It ’ s Who You Know : Social Networks , Interpersonal Connections , and Participation in Collective Violence

What explains why certain individuals participate in episodes of collective violence and others not? Differential selection into riots, communal violence, and ethnic massacres has often been explained in terms of individual attributes: age, gender, occupation, education, income. Using social network analysis, I present a relational theory of participation to complement the attribute-based approach. I find participation is a function of the characteristics of (i) an individual‟s network; (ii) the connections within this network; and (iii) the individual actor. Drawing on Rwanda‟s genocide, I compare participants and non-participants in the violence from one community. I find first the size of an individual‟s network mattered. Participants were better connected generally and to other participants specifically. Second, the type and strength of connections also mattered. Kinship connections and stronger connections to other participants better predicted participation. Third, there existed a small core of “organizers” whose influence was due to their individual characteristics rather than their network characteristics. 1 London School of Economics 2 Deadly riots, communal violence, pogroms and other species of collective violence have occurred frequently and persistently in diverse societies throughout the world. In Africa alone, there have been nearly 1400 episodes since 1990 of just one form of collective violence – riots –which have claimed the lives of over 24000 people. Such violent group behavior is not confined to a particular geographic region. Collective violence has threatened social stability in regions as distinctive as China (ethnic clashes between Han and Uighurs (Han 2010), Northern Ireland (sectarian violence between Protestants and Catholics (McKittrick and McVea 2000), the United States (race riots involving African-Americans (Olzak, Shanahan et al. 1996), and Nigeria (religious violence between Christians and Muslims (Scacco 2009). It is also not a phenomenon of one historical period. Collective violence has spanned the pre-colonial and post-modern eras. In India communal violence between Hindus and Muslims for example has been recorded as early as the 1700s (Bayly 1985) and has recurred as recently as the end of the 20 century (Varshney 2001). As an enduring and destructive human phenomenon then, collective violence has deservedly generated scholarly research on its causes, mechanisms, contexts, effects, organization, and functions among other questions (Horowitz 2002; Tilly 2003). One question, however, merits further study. Despite its extent and persistence, collective violence usually involves only a subset of individuals from the pool of potential participants. It is easy to overlook the many who do not in fact participate. Why then do only certain individuals engage in such violently destructive behavior and others not? Extant micro-level research has suggested that the participants have distinctive profiles or distinguishing attributes which make them more prone to participation. It points to objective characteristics age, gender, education, occupation, income as well as subjective attributes – prejudices, grievances, ideological commitments, and personality types as possible determinants. However, this article argues that individual attributes are only part of the answer. To complement the atomistic explanation based on individual attributes, it 2 Derived from Hendrix, Cullen S. , Idean Salehyan, Christina Case, Christopher Linebarger, Emily Stull, and Jennifer Williams. 2010. "The Social Conflict in Africa Database. " Climate Change and African Political Stability Program. University of Texas, Austin. 3 presents a relational approach based on social connections. The article shows that participants in collective violence are embedded in interpersonal networks – social structures which both facilitate and constrain individual participation. Participation it is argued is not merely the product of individual preferences, but also a function of social interaction. It is not only who one is, but also who one knows that explains why some come to engage in such harmful collective behavior and others not. To explain differential selection into such violence, the relational approach advocated points to the distinguishing characteristics of both the social network and social connections of an individual as important determinants of participation. The article provides evidence that participants in collective violence have networks and connections that differ to those of non-participants. It is the particular features of these participants‟ networks and connections which facilitate their selection into the violence, while it is the characteristics of non-participants‟ networks and connections that constrain their recruitment. The article makes three central claims. First, the size of an individual‟s network matters. Participants in collective violence compared with non-participants – have more social connections in their communities in general and to other participants specifically. Second, in addition to network characteristics, the characteristics of the connections also matter. Not all connections are equal and some connections matter more than others. In particular, kinship ties to other participants – when compared with economic, social (friendship), political, religious, and proximity (neighborly) ties are the strongest predictor of participation. Related to this, the strength of a connection also matters. The stronger the connection an individual has to a participant, the more likely he is to be drawn into the violence. Third, while network and connection characteristics are important, individual characteristics remain factors in participation. The evidence suggests that certain individuals are more influential than others in mobilizing participants. Their influence is not determined by their networks or connections alone, but by attributes specific to them. In episodes of collective violence, these “organizers” form an inner core or “critical mass” of highly interested participants.