Everyday genocide: femicide, transicide and the responsibility to protect
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-10-2021-0642 |
| Published date | 31 December 2021 |
| Date | 31 December 2021 |
| Pages | 215-230 |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Aggression,conflict & peace,Sociology,Gender studies,Gender violence,Political sociology,policy & social change,Social conflicts,War/peace |
| Author | Katerina Standish |
Everyday genocide: femicide, transicide
and the responsibility to protect
Katerina Standish
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to establish a conceptual connection between gender-based
violence (GBV)and genocide. Victims of gendercide, suchas femicide and transicide, should be eligible
for protectionsassigned to victims of genocide,including the Responsibility to Protect(R2P).
Design/methodology/approach –This study examines genocide, gendercide, femicide, transicide
and the R2P doctrine to formulate a platform of engagement from which to argue the alignment and
congruence of genocide with gendercide. Using a content analysis of the United Nations High
Commission for Refugees definition of GBV, and Article II of the Genocide Convention (GC) five
‘‘directive’’ facetsare examined, namely, identity, physical violence,psychological violence, oppressive
violenceand repressive violence.
Findings –Expressions of physical violence, psychological violence, oppressive violence and
repressive violencereflected similarity, whereas the GCs omitsex and gender as facets of identity group
inclusion.The only variation is the encapsulationof identity factors includedin the acts of harm.
Practical implications –The elevation of gendercide to the status of genocide would permit us the
leverage to make itnot only illegal to permit gendercide –internationallyor in-country –but make it illegal
not to intervene,too.
Social implications –Deliberate harm basedon sex and gender are crimes against people because of
their real or perceived group membership, and as such, should be included in genocide theory and
prevention.
Originality/value –This study explores a new conceptual basis for addressing gendercidal violence
nationallyto include sex and gender victim groups typicallyexcluded from formal parameters of inclusion
and address due to limitationsin Article II. The analysis of genocidealongside GBV may inform scholars
and activistsin the aim to endgendered violence.
Keywords Gender, Genocide, Femicide, Gendercide, Responsibilityto Protect (R2P), Transicide
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Those who commit genocide have deliberately set out not just to murder others. They are not
merely guilty of crimes against humanity –forms of criminality and inhumane acts beyond simple
murder. Genocide goes further to the ultimate depths of human perversity. Its aim is to
exterminate a part of an entire category of human beings guilty of only being themselves
(Organization of African Unity, 2000).
Genocide is considered a crime against a people, deliberate and systematic extermination
of a group based on their identity; their membership(real or perceived) in a national, racial,
political, religious or cultural group (Jones, 2006). To be the victim of genocide is to be
killed, not because of any individual deed or behavior –nor attitude or mindset held –but
because a person belongs to a “group” targeted for extermination by a genocidal maxim
put into violent action bya monstrous criminal.
Genocide was first coined as a term of reference by Holocaust survivor Raphael Lemkin to
describe “a crime without a name,”the extermination of millions by the Nazis (Lemkin, 1946,
Katerina Standish is based
at the National Centre
Peace and Conflict,
University of Otago –
Dunedin Campus,
Dunedin, New Zealand.
Received 5 October 2021
Revised 5 November 2021
Accepted 25 November 2021
The author thanks the EIC of
JACPR, and anonymous
reviewers for their
consideration of this work and
their enormously valuable
comments. She is grateful to
Dr Christina Smylitopoulos for
her comments on the
manuscript, and wishes to
extend very special thanks to
Dr Alexandra del Pilar
Ortiz-Ayala for topical
contributions on Genocide and
the Responsibility to Protect.
DOI 10.1108/JACPR-10-2021-0642 VOL. 14 NO. 3 2022, pp. 215-230, ©Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1759-6599 jJOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH jPAGE 215
p. 227). Lemkin coined genocide because it was categorically distinct from other forms of
mass violence because of “motivation” in that, the crime of genocide is motivated (driven,
stimulated and propelled) by the identity of the victims and an urge to destroy them. In
2021, this component of genocidal violence is echoed by genocide scholar Dirk Moses
(2021, p. 396) who avers that, “genocide is a species of hate crime, in which the victim is
attacked for who they are –for their identity –rather thantheir actions.”
Classic definitions of genocide consider genocidal violence and its organization to be a key
factor in determining categories of mass killing, crimes against humanity or genocide
(Kuper, 1983). A detailed content analysis of terminology in the field led Stein to claim that
even a “cursory examination of[...] the discourse of genocide studies and allied disciplines
reveals that this is a somewhat disordered field [...] [of] somewhat crowded terrain” (Stein,
2002, p. 40). In addition to classic definitions of genocide, anthropologist Scheper-Hughes
(1996,2003) delineates a genocidal continuum: “less dramatic, permitted,everyday acts of
violence that make participation (under other conditions) in genocidal acts possible” (cited
in Jones, 2006, p. 437). This notion of everydayor routine violence can be observed in other
identity-based experiencesof violence too.
There are dozens of definitions of violence that include everything from actual/potential
forms (acts or threats of acts), forms of violence experienced by victims, defined by
methods, or contained by circumstances, and we could add to these forms of cultural and
structural violence that result in incarnations of violence too (Galtung, 1990). This paper will
restrict itself to four forms of violence (Table 1) that lead to lethal (deadly) or life-diminishing
outcomes (psychological, oppressive and repressive violence). In lethalviolence, the attack
either directly or indirectly results in death, whereas in life-diminishing violence, harm is
endured that restricts, debilitates and/or causes invisible suffering. Gendered forms of life-
diminishing and lethal violence, including violence againstwomen and girls and the gender
and sex-diverse, are easilyidentified instances of ongoing and underattendedharm.
In 1978, Mary Daly (1978) used the term gynocide to refer to the everyday practices of
misogynist violence against women. The prevalence of anti-trans and anti-gay violence
globally includes these gendered forms of everyday violence too. Gendercide or gendered
genocide is the systematic killing of members of a specific gender (Jones, 2004;Engle
Merry, 2006). Warren (1985) introduced the term gendercide to incorporate the role of
gender in lethal prejudicial behavior. And while gendercide is conceptualized in Jones
(2004) as either androcide: the gender-selective extermination of males, or femicide,
Table 1 Five facets of GBV and genocide (UNHCR, 2010; GC, 1948)
Core facet Article II (Genocide Convention, 1948) Gender-based violence (UNHCR, 2010)
1Identity Acts committed with intent to destroy, in
whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
racial or religious group
Violence that is directed against a person or a
group of persons on the basis of their gender or
sex
2Physical violence Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm
to members of the group
Acts that inflict physical, mental or sexual harm
or suffering, threats of such acts
3Psychological violence Causing serious mental harm to
members of the group
Acts that inflict mental harm or suffering, threats
of such acts
4Oppressive violence Imposing measures intended to prevent
births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the
group to another group
Acts that inflict physical, mental or sexual harm
or suffering, threats of such acts
Coercion
5Repressive violence Deliberately inflicting on the group
conditions of life calculated to bring
about its physical destruction in whole
or in part
Coercion
Deprivations of liberty whether occurring in
public or private life
PAGE 216 jJOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICTAND PEACE RESEARCH jVOL. 14 NO. 3 2022
To continue reading
Request your trial