Abstract
In this chapter I look at the genocide itself. This is the pinnacle of my research and thesis. Genocide, as I will explain, is not just a physical act, but at its core a mental act springing from an identity crisis of the perpetrators. Due to international pressure they develop a pathological identity crisis, which they resolve by rebuilding and creating a new identity through a process of Othering. I place the genocide and the mechanism of genocide in the center of identity building. Doing so gives genocide in this book a unique element. I approach the violence, in all its forms, as a cultural expression of a pathological fixation on the identity of the perpetrators who use the Other to create a new sense of Self. To accomplish this, they have to destroy the Other in all its aspect: physically, culturally, politically, socially and psychologically.
The genocide has changed everything. Entire genealogies have disappeared. For example, I have never met my father’s father. And all I know of my mother’s mother are the gruesome stories I have heard about what happened to her as a child.
Informant Yaldo, 6 April 2006
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The influence of the Armenians may have been greater than other minority groups. The Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople also represented the Syriac Orthodox Church (Gaunt 2006: 12), for example.
- 2.
Jealousy was enhanced because of international treaties with European countries that protected the rights of Christian minorities within the Ottoman Empire (see Akҫam 2006: 27; also Gaunt 2006: 38–39). There was a Treaty of Edirne in 1829 that gave Christian communities the right to participate in local Ottoman administrations. The treaties of Paris (1856) and Berlin (1878) not only provided for changes in the legal status of Christian minorities (Akҫam 2006: 27), but also turned the Armenian Question into an international concern (Gaunt 2006: 38). At the same time the treaties gave the Great Powers the opportunity to influence the domestic affairs of the Ottoman Empire under the pretext of humanitarian intervention (Akҫam 2006: 28).
- 3.
Even though the Ghazi tradition in the Ottoman Empire had a definite Islamic dimension, the warrior tradition of expanding boundaries through conquest was actually older. The Ghazi tradition started to have Islamic connotations after Islam was established. (See also: H. Y. Aboul-Enein, and S. Zuhur (2004) ‘Islamic Rulings on Warfare,’ Strategic Studies Institute US Army War College (2004) or A. C. Hess (1973) ‘The Ottoman Conquest of Egypt (1517) and the Beginning of the Sixteenth Century World War,’ International Journal of Middle East Studies 4).
- 4.
According to historians, the emergence of new printing capabilities made a great contribution to this renaissance. The first Armenian book was printed in Venice between 1509 and 1512. In the nineteenth century, however, printing also acquired a new function. It became an efficient (and fast) way of spreading the Armenian national consciousness (Demirdjian 1989: 4, 5).
- 5.
Not every revolution is accompanied by genocide. According to Melson (1992), revolution and other political crises are a necessary, but not a decisive condition. Therefore, revolution does not necessarily lead to genocide, but revolution usually lies at the heart of genocide.
- 6.
This proposed law was not accepted in 1908, but instead was put into effect in 1913 after many changes (Akҫam 2006: 73).
- 7.
It is important to keep in mind that the Ottoman Empire was ethnically diverse. There were Serbs, Armenians, Kurds, Greeks, Assyrians, Jews, Muslim Arab, Bedouins and many more, with their own customs and in some cases their own language. They lived in strained circumstances, but side by side in the millet system, which was put under extreme pressure after the 1908 revolution. According to the CUP nationalists, a new citizenship (and not necessarily nationality) had to be created (Akҫam 2006: 72).
- 8.
Everyday violence refers to violence that occurs in day-to-day life and may not only be physical, but also social, e.g. experiences of inequality and discrimination.
- 9.
Not all scholars agree with Akçam’s observation. Some scholars like Dadrian (1999) and Hovannisian (1999) consider the massacres in Adana to have been a prelude to the genocide in 1915. To them the Armenians were specifically targeted even though actions against them weren’t as organized as the deportations from 1915 onward. A total of 20–30,000 Armenians were killed (Adalian 2012: 117–156) and 1300 Assyrians (Gaunt: 2009). The violence in Adana showed the tension within the CUP and also the willingness to implement Turkification with violence.
- 10.
A letter of a Turkish soldier that came into possession of a German consul stated the following: “We killed thirty thousand of the infidel dogs, whose blood flowed through the streets of Adana” (see Akҫam 2006: 70, quotation taken from Frankfurter Zeitung, 20 June 1909).
- 11.
See here how an international defeat is translated into a national defeat; the loss of the Balkan war was caused by the multiform society at the core of the Ottoman Empire.
- 12.
Gökalp, Türkleşmek, p. 12.
- 13.
The decivilization process is opposed to the civilization process as formulated by Elias. According to Elias, the civilization process is characterized by a constant need for self-regulation due to increasing interdependent relationships among various groups in society. During this process, particular values and behavioral patterns of the middle and high classes interweave with those of other layers of society. People’s behaviour becomes attuned to one another and regulated. These processes of civilization, however, are accompanied by moments of decivilization (Zwaan 2001: 110): Moments, as I have understood it, in which the interdependent relationships decrease and interwoven behavioral patterns unravels. Not everybody agrees with this theoretical point of view, however. Bauman (1989) argues that genocide, particularly when directed by a well-oiled state apparatus, is in fact a sign of “regulation.” According to him, specific interdependent relationships increase and the behavior of the dominant group is strongly controlled by bureaucracy. In this case, genocide is the consequence of modernization, not decivilization, and is an example of “civilization” in its extreme form.
- 14.
This reasoning was unjust; Armenians voluntarily applied to join the Turks to fight against the Russians (Matossian 2001: 60). For a comprehensive chronological overview of the legal decrees of the Turkish government around this period, see Sonyel (1978) who brings all these salient documents together.
- 15.
Lemkin (1944) distinguishes yet other aspects of a group: political, social, cultural, economic, biological, physical and moral structures (Lang 1990: 6). The omission of the cultural and political aspect of genocide has caused many legal debates during the killings in Burundi (1972), the massacres of villagers in Cambodia (1975–1979), the ethnic cleansing in certain areas of Bosnia and Serbia (1990s) and the killings of Mayan villagers in Guatemala 1982 (and many more contested areas where civilians have been killed on the basis of their identity) and can be considered genocide. To some members of the UN Security Council, the definition of cultural and political genocide was too vague to be included in the official definition.
- 16.
These are only a few authors and a few of their publications. Genocidal scholarship, due to its complexities, is always inter- and multidisciplinary. These authors have done groundbreaking work in understanding genocide.
- 17.
The criticism of this provocation thesis is similar to the criticism voiced against Lewis’ famous work (1961–1966) “The Culture of Poverty,” which placed the guilt and responsibility on the victims and not the perpetrators. (Within anthropology this is called “blaming the victim.”).
- 18.
See also the website www.genocidewatch.org where Stanton has added two stages to the eight stages he published in 1996 and 2009 (153–156).
- 19.
For a concrete example of these stages, I refer to the eyewitness accounts of Reverend H. Riggs, who was an American missionary who had seen these events up-close in Harpoot (Kharpet), during the First World War. In his published memoires Days of Tragedy in Armenia (1997), he discusses these stages in detail. Especially in Chaps. 10–17.
- 20.
See also the report: Human Rights Review, the situation of the Christian minorities of Turkey since the coup d’état of September 1980 written by the Dutch Interchurch Aid and Service to Refugees, Utrecht, June 1982. There are recent changes. In 2010, there was the first open commemoration of the Armenian genocide in Istanbul. So, even though there is a policy of denial, a policy of acknowledgment is slowing coming forward.
- 21.
The movie is called A Journey Through West-Armenia and was made by an anonymous Scotsman in 1995. The places he shows in his film are the following: Sivas (where he shows an old eleventh century Armenian Church), Divigri (with an old eighteenth century church and an Armenian cemetery where the graves were plundered by Turks with human bones still scattered around), Erzurum (including the museum I mentioned before), Oltu (which has several abandoned churches), Ani (a completely deserted city, with abandoned churches where the Turks have tried to scratch the Armenian inscriptions off the walls), Kötek (featuring an Armenian castle and several old churches), Hahu (including a church transformed into a mosque), Van (where the largest Armenian defence took place) and Trabzon (the site of thousands of Armenian crosses). In particular, the title of the movie is remarkable since it is “A Journey Through West-Armenia,” whereas the filmmaker in fact traveled through southeast Turkey.
- 22.
Boas is considered the forefather of cultural relativism, however, this is not correct. Even though he advocated that cultural values should be studied in historical settings and race was a biological differentiation that could never be considered an exclusive unit (Boas 1928: 63), he still differentiated between “modern” and “savages,” which was common in his era. He generally opposed the ethnocentric nineteenth century version of cultural evolution and its ethnocentric bias in anthropological research. However, he did not believe in ethical absolutes (see introduction by Ruth Bunzel, page 9, in the reissue of Boas’s book Anthropology and Modern Life in 1962) and that all morals and values were equal from an ethical point of view.
- 23.
Even though I understand that there are ethical barriers in doing research on genocidal violence from a cultural relativist point of view, I also believe it opens doors. We can study the violence, and what it meant to the perpetrators without attaching an ethical value to it. This would in my opinion enrich genocidal research.
- 24.
In her article, Coming to Our Senses, she writes: “If there is a moral risk in overextending the concept of ‘genocide’ into spaces and corners of everyday life where we might not ordinarily think to find it (and there is), an even greater risk lies in failing to sensitize ourselves, in misrecognizing protogenocidal practices and sentiments daily enacted as normative behavior by ‘ordinary’ good enough people” (Scheper-Hughes 2002: 369).
- 25.
Cultural models are tacit knowledge structures that are widely shared by the members of a social group (Hinton 1998: 96). Hinton argues that these cultural models are of extreme importance in understanding why individuals commit atrocities. In his research on the massacres in Cambodia, he believes that cultural models of “honor” and “face” (ibid.: 98) played a key role in the genocidal violence. He argues: “For genocide to take place (…) changes must be accompanied by a violent ideology that adapts traditional cultural knowledge to its lethal purposes” (ibid.: 117). The fear of losing face to authority was of essence of committing violence. At some point, it became “honorable” to kill people who were considered enemies of the state (ibid.: 115).
- 26.
According to Card (2003) and Das (2008), this is the fundamental idea of all “forms” of collective violence, even violence that is not homicidal (see Das 2008: 291). From this approach “social death” is as over-extended as Scheper-Hughes’ definition of genocide; the definitions do not take the intent of the crime into account.
- 27.
Gökalp was sentenced to be exiled from Turkey. He returned in 1921, where he played an influential part in creating the current Turkish national identity.
- 28.
And here it is important to be careful, for not all motives were altruistic. Some Armenian girls were brought in harems or be sold (see eyewitness account from George E. White, President of Anatolia College in Marsovan in: Barton 1998: 82).
- 29.
Campbell (2010) tries to explain why some individuals are bystanders and others commit heroic acts. He is especially interested in the contradictory behavior of individuals and those who are heroic in some instances and on other occasions bystanders or even violent actors. He explains this contradictory behavior through theories of “pure sociology.” The social proximity of the bystander and the victim is in this case of extreme importance. If there is less cultural distance, less relational distance and more functional and economical independence between actor and victim, it is more likely that the actor will commit an “heroic act” and protect the persecuted group, unit or person (Campbell 2010: 303–304).
- 30.
As Üngör correctly observed during a lecture at the Dutch-Armenian Foundation at Abovian on 13 April 2012, it also played, as a de-escalating aspect of violence. Through religion and conversion some Turks were able to help Armenians survive. Here we also see the complexity of violence. Even though religion could be an escalating factor, it could also be seen as a de-escalating factor. The lines are not clear cut. This said however, I show below that surviving through conversion carried a very specific cultural meaning that the violence was not necessarily directed at Armenians, but rather at the Armenian identity.
- 31.
In Geschiere’s study, specifically about autochthony, he describes a process that can easily be described as the making of other “identities” including national and ethnic identities.
- 32.
Shaw (2007) argues in his book “What is Genocide?” that militarization is one of the key undertones of genocidal violence: “War and genocide are often woven together in the same campaign, so that, to describe it as a whole, it is inadequate to talk only of ‘war’ or of ‘genocide’. Instead, we need to use the concept of genocidal war” (ibid.: 148).
- 33.
I would even go a step further and state that Gökalp’s writings were mostly aimed at the former elite (the Ottoman others) and secondarily to Christian and other minorities.
- 34.
This is not to state that the leaders of the CUP were religious, they were mostly secular. This was not a religious, but rather an intellectual approach on Islam. We have to separate this. For two major reasons: (1) the Armenian genocide was not a religious genocide. It was a genocide based on nationalism and national sentiment. Religion was politicized and used to mobilize the Turkish population. It is unclear what the role of religion in effect of the genocide was (see also footnote 22); it had both a catalyst as a tempering effect. Islam was used to mobilize citizens, especially against Russia before the First World War and “internal enemies”. It was a tool used by the Young Turks, but it was also tempering for it also allowed Armenians to convert to Islam and therefore escape massacres. (2) By placing Islam now in the center of the Armenian genocide, we are in fact unconsciously projecting present-day international and political tensions and the present-day notions of extreme Islam onto the old Ottoman Empire and the old Ottoman elite. For Gökalp, Islam was mostly an intellectual tool to understand the Turkish identity and society and not a religious tool.
- 35.
See here also the influence of Durkheim who believed that society was entity with its own (collective) conscience.
- 36.
Oğuz Han is considered the legendary ancestor of the Turks.
- 37.
Here once again is the influence of Durkheim in his approach. Society is an entity, with its own conscious. Whereas Gökalp first appeals to Turkish citizenship, he later places minorities outside society.
- 38.
Baumann 2004: 20.
- 39.
In his article (2004) “Grammars of identity/Alterity”, Baumann makes this differentiation between “Occident positive” versus “Orient negative” or “Occident negative” versus “Orient positive” (ibid.: 20). If we structure our identity through baby grammar, we always construct ourselves in the image of an Other. Where I disagree with Baumann however, is that he believes that genocide occurs when the structures of grammar implodes (ibid.: 42). I think that this is not the case (see also Holslag 2015a). I think that genocide occurs when baby grammar is taken to its utmost extreme, as I will show.
- 40.
To this extent, I would like to add a dimension to the analysis of Waller (2007). He speaks of “manufactured hatred”. I do think there is manufactured hatred, as I will explain further when I consider the role of propaganda. But “hate” is not the cause of genocide per se. It is actually the fear underneath that is the true culprit.
- 41.
This quote can also be found in: Ben de Yazdim, vol. 5. P. 1578.
- 42.
Semelin (2007) does not speak of bystanders, but of “third parties” that he gives–yet more carefully formulated—similar importance.
- 43.
- 44.
Which according to Scheper-Hughes, are already to a high degree in place for other purposes.
- 45.
I will return to this issue when I discuss the sexualization of violence; where power of the State influences the reproduction of the community.
- 46.
“Embodiment” is a term used in medical anthropology when norms, values, experiences (culture itself) are so inscribed in our essence, that they become a part of our physical being.
- 47.
A comparable process occurred in Nazi Germany as Melson (1992), Auron (2000) emphasize. Due to the Depression and the humiliations following the First World War, an identity crisis arose in Germany, which the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) used for political gain. However, the new German identity was magnified and based on race, whereas the Turkish identity was based on ethnical and nationalistic sentiments (Melson 1992: 250–253).
- 48.
Keep in mind that this was in 1912, before or at the start of the Balkan war. The CUP still believed in a plural society, which changed dramatically in 1913.
- 49.
As Üngor (2011b) in his excellent research points out, another salient detail is that some of the property was actually confiscated by the Muslim refugees of the Balkan war. If we take the significance of the Balkan war into account (see former paragraphs), this has a very symbolic connotation: Armenians weren’t seen—as we saw in the works of Gökalp—as part of the political entity or society, but the Muslims refugees were. Their property was property of an “enemy within” and could be used as such.
- 50.
His father by this time had been imprisoned and tortured. He didn’t speak when he brought his children to this unknown school and left them there with tens and later hundreds of other Armenian children.
- 51.
The first-generation survivors are therefore often called the “silent generation”. They cannot convey what they have experienced or have felt. The trauma lies deep, both physically and socially. Since they can’t convey their trauma, there is no outlet of the pain and trauma on a social level.
Bibliography
Aboul-Enein, H.Y., and S. Zuhur. 2004. ‘Islamic Rulings on Warfare.’ In Strategic Studies Institute US Army War College, 1–55.
Adalian, R.P. 1997. The Armenian Genocide. In Century of Genocide: Eyewitness Accounts and Critical Views, ed. S. Totten, W.S. Parsons, and I.W. Charny. New york and London: Garland Publishing Inc.
Akҫam, T. 2006. A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Ambos, K. 2009. What Does ‘Intent to Destroy’ in Genocide Mean? International Review of the Red Cross 91 (876): 283–296.
Appadurai, A. 1998. Dead Certainty: Ethnic Violence in the Era of Globalization. Public Culture 10 (2).
Arendt, H. [1963] 1994. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Pengiun Classics.
Auron, Y. 2000. The Banality of Indifference: Zionism and the Armenian Genocide. London: Transaction Publishers.
Aya, R.R. 1990. Rethinking Revolutions and Collective Violence: Studies on Concept, Theory and Method. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
Balakian, G. 2009. Armenian Golgotha. New York: Alfred A Knopf.
Balakian, P. 1997. Black Dog of Fate. New York: Basic Books.
Banerjee, S., A. Chatterji, L.N. Chaudry, M. Desai, S. Toor, and K. Visweswaran. 2004. Engendering Violence: Boundaries, Histories, and the Everyday. Cultural Dynamics 16: 125–139.
Barton, J.L. 1998. Turkish Atrocities: Statements of American Missionaries on the Destruction of Christian Communities in Ottoman Turkey, 1915–1917. Ann Arbor, MI: Gomidas Institute.
Bauman, Z. 1989. Modernity and the Holocaust. Oxford: Polity Press.
Baumann, G. 2004. Grammars of Identity/Alterity. In Grammars of Identity/Alterity: A Structural Approach, ed. G. Baumann and A. Gingrich. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Bekius, R., and W. Ultee. 2008. Over Armeense graven in de oude kerk te Amsterdam 1661–1808. Amsterdam: Stichting Armeense Apostolistische Kerk.
Blok, A. 1991. Zinloos en Zinvol Geweld. Amsterdams Sociologisch Tijdschrift 18 (3): 189–207.
Boas, F. 1928. Anthropology and Modern Life. New York: Dover Publications Inc.
Boas, F. 1938. The Mind of Primitive Man. Portsmouth, NH: Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bozarslan, H. 2007. Some Remarks on Mass Murders, Social Darwinism and Mysticism in the 20th Century. Encyclopedia of Mass Violence.
Bringa, T. 2002. Averted Gaze: Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina 1992–1995. In Annihilating Difference: The Anthropology of Genocide, ed. A.L. Hinton. Los Angeles: University of Press.
Bryce, J., and A. Toynbee. 2000. The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, 1915–1916. Uncensored Edition, ed. A. Sarafian. New Jersey: Princeton.
Buss, D.E. 2009. Rethinking Rape as a Weapon. Feminist Legal Studies 17 (2): 145–163.
Campbell, B. 2010. Contradictory Behavior During Genocide. Sociological Forum 25 (2): 296–314.
Card, C. 2003. Genocide and Social Death. Hypatia 18 (1): 63–79.
Chaliand, G., and Y. Ternon. 1983. The Armenians: From Genocide to Resistance. London: Zed Press.
Charny, I.W. 1982. How Can We Commit the Unthinkable? Genocide: The Human Cancer. Boulder: Westview Press.
Chitjian, H.M. 2003. A Hair’s Breadth from Death: The Memoirs of Hampartzoum Mardiros Chitjian. London: Taderon Press.
Clark, J. 2009. Learning from the Past: Three Lessons from the Rwandan Genocide. African Studies 68 (1): 1–28.
Clifford, J. 1982. Person and Myth: Maurice Leenhardt in the Melanesian World. California: University of California Press.
Dadrian, V.N. 1997. The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Dadrian, V.N. 1999. The Key Elements in the Turkish Denial of the Armenian Genocide: A Case Study of Distortion and Falsification. Cambridge: The Zoryan Institute.
Danielyan, E.G. 2005. The Armenian Genocide of 1884–1922 and the Accountability of the Turkish State. In The Crime of Genocide: Prevention, Condemnation and Elimination of Consequences. Yerevan: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia.
Das, V. 2008. Violence, Gender and Subjectivity. Annual Review Anthropology 37: 283–299.
Demirdjian, B. 1989. Armeniërs in de Westerse Diaspora: de gemeenschappen in Frankrijk en Nederland. Amsterdam: Antropologisch Sociologisch Centrum.
Deringil, S. 2009. The Armenian Question is Finally Closed: Mass Conversions of Armenians in Anatolia During the Hamidian Massacres of 1895–1897. Comparative Studies in Society and History 51: 344–371.
Douglas, M. 1966. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Durkheim, E. 1887 [1972]. Religion and Ritual. In Emile Durkheim: Selected Writings, ed. A. Giddens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edgarian, C. 1994. Rise the Euphrates. New York: Random House.
Elias, N. 1996. The Germans: Power Struggles and the Development of Habitus in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Oxford: Polity.
El-Ghusein, F. 1917. Gemarteld Armenië. Drukkerij en Uitgevers-Maatschappij. Den Haag: “De Hofstad”.
Ewing, K. 1990. The Illusion of Wholeness. Ethos 18 (3): 251–278.
Foucault, M. 1976. The Will to Knowledge: The History of Sexuality, Part 1. London: Penguin Books.
Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon.
Fein, H. 2002. Genocide, a Sociological Perspective. In Genocide: An Anthropological Reader, ed. A.L. Hinton. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Fornari, F. 1969. Psychanalyse de la situation atomique. Paris: Gallimard.
Gaunt, D. 2006. Massacres, Resistance, Protectors: Muslim-Christian Relations in Eastern Anatolia during World War I. New Jersey: Gorgias Press.
Geschiere, P. 2009. The Perils of Belonging: Autochthony, Citizenship, and Exclusion in Africa and Europe. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Gökalp, Z. 1923. The Aim of the Turkists. In Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization: Selected Essays of Ziya Gökalp, ed. and trans. Niyazi Berkes. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hatzfeld, J. 2005. A Time for Machetes. The Rwandan Genocide: The Killers Speak. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Hayden, R.M. 1996. Imagined Communities and Real Victims: Self-Determination and Ethnic Cleansing in Yugoslavia. American Ethnologis 23 (4): 783–801.
Hess, A.C. 1973. The Ottoman Conquest of Egypt (1517) and the Beginning of the Sixteenth Century World War. International Journal of Middle East Studies 4: 55–76.
Heyd, U. 1950. Foundations of Turkish Nationalism: The Life and Teachings of Ziya Gökalp. London: Luzac & Company Ltd. and The Harvill Press Ltd.
Hinton, A.L. (ed.). 1998. Why Did You Kill?: The Cambodian Genocide and the Dark Side of Face and Honor. The Journal of Asian Studies 57 (1): 93–122.
Hinton, A.L. (ed.). 2002a. Genocide: An Anthropological Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Hinton, A.L. (ed.). 2002b. The Dark Side of Modernity: Toward an Anthropology of Genocide. In Annihilating Difference: The Anthropology of Genocide, ed. A. L. Hinton. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Holslag, A. 2015a. The Process of Othering from the Social Imaginaire to Physical Acts: An Anthropological Approach. Journal of Genocide Studies and Prevention 9 (1): 96–113.
Holslag, A. 2015b. Exposed Bodies: A Conceptual Approach on Sexual Violence During the Armenian Genocide. In Genocide and Gender in the Twentieth Century, ed. A.E. Randall. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Hovannisian, R.G. 1999. Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Kadioğlu, A. 2010. The Pathologies of Turkish Republican Laicism. Philosophy and Social Criticism 36 (3–4): 489–504.
Kieser, H.L. 2006. Modernisierung und Gewalt in der Gründungsepoche des türkischen Nationalstaats (1913–1938). Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 57 (3).
Kleinman, A. 2000. The Violence of Everyday Life: The Multiple Forms and Dynamics of Social Violence. In Violence and Subjectivity, ed. V. Das, A. Kleinman, M. Ramphele, and P. Reynolds. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Lang, B. 1990. Act and Idea in the Nazi Genocide. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lévi-Strauss, C. 1966. The Savage Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Malkki, L.H. 1995. Purity and Exile: Violence, Memory and National Cosmology Among Hutu Refugees in Tanzania. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Matossian, N. 2001. Black Angel: A Life of Arshile Gorky. London: Pimlico.
McGee en Warms (ed.) 1996: Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History. California: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Melson, R.F. 1992. Revolution and Genocide: On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Miller, D.E., L.T. en Miller. 1993. Survivors: An Oral History of the Armenian Genocide. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Nederlandsche Comité tot Hulpbetoon aan de Noodlijdende Armeniërs. 1918. Marteling der Armeniërs in Turkije: naar berichten van ooggetuigen. Haarlem: Nederlandsche Comité tot Hulpbetoon aan de Noodlijdende Armeniërs.
Ohnuki-Tierney, E. 2002. Cherry Blossoms, and Nationalisms: The Militarization of Aesthetics in Japanese History. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Pandey, G. 2006. Routine Violence. Nations, Fragments, Histories. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Parla, T. 1985. The Social and Political Thought of Ziya Gökal, 1876–1924. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Patterson, O. 1982. Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Perera, S. 2001. Spirit Possessions and Avenging Ghosts: Stories of Supernatural Activity as Narratives of Terror and Mechanisms of Coping and Remembering. In Remaking a World: Violence, Social Suffering, and Recovery, ed. V. Das, A. Kleinman, M. Lonk, M. Ramphele, and P. Reynolds. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Proctor, R.N. 1995. The Destruction of Lives Not Worth Living. In Deviant Bodies: Critical Perspectives on Difference in Science and Popular Culture, ed. J. Terry and J. Urla. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Riggs, H.H. 1997. Days of Tragedy in Armenia: Personal Experience in Harpoot. Michigan: Ann Arbor.
Roy, S. 2008. The Grey Zone: The ‘Ordinary’ Violence of Extraordinary Times. In Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 14.
Sarafian, A. 2001. The Absorption of Armenian Women and Children into Muslim Households as a Structural Component of the Armenian Genocide. In God’s Name: Genocide and Religion in the Twentieth Century, ed. O. Bartov and P. Mack. Oxford: Oxford press.
Semelin, J. 2007. Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide. London: Hurst and Co.
Scheper-Hughes, N. 1996. Small Wars and Invisible Genocides. Social Science Medical 43 (5): 889–900.
Scheper-Hughes, N. 2001. Ishi’s Brain, Ishi’s Ashes: Anthropology and Genocide. Anthropology Today 17 (1): 12–18.
Scheper-Hughes, N. 2002. Coming to Our Senses: Anthropology and Genocide. In Annihilating Difference: The Anthropology of Genocide, ed. A.L. Hinton. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Scheper-Hughes, N. 2003. A Genealogy of Genocide. In Modern Psychoanalysis 28 (2): 167–197.
Shaw, M. 2007. What is Genocide? Cambridge: Polity Press.
Shirinian, L. 1999. Survivors Memoirs of the Armenian Genocide as Cultural History. In Remembrance and Denial, ed. R.G. Hovannisian. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Sonyel, S.R. 1978. Displacement of the Armenians Documents. Ankara: ERMENI TEHCIRI ve BELGERER.
Staub, E. 1989. The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Staub, E. 2008. The Psychology of Bystanders, Perpetrators and Heroic Helpers. In Genocide, vol. 3. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Stanton, G.H. 2009. Eight Stages of Genocide. In The Genocide Studies Reader, ed. S. Totten and P.R. Bartrop. New York: Routledge.
Straus, S. 2006. The Order of Genocide: Race, Power and War in Rwanda. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Svazlian, V. 2011. The Armenian Genocide: Testimonies of the Eyewitness Survivors. Yerevan: Gitoutyoun Publishing House of NAS RA.
Taussig, M. 1987. Shamanism, Colonialism, and the Wild Man: A Study in Terror and Healing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Taylor, C.C. 2002. The Cultural Face of Terror in the Rwandan Genocide of 1994. In Annihilating Difference: The Anthropology of Genocide, ed. A.L. Hinton. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Üngör, U.Ü. 2008. Seeing Like a Nation State: Young Turks Social Engineering in Eastern Turkey, 1913–1950. Journal of Genocide Research 10 (1): 15–39.
Üngör, U.Ü. 2011. The Making of Modern Turkey: Nation and State in Eastern Anatolia, 1913–1950. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Volkan, V. 1999. Individual and Large-Group Identity: Parallels in Development and Characteristics in Stability and Crisis. Croatian Medical Journal 40 (3): 29–55.
Volkan, V. 2006. Killing in the Name of Identity: A Study of Bloody Conflicts. Virginia: Pitchstone Publishing.
Wallace, R.A., and A. Wolf. 2005. Contemporary Sociological Theory: Expanding the Classical Tradition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Waller, J. 2007. Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, R.A. 2005. Towards an Open Debate on the Anthropology of Genocide. Anthropological Theory 5 (4): 18–27.
Wood, E.J. 2006. Variation of Sexual Violence During War. Politics and Society 34 (3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Woodward, S.L. 2000. Violence-Prone Area or International Transition? Adding the Role of Outsiders in Balkan Violence. In Violence and Subjectivity, ed. V. Das, A. Kleinman, M. Ramphele, and P. Reynolds. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Zürcher, E.J. 1993. Een Geschiedenis van het Moderne Turkije. Nijmegen: Sun.
Zwaan, T. 2001. Civilisering en Decivilisering: Studies over Staatsvorming en Geweld, Nationalisme en Vervolging. Amsterdam: Boom.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Holslag, A. (2018). The Loss of Identity. In: The Transgenerational Consequences of the Armenian Genocide. Palgrave Studies in the History of Genocide. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69260-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69260-9_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69259-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69260-9
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)