Judgment and the Order of Passivity An Investigation of the Banality of Evil in the Cases of the Rwandan and Cambodian Genocides, and Modern Bureaucracy by Benjamin Waterman A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2018 © Benjamin Waterman 2018 Examining Committee Membership The following served on the Examining Committee for this thesis. The decision of the Examining Committee is by majority vote. External Examiner Dr. Michael Dorland Professor, School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University Supervisor Dr. Kieran Bonner Professor, Department of Sociology and Legal Studies, St. Jerome’s University in the University of Waterloo Internal Member Dr. Alan Blum Adjunct Faculty, Department of Sociology and Legal Studies, University of Waterloo Internal Member Dr. Marta Marin-Domine Adjunct Faculty, Department of Sociology and Legal Studies, University of Waterloo Internal-external Member Dr. Tristanne Connolly, Associate Professor, Department of English, St. Jerome’s University in the University of Waterloo ii Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. iii Abstract In the controversy surrounding Hannah Arendt’s coverage of the Eichmann trial in Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil the discussion of her work has come to recognize that Arendt’s account of the banality of evil is not meant to excuse Adolf Eichmann for serving as the SS officer charged with overseeing the logistical arrangements needed to enact the Final Solution. This writing will examine three case studies – a discussion of the genocides in Rwanda and in Cambodia and a discussion of modern bureaucracy – and consider both to what extent Arendt’s notion of the banality of evil contributes to an understanding of the practices of genocide and modern bureaucracy, and to what extent does an examination of these practices contribute to an understanding of the banality of evil. The argument will be made that Arendt’s use of this phrase refers simply to the willingness to perform activities if they are viewed as being in compliance with the prevailing moral and/or legal order of the society in which they occur. Though this suggests her offering a fairly straightforward message about the “dangers of conformity,” or the willingness to thoughtlessly engage in conventional practices to such an extreme degree, the thesis will seek to demonstrate the complexity of recognizing that this level of conformity is present under these circumstances. The examination of the three cases being discussed will centre both on Arendt’s discussion of the human faculties as well as the form of sociological investigation developed by Alan Blum and Peter McHugh known as Analysis, and the focus of this method upon understanding the merits of human activity. The argument seeks to show that by following the reflexive turn in Analysis an understanding of what is involved in showing a concern for the meaning of human activity is not arrived at “subjectively.” Rather the suggestion will be made that even if the resolution of this meaning is without a definitive outcome its importance is iv demonstrated through a consideration of the cases examined and the concern shown within each of them for matters such as friendship, justice, the activity of thinking and the nature of evil. Lastly, the argument will use Arendt’s work to suggest that not only the activity of thinking but each of the different human faculties can potentially offer a way to appreciate the “thoughtlessness” that Arendt suggests is indicative of the banality of evil, and which may be encountered in the mundane setting of modern bureaucracy and/or in the extreme situations of genocide. v Acknowledgements The guidelines at the University of Waterloo require an acknowledgement section be completed in order for the thesis to be accepted for submission. Perhaps the placement of this section as a necessary feature of this work, appearing before but parenthetically to the main body of its writing captures well Dorothy Smith’s sentiments about the way a text takes form. In its shaping it is indebted to considerations that are needed right from its beginnings, but typically go unrecognized for the contribution they make throughout. In the case of this text the (incomplete) effort to respond to this oversight will start by recognizing my wife Junko, who at this point would prefer a husband that spends his days doing anything else other than being a graduate student, but has stayed with me as a loving wife nonetheless. I wish to thank my parents, Elizabeth and Donald, and my brother Evan, who have done all they could to support my work on this project and talk only about the enjoyment they have received from being involved. I wish to also thank my brother’s girlfriend Trudy and her daughter Samantha, whose visits are the talk of our household, especially among those still learning to speak. Outside of our household, I wish to thank my supervisor Dr. Kieran Bonner first and foremost, who treated the progress of my writing as only part of his concern with keeping an eye on me throughout this project. Kieran once suggested to me that he thought of supervising students as being something like having children, and I think this accurately depicts the care he and his wife Margaret have shown to me and my family. But I would resist this description if it fails to communicate how impressive I find him to be not just in his supervisory role, but also as a scholar and a person to befriend. I wish to recognize too Dr. Alan Blum, who has what I consider to be a quite intimidating wit, but one that is outmatched by both the concern he shows for the well-being of others and the desire with which he pursues all that needs to be done to vi ensure that this well-being is being examined. I want to thank Dr. Marta Marine-Domine, both for staying on a very long ride with a student she barely knows in order to see this project through to its end, as well as for her initial commentary that has posed some of the most important challenges for me to try and address in this writing. I am also very appreciative that Marta, through her involvement as Director of the Centre for Memory and Testimony Studies, extended the additional kindness of introducing me to a community of genocide scholars, which is a community that I have for so long been wanting to associate with in person. I would like to say a quick word of thanks to teachers in my past, Dr. Jeffery Reid, Dr. Bill Shearson, Dr. Jamie Crooks, Dr. George Englebretsen and Dr. Michael Lustigman. I am told that Michael once described me as someone who “haunts” him, and I would say the same of him about me, although I would mean this only in a complimentary sense of him providing me with an image that is elusive, but after many years stays with me as one that I would like to emulate. I wish to thank as well the now retired graduate secretary Ilona Kosa, who has provided the remarkable example of someone thoroughly surrounded in a bureaucracy’s inner workings but who manages to avoid becoming a bureaucrat and remain a person, and a delightful person on top of it all. Nasiha Prcic also deserves much thanks for her editing help, which was asked for on short notice and returned by her with both great speed and quality. I also wish to mention, but only too briefly, what has been a regular and much welcomed influence upon me during my time studying at Waterloo. These are my fellow students and colleagues Amelia Howard, John Faichney, Celia Huang, Karolina Korsak, Mike Clark, Patrick Watson, Stephen Svenson, Sarah Nickerson-White, Jenny Flagler-George, Eric Torto and Neil Smithwick. I also wish to thank many at the Culture of Cities Centre but will mention only Han Zhang, Saeed Hydaralli, and of course Elke Grenzer. Elke’s ability to think on her feet in the vii many discussions I have attended displays a truly impressive mastery of material that I am very glad to have seen being exercised. The last word I want to give to my sons Oliver and Quinn. Arendt once wrote of twins that an “uneasiness” is experienced when in their presence due to the sense that each one of us has of what it means to be a uniquely human individual. But on this matter, I will have to firmly disagree with her. Just like many other parents I know few things that can compare to the pleasure of looking upon each of their faces. viii Table of Contents Examining Committee Membership………………………………………………………………ii Author’s Declaration……………………………………………………………………………..iii Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………...iv Acknowledgements.……………………………………………………………………….……..vi Epigraph...…………………………………………………………………………………………x Chapter 1: Practicality, Household Morality and the Problem of Reconciling “Is” and “Ought”...1 Chapter 2: The Genocide in Rwanda and the Appeal of Everyday Concerns…………………...27 Chapter 3: Re-Creation as Part of Working Through: The Particular and the Universal in the Cambodian Genocide…………………………………………………………………………….64 Chapter 4: The Order of Evil(s)………………………………………………………………...113 Chapter 5: A Concern for the “Good” in the Banality of Evil………………………………….164 Endnotes………………………………………………………………………………………...191 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………201 ix Only our concept of time makes us call the Last Judgment by that name; in fact, it is a court in standing session. - Franz Kafka x Chapter 1 Practicality, Household Morality and the Problem of Reconciling “Is” and “Ought” In the field of the finite, absolute determinacy remains only a demand, a demand which the Understanding has to meet by continually increasing delimitation – a fact of the greatest importance – but which continues ad infinitum and which allows only of perennially approximate satisfaction.1 – G.W.F.