Ever since I took Dr. Shannon Woodcock's class on Genocides and the Holocaust I have developed an interest in the psychology of bystanders and perpetrators not only in a genocide but in any given situation be it civil war or your next door neighbour trying to beat up his servant. The way we humans react in such situations, makes for a fascinating study of why atrocities are ultimately committed. In a sense I think we all at some point in our lives could possibly fulfill either a bystander or perpetrator role or perhaps even both. The following article is an extract from an essay I wrote for my Genocides class.
The
study and discussion of genocides, mass murders or any such acts of terror or
torture generally give rise to a whole host of questions and problems in the
minds of the people studying such subjects. Perhaps the most common question
that arises would be how any human being could commit such a horrendous action
against a fellow human being. According
to the social psychologists Vohs and Baumeister there is no simple answer to
such a question which is probably the reason why a vast amount of research has
been carried out in order to understand the thought patterns and actions of
perpetrators who commit human atrocities. Thus the aim of this essay is to codify
theories and ideas on perpetrator psychology and behaviour in order to better
understand why groups of people are able to commit such acts of violence
against other groups of people. However the scope of the essay will be limited
to examining the actions and behaviour of perpetrators in Nazi Germany and the occupied
territories during the Holocaust.
Theories on perpetrator behaviour
and actions
Ervin
Staub examines the psychological as well as socio-cultural origins of
perpetrators that ultimately fuelled the Holocaust. He bases his research on
the assumption that violence is directed against groups of people because to an
extent the psychological bases of mistreatment are shared in life conditions
and culture.
One such reason for psychological mistreatment would be in-group and out-group
differentiation which creates an 'us and them' mentality. Generally the
out-group is devalued and the in-group holds them responsible for their
problems while also viewing them as an obstacle to the fulfilment of their
ideology. In-group and out-group separation is also maintained because of fear
of the unknown and the fact that categorization is a successful method by which
the human mind understands and remembers us and them. However it is important
to understand that in order for devaluation to influence violence it needs to
exist under a particular set of conditions.
Staub also argues that out-groups are also
mistreated because of traumatic social conditions that are probable causes for
the abuse of out-groups. So for instance if an individual feels that their
physical or material safety is at risk this could give rise to the desire to
harm others while ensuring one’s own protection, which would ultimately result
in aggression. This can be seen in the example of Germany after the First World
War. Economic and political turmoil endangered the survival of the German
people thereby harming their idea of themselves both as individuals and as a
collective.
Complex life circumstances also means that the victims will be made into
scapegoats as it helps those who belong to the in-group to absolve themselves
of responsibility for their own problems. It also unfortunately unifies people
against the “scapegoated other”. Jews were therefore the cause of problems in
Germany.
Thirdly Staub felt that ideology was an
essential part of impacting the way humans interacted with each other. Nazi ideology
viewed certain groups as an obstacle to their goal for a pure race and was willing
to obliterate anybody who hindered their goal for racial purity. The Jews
contaminated their plan for a pure race and had to be therefore obliterated
from the face of the earth. Likewise
the Nazi’s viewed themselves as the victims and felt that they had to protect
themselves and their community from the Jews by striking pre-emptively.
Also
by classifying the Jews as a different race and as the ‘other’ the Nazis were
able to first distance themselves psychologically from the Jews and then consequentially dehumanize and depersonalize
them.
The fact that German society had a history of anti-Semitism (the language of
Martin Luther when describing Jews is similar to the way in which Hitler
referred to them) made it a socio-cultural structure within the nation.
Other cultural characteristics that have been identified as significant to
comprehending the mindset of perpetrators of genocide in Germany would be a strong
willingness to obey authority and a “monolithic culture” which was limited in
its ideas and values thereby making it more likely to accept harmful
definitions of out-groups or victims.
Hannah Arndt delved more into the concept of obedience in the Nazi State with
what she termed was “the banality of evil”. According to Arndt, Adolf Eichmann
was an ordinary citizen but his intense obedience to Hitler made it impossible
for him to think for himself.
Arndt’s studies marked a shift in research on dysfunctional personalities as
perpetrators of atrocities to the understanding that normal people were
involved in perpetuating genocide.
The famous experiment by Stanley Miligram also furthered the viewpoint that
ordinary people could carry out atrocities when they believed they were
following the orders of legitimate authorities.
The actions of perpetrators are linked to
thought patterns and a mindset that advocate their actions as correct and
justifiable. Freedman and Fraser have explained that people first comply with
small requests and as they continue to do so their attitudes towards their own
actions and themselves change. This makes them more likely to carry out
requests that they may not have done so if asked at the beginning.
Staub calls it “learning by doing” and his description of the “ continuum of
destruction” highlight the fact that long before genocidal leaders come to
power the steps towards violent
aggression have already been taken.
Similarly the Holocaust was also facilitated by the huge bureaucracy of the Nazi
political system. Personal connections with the victims were forbidden and the
gas chambers exterminated people in huge numbers. This made it possible for the
killers to deny responsibility for what they had done.
Kristen R. Monroe, ‘Cracking the Code of
Genocide: The Moral Psychology of Rescuers, Bystanders, and Nazis during the
Holocaust’, Political Psychology Vol.29.no.5 (2008), p.712-13
Ron Dudai, ‘Understanding perpetrators in genocides and
mass atrocities’, The British Journal of Sociology vol 57. No.4 (2006) p.700
