The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil
\nPhilip Zimbardo
\nNew York: Random House, 2007
\n576 pp, $27.95 (hbk)<\/p>\n
Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide & Mass Killing (2nd ed.)
\nJames Waller
\nNew York: Oxford University Press, 2007
\n384 pp, $24.99 (pbk)<\/p>\n
Extraordinary Evil: A Brief History of Genocide
\nBarbara Coloroso
\nToronto: Viking Canada, 2007
\n248 pp, C $30.00<\/p>\n
To prevent future genocides, we must understand the conditions and the forces that produced such unimaginable horrors. Unless and until we see past the myths about the causes of such slaughters, which have claimed the lives of fifty to sixty million people in the last century, they are certain to be repeated \u2013 especially given the numerous dangers which are now threatening to undermine social and political stability around the globe. One problem, however, is that the fear of feeling isolated and alone, if combined with the mental categories of \u201cus and them,\u201d may be twisted into an unhealthy form of nationalism and arrogance, while dehumanizing the Other, whose life counts for little. For Zimbardo, the \u201cmilitary-corporate-religious complex is the ultimate megasystem controlling much of the resources and quality of life of many Americans today.\u201d (ibid.) To his credit, he is not afraid to name names. After examining the lies that spawned the illegal invasion of Iraq and the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Zimbardo concludes that the blame rests with \u201cthe very top of the long chain of command \u2013 all the way up to Vice President Dick Cheney (\u2018the Vice President of Torture\u2019) and President George W. Bush\u201d (p. 432, quoting the Washington Post, October 26 2005). Closer to home, is the lack of action by the United States, Canada, and other G-8 nations in Rwanda and Darfur connected to the lack of economic interest on the part of the business classes in those countries? In his postscript, Waller admits that \u201cthe UN and the United States have been very slow\u201d to take any serious actions to halt the genocide in Darfur (p. 302). But there is little attempt to explain that inaction. When the Nazis invaded Denmark in 1940, citizens of all ages united to form a strong resistance movement. Refusing to cooperate with the planned deportation of Jews, the Danes began spiriting their neighbors and relatives across the channel to Sweden in small fishing vessels. Scientists and fishermen worked together to come up with ways to numb the noses of dogs used by the Nazis to search the vessel for stowaways. The small boats, with their undetected human cargo, met up with larger Swedish ships in the channel. In all, 7,200 of the 7,800 Danish Jews and 700 or their non-Jewish relatives were smuggled safely out of Denmark (pp. 125-26).<\/p>\n On the other hand, there is a surprising void when it comes to considering the inaction of the United States, and President Clinton in particular, during the genocide in Rwanda. While Coloroso notes that Clinton eventually apologized to the survivors, she passes over the question of his guilt in silence. She does quote Canadian scholar Gerald Caplan, who argues that nothing \u201ccan substitute for political will among the powers-that-can\u201d (p. 20). But there is no indication that Caplan has also pointed to \u201cFive Culprits of Genocide\u201d in Rwanda, including the UN, France, the Catholic Church, Belgium, and the United States. In fact, Caplan is the author of “Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide”, a report of the international panel of eminent persons that investigated the 1994 slaughter. He later wrote: For his part, Waller rightly warns of the danger of dealing with evil \u201cfrom the heights of moral condemnation rather than the depths of human understanding,\u201d but then declares that, nevertheless, \u201cwe are all responsible for our deeds \u2013 evil or otherwise\u201d (pp. 18-19). In her insightful chapter, \u201cRestoring Community,\u201d Coloroso explores important ideas about necessity of forgiveness, restitution, and reconciliation, but insists that those \u201cwho have committed crimes against humanity\u201d must \u201ctake full responsibility for their actions\u201d (p. 208). An estimated 504 Vietnamese civilians were rounded up and killed \u2026 the soldiers gathered up all the inhabitants of the village \u2013 elderly men, women, children, and babies \u2013 and machine gunned them to death (some they burned alive, raped, and scalped). Thompson and his crew embodied the appeal made over a decade earlier by Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein, when they called on the people of the world to \u201cAbove all, remember your humanity.\u201d v Notes and references: The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil Philip Zimbardo New York: Random House, 2007 576 pp, $27.95 (hbk) Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide & Mass Killing (2nd ed.) James Waller New York: Oxford University Press, 2007 384 pp, $24.99 (pbk) Extraordinary Evil: A Brief History of Genocide Barbara Coloroso Toronto: Viking … <\/p>\n
\nThree recent books have attempted just this task, with varying degrees of success: The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil<\/em>, by Philip Zimbardo; Becoming Evil<\/em>, by James Waller; and Barbara Coloroso\u2019s Extraordinary Evil<\/em>. While there is a fair amount of agreement among these authors, each approaches the subject of atrocity and its root causes from different angles.
\nThe most powerful and insightful effort is by Zimbardo, who is, of course, the pioneering social psychologist most noted for his (in)famous \u201cStanford Prison Experiment\u201d in 1971, in which male students were randomly assigned to take on the roles of either prisoners or guards in a study originally planned to last for two weeks. The experiment had to be terminated less than halfway through, because of the deleterious and dangerous changes that affected both groups of subjects. The power that the guards were given created a strong tendency for them to act brutally and sadistically towards their fellow classmates. Those assigned to the role of prisoner, on the other hand, became by and large passive, fearful, and subservient. In fact, half of them had to be released even before the \u201cprison\u201d was closed early.
\nAbout a third of Zimbardo\u2019s book consists of his detailed analysis of the Stanford Prison Experiment, which is the starting point for his investigation of the forces that compel otherwise ordinary people to commits acts of extraordinary horror and brutality. He offers three fundamental explanations for human behavior. The first and most common approach he labels dispositional. This view focuses primarily on the level of the individual and his or her personality, experiences, genetic inheritance, abilities, and beliefs. It holds that, most of the time, the locus of control over actions is internal. By this psychological explanation, individuals are held to be usually, indeed almost completely, responsible for their actions \u2013 regardless of any other external explanations or forces. Nelson Mandela, for example, is a hero primarily because of the type of person that he is (compassionate, intelligent, and principled), while Saddam Hussein was a villain because of his personal vices (sadism, a hunger for power, vanity).
\nThe problem with this focus is that most of the people who commit atrocities are not psychopaths, and individual variables alone can account for only a relatively small part of their actions. Indeed, after carrying out their crimes, most return to their \u201cnormal\u201d lives and never again exhibit such pathological behaviour.\u00a0 Zimbardo therefore offers a second level of explanation, based on situational variables outside of individuals that usually provide more robust and comprehensive answers about the sources of inhuman behavior. At this level of analysis, factors such as ideology, deindividuation, domination, socialization, and dehumanization contribute to producing irrational and cruel actions. This focus on social dynamics does not deny the role of personal qualities, but it assumes that on most occasions, there is an interaction between individual and their environment in which the latter is most salient for most people in most circumstances.
\nFor all three authors considered here, this view is the most essential: that given the right \u201csituational variables,\u201d practically anyone will do terrible things to other human beings.\u00a0 Zimbardo stresses the insight, also made by Waller and Coloroso, that mass slaughters can be committed by \u201cnormal\u201d people because human behavior is extremely malleable, allowing contradictory behaviors to be manifested by the same person in different situations. He writes:\u00a0 \u201cPerhaps we are born with a full range of capacities, each of which is activated and developed depending on the social and cultural circumstances that govern our lives. I will argue that the potential for perversion is inherent in the very processes that make human beings do all the wonderful things that we do\u201d (p. 229). In other words, the simplistic dualism of believing that \u201can unbridgeable chasm separates good people from bad people\u201d ignores the reality that human behaviour is characterized by its variability, so that evil is \u201csomething of which we are all capable, depending on circumstances\u201d (ibid).
\nThe problems begin when socialization accentuates the negative potential present in us all. A telling example is the almost automatic tendency to divide people into categories of \u201cus\u201d and \u201cthem\u201d \u2013 a function which can easily be exaggerated, so that those defined as the \u201cOther\u201d appear both threatening and less than human. In one telling study, subjects who \u201caccidentally\u201d overheard a remark that students in a test were \u201canimals\u201d gave them higher levels of electric shocks than subjects who did not hear the \u201canimal\u201d comment. Moreover, subjects who overheard a reference to the students as \u201cnice guys\u201d gave the mildest shocks of all (p. 308-9).
\nAnother natural tendency that can be twisted is the need for community and for connections with nature (or \u201cfirst nature\u201d and \u201csecond nature,\u201d as Murray Bookchin called it).\u00a0 Frans de Waal, one of the world\u2019s leading researchers on primate behaviour, writes: \u201cThere was never a point at which we became social: descended from highly social ancestors \u2013 a long line of monkeys and apes \u2013 we have been group-living forever \u2026 life in groups is not an option, but a survival strategy.\u201d As a result of this evolutionary heritage, de Waal explains, \u201csociality has become ever more deeply ingrained in primate biology and psychology.\u201d In fact, the main reason for the large cortex in human brains is our need to associate in complex social groups.<\/p>\n
\nThis polarization is much more likely to occur when people are fearful, a problem that is clearly illustrated by the changing relationship between Serbs and Croatians over the last sixty years. For centuries, the history of these two peoples was drenched in blood, and mutual hostility was part of their cultural legacy. After the Second World War, however, the new Yugoslav government under Tito designed political and social arrangements which stressed peaceful cooperation and unity among all peoples of Yugoslavia. The economic situation of the ordinary Yugoslav improved dramatically, and over a relatively short period of time the ancient hostility eased. Serbs and Croatians began to live together, work together, and even marry one another. Human nature did not change in these few decades, but the social environment did, and that made all the difference. Anger and hatred were replaced by empathy, friendship, and in some cases, love.
\nWhen economic and political conditions began to deteriorate in the 1980s, however, many people experienced insecurity and fear. Those feelings played a large part in nationalist appeals that led to the rebirth of communal violence, producing horrible atrocities and the genocide of \u201cethnic cleansing.\u201d In some cases, the very same people who had been neighbours and friends just a few years earlier now turned on each other, committing violent and inhuman acts. Clearly, when people believe their very lives are at stake, they are more likely to do what they are told \u2013 including, if \u201cnecessary,\u201d slaughtering other people.
\nThe Yugoslav example points to a larger problem regarding the so-called \u201crealist\u201d view that human beings are innately aggressive and that war is in our genes. Zimbardo\u2019s research leads him to inquire about the nature and origin of those situations that foster war and violence in general, and genocide in particular. He explains situational variables by reference to an even more fundamental factor, that of \u201csystems of power\u201d (p. 10) which create diverse situations and manipulate people in ways that benefit those in control \u2013 the \u201cpower elite,\u201d to cite the concept advanced by the sociologist C. Wright Mills.<\/p>\n
\nIn the second edition of his incisive work, Becoming Evil<\/em>, James Waller takes a somewhat more general approach than Zimbardo. He makes a similar point, namely that it is mostly \u201cordinary people committing extraordinary evil,\u201d and adds that it is not simply a matter of a person having a \u201cpathological or faulty personality.\u201d Among the evidence he adduces is the finding by half a dozen psychologists that the Nazi g\u00e9nocidaire Adolf Eichmann was normal, rather than diabolical. Throughout the book, Waller emphasizes the unsettling thought that, \u201cgiven the right confluence of contributing factors, we are all capable of some terrible deeds\u201d (p. 161).
\nAlong the same lines, Waller effectively deconstructs the view that a given society must be pathological if it carries out mass murder and genocide. He accomplishes this by reviewing Daniel Goldhagen\u2019s influential book, Hitler\u2019s Willing Executioners<\/em>, the main thesis of which is that the Nazi Holocaust resulted from an especially virulent strain of antisemitism in German culture. On the contrary, Waller not only shows that \u201cthere is little evidence that the antisemitism of Germans was eliminationist\u201d before the rise of Hitler, but also demonstrates that Goldhagen\u2019s belief \u201cthat eliminationist anti-Semitism was the central motive of the Holocaust fares no better. The fixation on one over-arching explanation \u2013 rather than many overlapping, reinforcing, perhaps partially competing explanations \u2013 is too simplistic\u201d (p. 52).
\nThe heart of Waller\u2019s study are the chapters devoted to examining the conditions that contribute to mass violence. At the cultural level, he considers such models as \u201cauthority orientation\u201d and \u201csocial dominance,\u201d which may help to construct ideologies that in turn serve to legitimize mass violence. Waller then studies the psychological factors that make it possible to dehumanize people as Others without rights \u2013 even the right to exist. Indeed, it helps psychologically to consider such Others as a threat to one\u2019s own values. Finally, Waller examines the \u201csocial construction of cruelty,\u201d in an analysis that, like Zimbardo\u2019s, dissects the situational variables that allow people to commit atrocities, including deindividuation and peer pressure.
\nFinally, although Waller argues that \u201csocial conflict is ubiquitous\u201d throughout human history (p. xiv), he is not referring to Marx\u2019s view that history \u201cis the history of class struggle.\u201d Indeed, class plays almost no role in Waller\u2019s explanation of mass killing and genocide. One wonders, though, if it is entirely irrelevant that the capitalist classes in Germany offered Hitler \u201ctheir full support and cooperation\u201d as the Nazis crushed the trade union movement and established an extremely profitable \u201cmilitary-industrial complex\u201d as a preparation for war? Or that \u201cThe Fuehrer personally stressed time and again during talks with \u2026 industrial leaders \u2026 that he considered free enterprise and competition as absolutely necessary\u201d? ii<\/p>\n
\nThe relationship between bullying and genocide is the central metaphor in Barbara Coloroso\u2019s, Extraordinary Evil: A Brief History of Genocide<\/em>. Coloroso argues that \u201cthe concept of genocide in general, and the Rwandan genocide in particular, are macrocosms of the drama known as bullying\u201d (p. xx). She does a reasonable job of pointing out similarities between these phenomena, such as the social origins of much cruel behavior. But the metaphor is stretched thin at times.\u00a0 Coloroso is at her best in describing some of the psychological aspects of violence, and especially the other side of the coin \u2013 when \u201cordinary\u201d people perform extraordinary feats of bravery to help victims of mass violence. One famous example of mass heroism occurred in Denmark under Nazi occupation:<\/p>\n
\nDuring the genocide, it was the U.S.\u2019s turn to betray Rwanda\u2026the craven Clinton administration, under pressure from the Republicans, ensured that the UN Security Council would do nothing\u2026Thanks entirely to contrived American stalling tactics\u2026not a single reinforcement of man or machine from abroad had reached Rwanda. iii
\nIn spite of the long litany of depressing and horrific stories of violence and cruelty, all these authors agree that things can be done to reduce mass violence. At the core of these prescriptions is the need for critical thought, compassion, and action. Ultimately, systems of power need to be democratized and every human being needs to be treated with respect.
\nThere is another question that all three authors tackle, and on which all three are found wanting \u2013 the question of personal responsibility. For instance, while Zimbardo challenges \u201cthe rigid Fundamental Attribution Error that locates the inner qualities of people as the main source of their actions,\u201d he adds that this position does not \u201cnegate the responsibility\u201dof individuals, \u201cnor their guilt\u201d (p. 445).<\/p>\n
\nThere are at least four major problems with the notion of individual moral responsibility and guilt. The first is that all three authors have done a very convincing job of showing how a multitude of forces beyond individual control \u2013 social, economic, cultural, situational, psychological, and so on \u2013 can combine to elicit very uncharacteristic behaviour from a person, behaviour they would never exhibit in less extreme circumstances. Therefore, is it logical or fair to assign \u201cfull responsibility\u201d from \u201cthe heights of moral condemnation\u201d to those hapless individuals? Is this not making the same \u201cFundamental Attribution Error\u201d?
\nIn addition, according to cognitive scientist George Lakoff, research has discovered that there is \u201ca vast landscape of unconscious thought \u2013 the 98 percent of thinking your brain does that you\u2019re not aware of.\u201d iv Does it make sense, therefore, to condemn someone who \u2013 like all of us \u2013 is aware of only two percent of the thoughts and feelings that drive their actions?
\nThird, I believe it is arrogant to pretend to godlike omniscience and claim to fully understand the contributions of all of the above-cited variables to an individual\u2019s actions. Human understanding is limited. Moreover, as the authors remind us many times, any one of us might do horrible things in the \u201cwrong\u201d situation.
\nLast, not only does a focus on individuals at the bottom of the chain of command obscure the responsibility of those at the top, but more importantly it diverts attention from the ultimate cause of most mass inhumanity \u2013 the systems of Power which Zimbardo emphasizes.
\nPerhaps the most desirable road is to focus more on the prevention of mass killing than to waste time in futile debates about \u201cguilt.\u201d As Coloroso wisely points out, forgiveness is a \u201cgift\u201d that victims can give to themselves, as part of the process of healing.
\nAll three writers stress that there are always some people who are able to resist the inhumanity that takes place around them, and the authors provide many examples of such heroes \u2013 people who may have led \u201cordinary\u201d lives until they found themselves in a situation that brought out the best in them. As critical as those actions may be, Zimbardo is right when he says that \u201cdisobedience by the individuals must get translated into systemic disobedience\u201d if it is going to have a significant impact (p. 459). Such widespread disobedience on the part of US citizens \u2013 and within the armed forces \u2013 was one of the main reasons that Washington was forced to end its attack on Vietnam, and why Nixon could not carry out his threats to attack the Vietnamese with nuclear weapons.
\nOf all the stories of the heroic resistance to the Vietnam War, perhaps the most moving is that of the late Hugh Thompson, who was a US helicopter pilot in Vietnam in 1968, when he came across the My Lai massacre while it was in progress. As Zimbardo relates the tale:<\/p>\n
\nWhile the massacre was unfolding, a helicopter piloted by Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson, Jr. set down to help a group of Vietnamese civilians \u2026 They saw Captain [Ernest] Medina and other soldiers running over to shoot the wounded. Thompson flew his helicopter back over My Lai village \u2026 ordered the massacre to stop and threatened to open fire with the helicopter\u2019s heavy machine gun on any American soldier or officer who refused his order\u2026 He then ordered two other helicopters to fly in for medical evacuation of the eleven wounded Vietnamese. His plane returned to rescue a baby he had spotted still clinging to its dead mother (pp 475-75).<\/p>\n
\nMost acts of resistance to the evils demanded by systems of Power and the situations that they create will not be as heroic as that Hugh Thompson. But the most hopeful aspects of these studies are the examples they supply of individuals who in the most terrible situations, from Auschwitz to Abu Ghraib, remembered their own humanity, as well as that of the people around them.<\/p>\n
\ni (de Waal, Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved. 2006, p. 4).
\nii (Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. 1960, p. 201).
\niii (Caplan, \u201cA Ridiculously Brief History of Rwanda\u201d in The Walrus, October 2004).
\niv (Lakoff, The Political Mind. 2008, p.3).
\nv (Russell and Einstein, The Russell-Einstein Manifesto. 9 July 1955 www.pugwash.org\/about\/manifesto.htm).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"