Resumiendo el procedimiento metodológico.

While revenge raids have been well fairly documented (Eaton 2012), its role in reproduction and escalation of violence needs to be further examined. Stewart and Strathern (2002:108) have argued that “revenge is the major motivation in the reproduction and replication of violent

71 relations”. In other words, acts of revenge spur cycles of violent action as each group claims the position of ‘victim’ in Riches (1986) triangle. Revenge during group violence further blurs the distinction between perpetrators, victims and witnesses as these positions change swiftly. Revenge therefore has a measure of ‘social usefulness in society and this is deployed from time to time to get a sense of ‘justice’ among groups (Wood 2007b: 10). Revenge can also be seen as a form of “self-help” violence that enables the administration of justice on behalf of previous victims (Elwert et al 1999:21). Revenge as a central cog in motivations for violence is argued to provide linkages between culture, psychology and local politics (Stewart and Strathern 2002). In other words, revenge violence is organised as a just cause based on cultural legitimation of violence and aimed at ‘getting even’ by correcting past atrocities. Revenge is therefore critical in mobilisation for violence (Fleisher 2000).

Cultural orientations prescribe the nature of revenge in every violent situation. The planning and execution of revenge motivated violence is a political process (based on mobilisation) that does not just occur spontaneously but is often a response well considered by those seeking ‘justice’. Narratives of revenge therefore are used to inform new cycles of violence as new generations are given the responsibility of settling ‘old’ debts. In this study, I analyse revenge as a mechanism within the social structure of pastoralists social systems used as an ‘organising principle’ historically to settle past debts of violence. Further, acts of revenge are seen as the genesis of collective violence as family members and the clans from which the victim hails feel culturally obliged and justified to avenge the death or the raid of their kin (McFate 2008: 298). Eaton (2012:60) associated cattle raids among pastoralists along the Kenyan/Uganda border with the creation of “asymmetrical retaliations” meaning revenge attacks targeted relatives or clan mates of perpetrators of previous acts of violence. Revenge therefore not only served to ‘get even’ but it widened the cycle of violence by targeting those not directly involved in the initial acts of violence. Revenge violence is therefore seen as a key building block of oscillating violence.

Revenge has been argued to be motivated by accumulated debts that are stored in collective memories and arise out of past incidences of raids, attacks or killings by members of one community upon another (Sagawa 2010:91). Payment of these ‘debts’ are also argued to be

72 motivated by pride and anger. Pride is gained by standing up to fulfill the duty of avenging the death of a close kin (Diamond 2008) while anger at the devastating loss of one’s kin at the hands of raiders is argued to motivate retaliation (McCabe 2004: 98). Eaton (2012:50) further argues that debts that lead to pastoralists’ violence can also stem from exaggerations of the numbers of livestock stolen in previous attacks. Violent raids thus sets off series of claims and counter claims that serve as a motivation for opposing groups to get even but at the same time is used opportunistically by those who seek to benefit from violence as a premise for further violent raids. Exacting revenge therefore creates more ‘debts’ of violence as it widens the number of actors involved. Cases in which raiders’ use ‘trick routes’ to avoid the hot pursuit of their victims is also blamed for increased pastoralists violence as victims wrongly accuse and attack innocent communities among whom raided livestock passed, this further creates a new web of debts that propel violence (Eaton 2012). Revenge in pastoralists’ violence is therefore analysed in this study as a result of accumulated debts that are used by political actors as the basis for mobilisation for fresh attacks.

Analysis of the role of revenge in pastoralists’ violence is crucial in understanding violence as a process. It illuminates the processual factors that propel conflicts into violence and helps to connect incompatibility of social institutional frameworks for conflict resolution with violence escalation. Acts of revenge violence in this study further enables our analysis of pastoralists’ violence as socio-political interactions where domination and control of ‘enemy’ groups informs the need for revenge to maintain a balance of power. Analysis of revenge violence among pastoralists enables our understanding of the role of violence narratives in socialization for future violence and its motivation for settling past ‘debts’. The concept of revenge enables us to connect place-identity relationships and acts of violence. It enables us to analyse cases of ‘random’ inter-group violence as linked to a wider web of revenge cycles in which the place and the identity of the perpetrator and the victim is critical in violent action. The multifaceted forms of pastoralist revenge violence is also illuminated by looking at how these are organised, from family level revenge, communal revenge raids and politically organised revenge and how these three forms of revenge interact and inform trajectories of pastoralists violence. Revenge is analysed in this study as not only a matter of ‘getting even’ but a means of preserving personal

73 and communal pride; it is connected to power relations at the individual and group levels. Revenge is therefore analysed in this study as the linkage between past, present and future violent actions. Lastly, understanding revenge as ‘accumulated debts’ may enhance our understanding of pastoralists’ violence not only as isolated incidences but as processes that are culturally embedded and politically motivated.