ethics, human rights and sociological inquiry: genocide, politicide and other issues of...

Ethics, Human Rights and Sociological Inquiry: Genocide, Poli t ic ide and Other Issues o f

Organizat ional Po w e r

GIDEON SJOBERG, ELIZABETH GILL, NORMA WILLIAMS, AND KATHRYN E. KUHN

This paper introduces a human rights (in contrast to an ethicist) perspective into sociological investigation. Moreover, it indicates why a human rights orientation is necessary for examining genocide, politicide and other issues of organizational power.

This article has t w o main object ives . First and foremost , w e i n t r o d u c e a human rights f r a m e w o r k in to social t h e o r y and social research. The o n g o i n g re-

evaluat ion o f the mora l d imens ion of soc io log ica l theory , w h i c h rests on the ethicis t heri tage, p rov ides a sp r ingboa rd for advanc ing a h u m a n rights pe r spec -

tive. W h e n examining the issues o f genocide and politicide, we find an extrasocietal moral s t a n d a r d - - n o t a b l y h u m a n r i g h t s - - c o m i n g into sha rpe r focus . 1 Second, w e cons ide r w h y sociologis ts should re fo rmula te a n u m b e r of their r e sea rch p roce-

dures w h e n invest igat ing genoc ide and pol i t ic ide and, m o r e to the point , w h y

they should expl ica te the moral p remises unde r ly ing the r e sea rch process .

T h e D u a l V i s i o n o f Socio logy (and Related D i s c i p l i n e s )

Moral issues have b e e n a long-s tanding sou rce o f c o n t r o v e r s y in soc io logy and

o the r social sc iences . Yet, the resul tant deba te is s e ldom cons ide red in works o n

Gideon Sjoberg is professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. For years he has been concerned with the sociology of ethics, human rights and bureaucracy. Elizabeth Gill is assistant professor of sociology at Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, Texas. Her research focuses on formal organizations, criminology/deviance, family life and medical sociology. Norma Williams is associate professor of sociology at the University of North Texas. Her primary interests are race and ethnic relations, family life and social psychology. Kathryn E. Kuhn is assistant professor of sociology at St. Louis University. Her interests include formal organizations, American studies and autobiography. Address for correspondence: Gideon Sjoberg, Dept. of Sociology, University of TX, 336 Burdine Hall, Austin, TX 78712-1088.

8 The American Sociologist/Spring 1995

social theory and social research. On one side of the "fault line" in the discipline stand the logical empiricists (or p roponen t s of the natural science model), who have insisted on a marked distinction be tween facts and values. Their stance has

been suppor ted ( though for somewhat different reasons) by the followers of Weber and Parsons. Weber ' s views regarding "value neutrality" are well known, and Parsons (1967), following somewhat in his footsteps, bel ieved that "distor- tions" can and do arise but ultimately can be overcome in social scientific endeavor.

On the other side of the fault line stand such prominent sociologists as Durkheim.

Although he is f requent ly defined as a champion of positivism, recent interpret- ers of Durkheim's work have observed that

Durkheim's attempt to construct a science of social facts was itself subsidiary to another, ~higher ~ purpose~i.e, the construction of a moral author i ty . . , adequate to the needs of the Third French Republic (Jones, 1994:55).

During the intervening century since Durkheim wrote , Lynd (1939), Sorokin and Lunden (1959), Mills (1959) and Gouldner (1970) have championed a sociology in which social facts and moral categories are intertwined. Although until re- cently this orientat ion has been marginalized, a reassessment of its place in sociology seems under way.

Recent questioning of the fact-value d ichotomy has emanated from several, even divergent, quarters within the discipline. The postmodernis t challenge to the p r iv i l eged pos i t i on of sc ien t i f ic k n o w l e d g e has cast doub t s on this conceptualizat ion. But that is only part of a larger picture. Another source of

doubt regarding the fact-value distinction has arisen in one wing of feminism

(e.g., Smith, 1990). In addition, as utilitarianism, in the form of exchange and rational choice theory, has attained dominance in at least subfields of sociology, some scholars have seen fit to reexamine its presupposi t ions. Smelser (1992), for one, goes so far as to speak of the ~theological foundations" of rational choice theory. Utilitarianism arose, in the writings of Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham, as a moral, as well as a social, theory and cont inues in this vein to the present day.

Quest ioning of the fact-value dist inction has also been fur thered by the writings of Habermas (I 990) and his followers. Habermas's espousal of "discourse ethics" is very much at odds with the natural science model. Still, the most influential criticisms of the fact-value d ichotomy in American sociology have come from the communitarians. Although sociologists such as Bellah et al. (1985;

t991), Etzioni (1993) and Selznick (1993), among others, differ among them- selves, they part company with the liberals and utilitarians, in debat ing the latter schools of thought the communitariaBs, both within and outside of sociology, have advanced a moral agenda and, in the process, have laid bare many of the moral assumptions undergirding con tempora ry liberalism and utilitarianism (the latter being one wing of conservatism).

The communitar ians emphasize duties and responsibilities to the "community," of ten the "societal communi ty" or "nation-state." They are critical of both

Sjoberg, et aL 9

liberals and utilitarians for an overemphasis on "autonomous individuals." More specifically, Bellah et al. (1991) object to the emphasis given the market by utilitarians and speak of the "tyranny of the market." In turn, Etzioni (1993) objects to the liberals' overemphasis on civil or social rights as reducing one's commitment to community.

In this debate among communitarians, liberals and utilitarians other moral issues can be discerned. The adherents of these perspectives adopt, implicitly or explicitly, some position on "ethical relativism" as well as "system commitment ." Ethical relativism, to which a number of sociologists adhere, has attracted considerable attention. In contrast, the concept of "system commitment" as a moral category is far less understood, not only in sociology but also among moral theorists in general.

System commitment may be to the nation-state or it may be to organizational entities such as corporations. However, commitment to the former has been of special importance. Scholars and policymakers often speak of loyalty to the nation-state, and they evoke the idea of "national interest" as an overriding consideration in "system maintenance."

Often sociologists overlook the system commitment of utilitarians. From the time of Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham to the present day, wi th its proponents of exchange or rational choice theory, the utilitarians have emphasized the centrality of individuals' maximization of self-interest. They also assume the whole is the aggregate of these self-interests, and their moral standard becomes "the greatest good for the greatest number." However, the utilitarians have also recognized the role of the state as providing the superstructure within which utility maximization can be achieved. Utilitarians, both past and present, have been committed to viable military and criminal justice systems in maintaining the nation-state, and these organizations have a reality apart from the aggregation of the self- interest of individuals.

Contemporary liberals, both within and outside of sociology, have supported the nation-state. Yet they generally champion the cause of civil or social rights as buffers against the abuse of state power. Although for many liberals the state should be "morally neutral," the state is also perceived as a vehicle for intervening in behalf of social justice, especially in the economic realm. As for the communitarians, they generally have little to say about the state. At the same time the logic of their analysis calls for a commitment to the societal community, and to U.S. society in particular.

Our overview of the debate among communitarians, liberals and utilitarians not only emphasizes that vital moral issues undergird contemporary sociological theory but also provides a backdrop for what follows.

The Ethic i s t versus H u m a n Rights Perspect ives : a Clar i f i ca t ion

In ideal typical terms, the ethicist perspective begins wi th duties and responsibilities and then assumes that persons attain rights by carrying out their duties. Communitarians, liberals and uti l i tarians--for all of their differences--fall into the ethicist camp. Each one of these orientations admits of rights but within a


community or, especially, a nation-state framework. Utilitarians since Bentham have viewed rights as granted only by the state. Liberals perceive these social or civil rights as more basic to citizenship. Although communitarians emphasize duties and responsibilities, they do not deny the existence of the rights of citizens.

In contrast to the ethicist orientation stands the human rights orientation. This presupposes that human beings possess basic rights as human beings, and duties and responsibilities ensure that these are sustained. 2 The concept of human rights, as advanced herein, is more fundamental than that of civil, or social, rights ( though we do not deny the importance of the latter).

Some scholars trace the concept of human rights back to the idea of natural rights and, in particular, to the principles that emerged during the French Revo- lution (cf. Waldron, 1987). However, it was in the aftermath of World War II that the contemporary concept of "human rights" came into its own. Specifi- cally, the idea of human fights came to be formally conceptualized during the Nuremberg Trials and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Immediately after World War II, a set of trials was held in Nuremberg (e.g., Annas and Grodin, 1992). During these trials, a number of Nazi officials (including doctors) were judged to have commit ted "crimes against humanity." Thus, a moral standard was enunciated that is superior to, or takes precedence over, commitment to the legal or moral standards of any particular nation-state.

The propriety of these trials has been debated by political and legal theorists. After all, the victors imposed their moral judgments on the vanquished after the fact. Although the circumstances surrounding these verdicts can not be brushed aside, these trials did set a major p receden t - -no tab ly the principle that persons can commit "crimes against humanity." This concept continues to be championed by segments of the legal community. In addition, citizens in the world community, faced with abuse of state power in particular nations, have on occasion appealed to this higher "moral principle."

A second step taken after World War II was the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which American sociologists have given scant attention. This declaration has fostered a host of specific principles, including those in the Helsinki Final Act. According to the legal scholar Buergenthal (1992), this act helped pave the way for the Polish Solidarity movement, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia and the human rights groups in the former Soviet Union.

Both the Nuremberg Trials and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights signal the importance of human rights that t ranscend nation-states, or societal systems. Indeed, if one is to investigate genocide and politicide and other abuses of state power (or those of other large-scale organizations) the Nuremberg Trials and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can not be ignored.

G e n o c i d e a n d Po l i t i c ide a n d O t h e r A b u s e s o f State P o w e r

The Holocaust conducted by the Nazis serves as the defining instance for any analysis of state power (Hilberg, 1961). Even earlier, Stalin's use of terror as well

Sjoberg, et aL 11

as purges led to mass killings of persons in the former Soviet Union (Conquest, 1990; 1993). Since then we have witnessed the cont inued mass slayings by elements of the state apparatus in various nations. The "ethnic cleansing" in the former Yugoslavia is being widely debated in the wor ld community. Iraq has been accused of killing numerous Kurds (Middle East Watch, 1993). The atrocities by the Khmer Rouge after they came to p o w e r in Cambodia in the 1970s at tracted wide attention. In addition, we can cite the disappearances in Argen- tina and the repression in Chile, as well as massacres in various Central Ameri- can nations. Wanton slayings cont inue in such areas as Rwanda, where the Hutus have massacred large segments of the Tutsi popula t ion (Block, 1994). But the quest ion emerges: How should social scientists, pol icymakers and the larger cit izenry define genocide and politicide? The Holocaust, wh ich involved the

systematic destruct ion of Jews as well as such minori ty groups as Gypsies, was set in mot ion by claims of Aryan superiori ty by Hitler, and by the police and the military apparatus that suppor ted him. These mass killings by the state were justified on racial grounding.

But what is meant by genocide is a source of controversy. Fein (1993) has provided us with an informative survey of the debates among social scientists regarding the meaning of genocide. Yet she does not emphasize the differences be tween genocide and politicide. On both theoret ical and empirical grounds, a dist inction is sociologically advantageous.

The Holocaust is a pr ime case of genocide, for the des t ruct ion of persons was based on content ions of racial superiori ty of the so-called Aryans. Also, the des t ruct ion of the Tutsis in Rwanda is a case of genocide. In contrast, the case of the fo rmer Soviet Union is generally one of politicide. Although minori ty groups were singled out by Stalin, his purges and his mass terror, which led to the death of a multitudes, typically resulted from what Stalin defined as a threat to his p o w e r (Conquest ,1990;1993). People were killed because they were perceived as real or potent ial political enemies. We also find that polit icide was the dominant pat tern in Argentina and Chile.

Still o the r ref inements can be made. The concep t of "gendercide" will prove to be valuable, for gender is of ten ignored in examining atrocities. Additionally, the not ion of "genocidal massacres"-- i .e . , the mass killings of selected sectors of a minor i ty g roup- - i s implicit in Falla's (1994) descript ions of the dest ruct ion of persons in several communi t ies in Guatemala. And the concep t of "politicidal massacres" is meaningful in social analysis.

Ana ly s i s o f G e n o c i d e a n d Po l i t i c ide : C o n t r a s t i n g Perspectives

When one analyzes the causes and consequences of genocide and politicide, one discovers how moral and social categories become inter twined. 3 At the same time, many of the disputes among communitarians, liberals and utilitarians are not directly relevant to analyses of mass killings by the state apparatus. Of greater import are moral pe r spec t ives - -no tab ly those related to ethical relativism and system c o m m i t m e n t - - t h a t are somewhat submerged in the current theoret ical debates.


Scholars who embrace a strong form of ethical relativism and system commitment would analyze the Holocaust, for instance, in its own terms. 4 What oc-

curred in Nazi Germany would be judged to be relative to that "historical ep-

o c h ' - - t o the nature of German society under Hitler. Moreover, the concep t of system commitment is congruen t with, even suppor t ive of, ethical relativism. Thus, a belief in "national sovereignty" or "national interest" leads us to accept the premise that each nation-state should, in effect, decide what is correc t for its members. If each nation-state is free to define wha t is good for its members , then one could conclude that the destruct ion of the Jews and Gypsies is a reality we must accept socially and morally.

Although the Holocaust is seldom justified in the stark terms we have out- lined, numerous scholars accept (often unwitt ingly) e lements of the argument we have articulated. Although adherence to a strong form of ethical relativism

decl ined after World War II, this moral or ienta t ion has expe r i enced a resur- gence, especially because of the postmodernists . A strong ethical relativist would assume that what is morally cor rec t is relative to a given social and cultural situation. Thus the Holocaust, or o ther forms of genocide and politicide, can not be evaluated by any "external standard."

So too, the moral stance implied by "system commitment" looms large in sociological writings. The classical sociologists took the nation-state as a fundamental starting point in their analyses, and the pract ice, with except ions , continues to this day. Social scientists, like policy makers in a variety of nation- states, appeal to the "national interest" in justifying particular actions within (or external to) the nation-state.

In elaborating our argument, we single out the strict construct ionists in social problems theory for special attention, and rely on Spector and Kitsuse (1987) as our point of departure. They define the central issue for a theory of social problems as accounting for the emergence, nature and maintenance of claims- making activities. Moreover, the sociologist is to step back and sustain value neutral i ty when analyzing the claims-making process.

Although a full-scale criticism of Spector and Kitsuse is not feasible, several issues must be ment ioned. The power of the state receives almost no attention. We are left with the impression that Spector and Kitsuse are working within the

f ramework of a "liberal state" that assumes a moral neutrali ty among claims- makers. Given this h idden premise they rule out the study of genocide and politicide. They reinforce this posi t ion by adhering to the view that no "external standard" can be evoked w h e n evaluating the moral foundat ions of claims-making. The result is that they adopt both a relativist and a system-maintenance or ientat ion when analyzing social problems, including mass killings by the state apparatus. In contrast to a relativist and sys tem-commitment framework, we postulate that we can analyze genocide and poli t icide only if we rely on a minimal set of universal moral standards regarding human rights. This calls for equal respect and conce rn for others as human beings. Although such a standard is loosely in place within the wor ld community, it is far f rom being accepted in practice. Still, we are not advancing some ideal that has no basis in reality.

Sjoberg, et aL 13

When we call for a human rights f ramework, we are not thereby contending that social and cultural differences would be eliminated. In fact, only if one adopts minimal universal standards can one justify moral sanctions against those who would engage in mass slaughter of human beings because of the latter 's racial or ethnic identity, or because they hold political views contrary to those of persons w ho command state power . This minimal set of cross-societal standards, which emerged at Nuremberg and in the Universal Declaration, serves as a fundamental check on the moral perspect ives within particular nation-states

(or multinational organizations). Let us put the matter somewhat differently. Analyzing genocide and poli t icide

calls for sociologists to conceptual ize a moral perspect ive that differs consider- ably from their ethicist heritage. It calls for some set of cross-cultural human rights standards.

C o l l e c t i n g Data o n G e n o c i d e a n d PoHt ic ide

When investigating abuses of state (or o ther forms of organizational) power , we need not only to recons ider the moral premises of sociological theory but also to reconceptual ize the moral underpinnings of social research. The pro- cesses of genocide and politicide pose particularly serious challenges to researchers. With rare except ions , data are col lec ted after the fact, and their quality is un- even and incomplete . A social researcher commit ted to the use of highly standardized research p rocedures will be unable to assemble reasonably valid data on mass killings by the state apparatus. When genocide and poli t icide occur , members of the military and o the r administrative agencies generally hide their activities from public scrutiny.

One significant step in gathering data on genocide and polit icide is to recog- nize the need for case study materials (cf. Sjoberg et al., 1991). We must rely on case studies of part icular events within the global setting and case materials on given genocidal or politicidal occurrences . Within this f ramework we must take particular care in coming to terms with a top-down versus bot tom-up view of social reality. The perpet ra tors of mass killings define the social situation vastly differently than do the victims. An asymmetry of views exists be tween persons with greater and with lesser p o w e r in any social situation (Williams and A.F. Sjoberg, 1993); this asymmetry is he ightened during periods of genocide and politicide.

We need data from the perspect ive of the victims, but many of the latter will have perished. In the case of the Holocaust, we have diaries, autobiographies and other data from survivors, or in some cases from those who died (Dobroszycki, 1984). These have provided us wi th considerable first-hand knowledge of the plight of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Moreover, the proclivity for record keeping by the Nazi administrative apparatus (which came to light after World War II) has added to our knowledge of those who perished. In o ther situations, as in Chile, the Report o f the Chilean Na t iona l Commiss ion on Truth a n d Reconci l ia t ion (1993) systematically sought to documen t what happened to


those who disappeared. And anthropologists such as Falla (1994), in his study of the massacres in Guatemala, have demonstrated the feasibility of reconstructing the process of genocidal massacres from the perspective of those who survived.

Examining the plight of the victims is not enough. Fein (1993:33) indicates how little sociologists know about how and w h y members of the state apparatus opt to engage in mass killings in the first instance. In order to investigate these issues social scientists are called upon to question the official versions of what occurred. In addition, researchers must have a firm grasp of the nature of organizational power, particularly of the secret side of the organizations that partici- pated in the mass killings.

The moral and political underpinnings of research on genocide or politicide can be highlighted by briefly considering different social situations. First, the Stalinist reign of terror in the former Soviet Union. Conquest (1990), one of the leading scholars in decoding the activities of the Stalinist state, speaks of how concealment of Soviet practices from the West was one of Stalin's major achieve- ments. A strategic source of data has been survivors who fled to the West, but the strong anti-Soviet stance of these refugees led many scholars to disregard their accounts (cf. Conquest, 1993).

A second case is the Vichy regime in France during World War II. The Vichy government appears to have assisted the Germans in funnelling Jews into the death camps. Only after the passage of decades did historians begin to probe into what occurred. Rousso (1991), for instance, documents how power groups in post-War France had a stake in repressing historical memory, and they were for years largely successful in their efforts.

A third case includes far fewer killings but is nonetheless of methodological import. It involves the massacres in E1 Mozote by the E1 Salvadorian military and the role of the U.S. government in attempting to conceal what transpired. There is a United Nations Truth Commission report, and Danner (1994) has provided us with a readable account of this politicidal massacre. So politically charged were the early accounts by Raymond Bonner in the New York Times that he apparently was removed from his post ( though he has been reemployed by that influential newspaper).

The moral and political implications of investigating genocide and politicide require careful attention. For one thing, if researchers accept the "system ver- sion" of what occurred, they are unlikely to contemplate the existence of genocide and politicide. What we know about the former Soviet Union, Vichy France or El Mozote stems from sources that are at odds with the reports of the existing state structure. How data are pieced together and how they are analyzed are profoundly influenced by the moral premises of researchers, journalists or others. Implicit in studying genocide and politicide is an extrasocietal or transcultural set of moral standards. If this be so, sociologists should perforce explicate these principles. In our view a minimal set of human rights is essential for interpreting data on genocide or politicide. The alternative is to accept, often implicitly, a relativist or system-commitment framework, which ultimately means that mass killings by a nation-state of its members is a legitimate endeavor.

Sjoberg, et al. 15

O t h e r Abuses o f O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Power

Although we have focused at tent ion on genocide and poli t icide in order to highlight human rights concerns, we can not limit our at tent ion to these types of human degradation. We ultimately will need to examine o ther abuses of state power. One of these was reflected by the racial repression in South Africa prior to the rise of Nelson Mandela to power . The world communi ty generally judged apartheid to have been a violation of human rights.

Still o ther issues merit considered at tention. Nils Christie (1993), a Norwegian criminologist, has recent ly raised the quest ion of whe the r or not the "prison- industrial" complex is giving rise to gulags in the Western world. That the United States today has, on a per capita basis, the largest prison system in the world gives pause to those who perceive the United States to be a democrat ic standard for the world. That this prison popula t ion contains a d ispropor t ionate number of African Americans as well as Hispanics is a social issue that can not readily be pushed aside (Chambliss, 1994). It seems reasonable to assume that the prison-industrial complex in the United States will become a source of worldwide controversy in the years ahead.

Sociologists will also need to think long and hard about the growing p o w e r of transnational organizations, and what the activities of these organizations mean for human rights of people on the global scene. Barnet and Cavanagh (1994) have observed that these organizational structures lie beyond the reach of accountabil i ty by local and national state arrangements. These organizations carry with them the potential for abuse of human rights. The debate about the Nestl~ Affai r - - the use of powdered milk for infants in less-developed nations (Cassese, 1990: chap. 8)- - is symptomatic of the kinds of social issues that will require careful at tention. Knowledge about the impact of these organizations on less advantaged peoples in the least deve loped nations is sorely lacking.

Conclusions and Implications

We have, admittedly in an adumbrated manner, sought to in t roduce the principle of human rights into sociological inquiry. Our conten t ion is that a human rights, rather than an ethicist, or ientat ion is essential if we are to examine genocide and poli t icide or o ther abuses of organizational power. Moreover, research on these social phenomena can not be carried out if one adheres to rather nar row standardized research procedures .

Although one wing of American sociology is reconst i tut ing the moral dimen- sion as an essential componen t of social theory, these sociologists cont inue to work within an ethicist (typically societal) framework. While some prominent scholars such as Steven Lukes (1993) and Bryan Turner (1993) (who were origi- nally based in Great Britain) have begun to theorize about human rights, their work has yet to pe rmea te mainstream theorizing.

Sociologists must come to terms with genocide and politicide. Mass killings by e lements of the state apparatus during the past half-century or more have deeply affected the fabric of social life in diverse sectors of the globe. We are

16 The American Sociologist/Sprtn 8 1995

not talking about isolated social phenomena. Many sociologists claim that they are committed to the study of order or freedom (or both). I f this be so, then genocide and politicide should occupy a strategic place in theoretical and empirical investigations. 5

One reason that sociologists, with the except ion of Horowitz (1982) and some others, have contr ibuted little to the analysis of genocide and politicide is that an effective analysis of these phenomena requires a set of extrasocietal s tandards-- typical ly one based on human rights. 6 Although what are minimal universal human rights principles continue to be contested, we are nonetheless discussing moral principles, which are being evoked by elements of the world community. When the military leadership in Argentina and Chile s tepped down, they were fearful of being tried because of the precedent set at Nuremberg. The leaders of the military-controlled government in Argentina were tried and con- victed, spent time in prison, and were then pardoned. Mso, it is within the realm of possibility that we shall once again witness a Nuremberg-like trial of leaders in Serbia and Rwanda who stand accused of genocide (Bonner, 1994).

Sociologists must do more than clarify and reformulate their theoretical orientations w h e n studying genocide and politicide. They must also rethink the use of their research procedures. Highly standardized methods are seldom, if ever, applicable for studying atrocities on a large scale. For example, these often do not admit of an asymmetry in perspective be tween persons above and those below. Also, sociologists, if they are to conduct research on genocide and politicide, will confront moral premises that should be made explicit. We are commit ted to the view that a set of moral standards, based on minimal human rights principles, is required if one is to investigate the abuse of state (or other organizational) power.

Nowadays many sociologists speak of a global sociology or a global perspective. Although sociologists can employ many features of existing theory and research when studying some global patterns, new theoretical and research innovations are required if they are to investigate other phenomena that starkly confront humankind. As we look toward alternative sociological formulations, human rights will necessarily come to occupy a larger place in sociological discourse and practice.

N o t e s

W e are i n d e b t e d to Leona rd Cain for his c r i t i ca l r e a d i n g o f ear l ie r ve rs ions o f th is m a n u s c r i p t . In addi t ion , Andr~e F. S jobe rg ' s ed i tor ia l r e f i n e m e n t s i m p r o v e d th is p a p e r .

1. Dur ing the 1994 a n n u a l m e e t i n g s o f t he A m e r i c a n Soc io log ica l Assoc ia t ion t h e n p re s iden t , Wil l iam Gamson , i n c l u d e d a n u m b e r o f t h e m a t i c sess ions o n g e n o c i d e . The t h e m e of t he 1994 a n n u a l m e e t i n g s of t he A m e r i c a n A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l Assoc ia t ion w a s " h u m a n rights~" It is an o p p o r t u n e t ime to i n t eg ra t e r e s e a r c h a n d t h e o r y o n these issues.

2. For an e x t e n d e d d i scuss ion o f bas ic i ssues r e g a r d i n g the f o r m u l a t i o n o f a soc io log ica l t h e o r y o f h u m a n r ights , see Sjoberg a n d V a u g h a n (1993 ) a n d Sjoberg ( f o r t h c o m i n g ) .

3. W e are u n a b l e to d o jus t ice to a n u m b e r o f t heo re t i ca l w o r k s tha t re la te to o u r a r g u m e n t . O n e is b y G i d d e n s (1985) , w h o analyzes the v io l ence o f na t ion-s ta tes , A n o t h e r is b y B a u m a n (1989) , w h o c o n s i d e r s the imp l i ca t i ons o f the H o l o c a u s t fo r m o d e r n i t y a n d p o s t m o d e r n i t y .

4. H i s to r i c i sm ( o n e face t o f re la t iv ism) w a s the sub jec t o f i n t ense c o n t r o v e r s y b e t w e e n J i i rgen H a b e r m a s a n d o n e w i n g o f the h i s to r ians in G e r m a n y d u r i n g the 1980s as t hey d e b a t e d the m e a n i n g o f t he Ho locaus t . See e.g. , Maier (1988) .

Sjoberg, e t a l . 1"7

5.

6.

We are not contending that civil or social rights are irrelevant. Quite the contrary. Yet, these should be anchored in, or related to, a cross-national conception of human rights. Parsons (1937), a major interpretative theorist, has argued that order is the central problem of sociology. Gibbs (1989), a positivist, believes social control is the central concept of the discipline. Neither sociologist, however, has addressed the question of how order or social control can lead to severe forms of repression (cf. Chirot, 1994).

References

Annas, George J. and Michael A. Grodin (eds.). 1992. The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code. New York: Oxford University Press.

Barnet, Richard J. and John Cavanagh. 1994. Global Dreams: Imperial Corporations and the New World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Bauman, Zygmunt. 1989. Modernity and the Holocaust. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Bellah, Robert, Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton. 1985. Habits o f the

Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. New York: Harper and Row. . . . . . 1991. The Good Society. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Block, Robert. 1994. "The Tragedy of Rwanda. ~ New York Review, Oct. 20. 41:3-8. Bonnet, Raymond. 1994. "U.N. Panel Backs Rwanda 'Genocide' Tribunal. ~ New York Times, September 29:A4. Buergenthal, Thomas 1992. "The Helsinki Process: Birth of a Human Rights System." In Human Rights in the

World Community, 2nd ed., 256-268. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Cassese, Antonio. 1990. Human Rights in a Changing World. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Chambliss, William J. 1994. "Policing the Ghetto Underclass: The Politics of Law and Law Enforcement." Social

Problems, 41:177-94. Chirot, Daniel. 1994. Modern Tyrants: The Power and Prevalence o f Eva in Our Age. New York: Free Press. Christie, Nils. 1993. Crime Control as Industry: Towards GULAGS,. Western Style? New York: Routledge. Conquest, Robert. 1990. The Great Terror: A Reassessment. New York: Oxford University Press. - - - - ~ . 1993. ~Academe and the Soviet Myth." National Interest, 31:91-98. Danner, Mark. 1994. The Massacre at E1 Mozote. New York: Vintage Books. Dobroszycki, Lucian (ed.)�9 1984. The Chronicle o f the Lodz Ghetto. 1941-1944. New Haven: Yale University

Press�9 Etzioni, Amitai. 1993. The Spirit o f Community. New York: Crown Publishers. Falla, Ricardo. 1994. Massacres in the Jungles: lncdn. Guatemala. 1975-1982. Boulder: Westview Press. Fein, Helen. 1993. Genocide: A Sociological Perspective. Newbury Park: Sage. Gibbs, Jack P. 1989. Control: Sociology's Central Notion. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Giddens, Anthony�9 1985. The Nation-State and Violence. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gouldner, Alvin W. 1970. The Coming Crisis o f Western Sociology. New York: Basic Books. Habermas, Jiirgen. 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action. Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Function-

atist Reason. Vol 2. Boston: Beacon Press. - - - - - - . 1990. Moral ConscioUsness and Communicative Action. Cambridge: MIT Press. Hilberg, Raul. 1961. The Destruction o f the European Jews. Chicago: Quadrangle Books. Horowitz, Irving Louis. 1982. Taking Lives: Genocide and State Power. 3rd ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction

Books. Jones, Robert Alun. 1994. ~The Positive Science of Ethics in France: German Influences on De ia division du

travail social. ~ Sociological Forum, 9:37-58. Kiernan, Ben (ed.). 1993. Genocide and Democracy in Cambodia. New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asia

Studies, No. 41. Lukes, Steven. 1993. "Five Fables About Human Rights." In On Human Rights, Stephen Shire and Snsan Hurley

(eds.), 19-40. New York: Basic Books. Lynd, Robert. 1939. Knowledge for What? Princeton: Princeton University Press. Maier, Charles S. 1988. The Unmasterable Past. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Middle East Watch. 1993. Genocide in lraq. New York: Human Rights Watch. Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press. Parsons, Talcott. 1937. The Structure of Social Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

�9 1967. Sociological Theory and Modern Society. New York: Free Press. Report o f the Chilean National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation. 2 vols. 1993. Notre Dame: Center

for Civil and Human Rights, Notre Dame Law School�9 Rousso, Henry. 1991. The Vichy Syndrome: History and Memory in France Since 1994. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press. Seiznick, Philip. 1993. The Moral Commonwealth. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sjobcrg, Gideon. Forthcoming. ~Tbe Human Rights Challenge to Communitarianism: Race and Etbnicity and

Formal Organization. ~ In For Etzioni, David Sciulli (ed.). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. Sjoberg, Gideon, Norma Williams, Ted R. Vaughan and Andr~e F. Sjoberg. 1991. "The Case Study Approach in

Social Research: Basic Methodological Issues." In A Case for the Case Study, Joe R. Feagin, Anthony M. Orum

18 T h e A m e r i c a n S o c i o l o g i s t / S p r i n g 1995

and Gideon Sjoberg (eds.), 27-79. Chapel HILL: University of North Carolina Press. Sjoherg, Gideon and Ted R. Vaughan. 1993, ~The Ethical Foundations of Sociology and the Necessity for a Human

Rights Framework. ~ In A Critique of Contemporary American Sociology, Ted R. Vaughan, Gideon Sjoberg and Larry Reynolds (eds.), 114-159. Dix Hills, NY: General Hall.

Smelser, Nell J. 1992. ~The Rational Choice Perspective." Rationality and Society, 4:381-410. Smith, Dorothy. 1990. The Conceptual Practice of Power: A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge. Boston: North-

eastern University Press. Sorokin, Pitirim A. and Walter Lunden. 1959. Power and Morality. New York: Porter Sargent. Speetor, Malcolm and John I. Kitsuse. 1987. Constructing Social Problems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Turner, Bryan S. 1993. "Outline of a Theory of Human Rights." In Citizenship and Social Theory, Bryan S. Turner

(ed.), 163-190. Newbury Park: Sage. Waldron, Jeremy (ed.). 1987. "Nonsense Upon Stilts": Bentham, Burke and Marx on the Rights of Man. New

York: Methuen. Williams, Norma and Andr6e F. Sjoberg. 1993. "Ethnicity and Gender: A View from Above versus the View from

Below." In A Critique of Contemporary American Sociology. Ted R. Vaughan, Gideon Sjoberg and Larry Reynolds (eds.), 160-202. Dix Hills, NY: General Hall.

Sjoberg, et aL 19

ethics, human rights and sociological inquiry: genocide, politicide and other issues of...

Documents