Some left to tell the tale: Finding perpetrators and understanding violence in Rwanda
| Author | Cyanne E Loyle,Christian Davenport |
| Published date | 01 July 2020 |
| Date | 01 July 2020 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0022343319885173 |
| Subject Matter | Regular Articles |
Regular Articles
Some left to tell the tale: Finding perpetrators
and understanding violence in Rwanda
Cyanne E Loyle
Department of Political Science, Pennsylvania State University & Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)
Christian Davenport
Department of Political Science, University of Michigan & Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)
Abstract
Scholars of political violence often face problems concerning data availability. Research on the perpetrators of that
violence is no exception. Over the past 40 years we have made great strides in understanding who joins in violent
action and why, yet have rarely probed the representative nature of the subjects queried or contemplated the
implications of this sampling for our conclusions. It is generally assumed that those left to ‘tell the tale’ about what
transpired are representative of those who participated in the violence. In this article, we use the context of the 1994
genocide in Rwanda to probe questions about which perpetrators of violence we include in our research and
subsequently, who we miss. We theorize an often overlooked group of perpetrators, the ‘murderers in the middle’,
who take orders from above, mobilize others to kill, and zealously participate themselves. We contend that this group
of perpetrators is potentially unique from those generally captured, identified, and studied in that they are likely to
have actively and willingly engaged in violence for personal gain as well as for ideological reasons. Systematically
missing groups of perpetrators has potential implications for research on participation in mass violence as well as our
understanding of why this behavior occurs.
Keywords
genocide, perpetrator studies, Rwanda
Those of us interested in understanding political violence
(e.g. genocide, civil war, atrocities/massacres, and the
like) face tremendous hurdles concerning the access and
availability of reliable information about what happened
and why (Ball, 2005; Davenport, 2009; Seybolt, Aron-
son & Fischhoff, 2013). This obstacle is particularly
notable with regard to the study of participation in mass
human rights violations
1
where researchers depend upon
evidence taken from survivors, human rights advocates,
journalists, and perhaps most importantly, the perpetra-
tors themselves. Each of these sources has unique limita-
tions for data generation. For example, individuals who
suffered from the violence or bore witness to the activity
may be either dead or traumatized – respectively, unable
or unwilling to speak about who did what to whom.
Information from those who report on relevant behavior
(e.g. human rights activists and journalists) is often sec-
ondhand from those who were not present at the events.
Information on participation and motives can come
from those who engaged in violence themselves – a
group that is potentially very aware of what took place
as well as why, but potentially unwilling to talk about
what they have done because of fear of prosecution or
persecution. All three sources have provided useful
insights into the phenomenon of interest. This said,
Corresponding author:
cloyle@psu.edu
1
‘Mass violence’ and ‘mass human rights violation’ refer to episodes
of violence which take place on a large scale, generally containing
1,000 or more deaths often in a concentrated period of time.
Examples include genocide, civil war, politicide, etc.
Journal of Peace Research
2020, Vol. 57(4) 507–520
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022343319885173
journals.sagepub.com/home/jpr
To continue reading
Request your trial