I didn't interpret the Nuremberg-Rwanda connection that way. To me, he was simply saying that the Nuremberg trials failed to prevent future genocides (like Rwanda), because they sought to punish particular individuals rather than to truly understand the deeper psychological mass formation that drove Nazi ideology.
I think it would be reasonable to make a counterargument that there isn't really anything we can do about "collective human nature" and so the best we can do is enforce individual accountability and punishment as we do for other forms of immoral and illegal behavior.
I *do* think there is value to be gained by looking deeper though, as Eisenstein does in his writings. If destructive and dehumanizing movements take on a life of their own and become bigger than, more powerful than any of the human beings involved, does it really solve that much to put some humans on trial for crimes against humanity? Or might it be more helpful to have their *ideas* and *motivations* put on trial as well? What if the lesson learned from the Nazi genocide was not just about the evilness of Hitler and Goebbels and antisemitism but about the evilness of dehumanization and othering more broadly? If this lesson had been used to write new charters of rights and freedoms, new constitutional amendments, would it have put us in a better place today? If we get an opportunity for Nuremberg II, can we make it more about building guardrails to prevent a recurrence than about punishing and humiliating particular human beings?
Re: Eisenstein - The Mask of Derision
I think it would be reasonable to make a counterargument that there isn't really anything we can do about "collective human nature" and so the best we can do is enforce individual accountability and punishment as we do for other forms of immoral and illegal behavior.
I *do* think there is value to be gained by looking deeper though, as Eisenstein does in his writings. If destructive and dehumanizing movements take on a life of their own and become bigger than, more powerful than any of the human beings involved, does it really solve that much to put some humans on trial for crimes against humanity? Or might it be more helpful to have their *ideas* and *motivations* put on trial as well? What if the lesson learned from the Nazi genocide was not just about the evilness of Hitler and Goebbels and antisemitism but about the evilness of dehumanization and othering more broadly? If this lesson had been used to write new charters of rights and freedoms, new constitutional amendments, would it have put us in a better place today? If we get an opportunity for Nuremberg II, can we make it more about building guardrails to prevent a recurrence than about punishing and humiliating particular human beings?