Journal of Perpetrator Research JPVol. 2, No.R 1 (2018) ISSN 2514-7897 The Journal of Perpetrator Research (JPR) is an Editors inter-disciplinary, peer-reviewed, open access Dr Kara Critchell (University of Chester) journal committed to promoting the scholarly Dr Susanne C. Knittel (Utrecht University) study of perpetrators of mass killings, political Dr Emiliano Perra (University of Winchester) violence, and genocide. Dr Uğur Ümit Üngör (Utrecht University) The journal fosters scholarly discussions about perpetrators and perpetratorship across Advisory Board the broader continuum of political violence. Dr Stephanie Bird (UCL) JPR does not confine its attention to any Dr Tomislav Dulic (Uppsala University) particular region or period. Instead, its mission Prof Mary Fulbrook (UCL) is to provide a forum for analysis of perpetra- Prof Alexander Hinton (Rutgers University) tors of genocide, mass killing and political vio- Prof Dirk Moses (University of Sydney) lence via research taking place within the fields Prof Alette Smeulers (University of Tilburg) of history, criminology, law, forensics, cultural Prof Sue Vice (University of Sheffield) studies, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, Prof James Waller (Keene State College) memory studies, psychology, politics, litera- ture, film studies and education. In providing Copyeditors this interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary Dr Samantha Mitschke (University of Leicester) space the journal moves academic research on Sarah Jewett (LSE) this topic beyond, and between, disciplinary Tess Post (Utrecht University) boundaries to provide a forum in which robust and interrogative research and cross-curricu- Layout & Typesetting lar discourse can stimulate lively intellectual Dr Kári Driscoll (Utrecht University) engagement with perpetrators. JPR thus not only addresses issues related JPR is published by to perpetrators in the past but also responds Winchester University Press to present challenges. The fundamental ques- tions informing the journal include: how do Support for this publication comes from: we define, understand and encounter the figure The University of Winchester of the perpetrator of political violence? What Utrecht University can we discern about their motivations, and The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific how can that help society and policy-makers in Research (NWO) countering and preventing such occurrences? How are perpetrators represented in a variety of memory spaces including art, film, literature, television, theatre, commemorative culture and education? Journal of Perpetrator Research Volume 2, Issue 1 (2018) ISSN 2514-7897 Editorial v Roundtable Some Remarks on the Label, Field, and Heuristics of Perpetrator Research 3 Christian Gudehus Response to Christian Gudehus 9 Ernesto Verdeja On the Definition of the Perpetrator: From the Twentieth to the 13 Twenty-First Century Raya Morag Examining the Political and Military Power in South America: 20 A Response to Christian Gudehus Marcia Esparza Some Remarks on the Complexity of Collective Violence: 26 Understanding the Whole Christophe Busch Response to Christian Gudehus 33 The Editors Articles Agency, Responsibility, and Culpability: 39 The Complexity of Roles and Self-representations of Perpetrators Timothy Williams The Perpetrator’smise-en-scène : 65 Language, Body, and Memory in the Cambodian Genocide Vicente Sánchez-Biosca Perpetrator Trauma, Empathic Unsettlement, and the Uncanny: 95 Conceptualizations of Perpetrators in South Africa’s Truth Commission Special Report Michelle E. Anderson From Neutralization to Zombification: 119 Memory Games and Communist Perpetrators in Poland after 1989 Piotr Osęka Reviews Holocaust Perpetrators and Historiographic Blind Spots 147 Review of Perpetrators: The World of the Holocaust Killers by Guenter Lewy (2017) Kjell Anderson A Biographical Approach to Holocaust Research 151 Review of The Participants: The Men of the Wannsee Conference, ed. by Hans-Christian Jasch and Christoph Kreutzmüller (2017) Derk Venema & Alex Jettinghoff The Repressive Regime of the Vigilant State 155 Review of State of Repression: Iraq under Saddam Hussein by Lisa Blaydes Sophia Hoffmann Conference Report Models of Perpetration and Transgression: 159 Borderline Cases in Violence and Trauma Research Sebastian Köthe, Laura Cater, & Juliane Dyroff JPR Editorial Susanne C. Knittel elcome to the second issue of JPR: The Journal of Perpetrator Research. We are pleased to be able to present four research articles that showcase the interdisciplinary and transnational scope of the field of perpetrator studies. The first two focus on the Cambodian genocide and its aftermath. WIn his contribution, Timothy Williams explores the scope for action available to Khmer Rouge perpetrators and discusses how these perpetrators (re)present their acts and agency in retrospect. These self-representations, Williams argues, have significant implications for how they perceive their own culpability and responsibility, as well as for how scholars in perpetrator studies understand the dynamics of mass violence both during and after the fact. Self-representation is also a central concern in Vicente Sánchez-Biosca’s article on Rithy Panh’s 2011 film Duch, Master of the Forges of Hell. Through a careful analysis of the cinematic devices, such as editing, sound effects, and montage, employed by Panh, Sánchez-Biosca demonstrates how the film subverts and challenges Duch’s self-stylization, placing his words, gestures, and affect in a crit- ical frame. Michelle E. Anderson’s article revolves around the South African television programme Truth Commission Special Report. Anderson brings concepts such as per- petrator trauma, empathic unsettlement, and the uncanny to bear on the broadcast and shows to what extent TCSR confirmed and/or challenged stereotypical images of Apartheid-era perpetrators. Finally, Piotr Osęka takes us to post-1989 Poland and the settling of scores with the Communist Secret Police. Osęka identifies three dominant strategies in post-Communist memory politics in Poland: neutralization, retribution, and zombification, whereby the politics of the past return to feed on the politics of the present. The issue also features reviews of recent publications as well as a conference report. A special feature of this issue is an interdisciplinary ‘Roundtable’ on the question of perpetrators and perpetration. In response to the inaugural issue of the Journal of Perpe- trator Research, and in particular our ‘Editors’ Introduction’, we received an essay from Christian Gudehus, the editor-in-chief of Genocide Studies and Prevention, in which he raised a number of important points regarding the terminology, heuristics, focus, and ambit of JPR and of perpetrator studies in general. We welcomed this intervention and decided to take it as a starting point for an ongoing conversation about theoretical and methodological questions pertaining to the study of perpetrators and perpetration. For this Roundtable, we have invited a number of scholars from different disciplines to engage with our Editorial and the points raised by Gudehus. The Roundtable features Gudehus’s response, followed by position papers by Ernesto Verdeja, Marcia Es- parza, Raya Morag, Christophe Busch, and the editors. We hope that these kinds of cross-disciplinary conversations will become a regular feature of our journal. Journal of Perpetrator Research 2.1 (2018), v doi: 10.5334/jpr.2.1.24 © 2018 by the Author This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ JPR Roundtable JPR Some Remarks on the Label, Field, and Heuristics of Perpetrator Research Christian Gudehus erpetrator Research has been around for some time. It has many merits. This is in no way meant patronisingly but with genuine appreciation. This text does not intend to praise, criticize or historicize the diverse approaches that labelled themselves or were labelled as research on those individuals who Pplayed diverse, often extremely violent parts in the context of collective violence. The following pages are a reaction to the institutionalization of perpetrator research – especially as manifest in the launch of the Journal of Perpetrator Research (JPR). As part of this development, the design of conceptual frames that theorize collective violence seems to be a step in the wrong direction. Obviously, there is not only a long tradition of research on perpetrators but also one that puts the action, not the actor in the focus of studies on collective violence. Classical examples of such approaches are micro-sociological and social theoretical studies representing a variety of topics and epistemologies.1 However, the last few years have seen such developments also in the field of genocide studies. Let me illustrate the point. In recent years, I have attended a series of panels and conferences whose titles indicated a shift in conceptualizing collective violence. In 2015 Erin Jessee and Timothy Williams hosted a panel entitled ‘New Horizons in Perpetrator Research’ at the IAGS conference in Armenia. The INOGS conference in 2016 saw a panel with a different twist: ‘The Margins of Perpetration: Questioning and Testing the Concept of Perpetrator.’ And finally, later that same year, the Marburg Centre for Conflict Studies hosted an event called On Collective Violence. Actions, Roles, Perceptions. Hence, the concept of perpetrators first seemed to open