Summary: "From Marginalization to Massacres" by Mohammed M. Hafez
_____
How can we explain the massacres of helpless civilians by certain movement groups seeking to overthrow regimes or foreign forces?
"Perpetrators of mass violence are not simply driven by motivational imperatives... they go through a process of radicalization."
Under repressive regimes organizations tend to become exclusive - that is they only include like-minded indeviduals, limit external ties, and demand adherance to a strict code of conduct - in order to prevent infiltration and develop the group cohesion and commited activists nesisary to carry out clandistine high-risk activities. Leaving the organization means loosing your whole support system because you've burned bridges with everyone else. The perspectives of people outside the group are not valued and an honest, self-critical look at the groups activities could destabilize the group. "Objective assessments of the political environment necessary for strategic calculations disapear; groups become increasingly driven by emotive and abstract apeals to justice and retribution"
Under repressive regimes that don't allow for opposing voices to participate, anti-system collective action frames - that portray the institutional political system and the state elite as fundamentally corrupt - start to resonate with more people. Reform is futile and the only way to acheive the mevement goals is to oust the opponents not negociate with them.
Exclusive organizations with anti-system frames do not accept the idea of "neutrality" (if you aren't a part of the solution you are part of the problem). This makes almost anyone a legitimate target. "History is replete with examples of guerrilla movements and militant groups iniciating greater violence against non-combatants than against government soldiers and oficials." i.e. Vietnamese Viet Cong, the Venezuelan Armed Forces of National Liberation (FALN), Algeria's National Liberation Front (NLF), and Peru's Shining Path movement. All had the characteristics above.
_______
soo...anti-civilian violence isn't some inherant characteristic of Islamic movements. For explination look at the context of political repression, organizational structure, and the way that the situation is framed.
do these notes make sense to you? Does this seem useful in any way to your world?
How can we explain the massacres of helpless civilians by certain movement groups seeking to overthrow regimes or foreign forces?
"Perpetrators of mass violence are not simply driven by motivational imperatives... they go through a process of radicalization."
Under repressive regimes organizations tend to become exclusive - that is they only include like-minded indeviduals, limit external ties, and demand adherance to a strict code of conduct - in order to prevent infiltration and develop the group cohesion and commited activists nesisary to carry out clandistine high-risk activities. Leaving the organization means loosing your whole support system because you've burned bridges with everyone else. The perspectives of people outside the group are not valued and an honest, self-critical look at the groups activities could destabilize the group. "Objective assessments of the political environment necessary for strategic calculations disapear; groups become increasingly driven by emotive and abstract apeals to justice and retribution"
Under repressive regimes that don't allow for opposing voices to participate, anti-system collective action frames - that portray the institutional political system and the state elite as fundamentally corrupt - start to resonate with more people. Reform is futile and the only way to acheive the mevement goals is to oust the opponents not negociate with them.
Exclusive organizations with anti-system frames do not accept the idea of "neutrality" (if you aren't a part of the solution you are part of the problem). This makes almost anyone a legitimate target. "History is replete with examples of guerrilla movements and militant groups iniciating greater violence against non-combatants than against government soldiers and oficials." i.e. Vietnamese Viet Cong, the Venezuelan Armed Forces of National Liberation (FALN), Algeria's National Liberation Front (NLF), and Peru's Shining Path movement. All had the characteristics above.
_______
soo...anti-civilian violence isn't some inherant characteristic of Islamic movements. For explination look at the context of political repression, organizational structure, and the way that the situation is framed.
do these notes make sense to you? Does this seem useful in any way to your world?
posted by ana at Wednesday, April 19, 2006
0 comments
