Hannah Arendt Ducked Out To The Movies
Or something. I really have no idea why she didn't stick around, but apparently, Hannah Arendt only witnessed the opening bit of Eichmann's trial, inspiring her to come up with the notion of "the banality of evil" -- inspired by how utterly, boringly "normal," and like the rest of us Eichmann seemed.
Had she stuck around, she would have encountered a very different man, contend Alexander Haslam and Stephen D. Reicher. According to "David Cesarani’s (2004) meticulous examination of Eichmann’s life and crimes," they say Eichmann was:
...a man who identified strongly with anti-semitism and Nazi ideology; a man who did not simply follow orders but who pioneered creative new policies; a man who was well aware of what he was doing and was proud of his murderous ‘achievements’.
Yet, for years, there's been a consensus, Haslam and Reicher write, that regular people do wrong when, under the influence of a group, they are blinded to the consequences of their actions. They correct the myth:
People do great wrong, not because they are unaware of what they are doing but because they consider it to be right. This is possible because they actively identify with groups whose ideology justifies and condones the oppression and destruction of others.
They go into the history, from Arendt, to Stanley Milgram (the shock doc), to Phillip Zimbardo (who did the prison guard experiment), and come to a different, more informed conclusion, which they call "The Ingenuity of Evil":
So from Stanford, as from the obedience studies, it is not valid to conclude that people mindlessly and helplessly succumb to brutality. Rather both studies (and also the historical evidence) suggest that brutality occurs when people identify strongly with groups that have a brutal ideology. This leads them to advance that ideology knowingly, creatively and even proudly. The question we need to address then is ‘What leads people to create and maintain such social identifications?’ We suggest there are three parts to the answer.
1) Individual differences In a simple but powerful study, Carnaghan and McFarland (2007) placed two adverts in a newspaper. The first advert was an invitation for individuals to participate in a standard psychological experiment. The second followed the wording of the original advert for Zimbardo’s Stanford study — calling for people to participate ‘in a psychological study of prison life’. Those who responded to the second advert were very different from those who responded to the first. They were much more likely to believe in the harsh and hierarchical world that exists in prison. This finding suggests that, where there is a free choice, not just anyone would elect to put themselves in a ‘prison’ situation and take on a ‘prison’ role. The simplest way of explaining such choices would be to put them down to personality, level of authoritarianism, social dominance, or some other such individual factor. However, our own prison study (conducted in collaboration with the BBC; Reicher & Haslam, 2006, and www.bps.org.uk/pris) suggests a more nuanced explanation. Here (as in Zimbardo’s study) several of those assigned to be guards refused to embrace this role. The primary issue for these individuals was how an enthusiastic embrace of the guard group membership would impact upon their other valued group memberships. Would tyrannical behaviour undermine their social identities at home, at work, at leisure? This suggests that people will be less likely to identify with groups with tyrannical norms the more that their membership of groups with different norms is salient and the more that they are made accountable to those alternative groups.
2) Contexts of crisis and group failure It may be that there are certain people who, in any given context, are more likely to identify with tyrannical and brutal groups, but equally there are some contexts which make everyone more likely to accept such groups. Perhaps the most surprising finding from the BBC Prison Study was its demonstration of the way in which our participants, who started off holding democratic views and opposing inequality, gradually became more authoritarian as their groups failed to function effectively and the overall system fell into chaos. In such situations, the notion of a strong leader who would forcibly – even brutally – impose and maintain order became, if not actually attractive, at least less unattractive (Haslam & Reicher, 2007b). What we saw here, then, was that authoritarianism – often seen as the key personality variable that explains the dynamics of tyranny – was itself changed as a function of social dynamics.
There are strong parallels here with historical studies of the context in which the Nazis ascended to power (e.g. Hobsbawm, 1995). The Weimar Republic, which preceded Nazi rule, was riven between democrats and those who dreamed of a strong domineering leader. As the republic fell into economic and political crisis, so the middle classes deserted democracy and embraced Hitler as the man who would save them. This process is encapsulated in the words of a school teacher who, writing in 1934, explained why he had joined the Nazis: I reached the conclusion that no party but a single man alone could save Germany. This opinion was shared by others, for when the cornerstone of a monument was laid in my hometown, the following words were inscribed on it: ‘Descendants who read these words, know ye that we eagerly await the coming of the man whose strong hand may restore order’. (quoted in Abel, 1986, p.151)
In other words, in times of crisis, people look for Daddy.
Theoretical and practically, the dynamics through which such views emerge point to ways in which standard personality-based accounts of tyranny need to be radically rethought.
3) Leadership
Whatever is going on in the world, however great the crisis, it is still necessary for people to make sense of events, to explain how current difficulties came about and to have a vision of how they can be resolved. But we do not interpret the world on our own, as many social psychological models tend to imply. Rather, people are surrounded by would-be leaders who tell them what to make of the world around them. For this reason, the study of leadership must be a central component of any analysis of tyranny and outgroup hostility. Indeed, tyrannical leaders only thrive by convincing us that we are in crisis, that we face threat and that we need their strong decisive action to surmount it. In the BBC study, participants as a whole may have become relatively more authoritarian, but it still needed active leadership to exploit this and to make the case for a new tough regime.The role of leaders becomes particularly pernicious when they suggest that ‘our’ problems come about because of the threats posed by a pernicious outgroup. In this way they can begin to take the groups with which we already identify and develop norms of hostility against outsiders. Their role becomes even more dangerous when they tell us that ‘we’ are the sum of all virtues so that the defence of virtue requires the destruction of the outgroup that threatens us. These are the conditions which allow groups to make genocide normative and to represent mass murder as something honourable (Reicher et al., 2006). It was the logic to which Eichmann subscribed when, after the end of the war, he said: ‘If, of the 10.3 million Jews…we had killed 10.3 million, then I would be satisfied. I would say “All right. We have exterminated an enemy”’ (quoted in Cesarani, 2004, p.219).
Interesting. Because all those who would believe that Bush is some kind of new-age Hitler use this very fact to handwave all threats away.
The thinking seems to go thus: "Only a tyrannical leader would tell us we are in danger, and since this leader is tyrannical, we are ipso facto NOT in danger."
One fault in that thinking is that it starts with assuming that since one hates a particular leader, he must be a tyrant. Another fault is failing to believe that because one is paranoid, it is not reasonable to assume that nobody is out to get one.
brian at January 3, 2008 9:24 AM
I love that prison guard experiment. Even the researchers got caught up in what they were doing. Zimbardo writes about being asked by Gordon Bower, one of his fellow Stanford profs, "What is your independent variable in this experiment?" and Zimbardo doesn't know what it was! I'm writing from memory, but his thoughts were something like "Independent variable? Is this guy crazy - we've got a rebellion to put down."
One fault in that thinking is that it starts with assuming that since one hates a particular leader, he must be a tyrant.
I don't hate Bush. I really dislike him, though. I do think he has done a lot to make the presidency potentially more of a tyranny - his claims of broad wartime powers in an undeclared and essentially unending war are very troubling because I think there is a tendency for government to never cede any powers it has taken for itself. But I don't agree that we aren't in danger (since we're doing the multiple negative thing here).
justin case at January 3, 2008 9:51 AM
Justin - step away from the punchbowl.
"undeclared" war? Is it not war because the word "war" doesn't explicitly appear in the authorization to use military force?
And I'll never understand the attachment so many Bush critics have with the concept of "perpetual war", as though such a situation is desirable except by madmen in black and white B-movies.
"more of a tyranny" - on what grounds? The Constitution set specific responsibilities for the executive branch. Congress has been usurping those for the better part of two generations. Bush is simply taking them back. In fact, he would have been on sound Constitutional footing if he'd actually challenged the existence of FISA. Instead, he capitulated to it.
brian at January 3, 2008 10:55 AM
There is no greater potential for evil doing than psychometrics. If I were writing a tale with a character who was to represent evil I would make him a psychologist. The measurement & manipulation of human behaviour is possibly the greatest threat to freedom & individuality that we will face in the future.
William at January 3, 2008 11:00 AM
>> This suggests that people will be less likely to identify with groups with tyrannical norms the more that their membership of groups with different norms is salient and the more that they are made accountable to those alternative groups...
That is a no-fun sentence. It's under-written but overtyped. I'm not just saying that because I just woke up. Where's Lena while all this is going on?
>> In such situations, the notion of a strong leader who would forcibly – even brutally – impose and maintain order became, if not actually attractive, at least less unattractive
That's WW II, ain't it? Get the trains running on time and all that. A beloved email correspondent from an academic setting sent word this morning of a lesbionic hyperlefty of her acquaintance who'd said she wanted Biden and McCain to win the primaries, so that we'd have "principled leadership" in the White House. As if Americans need leadership; as if we could ever agree on a principle. Feh.
Crid at January 3, 2008 11:07 AM
Agree with Brian.
It is truely frightening when we have congress intentionally trying to sabotage an ongoing war by micro-managing it. Once they give a President either a declaration or War or whatever they gave Bush, they can either defund it, or support it.
To try to manage war, by opinion poll is just insane.
Contrary to what young people think they know, congress has usurped the Executive branch. already congress has far more power then they should and they enjoy what they call "safe" congressional districts.
Bush made all this much worse by going thru the UN, all to allow Tony Blair the cover he needed. Sadly Bush invited whacko's like John Kerry to even suggest that US military action meet a global litmus test.
The other thing this article shows is that people caught up iin the events of the time can not see where they are going. If they could they would have stopped it.
So my question to someone like Justin is this: how much of the media oxygen is being used up in pondering Bush as a potential tyrant, and how much towards the idea that America is the UN's enforcer, only acting when given approval?
Which has the greater potential for harm? Bush or a UN that can dictate when US military power can be used and where?
One will leave office and retire to Texas in a year. The other continues to grow in strength, and becomes more pervsive.
Just something to ponder when the next global crisis arises and some President and Congress who cares more about what the un-elected fools at the UN think about them then what the Constitution actually says.
Jim Doherty at January 3, 2008 11:24 AM
wanted Biden and McCain to win the primaries, so that we'd have "principled leadership" in the White House.
Those two clowns are "principled"? Could her standards get any lower? Kim Jon Il to lead the UN, perhaps?
Amy Alkon at January 3, 2008 2:00 PM
Jim and Brian,
I guess if you think that Congress has been seizing Presidential prerogatives for the past few decades, then I can see why you think a lot of what Bush has done is OK. I disagree, and think that while the office was greatly weakened by the Nixon-Ford-Carter years, it's come back quite a bit since then.
Yes Brian, to me the fact that war wasn't used in the force authorization I think is bad. We have a poor track record in these sorts of unserious wars (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq II). A declared war would have done a much better job of conveying to the American people and the world the seriousness of what we needed to do.
I think it's even more of an issue when people present the idea of war against terror(ism) - a tactic, not a people or place - rather than what it should have been called: war against Islamic extremism. How do we know when we have been victorious? This is what I mean by perpetual war; I see nothing that will provide a clear indication of when the extraordinary war powers should end.
Historically, we have granted our presidents great latitude in times of war. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, FDR's internment of Americans of Japanese descent, etc. Some of these things were probably necessary, others were probably grossly wrong. However, they were necessarily short-lived, because wars didn't go on for generations. But we are now entering circumstances where this President and the next, and possibly the one after that (or more) will under the Bush administration's logic all be granted some scary powers that can't be checked - declare people (even citizens) to be "enemy combatants" and held without trial or counsel, have broad and unreviewable surveillance powers, etc. You're OK with the possibility of giving those powers to Hillary Clinton? It's not like she isn't inclined toward secrecy and paranoia or anything. If you say this stuff is OK now, don't complain when these same powers get wielded by a Clinton, or a Huckabee, or whomever.
This punch sure is tasty.
justin case at January 3, 2008 2:00 PM
Justin - I wasn't suggesting that I want to give more power to, say, Hillary!. However, the power to declare people "enemy combatants" is not one reserved to the person, or even the office of President.
And I agree, the "War on Method" was a stupid name, by an administration that is afraid of the Public Relations department. They should have called it what it is: The American Crusade.
How do we know we've won? When exclusionist political Islam no longer wields effective power.
This is a war we could have won much more quickly if we didn't have to worry about silly little things like maintaining the free flow of oil, or avoiding bad press. You are aware of the recent report concerning the western press' regurgitation of Islamist propaganda, and the negative effect on the war effort, right?
The Constitution gave certain powers to the Executive branch. We got 9/11 in part because the Congress (Church Commission) demanded that the FBI and CIA could not share information. The Congress has been emasculating the office of the President for more than 40 years. The Law of Unintended Consequences has a habit of smacking the snot out of people that do things for petty reasons.
Bush and Cheney, for good or ill, have been arguing in favor of a more powerful Executive. This was immediately interpreted by the political left as an attempt to install an "imperial presidency" and sidestep the Congress altogether. For a supposedly imperial president, however, he's done a lousy job of ruling by decree.
I am in favor of giving the government whatever powers (within reason) are necessary to thwart the dreams of the Islamists and protect the country. It is, after all, one of their enumerated Constitutional responsibilities. That so many on the political left deny that any such threats even exist is, frankly, disturbing.
brian at January 3, 2008 2:51 PM
Unfortunately Brian it is a perpetual war.
Its not a war on Islamic based terrorism, or a war against a nation but a war against a tactic in a country that has less to do with supporting and funding terrorist than our allies.
It is a war we can not win, not on this present course anyway.
Look at it this way , republicans argue that giving people welfare gives them an excuse to sit o their asses and not do a damn thing for themselves.
Now if we are constantly sweeping the streets of Bagdad for bombs, why would the Iraqis ever do it for themselves?
Other than securing an oil pipeline what is the value of Iraq when terrorists are funded by the Saudis and training in Pakistan?
Its like an infection, do you kill the illness itself or just wipe down the area the puss is spewing from?
This problem can be nipped in the bud in less than a year if politicians really wanted to.
1. Isolate the region, get every UN member country to embargo every Mideast 'hotspot'
2. Make trading with such countries a treasonable offense for every corporation, and seize and deconstruct EVERY corporation that does business. Imprison every officer of the corporations for life
3. No trading for food, Iraqis oil for food program shows the folly of that as so many like to point out(while ignoring the fact that US businesses also violated it)
4. No immigration from these regions until the problem is resolved
5. No political asylum
6. Allowing those willing to make change to leave assures that nothing ever will change
7. Lace humanitarian aid packages with hormones that prevent pregnancy
I hate to say it but until people are willing to take the necessary action nothing will change, we can spend the next century in Iraq and nothing will change so long as our “allies” fund, train, and harbor our enemies
What it really all boils down to is money. Death, destruction, murder, terrorism, its all a cost of the oil trade. And until we as a society decide that the cheap oil from mass murderers is not worth it - nothing will ever change.
Ask yourself a few questions
Why are we spending billions in Iraq when the people and government don’t want us there?
Why are we spending thousand of lives and tens of thousands in broken mangled veterans to bring freedom to a people who wont fight for themselves, in a country half a world away but we don’t do anything about Cuba
Why are blood diamonds illegal when they are responsible for far less death then the money(OUR MONEY) the Saudis give to terrorists world wide?
Why is it if we have forces committed to the fight to we cripple them and make it impossible for them to do their job?
And Jim every branch of the government has far more power than origionally intended. As to why they care about the UN it is because they are all slowly working twords 1 global government and they want a piece of the action
lujlp at January 3, 2008 6:22 PM
Brian thanks for what I thought was a very good response to my comments. I agree with your last paragraph, but we'd probably disagree in the details.
I don't know how I missed this dude's post, though:
There is no greater potential for evil doing than psychometrics. If I were writing a tale with a character who was to represent evil I would make him a psychologist. The measurement & manipulation of human behaviour is possibly the greatest threat to freedom & individuality that we will face in the future.
Just so we're clear: this guy think there is no greater potential for evil than measuring people's behavior. Just saying.
justin case at January 3, 2008 6:58 PM
Naw, I'm not getting it. Is there a better measure of evil than people's conduct? If brian or Loojy walked around with murderous rage but behaved normally, would you care?
Crid at January 3, 2008 8:29 PM
As I read it, his comment claims that by the very process measuring human behavior, we are opening up a potential for evil. To be redundant, the practice of psychometrics (measuring people's behavior) = evildoing (or at least the potential for it). Very weird, Scientology weird. Unless I'm totally reading him wrong. But I don't think so - see the second sentence, where the psychologist is his representation of evil.
justin case at January 3, 2008 10:24 PM
oic
Crid at January 4, 2008 12:52 AM
I think "william" is attempting to wield the old tinfoil argument about mind control, but instead of blaming the CIA and mind control rays, he blames the psychological professions instead.
In other words, we're all robots, and the psychologists are programming us to be evil.
Which is an industrial-sized pile of horse shit.
brian at January 4, 2008 5:19 AM
Interesting you should say that crid, for years(before I left home) I did walk around with a homocidal rage. I spent hours planning horrible painful deaths for my bitch of a step mother.
Quite frankly things that would make Saw and Hostel look lke saturday morning cartoons.
Had I kild her her I would have been perfectly justified and doubt I would have even faced any jail time.
However her death at my hands would have affected me far more then my life under her ever did.
The only thing it gave me was the realization that 99% of the shit most people worry about in life is meaningless
As for how to gage evil I would agree with crid, base it on peoples actions - sure there is the occasional sociopath in he crowd who might kill you for no reason at all, but they wont simply because it isnt in their best interest
lujlp at January 4, 2008 11:22 AM
Leave a comment