparative genocides in order to prevent their future occurrence, but evidence suggests that far from stopping after 1945, humans continue to perpetuate genocides despite outrage and international condemnation. Despite our apparent inability to stop genocides-dare we add “so far”?- there is great value in continuing to study these events and for several reasons. First, now we have a word to describe genocide, it is possible we will discover other as yet unnamed phenomena that help us understand why genocide happens (a far more interesting and perplexing question than “how.”) Second, it is important to study comparative genocides in order to discovery commonalities. These might allow us to interrupt or prevent future genocides; certainly, as a species we have to try. And thirdly, studying genocides is not for the faint of heart, but perhaps, just perhaps, in so doing, we might become more thoughtful and purposeful in our social interactions and more aware of the power of words to inflame ugly human passions.
Although genocides had occurred well before the Nazis came along, it was only in 1944 that a word was created to describe the phenomenon. Absent a word to describe a phenomenon, it cannot be identified, isolated, and studied. The significance of this fact cannot be exaggerated. Ask any woman prior to the widespread adoption of the word menopause how well her symptoms were treated by the medical establishment. Regrettably, women were dismissed as hysterical because there was no official recognition of the reality characterized by certain symptoms, even though the reality of menopause is said to have been understood by the Ancient Greeks and rediscovered in nineteenth century France. In studying comparative genocides, we may uncover other as yet unnamed phenomenon that move us closer towards understanding the hatred and indifference that permit genocides to occur.
Scholars have already identified various stages along which societies move on the path towards genocide. None of this would have happened had scholars not examined comparative genocides. After the Holocaust, we understand that each genocide is particular to its time and place, but also that they share commonalities, among them scapegoating, targeted propaganda, and isolation of the target group. Scholars have already identified various stages along which societies move on the path towards genocide. None of this would have been discovered had scholars not examined comparative genocides. In turn, identifying commonalities may allow us to detect the possible early signs of a future genocide and perhaps to interrupt or prevent the descent into bestiality.
Studying genocides is not for the faint of heart. Among the most disturbing realities is that when they happen, the person killing you is likely to be your friend or neighbor. This flies in the face of everything we think we know about our lives, but it has been sufficiently documented to be accepted as fact, leading to the conclusion that what we don’t understand about genocide is greater than what we do. Human beings are the only species that engage in genocides. We kill one another not necessarily to gain their property, although this seems to play a part, but because we hate "the other, ” the group we perceive to be so different from ourselves that they need to be wiped out.
The generational trauma, anger, and loss occasioned by genocides persist from one generation to the next. Many in our world today inherit that trauma and anger and conduct themselves accordingly. Understanding the ways in which past genocides can influence present actions may help mitigate present and future conflicts. Without ever comparing suffering, scholars approaching this work from a variety of disciplines might finally discover the means to interrupt or even prevent future genocides from happening. In the modern age, we have done away with notions of good and evil, leaving us to seek explanations for murderous behavior in fields such as psychology or economics. We have considered Himmler’s reaction when faced with the reality of the extermination sites he spearheaded, but we have not described his failure to heed to his own conscience as anything other than fanaticism or outlandish ambition. This leaves us struggling to understand what some humans are capable of doing to others. Ideally, struggling with these questions makes us more thoughtful and purposeful in our social interactions, more aware of the power of words to inflame ugly human passions. And on a collective level, perhaps the scholarship generated in these studies push individuals into governments and think tanks where they may be in a position to shape policy and perhaps modify the conditions that allow genocides to occur. For these and many other reasons, we should continue doing this work.
Comments