2019•Genocide Studies InternationalOpen access

Elementary Forms of Collective Denial: The 1994 Rwanda Genocide

Helen M. Hintjens, Jos van Oijen

Open full text 10 citations

Abstract

This article discusses three different forms of genocide denial that have—broadly speaking—followed one another in post-genocide Rwanda since 1994. Genocide denial is considered a stage of genocide, and each of these three forms of genocide denial is outlined, drawing on the seminal study on denial of Stanley Cohen. The article suggests that collective denial such as genocide denial should be distinguished analytically from more everyday forms of denial of atrocities and suffering. Three types of genocide denial—literal, interpretative, and implicatory—are identified and related to particular phases in post-genocide Rwandan history. It is shown that denial of the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda has been intertwined with post-genocide debates around fundamental causes and triggers of genocide. The article concludes with some reflections on instruments used by the Rwandan government to combat genocide denial, reflecting on the polarization of public and scholarly opinion on Rwanda’s recent past.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This article discusses three different forms of genocide denial that have—broadly speaking—followed one another in post-genocide Rwanda since 1994. Genocide denial is considered a stage of genocide, and each of these three forms of genocide denial is outlined, drawing on the seminal study on denial of Stanley Cohen. The article suggests that collective denial such as genocide denial should be distinguished analytically from more everyday forms of denial of atrocities and suffering. Three types of genocide denial—literal, interpretative, and implicatory—are identified and related to particular phases in post-genocide Rwandan history. It is shown that denial of the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda has been intertwined with post-genocide debates around fundamental causes and triggers of genocide. The article concludes with some reflections on instruments used by the Rwandan government to combat genocide denial, reflecting on the polarization of public and scholarly opinion on Rwanda’s recent past.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 10 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This article discusses three different forms of genocide denial that have—broadly speaking—followed one another in post-genocide Rwanda since 1994. Genocide denial is considered a stage of genocide, and each of these three forms of genocide denial is outlined, drawing on the seminal study on denial of Stanley Cohen. The article suggests that collective denial such as genocide denial should be distinguished analytically from more everyday forms of denial of atrocities and suffering. Three types of genocide denial—literal, interpretative, and implicatory—are identified and related to particular phases in post-genocide Rwandan history. It is shown that denial of the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda has been intertwined with post-genocide debates around fundamental causes and triggers of genocide. The article concludes with some reflections on instruments used by the Rwandan government to combat genocide denial, reflecting on the polarization of public and scholarly opinion on Rwanda’s recent past.

Key concepts: Genocide, Denial, Political science, Sociology, Criminology, Law, Psychology, Psychoanalysis

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Elementary Forms of Collective Denial: The 1994 Rwanda Genocide — Research Paper | ScholarLens