Functionalist and Intentionalist Explanations of the Rwanda and Holocaust Mass Murders - Essay Example

? Compare and Evaluate Functionalist and Intentionalist Explanations of the Rwanda and Holocaust Mass Murders College: Introduction The mass murder in Rwanda is a perfect example of the modern time genocide born of ethnic hatred. As compared to the Holocaust genocide, the events unfolding in Rwanda in 1994 gave birth to the systematic slaughter of more than eight hundred thousand Moderate Hutu and Tutsi. This aspect position the Rwandese massacre to being a massacre of the modern phenomenon, absorbed by rationalism, bureaucracy and technology. The massacre of the European Jews, commonly referred to by a majority of scholars as the Holocaust, on the other hand is among the genocides known to the greater percentage of the educated in the society. Between the years 1941 and 1945, European Jews ranging between five and xix million were systematically massacred by the Nazi regime (under the leadership of Adolf Hitler) in collaboration with its allies and other surrogates in the Nazi-occupied territories. Irrespective of the astonishing intensity and scale of the genocide, the prominence of the Holocaust in the recent couple of years has been far from being preordained (Kershaw 2000, p.93). Having given a brief preamble of both the Rwandese and the Holocaust genocides, this paper therefore, gears towards availing an in-depth comparison between the two genocides. In addition, this paper also does evaluate both the functionalist and the intentionalists explanation of the two cases of mass murder based on the principal areas of focus such as uniqueness, precedent and generality in either case as drawn from different theoretical quarters. Comparison and Evaluation of the Holocaust and Rwanda Mass Murders When it comes to the definition of what genocide is, it somehow proves to be challenging. Nevertheless, massacres have over and again been repeated in different parts of the world. The most imperative thing to keep in remembrance is that a mass murder remains to be not only a controversial, but also a contested debate among politicians, historians, academics, fascists and nationalists. Irrespective of the noticeable differences in the context of a mass murder, neither of the sides presents a different opinion or even repudiates the authenticity of the Rwanda and the Holocaust, nor is there sombre rejection over the principle that the Hutus and Adolf Hitler were responsible for the crimes they set off. In this event therefore, it is imperative finding a mechanism of gauging the reality beyond the Rwanda and the Holocaust massacres (Christopher 2004, p.34). As thus, there arise two schools of thought as regards to the historiography of these genocides. These schools of thought are the functionalist and the intentionalist explanations of the genocides. Intenionalist versus Functionalist Explanation of the two Mass Murders Over the past two or so decades, the most heated debate has been revolving around an erudite predisposition by and large referred to as intentionalist and an antagonistic functionalist explanation. Arguably, a great percentage of the interpretation and data so gathered on the Rwanda and the Holocaust massacres relate in one way or the other either in the functionalist or the intentionalist perspectives. To begin with the Holocaust genocide it is even derivable from the word itself, the intenionalists’ explanation lays more accents on the intention that the Nazis had; and from the kick off, it is undeniable that these Nazis had their minds made up to eliminate the European Jews in whichever manner, including carrying a mass slaughter on them. An approach of this kind puts emphasis on the figure of Adolf Hitler and his monomaniacal passion to do away with what he referred to as the Jewish cancer from Germany and Europe as a whole (Tom 2010, p.25). Adolf’s stance of facilitating an elimination of the European Jews is clearly evidenced by the statement he makes when addressing a journalist. He confidently declares that in the event that he assumes power, his first priority will be the annihilation of the Jews (Orlando 2007, p.457). Equally needed was the anti-Semitic dimension of both the European and the Nazi history. This propelled the Nazi’s attitude against the Jews and at the same time saw to it that there would hardly be any shortage of executioners willing to execute the dirty obligation. The functionalist critique, on the contrary, gives a lower profile of the significance of Adolf Hitler as an individual. This approach actually presents the fragmentation of decision-making and the concealing of political responsibility. In addition, this explanation does emphasize on the disintegration of traditional bureaucracy into a circuitous confusion of uncoordinated and ill-conceived task forces (Anthony 1998, p.428). Equally stressed is the evolutionary and conditional character of the heated campaign against the Jews; right from discrimination on legal grounds to concentration and even mass murder. On the basis of the above discussed functionalist explanation, what took place in Nazi Germany can be termed to have been an unplanned cumulative radicalization born of the frenzied decision-making process of a polycratic regime and what can be referred to as the negative selective of destructive elements from the ideological arsenal of the Nazis as the sole ones that were in a position of perpetually mobilizing the incongruent and otherwise incompatible elements of the coalition of the Nazis. At some point, this debate is branded as a spiteful one; an acrimonious debate which in the 1990s paved way for the recognition that both the intentionalist and the functionalist strands were hardly diametrically opposed. Both positions in the debate possess a number of advantages as well as demerits. In addition, the both explanations ultimately make reflections of divergent forms of historical explanations and besides, the ground between the two is little by little narrowing in good turn of a unanimity which borrows elements from either lines of argument. The very raw material of the Nazi massacre has been in existence since its inception, nonetheless, the same called for a host of historically provisional features for purposes of actualizing and maximizing it. Both Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman make a proposal that the term intentional functionalism to be the term that captures the existent interplay of both variables and actors (Alexander 1999, p.634). From the above paragraphs, it is limpid that the intentionalist’s argument is that the Holocaust genocide was undeniably the outcome of Adolf Hitler and had stages that had been well-planned. The process in this massacre was actually a top-down approach as contrasted to a bottom-up approach. In addition, the intenionalist explanation contends that the self-conscious decision made up by Adolf together with his immediate cliques were influential to the National Socialist rule. On the contrary, the functionalist propagators maintain that the Holocaust mass murder was hardly a top-down approach, but a bottom-up one. According to this explanation, the crime had been well planned, organised and executed with the strong support of an inflexible system and official ranks. In Rwanda, on the other side, it was a matter of neighbour verses neighbour. Factually, neighbours did hack neighbours to death in their places of resident. As though this was not enough, while colleagues (in workplaces) hacked fellow colleagues to death, doctors killed the patients they were supposed to treat, and pupils were predisposed to killings by their schoolteachers. Within a short duration of time, the populations of the Tutsis in the villages had been done away with, with prisoners in Kigali being released in work gangs so as to collect the corpses lining on the roadsides. Being among the most shocking of the 20th century tragedies, this ruthless extermination of the Tutsi populace in this African country remains to be the most calculated and efficient acts of a massacre the world has ever witnessed (Christopher 1995, p.55). Both its coordination and brutality prove to an equal extent the events taking place in the Holocaust of the 1940s. In this massacre, well organised delegations of Hutu militia (Interhamwe) as well as regular Hutu nationals set about the charge of doing away with all the Tutsi in Rwanda and realised the same with a speed and efficiency which was undeniably chilling. Armed with machetes supplied principally by the Hutu entrepreneurs and elites, the entire genocide was an irresistible force. Both the brutality of the Hutus and the nature of their killings were devastating enough. Over and above this, and equally frightening, were the precision and the coordination so executed to drum up such horrific cruelty and murder. From this disgrace of human brutality lessons can be drawn from the Rwandese mass murder. The impact of modernity on the human being is horrendously demonstrated in this massacre (Hilberg 2003, p.115). It is therefore, critically arguable that there exists an historical deliberation between the functionalist and the intentionalists explanations of the two massacres. Both these explanations have a tendency of coming to the shard platform that the Rwanda and the Holocaust genocides did take place; nonetheless, the exact nature of each one of the two is the core of the existent serious disagreement and controversy. The intenionalist explanation, which happens to be the one which is more affiliated with the idea of the Holocaust mass murder, was so purely perpetuated by the intention of the end result of a long-term policy of Adolf Hitler. The intention of Hitler, according to some scholars, was certainly a principal factor in the process of radicalisation in anti-Jewish policy which climaxed in the extermination of the European Jews. On the contrary, proponents of the functionalist approach contend that the strategy of the exterminating these European Jews underwent gradual development resulting from the initiatives of a group of bureaucrats who were acting in response to other failures in policy. The functionalist explanation actually assumes an absolutely opposed standpoint. It is an approach which views the very final solution as the product of specific rigid structures, logistical constraints and military and political circumstances (Collin 2000, p.57). As per the assertions of the intentionalist explanation, Adolf Hitler together with his team carried out a promotion of what can be referred to as the Aryan-race supremacy. Besides being traditionally against the European Jews, they were anti-Semitism and their intention was to wipe out the European Jews out of the map of the world. As a result Hitler and his team purposefully came to a conclusion that these European Jews have to be done away with. Additionally, that which this Germany dictator (Adolf Hitler) preached was, in its totality, on the warpath and a pre-planned determination. According to his sect, each and every one who did not fit had to be eliminated; if not by expulsion, by genocide. All that mattered was that all the Jews had to be eradicated. Possibly, the intentionalist approach pinpoints out that Hitler’s political plan was rooted on his pathological anti-Semitism and madness prior the power takeover by the Nazis. The principal emphasis of this approach- even as can be drawn for the word itself, was the elimination of the Jews by the Nazis by all means including mass murder. Furthermore, the intentionalist explanation underlines the figure of Adolf Hitler and his monomaniacal passion to do away with what to him seemed to be the Jewish cancer from Germany and Europe at large. He even openly declares that annihilation of the Jews will be his foremost priority once he assumes power (Caplan 2008, p3). The functionalist explanation, on the contrary, downplays the implication of Adolf Hitler at an individual’s capacity. It is therefore crystal clear that both the functionalist and the intentionalist approach- with reference to the Holocaust genocide- are not irreconcilable. Both strands in the deliberation possess a number of advantages, as well as demerits; both in the long run make a reflection of divergent forms of historical explanation. The raw material of the Holocaust mass murder was present from the very beginning. However, the same called for a horde of historically dependent features for purposes of actualising and maximising it. While the intentionalist strand contends that the Holocaust mass murder had resulted from Hitler’s gradual plan, where he was the coordinator of everything, the functionalists dispute that Hitler was anti-Semitic; nonetheless, he hardly had a pre-plan for the massacre. The proponents of the functionalist argue out that the Holocaust massacre was born of ranks of the German bureaucracy with minimal (if any) or no engagement of Adolf (Caplan 2008, p.12). It is imperative to not that the intentionalist-functionalist debate is more or less the same in the Rwandese mass murder. According to the intentionalist approach, the mass murder of the Tutsi was originally a top-down determination of the elites. On opposition to this argument is the functionalist assertion that the massacre in Rwanda was a bottom-up Hutu dominated government decision to execute the massacre. In the viewpoint of a majority, the genocide in Rwanda falls under the category of modern genocide. Having been elite-planned, these elites did capitalise on the state for purposes of the implementation of the genocide. Moderate functionalists claim that it was the evil elites who ignited the genocide and neither the Tutsis nor the Hutus were fundamentally murderous individuals (Dirk 1998, p.195). Moreover, they were not homicidal simply because they happened to be simple or backward and manipulated by vindictive leaders. The history that has been in place as regards to the debate over structure versus agency clarifications of genocide is considerably lengthy. This has a result led to various models focusing on one or the other of this. In a discussion presented by some scholars as concern the Holocaust massacre, the definition of intention has necessitated a balanced consideration of the ideology (agency) of the perpetrators and the circumstances (structures) in which they operated. In simple terms, it is undeniably hard to get a clear understanding of genocides using a single dimension. As thus, there is a need to address both the structure and agency aspects of genocides since these are not only imperative factors, but also are interrelated (Weitz 2005, p.24). In the case of the Rwandan genocide, it is notable that the Rwandan society had unbalanced cohesion and flexibility levels falling into the unyielding and embroiled patterns. The Rwandan despots brought together the Hutus so that they can kill the Tutsi, with the agent group instituted highly interconnected interactions with one another and their societal institutions and thereafter presented a pattern of leadership which was considerably rigid. Communication patterns from community leaders, government officials as well as announcements over the media (and more especially radio announcements) made justifications of the killings, got rid of negative sanctions and defined the dupes as precarious. Scholars have over and again argued out that these victims were ordinary Rwandese nationals who had assumed active roles in the massacre since other men not only encouraged, but also overawed and pressured them to do so in the name of the law and authority (Strauss 2006, p.122). In addition, they were both angry at and fearful of the Tutsi. The Rwandan genocide had been organized around an inflexible schedule of wake up, eat, come across and kill. Unbending leadership roles also materialized during the organization of this genocide. For instance, the Hutus of every kind were patriotic brothers in the absence of prejudiced discord. Some scholarly materials have also pinpointed out that the killer groups held meetings in soccer pitches where they formed teams. A great percentage of the perpetrators knew one another as well as their victims very well from their community interactions. The Hutu leaders were the ones mandated with the construction of the threat-based genocidal script (Caplan 2008, p.16). The agency-structure framework is also applicable in the examination of the two brothers’ survival in the Holocaust genocide. These brothers’ survival life history has afforded us opportunities to look at the relationship between social structure and human agency. This genocide is better explained by the situational factors rather than pre-dispositional factors. This is to stay that the genocidal behaviour was context-specific or simply situational. In the Holocaust massacre, perpetrators had been set in in institutional sub-cultures already favourable to the hard-hitting physical, biological and legal remedies for social mischiefs years prior the initiation of the genocide (Hilberg 2003, p.78). The Holocaust massacre was based on symbolic interactionism; which is rooted on the idea that people act on the basis of meanings derived from their interactions with others and these meanings get to be interpreted by an individual. This genocide involved brutalization, where the Nazis were taught the way forward to demonstrate violent behaviour, including issuing threats to embark on physical force, observing it and using this physical force. The Nazis had been prepared, at individual and group levels, to act violently against the European Jews. Besides, the Nazi leaders were the ones who ensured the enforcement and the implementation of the belief system that justified the use of violence. In their command, the Nazis threatened the European Jews and at the same time used violent behaviour, including torturing the victims and carrying out homicidal acts. The Nazis, under the headship of Adolf, had branded themselves violent, with Hitler being the powerful individual campaigning for a violent ideology (Kershaw 2000, p.97). It is worth noting that in both massacres, there some identifiable similarities. To begin with, both the Rwanda and Holocaust’s cases are likely to be a typical frame for theorising the brutality and horror of genocide. From a historical viewpoint, the Nazis-committed genocide of 1941and that of the Hutus of 1994 are both not only coincidental, but also with some similarities as well as differences. For example, in the Holocaust genocide, Nazi soldiers, officers. Civilians and crematoria were employed. In the Rwandese case, Hutus neighbours, villagers, soldiers, teachers, axes, blades and knives were used (Caplan 2008, p.22). While innumerable Jews were gassed, starved, massacred and burned by the Nazi Germans in the Holocaust genocide, vast numbers of Tutsi were systematically done away with in Rwanda by the Hutu’s totalitarian regime. In the two genocides, men, women, children and tribes were the primary victims. On the above basis therefore, these genocides are more or less similar. Nevertheless, there are identifiable differences between the two. For instance, there were hardly any gas chambers or concentration camps in Rwanda as was the case in the Nazis genocide (Tom 2010, p.43). Throughout the study of the study of mass murders, there have been a number of discussion groups ranging from the intentionalist to the functionalist interpretations of both the Holocaust and the Rwanda genocides. The functionalist approach looks forward at explaining the genocides by means of the manner in which the process step by step built up to holistically conventional extermination. According to some scholarly resources, the Jewish Holocaust did not derive from a clear will to carry out the extermination and that the massacre had a considerably improvisatory character. This makes a summary of the functionalist argument. The intenionalist argument, on the other hand, lays emphasis on the clear design of the senior perpetrators (in the case of Holocaust, the Nazis and Hitler) to set slaughter of the European Jews and allied populace in Europe between the 1930s and 1940s (Alexander 1999, p.45). According to the arguments of the proponents of the functionalist approach, the Holocaust genocide was born of the irrepressible force of individual local decisions resulting from the lack of coordination. The Jewish purge, as well as the purge of the allied populaces in Europe was out outside the control of the authorities and as thus advanced into full blown massacre. In our viewpoint the Rwandese and the Holocaust genocides were not emanating from a crystal clear functionalist or intentionalist point of view. Reasonably, it was the impact of modernity of human civilisation that paved way for the development of the mass murder and the eradication of certain populations (Caplan 2008, p.24). Conclusion In the event that we view the Holocaust and the Rwanda genocides from the perspectives of these two schools of thought, it is therefore likely that it will become quite challenging for us to think wider and carry out deeper analyses. It therefore seems that these two approaches are seriously defective and as thus a third explanation or approach ought to be put in place since there has to be reasons and/or factors that had fired up the bloodshed in Rwanda the Holocaust genocide. For instance, this could have resulted from mental, economic or even the role that bystander played as contrasted to a pure ethnic issue (Strauss 2006, p.34). There are even scholars who contend that there is hardly any singular key explaining these homicides. Undeniably, there are a number of factors, which more often than not are very difficult to weigh. Nevertheless, we cannot assumes some of the factors discussed in this paper such as the top-down , middle out and bottom-up factors as having been principal causes of the slaughters perpetrating both genocides. To return to the usefulness of the functionalist and intentionalist explanations, these two approaches might be (to some significant extent) imperative as a framework and/or vantage point from which to have a close look at the aetiology of the Rwanda and the Holocaust Massacres (Dirk 1998, p.200). References Alexander, W 1999, Russia at War, 1941–194545, New York: Carroll & Graf. Anthony, B 1998, Stalingrad, New York: Viking Press. Bauman, Z 1989, Modernity and the Holocaust, Polity Press. Caplan, J 2008, Introduction. In J. Caplan. (J.Caplan) Nazi Germany. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Christopher, B 1995, ‘Beyond ‘Intentionalism’ and ‘Functionalism’: The Decision for the Final Solution Reconsidered’ Christopher, B 2004, ‘The Decision-Making Process’ In Dan Stone, The Historiography of the Holocaust, Palgrave Colin, H 2000, ‘Willing Executors of Hitler’s Will? The Goldhagen Controversy, Political Analysis and the Holocaust’ Politics, 20, 3 Dirk, M 1998, 'Structure and Agency in the Holocaust: Daniel J. Goldhagen and His Critics’, History and Theory 37,2: 194-219. Hilberg, R 2003, The Destruction of the European Jews, Yale University Press. Kershaw I 2000, Hitler and The Holocaust. In I. Kershaw, The Nazi Dictatorship, London: Hodder Education. Orlando, F 2007, The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin’s Russia, New York: Straus, S 2006, The Order of Genocide: Race, Power, and War in Rwanda. Ithaca, NY: Tom, L 2010, Debates on the Holocaust, Manchester University Weitz, ED 2005, A Century of Genocide: Utopias of Race and Nation, Princeton University Press Wistrich, R 2001, Hitler and the Holocaust: How and Why the Holocaust Happened. London: Weidenfeld and Wicolson. Read More