Narrow genocide definitions erase communities’ unequal symbolic capital

Evidence

Post-structuralist and postmodern scholarship regarding the notions of “group,” “nation,” “ethnicity,” “race,” gender, and sexuality that are used in defining and bounding populations would seem to have equally serious implications for studies of genocide and efforts to prosecute violations. Lemkin (1944:79) sought to embed the notion of a bounded and clearly defined group deeply in the term itself through use of the Greek genos (race, tribe). Indeed, one of the arguments that bolstered efforts to exclude “political groups” from the UN Convention was that “racial or national groups” - being distinct, stable, bounded communities — could provide a scientific and objective basis for defining genocide (see Kuper, 1981:25). — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 265 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Genocide discourse functions as convertible symbolic capital in politics — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 281; Greater symbolic capital makes genocide accusations more rhetorically effective; Strict legal definitions of genocide disempower the communities they are meant to protect — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 289 (+5 more)

Broader Connections

• Genocide law depends on reified bounded groups that postmodern theory unsettles #complicates (0.70) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 265