Why do people resort to violence to uphold an identity?

    The article “Female Perpetrators of the Rwandan Genocide” by Sara E. Brown explores the role that women played in carrying out direct and indirect violence during the Rwandan Genocide. Brown observes that women are frequently overlooked in scholarship on the Rwandan Genocide, and advocates for the creation of a more accurate historical representation of the event by researching and including women as perpetrators, not simply as “victims or bystanders.” Brown concludes that aside from actually carrying out direct or indirect acts of violence, women in 1994 Rwanda played a large role in creating a culture that emphasized negative outgroup attitudes and strengthened ethnic divides. Brown takes issue with the assumption that women cannot be capable of perpetrating war crimes because they are mothers or sisters, and points out the important role of such mothers in fostering animosity towards other ethnic groups in their own children.

Brown addresses the theme of patriarchy in relation to women as perpetrators of war crimes to illustrate the fact that women could be oppressed and still be oppressors at the same time. Part of the strategy of Hutu leaders was to empower Hutu women not as women, but as Hutu. This meant that Hutu women connected more strongly with other Hutus, including men, than they did with Tutsi women. Since women did not have much structural social power and were severely underrepresented in the Rwandan government, the events of the genocide caused many Hutu women to feel empowered, like they could have some sort of influence on social affairs. This was especially true due to the fact that Tutsi women were portrayed as a “sexual threat” to Hutu women, and the ability to be chosen by a husband was important for women gaining even a minimal level of power in Rwandan society. I think people resort to violence to uphold an identity for a few reasons. As I just mentioned, power is one of them. If an identity is perceived to pose a threat to the power of another group, violent action may be taken to suppress that group. Second, sometimes there may be no choice but to use violence to attain rights and recognition for oppressed identity groups once all other avenues have been exhausted. Third, the emotional element of the connection between members of an identity group should not be overlooked. As mentioned above, one of the strategies Hutu leaders and media used in addition to portraying Tutsis as dangerous was to attempt to strengthen the emotional bond between women and their Hutu brothers, and to cast Tutsi women as part of a completely different identity group. The emotional bond between a Hutu woman and her Hutu brothers was, in many cases, enough to override any shared experience or emotions they may have had with Tutsi women. This is all to say that violence is usually used in response to threats that are perceived as capable of dismantling an identity group that an individual belongs to or cares about deeply. I also think that in many cases, people may resort to using violence to preserve their identity when their identity is the source of their social and/or political power, or when the desecration of the identity could result in a loss of social and political capital.

I found the reading to be very interesting, as I have previously learned about the role of women in the Rwandan Genocide during a class last year. This article complicated my understanding mainly of the cultural role that women played in the perpetuation of violence in Rwandan society through their ability to influence their children and spouses. I agree with Brown that women are often minimized or overlooked in important historical conflicts, despite their undeniable contributions to perpetrating and preventing such crimes, even if these contributions may be less visible initially.