Editorial Report and Acknowledgement of Reviewers, 2014

In this paper we introduce our special thematic section on societal change. We begin by providing an overview of the aims of the section, and how these aims grew out of a need to address conceptual and empirical challenges in the study of societal change. In response to these challenges, the section was intended to provide a forum for theoretical and empirical work from a range of disciplinary perspectives on how societies change, and how such change can be understood. Together, the contributions argue for (1) the need to contextualize the study of societal change, (2) the value of considering factors and processes other than collective action in transforming societies, (3) the importance of ideology and its operation through social institutions such as news media, and (4) an imperative to ensure that our research is fully engaged with society in terms of its grounding in social issues, its sensitivity to our own social context as researchers, and in its practices and outcomes.

This Special Thematic Section brings together eight papers that showcase different aspects of the contribution of psychology to the processes of recovery in Rwanda following the 1994 genocide. The Section is noteworthy in part because a majority of the papers have Rwandan authors. In summarizing the contributions I make six observations about the remarkable context of the genocide and its aftermath: a) it was distinctive from previous mass violence in its intensity and character; b) it has been characterized by bystander inaction and the problems of positioning outsiders to help; c) hundreds of thousands of accused or convicted perpetrators have lived alongside survivors; d) electronic media played a profound role not only in promoting violence but also in building peace; e) Rwanda has been the site of unprecedented societal interventions with political goals that have the character and content of social psychological experiments; and f) the role of memorialization in repairing or sustaining harm needs further examination. I conclude by noting that the study of recovery is clear proof that the genocide in Rwanda, as is the case with genocides of the past, failed to achieve its aims.