TRC Final Report

Volume 5

Chapter 7

Subsection 12

■ OTHER EXPLANATIONS OF MOTIVES

Individualistic psychological explanations

85 In a comprehensive analysis of many and varied forms of evil deeds, Baumeister distinguishes between four main clusters of motives underlying the actions of perpetrators¹². In this section, a slightly different but overlapping scheme is followed, also listing four main forms of explanation. It ends with an enquiry as to which forms of explanation best fit the South African situation and which apply best to particular forms of violent action – for example, torture and ‘mob’ killings. Both the popular and more scientific understandings of perpetrators are interrogated. In addressing motives, it is important to be mindful that reasons are likely to be pluralistic, overlapping, multi-layered and contingent on particular and local circumstances.

86 Popular accounts sooner or later raise the suggestion that violence is due either to deep, ingrained aspects of human nature (“it is in our nature to be violent” or “he is inherently evil”) or to various forms of psychological malady (“these actions are crazy, mad or mindless” or “these torturers must be sadists”). Since these everyday examples are so widespread and commonplace, they warrant asking questions about the substance of such claims. Much of the social psychological evidence points against these hypotheses, however.

Human nature

87 Let us examine the first claim, that violence is in our human nature. The notion is usually couched in some form of evolutionary or biological explanation – that we have descended from animals, that current violence is a throwback to more primordial, primitive or regressed forms, or that there are particular biological mechanisms (genes, primitive brain stems, hormones) that predispose us to repeated episodes of atrocities. Against this, one should consider the following. Why is it that mass atrocities appear only at certain historical times and not others? Why is it that some societies or cultures are in the main peaceable? Why is it that half of humanity, women, are not particularly violent and are seldom involved in large-scale atrocities? Even if one could identify atavistic predisposing factors, this would not explain the plain fact that large-scale killings (as in Rwanda, Bosnia, the Holocaust, the cultural revolution in China and Cambodia) occur over relatively brief historical periods and then cease. Atavistic accounts are simply not adequate.