The Darfur Project: Collective Representations of Mass Violence
Research supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation, Program for Law and Social Science (2010-14) explores representations of the violence in Darfur across social fields (criminal law, humanitarianism, diplomacy) and their communication to the public in eight countries. Special attention is paid to effects of interventions by the UNSC and the International Criminal Court.
In this project I ask questions such as: how do United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and International Criminal Court (ICC) interventions color representations of mass violence in global society? What images arise instead from the humanitarianism and diplomacy fields? How do mass media communicate such competing perspectives to the public? Comprehensive media analysis of 3,387 news reports and opinion pieces, resulting in the Darfur Media Data Set, and in-depth interviews with Africa correspondents and experts from NGOs and foreign ministries from eight countries produced data to answer these questions.
For details see the following book publication:
Related chapters and articles are:
Summary of Findings from NSF project
Judicial interventions affect the representation of mass violence in all countries, in support of globalization arguments. Yet, they face competing representations generated by the humanitarian and diplomatic fields. The inclination of framing the violence as crime and using the genocide label varies substantially across countries.
Responses to the Darfur conflict are part of the "justice cascade,” the replacement of impunity by individual criminal accountability against perpetrators of grave human rights violations. Driving forces are international organizations (IOs) and human rights NGOs, examined in detail for Amnesty International. The United States, civil society groups and government, stood out in international comparison, seeking to advance the crime frame and a definition of the violence as genocide. American media, more than media in other countries, use the crime frame, the genocide label and dramatic bridging metaphors to shed light on the violence of Darfur by referencing past genocides, including the Holocaust.
Representations of mass violence in the humanitarian aid field differ from human rights narratives. Suffering that can be addressed by humanitarian aid is highlighted. The Government of Sudan is treated cautiously. Long-term conditions of violence are privileged over government actions as direct causes. The humanitarian catastrophe frame is preferred over the crime frame and actors avoid the genocide label. The powerful position of the Government of Sudan vis-à-vis the humanitarian aid field is identified as a crucial condition. Findings for Doctors Without Borders are confirmed by the case of Ireland with a strong aid orientation.
Representation of mass violence in the diplomatic field reveals a diplomatic master narrative: foci on long-term causes of the conflict; avoidance of naming responsible actors, using the crime frame and the genocide label. Diplomats have internalized their field’s institutional logic, relativizing arguments by Samantha Power according to which cautious language of diplomats, even in the face of genocide, is reflective of the reluctance of rational actors to get involved.
Interview data show how Africa correspondents drew information from the human rights, humanitarian and diplomatic fields. Analysis of the Darfur Media Data Set shows that peaks in reporting and citations of the crime frame followed political initiatives and ICC interventions. The humanitarian field, a crucial source for journalists, and its humanitarian emergency frame initially fared prominently, but its use declined quickly. The diplomatic field produced dramatic moments, affecting representations more enduringly than humanitarians, but less so than the human rights field and ICC interventions.
Below the nation-level, liberal papers more often address Darfur in the early stages, but that difference becomes neutralized with the onset of formal interventions. Gender matters as female reporters are more likely to address rape.
In conclusion, funding by the National Science Foundation produced insights into the generation of knowledge about mass violence. It has also yielded applied and educational benefits and contributed to the training of the next generation of scholars.
Research supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation, Program for Law and Social Science (2010-14) explores representations of the violence in Darfur across social fields (criminal law, humanitarianism, diplomacy) and their communication to the public in eight countries. Special attention is paid to effects of interventions by the UNSC and the International Criminal Court.
In this project I ask questions such as: how do United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and International Criminal Court (ICC) interventions color representations of mass violence in global society? What images arise instead from the humanitarianism and diplomacy fields? How do mass media communicate such competing perspectives to the public? Comprehensive media analysis of 3,387 news reports and opinion pieces, resulting in the Darfur Media Data Set, and in-depth interviews with Africa correspondents and experts from NGOs and foreign ministries from eight countries produced data to answer these questions.
For details see the following book publication:
- Joachim J. Savelsberg 2015. Representing Mass Violence: Conflicting Responses to Human Rights Violations in Darfur. Oakland: University of California Press (paperback and open access online).
Related chapters and articles are:
- Joachim J. Savelsberg. 2020. “Anti-Impunity Transnational Legal Ordering and Human Rights – Formation, Institutionalization, Consequences, and the Case of Darfur.” In Transnational Legal Ordering of Criminal Law, edited by Ely Aaronson and Gregory Schaffer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 205-233.
- Joachim J. Savelsberg. 2020. “The Representational Power of International Criminal Courts.” In: Power in International Criminal
Justice: Towards a Sociology of International Justice, edited by M. Bergsmo, M. Klamberg, K. Lohne and C. Mahony. Nuremberg Academies, TOAEP, pp. 493-510. - Joachim J. Savelsberg. 2019. “Journalism on Darfur between Social Fields: Global and National Forces.” In Media and Mass Atrocity:
The Rwanda Genocide and Beyond, edited by Allan Thompson, Waterloo, ON, CAN: Centre for International Governance Innovation, pp. 253-274. - Joachim J. Savelsberg and Hollie Nyseth Brehm. 2015. “Global Justice, National Distinctions: Criminalizing Human Rights Violations in Darfur.” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 121, No. 2, pp.564-603.
- Joachim J. Savelsberg. 2015. “Global Justice Institutions and National Cultures: Representing and Remembering Mass Atrocities.” Pp. 45-52 in Global Cooperation in Transitional Justice: Challenges, Possibilities and Limits, edited by Noemi Gal-Or and Birgit Schwelling. Duisburg: Center for Global Cooperation Research.
- Meghan Zacher, Hollie Nyseth Brehm, Joachim J. Savelsberg. 2014. “NGOs, IOs, and the ICC: Diagnosing and Framing Darfur.” Sociological Forum, Vol. 29, No 2, pp. 29-51.
- Joachim J. Savelsberg and Hollie Nyseth. 2012. “Collective Representations of Atrocities and National Identity: The Case of Darfur.” In National and Transnational Identities, edited by Markus Hadler and Franz Höllinger. Frankfurt/New York: Campus (US distribution: University of Chicago Press), pp. 149-76.
Summary of Findings from NSF project
Judicial interventions affect the representation of mass violence in all countries, in support of globalization arguments. Yet, they face competing representations generated by the humanitarian and diplomatic fields. The inclination of framing the violence as crime and using the genocide label varies substantially across countries.
Responses to the Darfur conflict are part of the "justice cascade,” the replacement of impunity by individual criminal accountability against perpetrators of grave human rights violations. Driving forces are international organizations (IOs) and human rights NGOs, examined in detail for Amnesty International. The United States, civil society groups and government, stood out in international comparison, seeking to advance the crime frame and a definition of the violence as genocide. American media, more than media in other countries, use the crime frame, the genocide label and dramatic bridging metaphors to shed light on the violence of Darfur by referencing past genocides, including the Holocaust.
Representations of mass violence in the humanitarian aid field differ from human rights narratives. Suffering that can be addressed by humanitarian aid is highlighted. The Government of Sudan is treated cautiously. Long-term conditions of violence are privileged over government actions as direct causes. The humanitarian catastrophe frame is preferred over the crime frame and actors avoid the genocide label. The powerful position of the Government of Sudan vis-à-vis the humanitarian aid field is identified as a crucial condition. Findings for Doctors Without Borders are confirmed by the case of Ireland with a strong aid orientation.
Representation of mass violence in the diplomatic field reveals a diplomatic master narrative: foci on long-term causes of the conflict; avoidance of naming responsible actors, using the crime frame and the genocide label. Diplomats have internalized their field’s institutional logic, relativizing arguments by Samantha Power according to which cautious language of diplomats, even in the face of genocide, is reflective of the reluctance of rational actors to get involved.
Interview data show how Africa correspondents drew information from the human rights, humanitarian and diplomatic fields. Analysis of the Darfur Media Data Set shows that peaks in reporting and citations of the crime frame followed political initiatives and ICC interventions. The humanitarian field, a crucial source for journalists, and its humanitarian emergency frame initially fared prominently, but its use declined quickly. The diplomatic field produced dramatic moments, affecting representations more enduringly than humanitarians, but less so than the human rights field and ICC interventions.
Below the nation-level, liberal papers more often address Darfur in the early stages, but that difference becomes neutralized with the onset of formal interventions. Gender matters as female reporters are more likely to address rape.
In conclusion, funding by the National Science Foundation produced insights into the generation of knowledge about mass violence. It has also yielded applied and educational benefits and contributed to the training of the next generation of scholars.