[Bilimsel Haber] book review: two books on genocide

[Sule Tarakcioglu]

I. William D. Rubinstein. Genocide. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education 
Limited,
2004. vii + 322 pp. Notes, references, index. $27.95 (cloth), ISBN
0-5825-0601-8.
Reviewed by: William D. Casebeer, National Security Affairs, Naval 
Postgraduate
School.
Published by: H-Genocide (September, 2005)


A Provocative History of Targeted Mass Killings

With his book Genocide, William Rubinstein has provided a fascinating
exploration of genocide throughout human history. His discussion of the
chronology of genocide from the pre-modern era to the present is especially
useful, and he also considers events not normally brought to mind, such 
as the
Taiping Rebellion in China. Although Rubinstein tends to discuss 
tendentious,
emotion-laden material carefully, his book is also peppered with the 
occasional
tangential argument that reads more like a polemic than a history of 
targeted
mass killings.

Rubinstein's thesis is that genocide has different causes and varies in
intensity depending on genocidal epoch. He divides the history of 
genocide into
four eras: the pre-modern (pre-1492), the Colonial Age (1492-1914), the 
Age of
Totalitarianism (1914-1979), and the era of ethnic cleansing and Third World
dictators (1945-2000). Some of the more controversial claims Rubinstein 
makes
are that pre-literate peoples were probably more genocidal than modern ones,
that numbers of genocide victims are often exaggerated, and that Western 
slavery
and colonialism are not really examples of genocide. Rubinstein supports 
these
arguments in various ways, whether it is by pointing to the political 
nature of
the definition of terms like "genocide" or to the manipulation of statistics
regarding genocide by parties to the event who are political 
stakeholders in the
outcome. No common analytic method unites these findings, although the 
tenor of
the book gives the impression that the author wants to debunk what he 
considers
over-inflated past casualty estimates. Genocide concludes with a chapter
detailing a history of attempts to outlaw and combat genocide. While 
Rubinstein
agrees the horrors of genocide are real, he does not believe that we 
live in an
age of genocide. Accordingly, Rubinstein concludes that, relatively 
speaking,
humanity's track record in the late twentieth century has been fairly good.

Despite this optimistic conclusion, the final paragraph of his book 
asserts that
"Islam is arguably the only socio-cultural system in the world to have
successfully avoided being crucially influenced and moulded by the European
West, with its traditions of toleration and pluralism. The threat posed by
militant Islam must be met and defeated ... especially [by] the 
English-speaking
democracies, who carry the torch of Western civilization" (pp. 312-313). The
argument that Islam has not been influenced by Western ideas is 
overstated--for
example, Islamic philosophers such as Avicenna are responsible for 
preserving
the works of classical Greek philosophers such as Aristotle, enabling 
them to
survive as part of the Western canon. Islam's confrontation with 
modernity has
been a formative influence in its evolution; to argue that it has had no
meaningful molding interaction with the European West is to ignore a rich
tradition of interactions, especially those of the Islamic modernists and
liberalizers. In addition, Rubinstein mentions that the Baath party is a
purveyor of a fundamentalist Islamic worldview. Rubinstein's perspective is
decidedly unorthodox considering that Baathist ideology, conditioned by
historical and social circumstance, is often secular. Ultimately, 
Rubinstein is
unable to offer an explanation for why we should expect militant Islamic
shock-troops to be the next purveyors of genocide. Indeed, given the 
fact that
the attention of the lone superpower in the world is currently sharply 
focused
on militant Islam, one could argue that a specifically "Islamic" 
perpetration of
genocide is unlikely, although Sudan's Arab Janjaweed militia and its
involvement in genocidal events in Darfur may present a contemporary 
exception.

On a more technical note, I have two observations about the book's 
format that
tend to detract from Rubinstein's arguments. First of all, the citations 
do not
include the publisher, only the city and year. Second, source citations 
which
refer to Web material are incomplete since no URL is listed. Finally, 
there is
no comprehensive bibliography; instead, "Notes and References" are 
provided at
the end of each chapter, thus decreasing the likelihood of finding relevant
citations quickly. The book appears to be intended as a textbook and an
introduction to genocide for the casual reader; these considerations 
hamper its
usefulness for the former role, albeit only slightly.

In general, I expect Rubinstein's book will generate healthy debate. While I
have some reservations about his treatment of Islam, his book is an 
interesting
and stimulating tour through the history of an all-too-important 
subject. One
can only hope that books like this will help us learn the hard lessons 
of the
past so we can collectively and radically diminish the prospects of genocide
occurring in the future.


Citation: William D. Casebeer. "Review of William D. Rubinstein, Genocide,"
H-Genocide, H-Net Reviews, September, 2005. URL:
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=294821137097070.




II. Adam Jones, ed. Gendercide and Genocide. Nashville: Vanderbilt 
University
Press, 2004. 336 pp. Index. $69.95 (cloth), ISBN 0-8265-1444-8; $29.95 
(paper),
ISBN 0-8265-1445-6.
Reviewed by: Maureen S. Hiebert, Department of Political Science, 
University of
Toronto.
Published by: H-Genocide (September, 2005)


In the first chapter of his edited volume Gendercide and Genocide, Adam 
Jones
asserts that "gendercide," in a global-historical perspective, "is a 
frequently
and often defining feature of human conflict" and a "ubiquitous feature of
contemporary politico-military conflicts worldwide" (p. 2). More 
importantly for
Jones is the contention that genocide is not restricted to the 
victimization of
women, but includes the targeting of battle-aged men. This gender-specific
targeting of men has, in Jones's view, "attracted virtually no attention 
at the
level of scholarship and public policy" (p. 2).

Thus, with this opening salvo, Jones launches a concerted and important 
effort
to place gender in general, and the victimization of men in particular, 
front
and center in the growing literature on comparative genocide studies. As
scholars in the field are aware, the literature to which Jones and his 
fellow
contributors speak is already filled with competing definitions of 
genocide and
has spawned the definition of other "cides" such as "politicide" and 
"democide."
Thus, Jones and some of his fellow contributors argue that another "cide,"
"gendercide," is necessary.

The volume is anchored by an introductory essay by Jones in which he 
outlines
his own definition of gendercide and the need to gender genocide studies 
in a
way that the targeting of noncombatant "battle-aged men" is acknowledged 
as a
central feature of many genocides. Drawing on Mary Ann Warren's original
definition of genocide, Jones defines gendercides as "gender-selective mass
killing" (p. 2) where gender and sex are taken to be relatively 
synonymous by
virtue of their interchangeable use in everyday discourse. For Jones, the
targeting of battle-aged men is pervasive because the removal of adult 
males, be
they elites, non-combatants, or soldiers, is often the first step in the 
wider
victimization of groups defined by ethnic, racial, religious, national, or
political criteria. Jones explores this phenomenon more fully in his later
chapter, "Gender and Genocide in Rwanda." He argues that the genocide 
was, in
part, a result of the enormous stress placed on maintaining traditional
masculine gender roles stemming from years of economic crisis and resource
scarcity. Further, he claims that the genocide itself evolved from "a
tradition-bound gendercide" targeting predominantly adult and adolescent 
males
to a "progressive and culturally transgressive targeting of Tutsi women" 
(pp.
98-99), or what Jones calls the "root and branch" phase of genocide. 
Throughout
Jones's analysis, it is the gender identity of the victims that is of 
primary
importance rather than their ethnic, racial, national, or socioeconomic
identity.

All of the other contributors explore gendercide from either a theoretical,
empirical, or conceptual perspective. Oystein Gullvag Holter, in his 
chapter, "A
Theory of Genocide," is the one contributor who offers the most explicitly
stated theory of gendercide. In what he calls a "devaluation, 
regression, and
aggression" model, Holterin suggests that gendercide is the result of four
elements: social, political, and economic devaluation (i.e., crisis); 
"reactive
reevaluation" through gender, race, and other social mechanisms; a 
buildup of
aggression; and antagonistic conflict and war (pp. 63-64). In her chapter,
"Gendercide and Humiliation in Honor and Human-Rights Societies," 
psychologist
Evelin Gerda Lindner outlines a slightly less explicit theory of 
genocide while
at the same time citing empirical cases to illustrate her
gendercide-as-response-to-male-humiliation thesis. The chapters by 
Augusta Del
Zotto, "Gendercide in Historical-Structural Context: The Case of Black Male
Gendercide in the United States," and Stefanie Rixecker, "Genetic 
Engineering
and Queer Biotechnology: The Eugenics of the Twenty-First Century?" 
focus less
on theoretical or conceptual issues and instead detail what they see as 
actual
or potential instances of gendercide based on the sex (Del Zotto) or sexual
orientation (Rixecker) of the victim group.

The structure of the book is sound, beginning with the general argument 
for the
necessity of gendering genocide studies and the concept of gendercide, 
followed
by several essays in which the concept is put into practice and/or 
explained,
and then finally critiqued. All of the eleven essays in Gendercide and 
Genocide
are updated versions of previously published articles, seven of which first
appeared in a March 2002 special issue of the Journal of Genocide Research.
Helpfully, each essay has been revised in light of the other essays in the
volume, thus providing the book with a welcome level of added coherence and
scholarly debate among the contributors. That said, the superior ability of
three dissenting contributors to map out the conceptual landscape with 
respect
to the concepts genocide, gender, and gendercide, brings needed conceptual
clarity to the book only at the end, when such clarity would have been more
helpful at the beginning. This is not so much a problem of organization, but
with the first few chapters of the book.

In a courageous move not often seen in edited works, Jones has included 
three
"heretics" who, in a genuine spirit of constructive academic debate, raise a
number of interesting and well-placed criticisms of the concepts gender and
gendercide as defined and applied by Jones and the other authors in the 
book. In
a chapter that should be included on syllabi for courses on genocide, Stuart
Stein ably navigates the scholarly debates over the definition of 
genocide and
then carefully dissects how genocide and gendercide are used in the volume.
Stein effectively questions the utility of adding yet another "cide" to the
already crowded genocide lexicon. He suggests that gendercide, as 
conceived by
Jones, risks placing too great a focus on gender at the expense of other
explanatory factors. Similarly, R. Charli Carpenter thoroughly examines the
conceptual problems evident in how gender/sex is variously formulated in the
book. Finally the book concludes with a chapter by political theorist 
Terrell
Carver, in which Carver goes some way toward clarifying the issue of 
gender and
masculinity and suggests how some of the arguments in the book might be more
profitably reformulated. Many of the criticisms discussed below are 
drawn from
these three chapters.

Jones's volume can be commended for bringing gender into genocide 
studies and
for making the hitherto overlooked point that many genocides involve the
disproportionate victimization of men. Where the book falters is over the
concept gendercide itself and the evidence used by many of the authors to
illustrate the concept. The critiques of how gendercide is 
conceptualized with
respect to the existing concepts genocide (Stein) and gender (Carpenter) 
get at
this very problem. However, despite the strenuous arguments of Jones and 
many of
the contributors to the contrary, it remains unclear as to whether 
gendercide is
a useful concept. A concept that combines both gender and genocide, 
"gendercide"
brings with it the conceptual muddle that surrounds its constituent 
parts. Both
gender and genocide are highly contested concepts which have been 
formulated and
reformulated, debated, and dissected by analysts in the fields of feminist,
gender, and genocide studies, respectively. Scholars of genocide need to ask
whether an even more contested concept is needed than the one (i.e., 
genocide)
with which we already are struggling.

Further, gendercide, as presented in the book, does not seem to define a
distinct phenomenon. Even Jones himself suggests it is a "component" of
genocide. To be a useful and necessary concept, gendercide should define a
unique, although closely related phenomenon. Gendercide would then be, 
and Jones
often treats it as if it is, an attack on a group of victims based on the
victims' gender/sex. Such an attack would only really occur if men or 
women are
victimized because of their primary identity as men or women. In the case of
male gendercide, male victims must be victims first and foremost because 
they
are men, not male Bosnians, Jews, or Tutsis. Moreover, it must be the
perpetrators themselves, not outside observers making ex-poste analyses, who
identify a specific gender/sex as a threat and therefore a target for
extermination.

As such, we must be able to explicitly show that the perpetrators target a
gender victim group based on the victims' primary identity as either men or
women. To be sure, many of the cases cited in the book--from the appalling
treatment of Soviet POWs by the Germans in World War II, to the slaughter of
Tutsi men and boys during the Rwandan genocide, or the wholesale 
extermination
in the death camps of women and their children during the Holocaust--clearly
show that there is often a gendered aspect to genocide. But the concept of
gendercide risks minimizing more proximate identities such as race, 
ethnicity,
or socioeconomic class that motivate the perpetrators. If, as Jones 
might reply,
gendercide does not dismiss the importance of other factors and 
identities, the
logical question is then, do we need the concept gendercide? Put another 
way,
does gendering genocide, a worthy goal to be sure, require "gendercide"?

The problem of showing that gender is the primary identity upon which a
genocidal attack is based reveals not only a conceptual problem, but a 
second,
empirical one. Of the cases cited by Jones no hard evidence is presented 
from
the perspective of the perpetrators that gender was the primary motivating
identity behind the attacks. As Stein notes, the evidence Jones presents 
with
regard to these cases can just as easily be read as showing that Soviet
soldiers, Tutsi men and boys, Jewish and Tutsi women and children were
victimized first and foremost because they were Soviets and soldiers, 
Jews and
Tutsis, and only secondarily because of their gender identity.

In a case of both concept and evidence stretching, Lindner argues in her 
chapter
that the suicide of males in certain societies in response to 
humiliation is a
case of male gendercide. Lindner's approach is both an unsatisfactory 
argument
and a questionable source of empirical evidence of gendercide. Presumably,
gendercide, like genocide, involves separate collective actors; that is, 
victims
and perpetrators, the latter of who plan and execute the destruction. 
Killing
one's self is an individual act of self-destruction in which the 
"victim" and
the "perpetrator" are one and the same. Similarly, Del Zotto suggests that
black-on-black male violence and reckless behavior leading to black male
quasi-suicidal violent deaths constitutes male gendercide. Here we are again
left without a perpetrator since the victims are also the ones doing the
victimizing. Del Sotto rightly suggests that it is the history of race 
relations
in the United States, the persistent lack of economic opportunity, and 
negative
conceptions of black men as inherently dangerous that has produced the 
desperate
situation in which many black men find themselves. However, society, the
economy, "the system" (or prejudice), are not collective actors capable of
perpetrating genocide/gendercide based on an intentional, explicit, and
systematic plan of destruction.

In the only chapter that comes close to describing actual gendercide
(destruction based solely on the gender/sex identity of the victims), 
Rixecker
suggests that advances in biotechnology may one day allow fetuses to be 
tested
for sexual orientation and aborted if found to be gay or lesbian. While 
a truly
frightening prospect, it is, at the moment at least, hypothetical. And 
even if
in the future parents may abort "queer" fetuses, as they do now in some 
places
with female fetuses, one could argue that this is not 
gendercide/genocide since
such a drastic action would most likely remain an individual act and not 
part of
a coordinated plan of destruction. As well, depending on how one 
conceptualizes
gender and the connection, or lack thereof, between sex/gender and sexual
orientation, one might also argue that destruction based on sexual 
orientation
of the kind Rixecker fears is not gendercide because the primary perceived
offending identity is sexual orientation, not sex or gender.

Despite its problems, Gendercide and Genocide, makes an important 
contribution
to genocide studies and should be taken seriously by scholars in the field.
Jones breaks new ground in the further conceptualization of the concept
gendercide and by highlighting the often neglected victimization of 
battle-aged
men. Some or the entire book can be used profitably in undergraduate and
graduate courses on genocide and perhaps gender studies, particularly the
skillful chapters by Stein and Carpenter, who admirably wade through and 
analyze
the literature of genocide and gender respectively. A potentially 
controversial
volume, Gendercide and Genocide will likely spark further debate in an 
already
highly contested and controversial field.



Citation: Maureen S. Hiebert. "Review of Adam Jones, ed, Gendercide and
Genocide," H-Genocide, H-Net Reviews, September, 2005. URL:
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=239631137095724.