Jean-Philippe Belleau

One of the most disturbing phenomena during episodes of mass violence concerns individuals who hated a specific group and harmed some of its members while making exceptions for people they had a relationship with. A preexisting social tie, not moral consciousness, produces this aversion to harming a party to the relationship, even if rescuing vulnerable individuals contradicts personal beliefs, orders, or group loyalty. Hatred is stronger than bonds only when the latter are weak, fraught, or missing in the first place. I call this phenomenon relational exceptionalism. Bringing the anthropological literature on interpersonal relationships to bear on studies of mass violence, this article illustrates that to trigger relational exceptionalism, a relationship requires not reciprocity, trust, obligations, affinities, or nearness, but a degree of autonomy.

https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/social-analysis/67/1/sa670103.xml

Can people really kill their neighbors — massively and out of hatred? Is it anthropologically possible? Massacres and genocides of neighbors have become a subcategory of mass violence studies over the past two decades. This scholarship implicitly refutes entire parts of anthropology, notably the Durkheimian tradition, for which society is organized to produce bonds and bonds are inherently irenic, while liberally using key anthropological concepts — intimacy, social relationships, and the figure of the neighbor. These terms are rarely defined or explored. This scholarship implicitly makes four articulated assumptions: neighbors entertain social relationships, that is the essence of neighborliness; vicinity therefore equates sociality; therefore, when neighbors kill neighbors, they commit social violations; therefore, bonds can be overwhelmed by beliefs, hatred, or other circumstances. However, a close reading of the evidence provided by this historiography shows that descriptions of preexisting sociality is briefly sketched, typically stretching vicinity and mixing vicinity with sociality. By overlooking the scope and quality of relationships between victims and perpetrators, this scholarship tends to treat simple connections, or what network sociology would call “weak ties,” as intimacy and kinship as sociality; it has also overlooked how human groups tend to organize and limit sociality across antagonist identities. Vicinity does not predict sociality, even in times of peace, even in holist societies, and even more so when relations across antagonist groups are mediated by rumors, envy, and cultural insecurity. This article proposes a way forward with the use of socio-metrics to better understand social ties and their proprieties.

This chapter is part of the book "Cultures of Wine" (Les cultures du vin) edited by Jean-Claude Taddei and published by L'Harmattan in 2022.

Ce chapitre a été publié dans l'ouvrage collectif organisé par Jean-Claude Taddei, "Les cultures du vin", et publié aux éditions L'Harmattan en 2022.

Ce chapitre aborde le vin, et plus particulièrement la consommation du vin, par le lien social. Il s’appuie sur un travail ethnographique qui n’apparaîtra ici, espace imparti oblige, que de façon limitée pour privilégier les conclusions. Mon approche du vin emprunte tout d’abord à l’anti-utilitarisme du sociologue Alain Caillé, dont l’œuvre propose un éclairage du social qui contraste avec l’instrumentalité, le fonctionnalisme, et la "dark anthropology" qui dominent aujourd’hui les sciences sociales.  L’anti-utilitarisme propose un « tiers paradigme » (Caillé, 1994, 2007): au-delà de l’individualisme et du holisme, et au-delà d’une conception sacrificiel du don et d’une logique de l’intérêt. Le vin dont il est question ici sera outre-calcul, relativisant notamment le concept bourdieusien de distinction. Enfin cette étude s’appuie sur trois concepts anthropologiques: la commensalité, l’intimité culturelle, et la dissémie.

This chapter explores three anthropological dimensions of the denial of crimes committed during the François Duvalier regime in Haiti (1957 and 1971): the manner in which social obligations created by kinship and social bonds induce conformism, self-censorship, and eventually denial; the disassociation from the victim's suffering, a social phenomenon I call pathophobia; and the animistic dimension of denial, which considers that the victim is wrong in their very essence and thus deserving of their fate.

The historiography on the François Duvalier regime in Haiti (1957-1971) tends to focus on Duvalier's wanton use of violence and generally overlooks questions of governance, stressing or inferring that Duvalier was a solitary despot. This article is resolutely revisionist and argues that Duvalier (1) did not govern alone; (2) relied primarily on an inner-circle for governance; (3) and that personal identity and intimacy, not ideology, determined the composition of this inner-circle. Paradoxically, membership in the inner-circle offered no guarantee for safety, as relations to Duvalier could shift from intimacy to hostility with staggering speed. This article's scope and methods are historiographic while using several anthropological notions on interpersonal relationships. It thus examined the bonds that shaped the composition of Duvalier's inner-circle in the course of four decades, from 1931 to 1971.

François Duvalier (1907–71) ruled Haiti from 1957 until his death in 1971. His regime has often been described as one of the most brutal in the nation’s history. Duvalier was also known then and is remembered today as someone of foreign origin who, for this reason, grew up without kin—save his father and grandfather. Duvalier had no known siblings, cousins, nephews, nieces, aunts, uncles, grandmothers, or granduncles; almost nothing is known about his own mother. Such a socialization is extraordinary in a society where extended family usually frames one’s identity, socialization, and social position. New, unpublished documents presented in this article prove where Duvalier’s family was actually from. Society created a moral genealogy for Duvalier to distance itself from his brutality; it “othered” its ruler by linking him to alterity.

This chapter examines human rights as a professional field: what human rights workers do, what they are confronted with, what kind of expertise is required of them, and how they deal with field experience. I especially explore the ambiguities and predicaments of the job, particularly in volatile environments. I also focus on human rights methods, such as interviews, investigation, data gathering, working with the local police and judicial system, and the management of cultural and religious differences. Finally, I explore the ambivalence of international human rights organizations when diplomatic interests are at stake. I use a personal tone: this is a personal narrative with a strong scholarly dimension, as I examine my own experience working in human rights. This examination comes from my experience in human rights and development with the Organization of American States (OAS), the United Nations, the United Nations Development Programme, and various non-governmental organizations, including Viva Rio and IFES. I directed the Human Rights Education Fund in Haiti and was the political adviser to the OAS Chief of Mission in Haiti. My perspective on human rights work is grounded on sustained field experience.

This report is the first by an organization that specializes in indigenous rights. It provides verbatim the accounts of Rohingya refugees interviewed in March of 2018.  1. The 2017 crisis should not be isolated, but placed in the context of a long-lasting series of conflicts that have been occurring since the 40s.  2. From the 25th of August 2017, the Burmese army (Tatmadaw) sought to clear out the townships of (1) Maungdaw and of (2) Buthidaung (both in the Maungdaw District), as well as a (3) micro-region of Rathedaung (Sittwe District) that is adjacent to Maungdaw of their majority Muslim populations. It conducted a campaign of terror that included group executions, rape, atrocities, and at least two massacres. 3. The modus operandi for the violence generally follows a pattern: (1) the army enters into a village, shoots at the villagers, sets areas afire, and sometimes commits atrocities; (2) the villagers then flee and hide themselves in one or several muro (forests, mountains) for several days; (3) the army does not follow them; (4) finally, the villagers set off walking, sometimes for many days, to the Bangladeshi border. 4. The campaign of terror's main targets have been men; young men between 20 and 30 years of age are disproportionately the main victims of this mass violence. Eliticide is another dimension of the repression. 5. The lack of representation, leadership, and interlocution from the Rohingya is a significant anthropological fact that is politically detrimental to them under current circumstances.

Du 5 au 15 mars 2018, Jean-Philippe Belleau, membre du réseau des experts du GITPA a réalisé une mission d'information dans les camps de réfugiés Rohingyas au Bengladesh. Cette mission pour le GITPA a pu être menée grâce à l'ONG Health and Education for All (HAEFA)-Haefa.org et au College of Liberal Arts de l'Université du Massachusetts à Boston.  Ce rapport est le premier par une organisation spécialisée dans les droits autochtones. Il reproduit verbatim les récits de réfugiés rohingya interviewés en mars 2017. Les données recueillies lors de cette enquête contredisent les conclusions des rapports de plusieurs ONG de droits de l'homme. 1. La crise de 2017 ne doit pas être isolée mais placée dans une longue durée de conflits qui durent depuis les années 40.

The clash of civilizations might be a popular notion on Western television and radio shows but it is generally and powerfully rejected by scholars as a set of epistemological errors and stereotypes.  Most of the available scholarship, however, does not seem to propose theoretical alternatives; when cultural  differences  and  cultural  encounters  are  subjects  of  scholarly  studies,  domination  and  hegemony are usually a dimension or the outcome of the encounter.  This article uses the concept of xenology to present two different case-studies: the first one involves two cultural identities that have lived  side  by  side  for  a  long  time;  the  second  one  examines  two  relatively  isolated  cultural  worlds  that  ignored  each  others  until  15  years  ago.    In  both  cases,  the  cultural  encounter  is  populated  by  mutual valorizations.  The essentialist and culturalist discourses through which these valorizations are expressed do not invalidate them.