0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
62 vizualizări42 pagini
A criminal civil war in Mexico has destroyed the moral foundations of citizen solidarity. How much do citizens care about the victims of criminal violence? average citizens are ignorant of and indifferent to their fate. My theory of solidarity under criminal civil war focuses on its cognitive framing.
Descriere originală:
Titlu original
Schedler_Collapse of Solidarity in Criminal Civil War
A criminal civil war in Mexico has destroyed the moral foundations of citizen solidarity. How much do citizens care about the victims of criminal violence? average citizens are ignorant of and indifferent to their fate. My theory of solidarity under criminal civil war focuses on its cognitive framing.
A criminal civil war in Mexico has destroyed the moral foundations of citizen solidarity. How much do citizens care about the victims of criminal violence? average citizens are ignorant of and indifferent to their fate. My theory of solidarity under criminal civil war focuses on its cognitive framing.
CIDE Centro de Investigacin y Docencia Econmicas Department of Political Studies Mexico City E-mail: andreas.schedler@cide.edu Web page: http://works.bepress.com/andreas_schedler Paper prepared for presentation at the Research Seminar Politics and Government, CIDE, Department of Political Studies, 3 September 2014. Draft! Work in progress (hopefully). Version 1.0. 18 August 2014. All rights reserved. Abstract After its successful transition to democracy, Mexico has stumbled into a criminal civil war, also known as the drug war, that to date has cost well over 100,000 casualties, most of them consigned to oblivion, without proper investigation or prosecution. Victims have been organizing and protesting, yet ordinary citizens have remained quiet. As I hypothesize, the primary reason for their acquiescence is attitudinal: Criminal civil war destroys the moral foundations of citizen solidarity, which is, the recognition of victims as equal members of the political community. Based on original data from the Mexican 2013 National Survey on Organized Violence, I address two empirical questions. First, how much do citizens care about the victims of criminal violence? I find that average citizens are rather ignorant of and indifferent to their fate. Second, what explains variations in citizen sympathies towards victims? My theory of solidarity under criminal civil war focuses on its cognitive framing. To the extent that citizens hold criminal violence to be selective, an exclusive affair among criminals, they tend to blame victims for their fate and deny them their sympathies. Lineal regression analysis confirms the expected framing effect, even when controlling for complementary explanations, such as victimization, distance to war, class, and political sophistication.
2
Imagine Mexico (or any other country) were governed by a dictatorship that had killed around 85,000 people since the year 2000, had made disappear about 26,000 more, and was storing some 16,000 unidentified bodies in its morgues, a regime that exhibited its victims on public places, hang them from bridges, abandoned them in trunks and on open fields, naked, tortured, dismembered. Imagine the public outcry. Fortunately, the scenario is different and Mexico is a democracy since 2000. Unfortunately, the figures of victimization are true. They are the result of a criminal civil war, also known as narcoviolence, that has escalated over the past years. Yet where is the outcry? On the public surface of collective debate and political activism, there is none, or only a feeble one. For the most part, those who participate in either civil protest movements or armed self-defense forces are victims of violence. Victims have also resorted to individual strategies of exit by domestic withdrawal or migration. Ordinary citizens who are not directly affected by the war stand by and watch, or look the other way. As I hypothesize, the primary reason for citizens factual acquiescence to violence and impunity is attitudinal: Criminal civil war destroys the moral foundations of citizen solidarity, which is, the recognition of victims as equal members of the political community. I explore the cognitive foundations of citizen solidarity on the basis of original data from the Mexican 2013 National Survey on Organized Violence. I address two empirical questions. First, how much do citizens care about the victims of criminal violence? I find that average citizens are rather ignorant of and indifferent to their fate. Second, what explains variations in citizen sympathies towards victims? My theory of solidarity under criminal civil war focuses on its cognitive framing. To the extent that citizens hold criminal violence to be selective, a self-contained affair among criminals, they tend to blame victims for their fate and deny them their sympathies. Lineal regression analysis confirms the expected framing effect, even when controlling for complementary explanations, such as victimization, distance to war, class, and political sophistication. Mexicos New Civil War Once in a century, it seems, Mexico stumbles into dramatic encounters with collective violence. The war of independence between 1810 and 1821 left around two-hundred thousand dead, and the Mexican Revolution from 1910 to 1917 no less than one million (see Krauze 2012: 15). Today, after decades of relative authoritarian peace and only two democratic presidencies, the country finds itself immersed in yet another epidemic of violence. 3
In the 2000 presidential balloting, the victory of opposition candidate Vicente Fox of the conservative National Action Party (PAN) capped a long process of democratization by elections and ended seven straight decades of hegemonic rule by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). Yet even as Mexicos fledgling democracy has been struggling to find its way, the country has slidat first imperceptibly, then dramaticallyinto civil strife. It has suffered a pandemic escalation of violence related to organized crime. The Escalation of Violence In 2006, after a close and contentious election, PANs Felipe Caldern assumed the presidency amid a lingering security crisis. During Foxs term in office, violent competition among drug-trafficking organizations (so-called cartels) had been provoking more than a thousand homicides per year, and the number was rising. Although it had not been an issue during the election campaign, President Caldern decided to make the fight against drug cartels the defining policy of his presidency, only to see that fight turn into his terms defining failure. During his six years in office, violence escalated both qualitatively and quantitatively. In qualitative terms, modes of assassination moved toward demonstrative cruelty, routinized and ritualized, including the public display of tortured, dismembered, and decapitated bodies. In quantitative terms, the number of annual homicides attributed to criminal organizations shot up from around 2,200 in 2006 to more than 16,600 in 2011. In 2012, drug-related homicides started to decline for the first time since 2001. This trend continued in 2013, even though annual figures of executions remained at a level (over 11,000) many times higher than in the early 2000s (see Figure 1). All these numbers must be read with great caution, though. The problems that cluster around the task of compiling accurate data on the violence are massive. Besides, thousands of people have disappeared after being abducted. According to official figures, more than 26,000 individuals were reported missing during the Caldern years. 1
[Figure 1 about here] When confrontations between armed groups within a state cause more than a thousand battle-related deaths per year, academics speak of civil war. At least since 2001, democratic Mexico has experienced levels of internal war that surpass this conventional threshold. Yet the war is not one but many. Its major lines of conflict run between criminal enterprises. Many, perhaps most, acts of private coercion are hostile acts within a multilateral war among competing cartels. Yet, while the 4
so-called drug war entails various interacting nonstate conflicts, it also contains elements of one-sided violence that criminals unleash against civilians. Profit-oriented participation in illicit markets forms only a portion of organized crimes activity. The drug cartels are also massively engaged in predatory crimes involving unilateral violence against civilians. Organized homicides have only been the tip of the violent iceberg. As criminal organizations have diversified their activities, the country has seen the dramatic expansion of kidnapping, human trafficking, and extortion (mafia-like protection rackets). 2 In addition, insofar as the cartels wage a guerrilla war against state agents, they participate in a kind of criminal insurgency. They have carried out numerous attacks against the state, such as the kidnapping, torture, and murder of security officials and assaults on police stations using hand grenades and heavy weapons. Thus the Mexican state is a warring party, too. In theory, it has a monopoly on the wielding of legitimate violence. In practice, it commits criminal violence on a large scale. International human-rights groups agree in ascertaining widespread human-rights violations perpetrated by security agents. In part, these violations are expression of state abuse. They are the unintended but inevitable consequence of acting with brute force, little actionable intelligence, and no oversight in an irregular war characterized by endemic problems of information. In part, illegal state violence is a symptom of partial state collusion. Between January 2008 and November 2012, more than 2,500 police officers and more than two-hundred military personnel were murdered by criminal organizations. Yet in numerous instances, public officials have collaborated with criminal organizations. 3
The Language of Violence The vocabulary of violence has been unstable and contested. Mexican politics and society have been struggling with how to talk about the hell it found itself dragged into. 4 The Fox administration talked dramatically about narcoterrorism, the Caldern administration euphemistically about thug rivalry (rivalidad delincuencial), and the Pea Nieto administration prefers not to talk at all. Academics commonly refer to drug violence, organized crime, or organized violence. In the media and within civil society, the language of war abounds. People habitually speak and write about the war, the war against drugs, the war of drugs, or the war among cartels. 5 Some refer to multiple parallel wars (Hernndez 2012: 13). External observers often concord. For instance, in its 2010 report, the Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Studies ascertains that the regional 5
predominance conflict between the main drug cartels [], on the one hand, and the government, on the other, escalated to a full scale war the first war in the Americas since 2003 (HIIK 2010: 48 and 42). 6
By logic and definition, since the conflict in question is not an external conflict, if it is to be considered a war, it must be a civil war (Waldmann 2012: 17). Many, perhaps most, domestic observers would object. Many object the language of war, as it involves the treatment of criminals as enemies (see e.g. Escalante 2012: Ch. 1, Madrazo 2013). It also evokes images of symmetrical warfare among regular armies (see Ovalle 2010), while the Mexican war has been unfolding as a typical irregular war in which most of the violence is perpetrated against defenseless unarmed individuals. Irregular civil wars see many more executions than battles (Antoine de Saint-Exupry, cited in Kalyvas 2006: 334). 7
Classic conceptions of civil war require that the parties in conflict are politically and militarily organized, and have publicly stated political objectives (Sambanis 2004: 829). Prototypical civil wars are fought by well-organized groups with political agendas, challenging the sovereign authority (ibidem: 820). The new Mexican civil war is different. It is not a classical civil war in which ideological insurgencies fight to topple state power or transform the political regime. It is a prototypical new civil war, fought for material gain not social justice. 8 It is a war without even the pretense of ideological justification. Its only ideology is the free market. If the political insurgents of the 20 th century strove to abolish capitalism, the criminal insurgents of today strive to unbound it. Capitalism without moral (or legal) limits is their utopia. Public Responses to Violence The statistics of murder, torture, and disappearance represent an atrocity on a massive scale. But they also represent an injustice on a massive scale. Even though they are not planned and executed by the central state, they are tolerated by a state that has renounced the effective judicial prosecution of organized violence. The criminal war has escalated in a context of near complete impunity. According to figures collected by Human Rights Watch, between December 2006 and January 2011, Mexican authorities counted 35,000 homicides they attributed to organized crime. Of these, 997 led to formal criminal investigations (2.8 percent), of which 343 led to formal criminal accusations (0.9 percent), of which 22 led to firm convictions (0.06 percent) (see HRW 2011: 15). For all practical reasons, the rate of successful persecution is zero, which amounts to something we have seen at other places in Latin America: the de facto privatization of the death penalty. The states grants private actors (as well as its own agents) a license to kill. 9
6
How have Mexican citizens responded to the epidemic of death and injustice in their fledgling democracy? The direct and indirect victims of crime have responded in many ways. Individually, they have mostly sought refuge in exit strategies, such as changing their place of residence (internal and international migration) or shutting down business operations in the face of extortion. Collectively, their responses have been bifurcated. Some have turned to peaceful mobilization, others to armed resistance. On the side of civil protest, over the past years, across the entire geography of organized violence, numerous local civic movements and associations have been formed by victims of violent crime and their families and friends. These initiatives gained national visibility in Spring 2011 when poet Javier Sicilia, after his son had been killed by local police officers, founded the nation-wide Movement for Peace with Justice and Dignity. 10 On the side of societal counter- violence, paramilitary self-defense forces have risen in more than a dozen of Mexican states. They have gained most prominence in 2013 in Michoacn where the federal government responded with large-scale intervention attempting to regain control through a mixture of military action, institution building, and social policy. 11
The question of political solidarity, however, does not concern the victims of violence, but those of their co-citizens who have not (yet) been directly affected by criminal civil war. The key test of political solidarity is not the solidarity among victims, but the solidarity towards victims. How, then, have ordinary citizens been responding to the civil war that has been unfolding on their television screens? In essence, they have adopted the role of passive onlookers. They have been trying to accept the new realities of war as normal and to carry on their daily lives as smoothly as possible. Yes, a few thousand people accompanied Javier Sicilia at the rallying points of his 2011 tours across Mexico and in 2012 citizens voted Felipe Calderns National Action Party out of the presidential office (in the wake of an election campaign in which parties and candidates kept silence on the war). But not much more. We have seen few public displays of sorrow or anger, little serious debate, no sustained pressure on authorities. Rather than a nation of concerned citizens mobilizing their energies towards the construction of a decent system of justice, we have seen a nation of bystanders who have been quick to absorb the atrocious realities of civil war into their linguistic and statistical routines. 12
7
Requisites of Political Solidarity Whenever severe violations of human rights, such as torture, murder, and disappearance, spread within a modern nation state, ordinary citizens face discomforting questions. 13 What do they know? What should they know? What do they want to know? How much do they care? How do they relate to victims and perpetrators? Whom do they sympathize with? Which acts of violence do they condemn, which condone? What can they do to stop or alleviate the suffering of victims? What do they actually do? Do they do enough? Do they do everything they could? These questions touch the essence of political solidarity, which is: citizens willingness to assist the victims of severe and systematic injustice. Citizens face such questions whenever direct human intervention by either public or private actors produces suffering and death on a massive scale: under repressive dictatorship, in the face of genocide, in civil war, in epidemics of criminal violence. More often than not, citizens fail to meet the high demands of political solidarity. They fail their responsibility to protect their co-citizens. They let atrocities run their course, know little, care little, do little about the fate of victims. Even worse, they often act in opportunistic ways, reaping personal advantage of acts of injustice, in complicit manner, encouraging victimization by omission or commission, or even in collaborative fashion, participating directly in the organization of violence and injustice. What explains empirical variations in political solidarity? When are citizens able and willing to mobilize the moral resources of solidarity? When by contrary do they refuse to assist co-citizens who suffer from injustice? As most of contemporary political science comprehends political actors as acting under the primacy of self-interest, the discipline has paid scarce attention to moral interventions in the face of injustice. Modern political science is not a science of solidarity, but one of utility. Reflections on political solidarity have been largely left to normative political theorists (e.g. Brunkhorst 2005 and Rorty 1989), to historians of totalitarian systems (e.g. Longerich 2006), and to a certain extent to students of social movements, interest groups, and ethnic mobilization (for a synthesis, see Scholz 2008: Introduction). Much theoretical reflection and empirical work on the logic of moral intervention of behalf of victims has taken place in sociology and social psychology. The language is usually different. Authors rarely frame their work under the positively connotated heading of solidarity, but rather focus on its opposites, such as moral disengagement (e.g. Bandura et al. 1996), denial (e.g. Charny 2003 and Cohen 2001), and passive bystanding 8
(e.g. Nickerson, Mele, and Princiotta 2008 and Pozzoli and Gini 2013). In my reading, this dispersed sociological and psychological literature on moral action suggests that the degree of solidarity actors offer or deny others critically depends on how they conceive the situations of injustice they witness. It depends on how they perceive and frame the four basic building blocks of such situations: the nature of victims, the nature of injustice, the effectiveness of their own intervention, and the risks of such intervention. a) Identification with victims: The concept of solidarity is bounded. It describes reciprocal horizontal obligations among members of a community of equals. It differs from neighboring concepts, such as benevolence, which refers to relations among individuals, charity, which refers to hierarchical relations between donors and recipients, or clemency, which refers to relations between victors and losers. The original Roman concept of solidarity was a legal concept. It described reciprocal financial obligations among members of a community, their joint liability for personal debts. One for all, all for one. Everyone assumes responsibility for anyone who cannot pay his debt (Brunkhorst 2005: 2). The modern concept of political solidarity is a moral concept. It describes reciprocal moral obligations among strangers who share membership in an imagined community (Benedict Anderson) defined by some abstract criterion, such as class, occupation, gender, age, ethnicity, nation, or humanity. In principle, group membership is binary. Either you are in or you are out. Either you qualify as potential addressee of group solidarity or you dont. To the extent that politics polarizes between opposing camps of friends and foes, such dichotomies of belonging tend to map the scope of political solidarity well. Yet, the relevant social psychological literature on moral action neither deals with social groups nor with situations of political polarization. It studies individual relations in more ordinary settings, in which group boundaries are fuzzy, groups are internally diverse, and people belong to multiple groups at a time. Accordingly, this literature does not ask whether spectators categorize victims in a binary fashion as either insiders or outsiders of some abstract community. Rather, it asks where they place them along a continuum of proximity versus distance. Just as social distance between victim and perpetrator increases the probability of criminal violence (e.g. Sykes and Matza 1957, Grossman 2009), positive attitudes towards victims (Pozzoli and Gini 2013: 231) increase the probability of defensive intervention by third parties. 9
b) Perceptions of injustice: Solidarity is a response to the suffering of others. Political solidarity, more narrowly, is a response to injustices co-citizens suffer. It involves the acceptance of positive duties in response to a perceived injustice (Scholz 2008: L. 105). It is the perception of injustice that creates the demand for solidary action. A just world has no need for political solidarity. Citizens can uphold the delusion of a just world (Marvin Lerner) either by ignoring acts of injustice (the logic of denial) or by re-describing them as acts of justice (the blaming of victims). By pleading blindness, citizens can remain deaf to the calls of solidarity. Alternatively, if they invert responsibilities by blaming the victims for their own misfortune, if they hold them to be deserving of punishment, rather than worth of protection, then their very sense of justice will impel them to side with perpetrators, rather than victims (see e.g. Lerner 1980, Ryan 1976). c) The effectiveness of intervention: Much of the psychological US literature on passive bystanding was triggered by a high-profile case of citizen unresponsiveness: the abuse and murder of Catherine Kitty Genovese on a 1964 winter night in New York City, in which dozens of neighbors could have intervened by calling the police. But only one did, hesitantly, when it was too late already. 14 One of the fundamental irritations the case produced stemmed from the ease with which the witnesses could have done something: by simply dialing the emergency number. They faced no problems of coordination, no uncertainty about the choice of means. They had effective individual means of intervention at their disposal: their telephones. Cases of injustice that call for political solidarity are not like this. In politics, individuals possess only limited capabilities of effective intervention. To aid victims in an effective manner, they need to coordinate with their co-citizens and herewith face all the costs and uncertainties of collective action. 15
d) The risks of intervention: In contexts of severe and systematic violations of human rights, any intervention on behalf of victims carries high potential risks. It is legitimate for sympathetic citizens to weight the risks solidary action involves for their own physical integrity against the benefits it promises for the victims. For citizens to take solidary action in favor of victims of injustice, they must frame each element of the situation they encounter in an appropriate manner: they must identify victims as one of us, they must recognize them as victims of grave injustice, they must see feasible 10
courses of defensive intervention, and they must hold these safe enough to be taken. All four bundles of perceptions are necessary components of active political solidarity. In addition, they form a logical sequence. If bystanders to injustice do not fulfill first conditions, they need not ponder latter ones. If they place the victims of injustice outside the bonds of their moral community and in addition conceive their suffering as a higher form of justice, all further considerations of solidary intervention turn moot. Situations of criminal civil war, like other situations of systemic violence, place tight limits and high risks on solidary action. Under the shadow of illegitimate violence, it is difficult to see what individual citizens could possibly do to protect victims (condition c) and anything they might be doing is likely to entail considerable threats to their own physical integrity (condition d). While the constraints criminal violence places on citizen behavior are easy to comprehend, the constraints it places on citizen attitudes are less easily understood. No doubt, criminal civil war affects citizens capacities of solidary action towards victims. Yet, as I wish to argue, it affects their attitudinal dispositions towards victims in the first place. Even before destroying citizens abilities to help victims, criminal violence destroys their desire to do so. As I hypothesize, civil criminal war tends to destroy the bonds of sympathy between citizens and victims, because its official description (as a war among criminals) tends to place victims into one community with perpetrators. The Imagined Community of Perpetrators and Victims Generally speaking, how do citizens relate to the perpetrators of illegitimate violence and their victims? With whom do they identify? Which types of imagined communities do they construct? The classic criminal triangle of perpetrators, victims, and spectators contains four ideal-typical possibilities which are illustrated in Figure 2: a) Sympathy: the imagined community between citizens and victims. Citizens sympathize with victims, identify with their plight, recognize them as victims of injustice who are worthy of protection. Typical example: ordinary citizens in the face of ordinary crime. b) Complicity: the imagined community of citizens and perpetrators. Citizens sympathize with perpetrators, identify themselves with their cause, recognize them as agents of justice who deserve support. Typical example: pro-regime actors who sympathize with repressive campaigns against the enemies of the people under dictatorship. 11
c) Polarization: the confrontation between communities of perpetrators, victims, and citizens. In violent conflict among communities, citizens sympathize with those victims and perpetrators who belong to their own imagined community. Drawing a sharp line between insiders and outsiders, they side with our victims (aka martyrs) and our perpetrators (aka heroes) against their victims (who are deserving) and their perpetrators (who are evil). Typical examples: the distribution of national sympathies in international war, the distribution of ethnic sympathies in ethnic war, and the distribution of political sympathies in internal political war. d) Detachment: the community of victims and perpetrators. Citizens sympathize or identify with no-one. In their perspective, both perpetrators and victims belong to a community separate from their own. They are not community members, but some sort of aliens entangled in extraneous violent encounters. Both are barbarians, neither of them merits support. Typical example: the perception of revolutionary warfare by apolitical observers. Now, as I wish to argue, the very notion of criminal warfare pushes citizens towards a position of detachment. Prototypical criminal wars are not structured by pre-established collective identities. As these are wars, collective actors are battling each other. But there are no collective identities involved. The parties in conflict are not, and do not pretend to be, representative of larger groups. They do not fight in the name of anybody. They only fight for themselves. Against others, who do the same. The notion of criminal warfare, though, does not suggest a situation of anomie, amorphous and chaotic. It does impose some sort of symbolic structure on the Hobbesian state of nature. It blurs one social boundary (between perpetrators and victims) and creates another one (between criminals and decent citizens). 16 These two conceptual operations merge in the notion of selective violence that defines violence as an exclusive affair among criminal organizations. Students of civil war speak of selective violence when the election of victims is personal. They speak of indiscriminate violence when victims are anonymous; when they are elected, not on the basis of individual, but collective criteria, like group membership or place of residence. With light shifts in connotation, we can translate this conceptual pair into criminal wars. In criminal civil wars, we can describe violence as selective as long as it serves as a means of conflict settlement among the members of criminal enterprises. We can describe violence as indiscriminate when it reaches beyond the criminal world and sows its 12
victims among civilians unrelated to criminal activities. Selective criminal violence is self-contained, indiscriminate violence is expansive. Selective violence in criminal civil war presupposes that the boundary line that separates combatants (criminals) from non-combatants (civilians) is crystal clear, while the boundary line that separates perpetrators from victims is fuzzy. Criminals form an imagined community distant from, or even outside of, society that conceives itself as innocent. Both perpetrators and victims belong to the criminal community whose members are guilty of whatever happens to happen to them. The armed conflict runs among criminal organizations who supply the assassins and the corpses. Decent citizens have nothing to fear as long as they stay out of their business. It is a war among them, not against us. In this ideal-typical criminal war, criminals kill criminals before the audience of passive citizens who watch murder news and read the homicide statistics in the relative safety of their homes. During most of the presidency of Felipe Caldern (20062012), official discourse produced and reproduced the idea of selective violence. Its basic message was simple: The war is about bad guys killing each other. More than 90 percent of all fatal victims are criminals murdered by criminals. The rest divides among public officials who were killed by criminals and decent citizens who were killed by accident, as collateral damage of public military confrontations among armed groups or between them and state agents. As the former president himself formulated: More than 90% of the homicides and executions, as we have been classifying them, derive from the fight of some cartels against others []. Many soldiers and many police officers have fallen in fulfillment of their duty, but their share does not reach even 5% of these deaths. There have been even many less cases, although unfortunately they have happened and we deplore it, of innocent civilians who have been caught in the cross-fire between delinquents or between the police and delinquents, but these are really the fewest. 17
The idea of criminal selectivity has not been exclusive to top government circles. Lower-level officials have embraced it, too. Victim families have given countless testimonies of state officials who treated them with disdain and refused to investigate their cases under the speculative suspicion that their murdered or disappeared family member had been connected to criminal groups. 18 In the public sphere, too, even media outlets critical of the government like the weekly Proceso habitually describe the victims of narcoviolence as criminal subjects who are victims of selective violence and distinguish their routine deaths (explicable and comprehensible) from those few (deplorable and 13
exceptional) cases of innocent passers who are hit by stray bullets (see Lemaitre 2013). The idea of selective criminal violence involves the assumption that criminal organizations are able to solve the problem of identification (Kalyvas 2006) that is endemic to irregular civil wars. In regular modern wars the parties in conflict confront each other on the battlefield. They are proletarian professionals of violence, carry flags and wear uniform, and the frontline keeps one side apart from the other. The distinctions between combatants and civilians and between combatants of one side and the other are clear. In irregular civil war, they are not. Civil wars are beset by uncertainties over the identity of actors. We never know for sure who is who in the complex field of private and public actors. The notion of criminal selectivity, however, assumes that criminals are able to identify those who are guilty of having committed any of the numerous infractions that are punishable by death, according to their draconian criminal codes which do not know the distinction between civil and criminal offenses. It is not without irony that the official discourse on the selectivity of criminal violence under Felipe Caldern carried assumptions of judicial efficacy that corresponded to the self- image of criminal groups themselves (see also Escalante 2012: 46 and 50). As the cartel La Familia proclaimed in October of 2006, when it entered the national political arena by throwing five human heads onto a dancing floor in Uruapan, Michoacn: The Family does not kill for money. It does not kill women, it does not kill innocents. Those who must die, will die. Everybody should know that. Which is: Divine Justice. 19
Needless to say, the notion of perfect criminal justice is preposterous. As it cannot be otherwise, the narcos often abduct, torture, and kill the wrong people. 20 Besides, the very nature of criminal civil war, its self- reinforcing combination of structural opacity and structural impunity, opens the floodgates for violence to become expansive. The circles of both perpetrators and victims tend to expand beyond the criminal world into wider spheres of state and civil society (see Schedler 2014b: Ch. 1). Even though unrealistic, the notion of selective criminal violence is tempting nevertheless. It is, we may say, a comforting ideological by- product of the discomforting concept of criminal civil war. It is a frame effect. By framing the war as a kind of external war among the voluntary members of the fraternal community of criminal assassins, citizens are able to retreat to a position of detached observers. Criminal civil wars, I hypothesize, encourage both things: the frame and the framing effect. They invite citizens to believe in the selectivity of violence and thus to 14
maintain a detached attitude of indifference towards its victims. From this twin theoretical expectation I derive two empirical implications. Descriptively, I expect high degrees of attitudinal distance between ordinary citizens and the victims of criminal civil war. I expect citizens to know little and care little about the victims of organized violence. Causally, I expect citizens distance to victims to vary as a function of their framing of war. To the extent that they perceive the war as a self-contained enterprise in which criminals kill criminals (selectivity of violence), civilians are less likely to reduce their subjective distance to victims. I test both empirical expectations on the basis of the Mexican 2013 National Survey on Organized Violence (ENVO) that strives to reconstruct citizen attitudes towards the main actors of organized violence under conditions of criminal civil war: perpetrators and victims, state and civil society. ENVO is a nationally representative face-to-face survey that was carried out in Mexico from 26 October through 30 November 2013 among adult citizens ( age 18). Its 2,400 interviewees were chosen through multi-stage sampling based on election precincts as defined by IFE. The national sample was stratified by five levels of municipal violence (average municipal homicide rates from 2009 to 2011). Designed by the author and jointly sponsored by the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) and the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE), 21 it was implemented by the survey firm Data OPM. The surveys overall margin of error is +/- 2 percent. 22
Selective Violence, Distant Victims In the face of organized criminal violence, citizens are caught between cross-cutting moral pressures. One the one hand, the moral grammar of democratic citizenship obliges them to recognize the need to protect the basic rights of their co-citizens. On the other hand, the moral grammar of criminal civil war induces them to conceive its victims as deserving criminals who have placed themselves outside the community of decent citizens and who have put themselves voluntarily at risks the political community cannot insure them against. How do Mexican citizens balance these conflicting normative logics? How much do they know and care about the victims of organized criminal violence? Which logic prevails in their attitudes towards the victims of war? The logic of solidarity or the logic of detachment and indifference? To capture the cognitive, emotional, and political closeness 15
citizens perceive in relation to the victims of organized violence, I use four survey items. One pair of questions refers to individual victims and another one on victims movements the civic associations and protest movements by victim families who seek justice for their dead and knowledge about their disappeared: Remembrance: the ability to remember the name of a victim of organized violence (Do you remember the name of some person who was murdered or disappeared by organized crime?). Empathy: the ability to name some case of criminal violence the respondent found moving (Outside the circles of people you know personally, do you remember some person whose [murder or disappearance] has moved you in particular?). Knowledge: information about victims movements (Over the past years, there have been victims of violence, people with family that has been murdered or disappeared, who have been organizing themselves to demand justice. Have you heard about these groups?). Identification: political sympathy for civic mobilization by victim families (How much do you identify with the victims who organize themselves?). Figure 3 displays the corresponding frequency distributions (for descriptive statistics, see Table B in the appendix). Only one in ten respondents remember some victim by name (10.1 percent) and only one in six recall some case they found particularly moving (17.1 percent). Less than two fifths of citizens have ever heard of civic mobilization by victim families (37.8 percent). Only one in fifteen citizens identifies very much with these collective efforts (6.4 percent) and more than a third not at all (35.9 percent). [Figure 3 and Tables 1 and 2 about here] Bivariate correlation coefficients displayed in Table 1 suggest a reasonable degree of the internal consistency among these items. Principal component analysis (without rotation) of these four variables yields one factor with an Eigenvalue greater than 1. It explains 36.9 percent of the variance (Eigenvalue 1.47). I interpret subjective proximity to victims as its underlying substantive dimension and thus use it as my index of closeness to victims. Table 2 contains the corresponding factor loadings. The graph at the bottom of Figure 3 shows the frequency distribution of the corresponding factor scores (regression points). Just like the individual components, factor scores are heavily skewed against victims. Even in the absence of comparative data, they lend 16
credence to the notion that a vast majority of ordinary citizens keep the victims of organized criminal violence at safe distance. Citizen proximity to victims is the exception, indifference the rule. In the fog of Mexicos criminal war, the victims of murder and disappearance seem to remain anonymous and invisible, leaving no more than faint traces in individual citizens minds and hearts. 23
When survey results show so little variance, when public opinion leans towards consensus, with majoritarian opinions crowding out dissenting views by large margins, then the main explanation needs to be either structural (respondents are subject to a powerful external context that makes them respond in certain ways) or cultural (respondents share cognitive schemas or normative commitments that make them respond in certain ways). Nevertheless, differences between individual respondents may still provide residual explanations for their limited attitudinal variance. In my theory of frame effects, the crucial intermediary variable or causal mechanism that accounts for variations in citizen attitudes towards victims is cognitive. I expect subjective perceptions of selective violence to induce subjective distance towards the victims of criminal violence. My initial question thus is descriptive: to what extent has the hypothesis of selectivity found acceptance among Mexican citizens? When violence is indiscriminate, when it threatens to touch everybody regardless of what they do or who they are, civilians cannot protect themselves. When perpetrators do not discriminate between the good and the bad, between allies or enemies, the rational course of action is resistance. Only when violence is selective, when it targets those who say or do certain things, or omit saying or doing certain thing, citizens can protect themselves by collaborating with the dominant force or by presenting themselves as neutral in the battle between contending parties (see Kalyvas 2006). In political civil war, neutrality is often not a viable option. In particular in contested war zones, warring parties demand active collaboration, not passive observation (see Kalyvas 2006: 226232). In criminal civil war, by contrast, neutrality appears as a reasonable self-protective strategy under conditions of selective violence. Thus, to operationalize the perceived subjectivity of criminal violence, we asked survey respondents to evaluate the protective force of neutrality: Talking about murders attributed to organized crime, how much do you agree with the following statement: As long as you do not get involved with them, nothing happens to you. 24
17
To the extent that criminal violence is selectively and exclusively committed by criminals against criminals, innocence should save citizens from its wrath. Living an ordinary life, keeping their distance, staying clean and staying out, should protect them from attracting the lethal attention of criminal organizations. As Figure 4 shows, more than sixty percent of respondents either show full confidence (29.5 percent) or some confidence (33.9 percent) in their capacity of protecting themselves by not meddling with the criminal world. About a fifth show some degree of disagreement (21.1 percent). Only one eighth (12.9 percent) plainly reject the idea that nothing happens as long as one keeps pretending that nothing happens. [Figure 4 about here] The overall picture is quite clear: Among the citizens of Mexicos troubled civil war democracy the idea of selective criminal violence is majoritarian, but not consensual. Even though a large majority of citizens tend to support the notion that the criminal war is essentially a war among criminals, a substantive minority does harbor their doubts. Meaning: there is variance. Which allows us to proceed to the causal question: which are its consequences for citizen attitudes towards victims? Table 3 confirms the theoretical intuition that the perceived subjectivity of violence correlates negatively with the subjective proximity to the victims of violence (r = -.153, p = .000, N = 2179). The bivariate lineal regression results shown in Table 4 provide further confirm the relevance of framing effects. Although the overall explanatory capacity of perceptions of selective violence is rather low (R 2 = .023), its lineal impact on the index of closeness to victims is both statistically and substantively significant (see Table 4). The more firmly respondents believe in the selectivity of violence, the more likely there are to show themselves ignorant and indifferent towards the victims of violence. Complementary Explanations How do people form their attitudes towards victims of criminal civil war? Certainly, these attitudes derive from a complex process in which the frames of war (Butler 2010) constitute only one causal factor among many others. The Mexican National Survey on Organized Violence allows us to test for a broad range of complementary hypotheses. 18
Hypotheses Victimization. It seems reasonable to expect that personal experiences of victimization by criminal organizations change personal stances towards victims. Citizens who have experienced cases of assassination or disappearance inside their families or within their circles of friends and acquaintances are likely to be more sympathetic to victims than those who have been spared the chilling touch of organized violence. To measure degrees of victimization by organized crime, I constructed an aggregate index of victimization that adds experiences of victimization inside the family (extortion, murder, and disappearance) as well as within the wider circle of friends and acquaintances (murder, disappearance, orphanage and emigration). 25
Distance to violence. Organized violence in Mexico is not generalized, but territorially concentrated at entry and exit points and along the transport routes by which drugs move transnationally. Between 2009 and 2011, less than 10 percent of Mexicos 2,453 municipalities experienced extreme levels of deadly violence (with average homicide levels above 50 per 100,000 inhabitants). In more than a fifth of municipalities, not a single person was murdered in these three years (22.4 percent), and more than one eighth (13.9 percent) still enjoyed almost European levels of homicide ( 5 per 100,000). 26
The objective proximity to criminal violence may have complex and contradictory effects on public perceptions of violence. Yet, overall, I expect the same logic and the same lineal relationship to hold as for victimization: objective proximity to violence is likely to generate subjective proximity to the victims of violence. Its just harder to be indifferent to the fate of victims if they get killed and kidnapped on your doorsteps. To measure respondents geographic distance from the war, I constructed an aggregate index of distance to violence that adds three pieces of information: (a) objective data on average annual levels of violence in their place of residence, (b) subjective sensations of local security (How secure do you consider living in your locality?), and (c) subjective distance from violence (things have been calm around here; the violence occurs in other regions of the country). Social distance. A substantial body of criminological literature argues that the perceived social distance between citizens and criminals molds the punitive sentiments the former harbor against the latter (see e.g. Ramrez 2013). Social proximity seems to be regulating, too, not just our antipathies towards perpetrators, but also our sympathies with victims. 19
A more disperse body of literature in history, psychology, and politics suggests that citizens are able to watch the suffering of others with perfect indifference, or even approval, if they are able to classify them as distant others. [H]uman sympathy can be turned on or off depending on how another person is categorized (Pinker 2012: L 7193). 27
The two most evident candidates for defining the social status of Mexicos victims of war are poverty and skin color. In the ethnically stratified societies of Latin America, crime is often suspected to be ethnically stratified, too. In the region, the most common image of criminals is of poor, nonwhite men (Arias 2006: L 342) and the same applies to the victims of violent crime. According to one recurrent diagnosis, in Latin Americas violent democracies (Arias and Goldstein 2010a), the homicides tend to be impoverished, poorly educated, nonwhite adolescents and young men (Arias 2006: L 173) and they tend to recruit their victims from the same social stratum. Trigger-happy killers on the public payroll tend to share their criteria of victim selection (see e.g. Brinks 2008, Gay 2010, Stanley 2010). Some critical observers have described the Mexican drug war in similar terms, as a war of the poor against the poor (Rea 2012: 230). Poverty is the leading explanation of violence among the Mexican public: 37.3 percent of our respondents identify it as the primary cause of organized violence in the country. If it criminal violence indeed is, and is perceived to be, a domain of the poor, with poor men abducting, torturing, and killing other poor men, we should expect public opinion to reflect its social stratification. I take the reported number of light bulbs in respondents dwellings as indicator of economic status and classifications of facial skin color by interviewers (on the LAPOP 11-point color palette that goes from pink to dark brown) as measure of phenotype. Of course, objective respondent attributes need not translate into subjective attitudes. High social status does not necessarily produce negative prejudice against subordinate classes and light skin color does not necessarily produce racism. However, to the extent that (a) these objective attributes do correlate with social and ethnic prejudice and (b) respondents conceive the victims of organized violence as dark-skinned members from lower classes, their social status and phenotype should be predictive of their sympathies towards victims. Under this twin assumption, I expect respondents social status to correlate positively and their skin color to correlate positively with their distance to victims and victims movements. 20
Political sophistication. Three standard variables in political survey research formal education, interest in politics and media consumption are likely to mold citizen views on the war. They are all indicative of political sophistication. The more educated citizens are, the more interested in political affairs and the more they keep themselves informed by watching, reading, and listening to the news, the more knowledgeable they should be about victims. If information inhibits indifference, the should be more sympathetic as well. To measure political interest, I use the respective standard item in ENVO: Generally speaking, how much are you interested in politics? The survey also contains a battery of questions on news consumption: How frequently do you follow the news in different media (almost never, a couple of times a month, a couple of times per week, almost daily)? I average the values for television, radio, and newspapers. Ideology. By definition, criminal wars are wars without ideology. Meaning, they are not driven by political ideologies, like distributive justice or religious salvation or ethnic self-determination, but by the private ideology of ruthless individual self-enrichment. The fact that neither perpetrators nor victims are ostensibly motivated by political ideologies does not imply that governmental policies towards organized violence are free from ideological guidance. Nor does it imply that citizen attitudes towards the war, its actors, and its management by the government are unaffected by ideological worldviews. Although I do not have elaborate hypotheses on the impact of political ideology on citizen attitudes towards victims, I wish to explore the effects of two variables: (a) the ideological position of respondents: their self-positioning on the ideological left-right scale from 0 to 10 and (b) their ideology possession: their ability or willingness of positioning themselves on the political left-right scale. Those who say they do not know how to position themselves or do not respond at all (DK/NR) are coded as ideological orphans (score 0), all others as ideologically self- conscious (score 1). The former constitute a third of all respondents (33.3 percent). It is possible that these post-modern citizens without ideological anchor belong to a different universe of public opinion than those more sophisticated citizens who view the political world (as well as, possibly, the criminal world) through the lenses of left or right or centrist identities. Religiosity. Religion can justify anything. The big managers and killers of the drug war are said to be deeply religious. Still, given the emphasis the contemporary Catholic church places on peace and solidarity, religious belief should lead Mexican citizens to sympathize with the plight of 21
victims. As measure of religiosity, I take respondents indications about the importance of religion in their lives. Sex. Generally speaking, killing and being killed is a mens business. At the global level, eight of ten homicides as well as eight of ten victims of homicide are men (UNDOC 2011: 11). In Mexico and Latin America, the average participation of men in the use of lethal force is even higher. 28
We have little systematic knowledge on perpetrators and victims in Mexicos criminal war. Yet, the familiar pattern of men killing men seems to hold. According to the Memoria dataset on organized violence in Mexico, assembled by the Justice in Mexico project of the University of California, San Diego, for the years 2006 through 2013, the vast majority of victims were men, with just 9% of the victims identified as female (Heinle, Rodrguez, and Shirk 2014: 31). Age. Mexico is no country for young men. Between 1998 and 2012, about two thirds of victims of homicide with firearms have been younger than 40 years. The highest number of victims comes from the age group between 20 and 29 years. 29 According to the Memoria dataset, which records more specifically victims from organized violence, between 2006 and 2013, the average age of the victims was 32 years, which appears to contradict widespread assumptions that organized crime violence is perpetrated by uneducated, unemployed, and disaffected youths (Heinle, Rodrguez, and Shirk 2014: 31). Even though the immediate equation the authors draw between victims and perpetrators is puzzling, their data do put into question certain clichs that depict the drug war as a war between private armies of teenagers attracted by exciting prospects of upward mobility (the fastest way to heaven). If the so-called drug war carries a clear sex bias and an unclear age bias, what follows for public attitudes towards the war? How should we expect respondents sex and age influence their perceptions of victims? If the simple mechanisms of social distancing work here, too, we should expect women and people of advanced age to be less concerned about victims. Results To what extent does our hypothetical battery of complementary independent variables correlate with citizens closeness to victims? As bivariate correlation coefficients in Table 3 indicate, skin color, left-right self-placement, religiosity, and sex are unrelated. All other variables confirm our theoretical expectations. Victims feel closer to victims and people closer to violence feel closer to victims, too. The same holds for persons with higher levels of sophistication, that is, for the higher 22
educated, the politically interested, the politically informed, and those capable of positioning themselves along the left-right scale. It also applies for the young. In the previous section, we found a significant bivariate effect of subjectivity of violence on distance to victims. To what extent is this effect robust to the inclusion of controls? Table 4 shows the results of multivariate OLS regression analysis fed with those variables that displayed significant lineal associations (correlation coefficients) with the index of closeness to victims (that is, excluding skin color, ideological position, religiosity, and sex). In this multivariate analysis, age pales into insignificance and education falls just below the conventional threshold of statistical significance (p .05). Yet the subjective subjectivity of violence as well as all other complementary variables remain significant. None of the individual coefficients is impressively high, yet the joint explanatory power of the nine variables included is quite decent (R 2 = 158). [Tables 3 and 4 about here] Conclusion In conclusion, I wish to highlight three findings: 1. In descriptive terms, aggregate patterns of Mexican public opinion reflect the structural devaluation of victims in criminal civil wars. A solid majority of citizens have faith in the selective nature of criminal violence. Individual victims of violence appear as nameless numbers whose fate scarcely touches their co-citizens. Average citizens barely take notice of victims movements and hardly identify with them. 2. Criminal civil wars tend to encourage civic detachment because they tend to blur the dividing lines between perpetrators and victims, and to reinforce those between victims and citizens. Nevertheless, neither the blaming of victims nor the cognitive, emotional, and moral withdrawal of citizens are carved in stone. Both are variables, not parameters. As my explanatory explorations have shown, the extent to which citizens distance themselves from the victims of war is sensitive to the frames of war (Judith Butler). On average, citizens who hold the selection of victims to be restricted to criminals know and care less about victims. The conceptualization of war and its victims matters at least for citizen attitudes towards its victims. 3. This paper has produced some joyful negative findings. We know little about the socio-economic profiles of the victims of violence. It is well 23
possible that they belong to the typical category of victims of lethal violence in Latin America: poor, non-white, young men. However, even if this is objectively the case, it does not bias citizens subjective attitudes towards victims. Although Mexicans maintain the victims of war at considerable symbolic distance, their distant attitudes do not vary with their own skin color, while they vary inversely to their class status: the more affluent are more emphatic. Perhaps, in Mexico, racism and class prejudice are unrelated with objective markers of ethnic membership and social status. In any case, though, the negative finding is still positive news: even if violence is biased by ethnicity and class, public opinion on violence is not. Notes 1 See El Gobierno mexicano reconoce hasta 26.000 denuncias de desparecidos, El Pas (Mexico City), 27 February 2013, 9. On disappearances and mass graves (narcofosas) related to organized crime, see also Molzahn, Rodrguez, and Shirk (2013: 1819). 2 See e.g. Aguilar et al. (2012: 9395), Bergman (2012: 7072), Bravo, Grau, and Maldonado (2014: 11), Buscaglia (2010), Echarri (2012), and OAS (2012: 7075). 3 Casualty figures from Molzahn, Rodrguez, and Shirk (2013: 30). On state abuse and collusion, see.g. Amnesty International (2009, 2012, and 2013), Article 19 (2012 and 2013), and Human Rights Watch (2009, 2011, and 2013). On information problems in irregular wars, see Kalyvas (2006). 4 I am alluding to the movie El infierno by Luis Estrada (Mexico, 2010). 5 See e.g. Aguilar Camn et al. (2012), Escalante (2012: Ch. 1 and 2), EmergenciaMx, Llamado global a frenar la guerra en Mxico, http://emergenciamx.org/blog/Llamado-global-a-frenar-la-guerra-en-Mexico (accessed 17 May 2013). 6 According to the HIIK definition, A war is a violent conflict in which violent force is used with a certain continuity in an organized and systematic way. The conflict parties exercise extensive measures, depending on the situation. The extent of destruction is massive and of long duration (2010: 88). 7 On the distinction between regular and irregular civil war, and between symmetric and asymmetric warfare, see Kalyvas (2009). 8 Seminal texts on new civil wars have been, among others, Enzensberger (1993) and Kaldor (2006). For a critical discussion of the distinction between ideological old civil wars based on grievances and non-ideological new wars based on greed, see Kalyvas (2001). 9 See Brinks (2008), Rivera (2010), Stanley (2010: L 1942 and 2157). 24
10 Under the heading of sites for peace (sitios por la paz), the webpage of the Movement for Peace with Justice and Dignity offers a collection of links to like- minded movements (http://movimientoporlapaz.mx/). The documentary film Javier Sicilia: En la soledad del otro by Luis Riley (Canal 22, 2013) reconstructs the movements cathartic first months (http://vod.canal22.org.mx/media/10377). 11 See e.g. Heinle, Rodrguez, and Shirk (2014: 4647), Trejo, Guillermo (2014), La peligrosa apuesta de las autodefensas en Mxico, El Pas, Tribuna, 20 January 2014 (http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/01/20/actualidad/1390229 607_176398.html), accessed 21 January 2014. 12 On civil societys responses to organized criminal violence in Mexico, see Dudley and Estrada (2013), Job (2012), Ovalle (2010), Rodrguez (2013), Rojo-Mendoza (2013), Villagran (2013). 13 I use the notion of human rights violations in a broad way that covers public as well as private perpetrators (see. e.g. Borer 2013). Similarly, I use the notion of citizens in a wide, minimalistic way, as members of a modern territorial state (which may be dictatorial or failing), rather than carriers of rights in an effective democratic polity. 14 [add references] 15 The locus classicus on obstacles to collective action is, of course, Mancur Olson (1965). 16 On the internal divisions within and the blurred boundaries between perpetrators and victims of severe violations of human rights (in South Africa under apartheid), see Borer (2003). 17 Jorge Ramos, Muertes de civiles son las menos: FCH, El Universal, 16 April 2010, http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/673331.html (consultado el 7 de febrero de 2014). At other occasions, the president proclaimed even more precise figures on the victims of homicides attributed to criminal organizations: more than 90 percent of those persons, 93 to be exact, have direct or indirect connections with some of the groups of organized crime; they are drug dealers (Felipe Caldern, Discurso pronunciado en el evento Mxico: Perspectivas y Oportunidades Econmicas en el Nuevo Entorno Mundial, 12 March 2009, http://calderon.presidencia.gob.mx/prensa/discursos). 18 See, for instance, Amnesty International (2012: 12) and (2013: 6), Gibler (2012: 139), Human Rights Watch (2012: 2 and 5), Turati (2012: 107108). 19 My translation (AS). See, for instance,, Siete carteles desangran a Mxico, El Pas (Colombia), 1 November 2009, http://historico.elpais.com.co/paisonline/notas/Noviembre012009/mexico.html (accessed 15 January 2014). 25
20 Journalist Javier Valdez offers some brushstrokes of violent mistakes by criminal organizations (2012: 15, 56, 70, 97, 143, 165, 176177, 214, 249, 267 268). 21 Since 4 April 2014: National Electoral Institute (INE). 22 The national population survey was complemented by an elite survey (N = 629) among high-level representatives of six groups: government, parties, media, academia, civil society, and business. For analytical summaries over the main descriptive results of the two surveys, see Schedler (2014b and 2014c). As soon as bureaucratically possible, the integrated dataset of both surveys will be publicly accessible via the CIDE data archive BIIACS (http://biiacs.cide.edu). 23 I am alluding to Robert McNamaras phrase that inspired the title of the documentary The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara (Errol Morris, 2003). 24 In Spanish, the item phrasing contains an ambiguity that is hard to translate. Mientras uno no se meta con ellos, no pasa nada implies two things: Nothing happens as long as you do not join them and as long as you do not get in their way. 25 For more precise descriptions of this as well as all other indices and variables, see Table A in the appendix; for descriptive statistics, see Table B. 26 Author calculations based on homicide data by the National Health Information System (SINAIS) (www.sinais.salud.gob.mx) and population data from the 2010 national census by the National Institute for Statistics and Geography (INEGI) (www.inegi.org.mx). Note that the World Health Organization considers violence to be epidemic once it surpasses 10 annual homicides per 100,000 inhabitants. 27 Among many others, see also Arendt (2004), Butler (2010), Grossman (2009). 28 See, for instance, Bravo, Grau y Maldonado (2014: Grfica 2.2), UNODC (2011: Cap. 5), OAS (2012: Tabla 1.3), Jos Ignacio Torreblanca, El varn, arma de destruccin masiva, El Pas, 26 January 2014, p. 29. According to the dataset on missing persons, assembled by the General Prosecutors Office towards the end of the Caldern presidency, 54 percent of persons registered as missing (for unknown reasons, including but not limited to organized crime) were men, 40 percent women (6 percent were left unidentified). 29 percent (!) of these persons were children aged between 10 and 17 years. See Centro de Investigacin y Capacitacin Propuesta Cvica (CIC), Informe sobre las personas desaparecidas en el sexenio 20062012, Mxico City: 2012, p. 7. See also Base integrada de personas no localizadas, http://desaparecidosenmexico.wordpress.com/descargas/ (accessed 18 May 2013). 29 Bravo, Grau, and Maldonado (2014: 89 and Figure 2.3). See also Merino, Zarkin y Fierro (2013), OEA (2012: 21) and UNDOC (2011: 65). 26
References Aguilar Camn, Hctor, Eduardo Guerrero, Alejandro Madrazo, Andrs Lajous, Jorge Hernndez Tinajero, Joel Chvez, and Dante Haro (2012), Informe Jalisco: Ms all de la guerra de las drogas (Guadalajara and Mexico City: Government of the State of Jalisco and Cal y Arena). Amnesty International (2009), Nuevos Informes de Violaciones a Derechos Humanos de parte del Ejrcito (London: AI). (2012), Known Abusers, but Victims Ignored: Torture and Ill- Treatment in Mexico (London: AI). (2013), Enfrentarse a una pesadilla: La desaparicin de personas en Mxico (Londres: AI). Anderson, Benedict (1983), Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London and New York: Verso). Arendt, Hannah (2004), The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Schocken Books, orig. 1948). Arias, Enrique Desmond (2006), Drugs and Democracy in Rio de Janeiro: Trafficking, Social Networks, and Public Security (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press). Arias, Enrique Desmond and Daniel M. Goldstein (eds) (2010a), Violent Democracies in Latin America (Durham: Duke University Press), Mobilereference e-book. (2010b), Violent Pluralism: Understanding the New Democracies of Latin America, Violent Democracies in Latin America, eds. Enrique Desmond Arias and Daniel M. Goldstein (Durham: Duke University Press), Mobilereference e-book. Article 19 (2012), Silencio forzado: El Estado, cmplice de la violencia contra la prensa en Mxico: Informe 2011 (Mxico City: Article 19) (http://articulo19.org/). (2013), Doble asesinato: La prensa entre la violencia y la impunidad: Informe 2012 (Mxico City: Article 19) (http://articulo19.org/). Bandura, Albert, Claudio Barbaranelli, Gian Vittorio Caprara, and Concetta Pastorelli (1996), Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71/2: 364374. Bergman, Marcelo (2012), La violencia en Mxico: algunas aproximaciones acadmicas, Desacatos 40 (September December): 6576. Borer, Tristan Anne (2003), A Taxonomy of Victims and Perpetrators: Human Rights and Reconciliation in South Africa, Human Rights Quarterly 25/4 (November): 10881116. 27
Bravo, Carlos, Marc Grau y Gerardo Maldonado (2014), Elecciones, Violencia y Estructura Social: Base de Datos Integral de Municipio Mexicanos, Mxico, DF: CIDE (informe preliminar). Brinks, Daniel (2008), The Judicial Response to Police Killings in Latin America: Inequality and the Rule of Law (New York: Cambridge University Press). Brunkhorst, Hauke (2005), Solidarity: From Civic Friendship to a Global Legal Community, trans. Jeffrey Flynn (Cambridge, MASS: MIT press). Buscaglia, Edgardo (2010), Mxico pierde la guerra, Esquire (March): 95-110. Butler, Judith (2010), Frames of War: When Is Life Griefable? (Londres y Nueva York: Verso). Charny, Israel W. (2003), A classification of denials of the Holocaust and other genocides, Journal of Genocide Research 5/1: 1134. Charri Cnovas, Carlos Javier (ed.) (2012), Panorama estadstico de la violencia en Mxico (Mxico, DF: Secretara de Seguridad Pblica Federal). Cohen, Stanley (2001), States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering (Cambridge, UK: Polity). Escalante Gonzalbo, Fernando (2012), El crimen como realidad y representacin (Mxico City: Colegio de Mxico). Dudley, Steven y Sandra Rodrguez (2013), Civil Society, the Government and the Development of Citizen Security, San Diego: University of San Diego, Working Paper Series on Civil Engagement and Public Security in Mexico. Freedom House (2012a), Mexico, Freedom of the Press 2012, Freedom House (New York: Freedom House), http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom- press/2012/mexico (accessed 17 September 2012). (2012b), Mexico, Freedom in the World 2012, Freedom House (New York: Freedom House), http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom- world/2012/mexico (accessed 17 September 2012). Gay, Robert (2010), Toward Uncivil Society: Causes and Consequences of Violence in Rio de Janeiro, Violent Democracies in Latin America, eds. Enrique Desmond Arias and Daniel M. Goldstein (Durham: Duke University Press), Mobilereference e-book. Gibler, John (2011), To die in Mexico: Dispatches from inside the drug war (San Francisco: City Light Books), Mobilereference e-book. (2012), Tinta contra el silencio, Entre las cenizas: Historias de vida en tiempos de muerte, eds. Marcela Turati and Daniela Rea (Oaxaca de Jurez: Sur+ ediciones), pp. 127146. 28
Grossman, Dave (2009), On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society (New York: E-Reads), Mobilereference e- book. Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research (2010), Conflict Barometer 2010 (Heidelberg: University of Heidelberg, HIIK). Heinle, Kimberly, Octavio Rodrguez, and David A. Shirk (2014), Drug Violence in Mexico: Data and Analysis through 2013 (San Diego: University of San Diego, Department of Political Science and International Relations). Hernndez, Anabel (2012), Mxico en llamas: El legado de Caldern (Mxico City: Grijalbo). Havel, Vclav (1985), The power of the powerless, The Power of the Powerless, ed. Steven Lukes (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1985), pp. 2353. Human Rights Watch (2009), Uniform Impunity: Mexicos Misuse of Military Justice to Prosecute Abuses in Counternarcotis and Public Security Operations (New York: HRW). (2011), Neither Rights Nor Security: Killings, Torture, and Disappearances in Mexicos War on Drugs (New York: HRW). (2013), Mexicos Disappeared: The Enduring Cost of a Crisis Ignored (New York: HRW). Job, Vanessa (2012), La resistencia ciberntica, Entre las cenizas: Historias de vida en tiempos de muerte, eds. Marcela Turati y Daniela Rea (Oaxaca de Jurez: Sur+ ediciones), pp. 14769. Kaldor, Mary (2006), New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2 nd ed.). Kalyvas, Stathis N. (2001), New and Old Civil Wars: A Valid Distinction? World Politics 54 (October 2001): 99118. (2003), The Ontology of Political Violence: Action and Identity in Civil Wars, Perspectives on Politics 3/1 (September): 475494. (2006), The Logic of Violence in Civil War (New York: Cambridge University Press). (2009), Civil Wars, Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, eds. Carles Boix and Susan Stokes (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 416434. Krauze, Enrique (2012), Mxico: La tormenta perfecta, Letras libres 167 (November): 1421. Lemaitre, Julieta (2013), Civilization, Barbarism, and the War on Drugs: The Normalization of Violent Death in Mexico and Colombia, 109 th
Annual Meeting, American Political Science Association (APSA), Chicago, IL, 29 August 1 September. Longerich, Peter. 2006. Davon haben wir nichts gewusst! Die Deutschen und die Judenverfolgung 19331945. Munich: Siedler, Mobilereference e-book. 29
Madrazo Lajous, Alejandro (2013), Criminales y enemigos? El narcotraficante mexicano en el discurso oficial y en el narcocorrido, Violencia, legitimidad y orden pblico, ed. Seminario en Latinoamrica de Teora Constitucional y Poltica (Buenos Aires: SELA, 2013), pp. 202231. Merino, Jos, Jessica Zarkin y Eduardo Fierro (2013), Marcado para morir, Nexos 427 (Julio): 2833. Molzahn, Cory, Octavio Rodrguez, and David A. Shirk (2013), Drug Violence in Mexico: Data and Analysis through 2012 (San Diego: University of San Diego, Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies, Trans-Border Institute). Nickerson, Amanda B., Danielle Mele, and Dana Princiotta (2008), Attachment and empathy as predictors of roles as defenders or outsiders in bullying interactions, Journal of School Psychology 46: 687703. OAS Hemispheric Security Observatory (2012), Report on Citizen Security in the Americas 2012 (Washington, DC: Organization of American States). OAS Organizacin de Estados Americanos (2013), El problema de las drogas en las Amricas (Washington, DC: OAS). Ovalle, Lilian Paola (2010), Imgenes abyectas e invisibilidad de las vctimas: Narrativas visuales de la violencia en Mxico, El Cotidiano 164: 103115. Pinker, Steven (2011), The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (New York: Viking). PNUD Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (2013), Informe Regional de Desarrollo Humano 20132014. Seguridad ciudadana con rostro humano: Diagnstico y propuestas para Amrica Latina (Nueva York: PNUD). Pozzoli, Tiziana and Gianluca Gini (2013), Why Do Bystanders of Bullying Help or Not? A Multidimensional Model, Journal of Early Adolescence 2013 33/3: 315340. Ramirez, Mark D. (2013), Punitive Sentiment, Criminology 51/2: 329- 364. Rea, Daniela (2012), La justicia de todos, Entre las cenizas: Historias de vida en tiempos de muerte, eds. Marcela Turati and Daniela Rea (Oaxaca de Jurez: Sur+ ediciones), pp. 21739. Rojo-Mendoza, Reynaldo T. (2013), From Victims to Activists: Social Influence and Prosocial Behavior in Mexicos Violent Drug War, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, manuscrito. Rorty, Richard (1989), Contingency, irony, and solidarity (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press). Ryan, William (1976), Blaming the Victim (New York: Vintage Books, rev. ed.), Mobilereference e-book. 30
Sambanis, Nicholas, What Is Civil War? Conceptual and Empirical Complexities of an Operational Definition, Journal of Conflict Resolution 48/6 (2004): 814858. Schedler, Andreas (2013), The Politics of Uncertainty: Sustaining and Subverting Electoral Authoritarianism (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press). (2014a), The Criminal Subversion of Mexican Democracy, Journal of Democracy 25/1 (January 2014): 518. (2014b), Ciudadana y violencia organizada, Mexico City: CIDE, research report (http://democracy- violence.net/research/post.php?researchid=134). (2014c), lites y violencia organizada, Mexico City: CIDE, research report (http://democracy- violence.net/research/post.php?researchid=135) Scholz, Sally J. (2008), Political Solidarity (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press), Mobilereference e-book. Secretara de Seguridad Pblica (2012), Avances y retos del sistema penitenciario federal (Mxico, DF: SSP). Stanley, Ruth (2010), Living in a Jungle: State Violence and Perceptions of Democracy in Buenos Aires, Violent Democracies in Latin America, eds. Enrique Desmond Arias and Daniel M. Goldstein (Durham: Duke University Press), Mobilereference e-book. Sykes, Gresham M. and David Matza (1957), Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency,American Sociological Review 22/6 (December): 664670. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2011), 2011 Global Study on Homicide: Trends, Contexts, Data (Vienna: UNODC). Villagran, Lauren (2013), The Victims Movement in Mexico, San Diego: University of San Diego, Working Paper Series on Civil Engagement and Public Security in Mexico. Waldmann, Peter (2012), El narcotrfico en Mxico: Una escalada de violencia anmica, Puebla: Benemrita Universidad Autnoma de Puebla, Instituto de Ciencias de Gobierno y Desarrollo Estratgico (ICGDE), Working Paper 3.
31
Table A Description of variables
Dimension Survey questions Range / Categories Variable name
Closeness to victims Index of subjective closeness to victims and victims movements. Factor loadings from PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS: FAC1_CTV Effective name recognition of individual victims: Do you remember the name of some person who was murdered or disappeared by organized crime? No (0), yes (1) P13_corr Empathy (in the context of questions on murder and disappearance): Outside the circles of people you know personally, do you remember some person whose case has moved you in particular? No (0), yes (1) P31 Information on victims movements: Over the past years, there have been victims of violence, people with family that has been murdered or disappeared, who have been organizing themselves to demand justice. Have you heard about these groups? No (0), yes (1) P56 Identification with movements: Generally speaking, which is your impression of these movements? How mucho do you identify with the victims who organize themselves? Not at all (0), a little (0.33), somewhat (0.66), very much (1) P59_norm Selectivity of violence Talking about murders attributed to organized crime, how much do you agree with the following statement: As long as you do not get involved with them, nothing happens to you. Disagree very much (0), disagree somewhat (1), agree somewhat (2) agree very much (3). P24B Victimization Additive index of victimization by organized violence within and outside family. SUM OF FIVE VARIABLES: 05 Index_VCO Extortion: Over the past years, has it happened to you or someone in your family that you were asked extortion money (derecho de piso) to conduct your business or other activities? No (0), yes (1) P26C Assassination or disappearance within family: Over the past years, someone member of your family has been murdered or disappeared by organized crime? No (0), yes (1) P26DE Assassination or disappearance outside family: Someone among your friends or acquaintances has been murdered or disappeared by organized crime? No (0), yes (1) P30 Orphanage: Do you know a child or teenager who was orphaned because criminal groups murdered their mother or father? No (0), yes (1) P33 Emigration: Do you know someone who migrated to the United States or some other country because of the violence? No (0), yes (1) P34 Distance to violence Additive index of subjective and objective distance to violence. SUM OF THREE VARIABLES: 010 Index_D_VIOL Local security: How secure do you consider living in your locality? Not at all (0), a little (1), somewhat (2), very much (3) P5 32
Subjective distance from violence: As a matter of fact, things have been calm around here; the violence occurs in other regions of the country. Disagree very much (0), disagree somewhat (1), agree somewhat (2) agree very much (3) P10C Objective distance from violence: Five strata of civility (04) = inversion of survey sample strata of municipal violence, by municipal homicide rates (annual number of homicides per 100,000 inhabitants, average 20092011). (0) = very high homicide rate (> 30), (1) = high (1530), (2) = medium (1015), (3) = low (610), (4) = very low homicide rate (< 6) Estrato_INV Class Proxy for household wealth: number of light bulbs in place of residence. (1) = 13 bulbs, (2) = 46 bulbs, (3) = 79 bulbs, (4) = 10 or more bulbs. PK_ag Education Level of formal education of survey respondent 08 EDU Phenotype Facial skin color of survey respondent, as assessed by interviewer at the end of the interview according to color palette developed by the Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP). 1 (pink) 11 (dark brown) ENC1 Political interest Generally speaking, how much are you interested in politics? Not at all (0), a little (1), somewhat (2), very much (3) P1 Mass media news Frequency of news consumption in mass media: How frequently do you follow the news on TV / on the radio / in the newspaper? (average of all three information sources) Almost never (0), a couple of times a month (1), a couple of times per week (2), almost daily (3) P2_PROM_ABC Ideology (position) Self-placement of left-right scale: In politics, people talk of left and right. In general terms, where would you located your point of view? 010 P68 Ideology (possession) Respondents ability and willingness to place themselves on the left-right scale. (0) = dont know / no response, (1) self- placement anywhere on scale. P68binary Religiousness Importance of religion in private life: Please, could you tell me, how important is religion in your life? Not at all (0), a little (1), somewhat (2), very important (3). PL Sex Sex of survey respondent (binary) Male (0), female (1) Sexo Age Age of survey respondent (years) 18 Edad
Source (in all Tables and Figures, unless otherwise indicated): Mexican National Survey of Organized Violence (ENVO).
33
Table B Descriptive statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Standard deviation
Index of closeness to victims (PCA factor scores) 2228 -1.07 3.47 .00 1.00 Subjective selectivity of violence 2335 0 3 1.82 1.009 Index of closeness to victims movements 2226 0 3 .82 .750 Index of victimization 2305 0 4 .53 .857 Index of distance to violence 2332 0 10 4.87 2.197
Class (light bulbs) (aggregation) 2361 1 4 2.49 .979 Phenotype (skin color) 2370 1 10 4.63 1.406 Education 2390 0 8 4.01 2.254 Political interest 2384 0 3 1.14 .958 Frequency of mass media news consumption 2361 0 3 1.52 .740
Table 1 Index of closeness to victims: bivariate correlations among components Remembrance of individual victim Empathy with victims Information on victims movements Identification with victims movements
Remembrance of victims Correlation 1.000 **.182 **.149 **.095 Sig. (bilateral) . .000 .000 .000 N 2400 2363 2383 2273 Empathy with victims Correlation **.182 1.000 **.182 **.119 Sig. (bilateral) .000 . .000 .000 N 2363 2363 2346 2241 Movement information Correlation **.149 **.182 1.000 **.149 Sig. (bilateral) .000 .000 . .000 N 2383 2346 2383 2260 Movement identification Correlation **.095 **.119 **.149 1.000 Sig. (bilateral) .000 .000 .000 . N 2273 2241 2260 2273
For descriptions of variables and descriptive statistics, see Tables A and B. Spearman Rho correlation coefficients.
35
Table 2 Index of closeness to victims: PCA factor loadings
Variables Factor loadings
Memory of individual victim .588 Empathy with victims .651 Knowledge of victims movements .633 Identification with victims movements .554
Note: Principal component analysis (PCA) without rotation, 1 component extracted: Eigenwert 1.47, Variance explained: 36.9%. For descriptions of variables and descriptive statistics, see Tables A and B.
36
Table 3 Index of closeness to victims: Correlates
Factor Closeness to Victims
Selectivity of violence Correlation **-.153 Sig. (bilateral) .000 N 2179 Victimization Correlation **.314 Sig. (bilateral) .000 N 2157 Distance to violence Correlation **-.169 Sig. (bilateral) .000 N 2174 Class (light bulbs) Correlation **.150 Sig. (bilateral) .000 N 2193 Phenotype (skin color) Correlation .028 Sig. (bilateral) .197 N 2200 Education Correlation **.155 Sig. (bilateral) .000 N 2219 Political interest Correlation **.216 Sig. (bilateral) .000 N 2213 Mass media news Correlation **.191 Sig. (bilateral) .000 N 2196 Ideology (position) Correlation -.017 Sig. (bilateral) .514 N 1505 Ideology (possession) Correlation **.103 Sig. (bilateral) .000 N 2228 Religiousness Correlation -.014 Sig. (bilateral) .505 N 2196 Sex Correlation -.012 Sig. (bilateral) .575 N 2228 Age Correlation *-.051 Sig. (bilateral) .015 N 2227
For descriptions of variables and descriptive statistics, see Tables A and B. Pearson correlation coefficients (Spearman Rho for ideology possession and sex).
37
Table 4 Index of closeness to victims: Determinants
B coefficients p B coefficients p
Selectivity of violence -.152 .000 -.084 .000
Index victimization (05) .277 .000 Index distance to violence (010) -.037 .000 Class (light bulbs) (14) .055 .013 Education (0-8) .020 .060
Political interest (03) .126 .000 Mass media news consumption (03) .106 .000 Ideology (possession) (binary) .160 .000 Age .001 .547
Constant .280 .000 -.478 .000
Standard error .985 .910 R 2 .023 .158 N 2178 1994
Note: Lineal OLS regression. B = nonstandardized regression coefficients. Shaded cells indicated statistically significant coefficients (p .05). Dependent variable: Index of closeness to victims (PCA factor scores). For descriptions of variables and descriptive statistics, see Tables A and B.
38
Figure 1 Number of homicides attributed to organized crime in Mexico, 20012013
Sources: For 20012006: General Attorneys Office, cited in Marcos Pablo Moloeznik, Militarizing Mexicos Public Security (Washington, DC: National Defense University, Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies), CHDS Regional Insights 11 (15 February 2009). For 20072010: Presidency of the Republic, Dataset of Deaths by Presumptive Criminal Rivalry. For JanuarySeptember 2011: General Attorneys Office, Dataset of Deaths by Presumptive Criminal Rivalry (http://www.pgr.gob.mx). For October 2011December 2013: Eduardo Guerrero, Lantia Consultores, Dataset of Violence of Organized Crime (http://www.lantiaconsultores.com/).
Figure 3 Index of closeness to victims: components and factor scores
Have you heard about victims movements? How much do you identify with the victims movements?
Distribution of factor scores from Principal Component Analysis (1 st component)
41
Figure 4 Subjective selectivity of violence
Survey question: Talking about murders attributed to organized crime, how much do you agree with the following statement: As long as you do not get involved with them, nothing happens to you.