Bloxham, Donald, ‘Organized Mass Murder: Structure, Participation, and Motivation in Comparative Perspective’, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, vol. 22, no. 2 (2008), pp. 203-245 – Zak W
Bloxham’s article begins by stating that the state does not need to be intimately involved with mass murder, that organisation is the defining factor no matter how rudimentary. Though the state is not inherently necessary, it can help to legitimise acts of violence in the eyes of its people and allies. He goes on to mention that studies of genocide often take what he refers to as a ‘reductionist’ approach in that they focus on the perpetrators and trying to make broad statements about the nature of genocide, putting the perpetrators under what he calls a ‘unified analyses.’ Instead, Bloxham opts for a comparative approach, looking at different acts of genocide throughout history to see of he can draw any parallels or meaningful comparisons. From this, he goes onto deny the ‘uniqueness’ of the holocaust, stating that it shared parallels with various acts.
Throughout the article, Bloxham looks at the Soviet Ethnic Cleansings in World War II, the Rwandan Genocide and the Armenian Genocide using them as comparisons for the Holocaust. In doing so, he comes to various conclusions about the nature of genocide. For example, he assesses how each act had differing degrees of popular participation, with the Rwandan Genocide having a high degree of civilian activity in the killings, whereas the Soviet cleansings were almost closed off to popular participations and the killings were enacted by instruments of the state apparatus.
Near the beginning he introduces three main principles that he found each instance to have shared. The first of which is that in each perpetrating nation, there was a prolonged suspicion or stereotyping of a particular ethnic or societal group, leading to the subjugation of that group when there was a new regime or reform in society. Secondly, this idea of revolutionary reform into a better society gave way for ‘exclusionary ideologies’ due to the desire to redefine state identity. The third and final principle was that of war, and how it helped to radicalise the state both in terms of policy and population, leading to a general acceptance of more radical ideas such as mass killings and genocide. These remain a staple of Bloxham’s argument throughout and help to contextualise his argument about the state and bureaucracies not being the sole factor behind genocide.
Through this comparative analysis, Bloxham can provide an interesting account for the nature of genocides, showing that each example has things in common but also wildly differ from each other in ways, such as having vast amounts of bureaucratic participation like the Final Solution or having relatively little, as seen in his account of the Armenian Genocide. Bloxham provides a very complex view of genocide, critical of those who would try to simplify it or put it down to one main factor such as Michael Thad Allan, whose account of genocide he calls ‘too easy’.
Word count: 473
Student Number: 2717372