Bradley Campbell

Genocide as Social Control

Genocide is defined here as organized and unilateral mass killing on the basis of ethnicity. While some have focused on genocide as a type of deviance, most genocide is also social control—a response to behavior itself defined as deviant. As such, it can be explained as a part of a general theory of social control. Blacks (1998) theories of social control explain the handling of conflicts with their social geometry—that is, with the social characteristics of those involved in the conflict. Here, Blackian theories of social control are extended to specify the social geometry of genocide as follows: genocide varies directly with immobility, cultural distance, relational distance, functional independence, and inequality; and it is greater in a downward direction than in an upward or lateral direction. This theory of genocide can be applied to numerous genocides throughout history, and it is capable of ordering much of the known variation in genocide—such as when and where it occurs, how severe it is, and who participates.

Microaggression and Moral Cultures

Campus activists and others might refer to slights of one’s ethnicity or other cultural characteristics as “microaggressions,” and they might use various forums to publicize them. Here we examine this phenomenon by drawing from Donald Black’s theories of conflict and from cross-cultural studies of conflict and morality. We argue that this behavior resembles other conflict tactics in which the aggrieved actively seek the support of third parties as well as those that focus on oppression. We identify the social conditions associated with each feature, and we discuss how the rise of these conditions has led to large-scale moral change such as the emergence of a victimhood culture that is distinct from the honor cultures and dignity cultures of the past.

Genocide as a matter of degree1

This article employs Max Webers ideal-type method to classify genocides based on their degree of mass killing, unilateralism, and ethnic liability. The identification of the elements of genocide draws from a general theory of genocide (Campbell 2009, 2010) and from theories of social control employing Donald Blacks (1995, 1998) theoretical approach, known as pure sociology. Because these theories identify the social features associated with each element of genocide, they can explain the form genocides take.

Campus Culture Wars and the Sociology of Morality

In 2014 Comparative Sociology published our analysis of microaggression complaints – a comparative and theoretical piece addressing microaggression complaints as a form of social control indicative of a distinct moral culture. The article attracted a surprising amount of attention in popular media, and with this attention came confusion and controversy. Here we respond to popular accounts of our work, addressing common criticisms and confusions as well as the sociological question of why the article produced such strong reactions. We conclude by clarifying the sociology of morality’s role in moral debates and suggesting ways that sociological knowledge can inform debate and guide reform.

Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces, and the Language of Victimhood

Victimhood culture includes more than microaggression complaints. Campbell and Manning describe contemporary calls for trigger warnings and safe spaces, and how they mesh with victimhood culture’s central moral concerns. They consider whether these practices actually help those they are intended to protect or whether they are counterproductive. They note that both phenomena rely on the language of physical harm and discuss the role of expanded concepts of harm in the moral language of victimhood. This language, which includes new moral jargon and distinctive usage of common words, leads to confusion and conflict between campus activists and the outside world.

Victimhood, Academic Freedom, and Free Speech

There is an inherent tension between the ideals of victimhood culture and the ideals of free speech and academic freedom. Campbell and Manning discuss legal norms for regulating speech. They describe how campus activists commonly reject legal and folk norms regarding free speech and push for greater restrictions, often justifying these with an expansive conception of harm. Despite widespread belief in the value of academic freedom, colleges and universities have already introduced many speech restrictions. Indeed, rather than having more free speech than the larger society, campuses have far less. On campus, the most strenuous censorship occurs at the behest of leftist activists and their sympathizers and targets those who question victimhood culture. But the campus also faces censorship from the right, in the form of outsiders who are outraged over the speech of campus activists. As campus culture continues to depart from mainstream morality, such problems will increase.

Sociology, Social Justice, and Victimhood

Campbell and Manning examine how victimhood culture affects the discipline of sociology. The moral concerns of victimhood culture can lead to distortions of research and unscientific evaluations of theory. They discuss the potential of sociology as a science and potential tool for reform, and argue that the failure to distinguish between facts and values undermines this potential. Many sociologists neglect scientific goals and see sociology as synonymous with the pursuit of social justice. Campbell and Manning discuss the concept of social justice and its uses in moral decision-making. Like sociology, social justice has promise, but the moral climate of universities is such that social justice is synonymous with victimhood culture and any who dissent from this view are silenced. Conflating sociology with social justice, and social justice with victimhood culture, hampers our ability to seriously pursue social science and social reform.

False Accusations, Moral Panics, and the Manufacture of Victimhood

Campbell and Manning examine false claims of victimhood, as when people pretend to be victims of serious crimes. They consider the logic of such claims and the social conditions that give rise to them. False accusations are a way of manipulating third parties and arise under conditions that increase reliance on third parties while reducing due process. Victimhood culture encourages false accusations in the form of hate crime hoaxes, in which people claim to have been victimized by members of a more privileged social group. College campuses are especially prone to hate crime hoaxes, as well as moral panics that make it difficult and dangerous for anyone to express skepticism of victimhood claims. Campbell and Manning describe the dynamics of moral panic and consider the extent to which moral panic shapes contemporary concerns about campus rape culture.

Opposition, Imitation, and the Spread of Victimhood

Campbell and Manning discuss how new moral cultures spread, focusing on the dynamics involved in the spread of victimhood culture. These include changes in childhood socialization, such as higher degrees of adult supervision and protection in the form of helicopter parenting. Campbell and Manning argue that victimhood culture is most developed among social elites, and this makes it a potentially valuable form of cultural capital for those seeking upward mobility, causing it to spread downward in the status structure. The spread of victimhood is strenuously opposed by many, but opposition can turn into imitation as critics of campus culture adopt the language and tactics of their adversaries. Campbell and Manning discuss the phenomenon of competitive victimhood, and how it can aid the spread of victimhood culture, but also produce purity spirals that limit the effectiveness of victimhood activists.

Terrorism and Genocide

Abstract Purpose Terrorism has much in common with genocide and sometimes may even be a form of genocide. In this chapter I systematically compare these two phenomena. Methodology/approach Drawing mainly from Donald Black’s work on terrorism and my own work on genocide, I examine the conceptual and theoretical overlap between terrorism and genocide. Findings Terrorism and genocide are similar and sometimes overlapping, and they occur under similar social conditions – in response to conflicts between socially distant and unequal groups. Conceptually they differ mainly in that terrorism is covert and carried out by civilians, and genocide may not be. The main theoretical difference is that terrorism tends to be upward – against more powerful targets – while genocide tends to be downward – against less powerful targets. Terrorism tends to be less effective than extreme genocide, then, and the most extreme cases have death tolls much lower than the most extreme cases of genocide. Originality/value This analysis draws from previous theories of terrorism, genocide, and social control to better place terrorism in a broader sociological context. In doing so it highlights and explains key features of terrorism, and it even helps us to speculate about the future of terrorism. That is, technological advances might in the long run destroy the social conditions conducive to terrorism, thus leading to terrorism’s ultimate demise, but in the short run they might allow terrorists to more effectively kill, leading terrorism to resemble extreme genocide in its deadliness.