1. Brian Kastner
Distinction Paper for Conflict and Violence Class
Professor Elise Féron
The following is an excerpt from a paper that uses gender theory, specifically militarized
masculinity, to analyze the Rwandan genocide of 1994.
Militarized Masculinity: A Symptom or a Cause?
We have established that prior to the genocide, Rwanda was a very masculine
society, especially in its military. We have looked at the very language of the people, the
stories they tell, the rise of military rule, the militarization of the population, the gendered
propaganda, and the gendered acts of violence. There can be no doubt that Rwandan
masculinity was not merely present in the conflict, but a fully fledged force that sought its
dominance over other identities and was integral to notions of Hutu nationalism.
However, the theory of militarized masculinity does not offer a comprehensive picture of
why this violence occurred. The Rwandan genocide cannot be analyzed in terms of pure
gendered relations, no matter how prevalent their part in the violence. For these reasons,
we must look to other explanations for the violence. In the following section, we will
look at pre-genocide Rwandan society through the lens of deprivation theory (Gurr). We
will find that militarized masculinity was not a cause of the genocide but a symptom.
Indeed, it even became a source of identity and granted its followers a sense of belonging
that they were missing.

2. While we have defined the pre-genocide society of Rwanda as militaristic and
masculine, we have not yet examined its status economically. In this discussion, we will
focus on young men who suffered dramatically in this economic crisis. In the time before
the genocide, we have already mentioned that military recruitment and expenditures rose
drastically to the point where military costs were 70% of the expenses of the state.
Simultaneously, agricultural production declined 15%, which signaled a desperate time
for many Rwandans since agriculture was the largest sector of the economy, explains
Human Rights Watch (Leave None to Tell the Story: 122). Combined, this represented
extreme economic hardships for the citizens of Rwanda, especially young men. The
African Rights report Death, Despair and Defiance, summarizes the plight of these
young men:
In Rwandese society, there were previously a number of options open to poor young men.
These included (1) acquiring land from the older generations of farmers, (2) clearing new
farmland on hills, (3) migration to Uganda or Zaire to find work or land, (4) becoming a
client of a wealthier or more powerful man and (5) obtaining formal employment,
usually in the civil service […] by 1990, most of these options were rapidly
disappearing, or had gone altogether (Death, Despair and Defiance).
Due to the reasons stated by the African Rights report, young men became frustrated and
desperate for work and fulfillment. Some scholars have argued that the poor economic
situation was the reason why military spending and recruitment increased, while other
authors argue the opposite. What came first is difficult to say, however, what is important
to note is that these young men went to the state and the military to find money or other
types of fulfillment. Furthermore, these young men could not progress socially without
some form of employment, they were not permitted to marry or achieve any social status

3. (Death, Despair and Defiance: 20). What we see in the time before the genocide was an
economic catastrophe that shows how desperate many Rwandans were for avenues of
progress or any means to better their own situation.
It is indubitable that militarization to extreme scales occurred both within the
Rwandan state and within the minds of its people before the genocide. The above
discussion on the plight of young men in Rwandan brings us back to a gendered
discussion on the genocide. Jones combines the economic dimension and the gendered
parts of the genocide to account of the extent of the violence and masculine overtones. He
offers various explanations for the genocide and how leaders were able to sway these
young men to commit violence:
One might even argue that the genocide represented, to some extent, an attempt by
Rwanda’s extremist rulers to solve the gender crisis of young Hutu men by making
available (land and other property, positions in higher education, work in the bureaucracy
and private industry, etc.) that the government itself could not otherwise provide for them
[…] the task of genocide was “sold” to the young men who would be its main
implementers as referring to it as “work” (Jones 2002: 67).
The rationale behind this argument is that large numbers of frustrated young men who
cannot find employment or fulfillment will begin to look for targets for which to blame
for their situation — in many cases this target is the government. If the government could
not provide for the countless young men “who had hung out on the streets of Kigali or
smaller commercial centers, with little prospect of obtaining either land or the jobs
needed to marry and raise families” then they would inevitably turn against the
government (Leave None to Tell the Story 261). Some scholars have also argued that this
reasoning explains why the genocidaires were only armed with machetes, as they would

4. have a much more difficult time to overthrow a government with swords instead of
assault rifles. The genocide, it seems, would not have been possible without both the
economic situation and the gendered history of Rwanda and its military. The leaders who
orchestrated much of the violence were acutely aware that poor young men represented
the group most easily manipulated and controlled, as long as the men felt they were
gaining from the violence.
It is impossible to analyze the Rwandan genocide in any singular focus. The
genocide was immensely complex and still has a powerful and lasting impact on the
country, now twenty years later. Some authors, like Jones and Gallimore, focus on the
gendered aspects of the genocide and how this explains the wave of militarization and the
subsequent intense violence. Others still prefer to look at the genocide through military,
political, or economic viewpoints. It has become clear throughout this paper that no
single explanation would adequately explain the genocide. Militarized masculinity, a
unique and controversial theory, does an ample job explaining the impacts of propaganda
and how Rwandan history and language may have played a role in mobilizing these
young men. However, it would seem foolish to say that masculinity, even in its most
vitriolic aspects, would be the sole rationale for violence especially to the genocide level.
It is imperative to analyze how economic and social deprivation of these young men
subsequently made them targets for masculine and violent propaganda, which in turn
mobilized them into a fighting force. These young men had the perception that changing
the status quo through violence was their only choice left. This should tell us how
horrible their circumstances were and how manipulative their leaders became. We also
must mention again that women played important roles as genocidaires, which

5. demonstrates that militarized masculinity had limited effects on the genocide. By looking
at all aspects of the violence (we have still left out many in this paper), we can better
understand why Rwandans took the steps they did. There should be continued efforts to
study the genocide with a focus on gender, as long as we realize that all genders are
important to analyze and that gender is rarely the sole catalyst for such extensive
violence.