Some people become perpetrators as a result of their personality; they are “self-selected” or selected by their society for the role. But even they evolve along the continuum of destruction. Others who were initially bystanders become involved with the destructive system and become perpetrators. Even bystanders who do not become perpetrators, if they passively observe as innocent people are victimized, will come to devalue the victims and justify their own passivity.
There are usually some people whose values or other personal characteristics make them oppose the treatment of the victims. Most such people, if they are to remain opposed, need support from others. With that support, some may come to resist the killing or the system that perpetrates it. Small initial acts can start a progression on a continuum that leads them to heroic resistance and to risking their lives to help the victims.
Cultural-societal characteristics
The characteristics of one’s culture and society determine not only the consequences of difficult life conditions and the choice of avenues to satisfy needs, but also whether reactions to initial acts of mistreatment occur that might inhibit further steps along the continuum of destruction. Most cultures have some predisposing characteristics for group violence, and certain cultures possess a constant potential for it. Also, when life problems are more intense, a weaker pattern of cultural-societal preconditions will make group violence probable.
The cultural self-concept of a people greatly influences the need to protect the collective psychological self. A sense of superiority, of being better than others and having the right to rule over them, intensifies this need. Collective self-doubt is another motivation for psychological self-defense. When a sense of superiority combines with an underlying (and often unacknowledged) self-doubt, their contribution to the potential for genocide and mass killing can be especially high.
Nationalism arises partly from this combination of superiority and self-doubt. One form of nationalism is the desire to enlarge the nation’s territory or to extend the influence of its values and belief system. Another form is the desire for purity or “cleansing.” Nationalism is often strengthened under the influence of diffiult life conditions. Strong nationalism sometimes originates in the experiences of shared trauma, suffering, and humiliation, which are sources of self-doubt.1
Societal values can embody a positive or negative evaluation of human beings and human well-being. But even in societies that do value human welfare, an outgroup may be excluded from the moral domain.
“Us”-“them” differentiation is a basic human potential for which we even carry “genetic building blocks” (see Chapter 4). It is one source of cultural devaluation. Negative stereotypes and negative images of a group can become deeply ingrained in a culture. The needs I have described are often fulfilled by turning against such a “preselected” group. Its members are scapegoated and identified as the enemy of the dominant group’s wellbeing, safety, and even survival, or as an obstacle to the realization of its ideological blueprint.
Strong respect for authority and strong inclination to obedience are other predisposing characteristics for mass killing and genocide. They make it more likely that responsibility will be relinquished and leaders will be followed unquestioningly. People who have always been led by strong authorities are often unable to stand on their own in difficult times. Their intense need for support will incline them to give themselves over to a group and its leaders.
A monolithic, in contrast to a pluralistic, culture or society is another important precondition. In a monolithic culture there is limited variation in values and perspectives on life. In a monolithic society strong authority or totalitarian rule enforces uniformity. The authorities have great power to define reality and shape the people’s perception of the victims. Societies with strong respect for authority also tend to be monolithic, and this combination makes adjustment to social change especially difficult.
In a pluralistic society with varied conceptions of reality and greater individual self-reliance, people will find it easier to change and gain new perspectives and accept new customs and mores. Reactions against initial harmful acts are more likely to occur and to inhibit the progression along the continuum of destruction.
As I have noted, an ideology with a destructive potential can become a guiding force, overriding contrary elements in culture or society. However, an ideology has to fit the culture if it is to be adopted by the people.
Partly but not entirely as a result of the above characteristics, societies vary in aggressiveness. Some have a long history of violence: aggression has become an accepted mode of dealing with conflict, even valued and idealized. Institutions that serve as the machinery for destruction may already exist.
Even more important than the current tendencies of a society is its deep structure. In the late nineteenth century, France might have seemed as likely as Germany to turn on the Jews. Anti-Semitism, as expressed in the Dreyfus affair, was widespread and racial ideologies attracted sympathetic interest. But the deep structure of anti-Semitism was stronger in Germany; for example, the medieval persecution of Jews was especially intense and cruel there.2 There was also a long authoritarian tradition, as opposed to the celebration of individual freedom and rights by the French Revolution.3 A deeply embedded anti-Semitism joined with other cultural characteristics and with difficult life conditions to create the conditions for genocide.
Why was there no Holocaust in Russia, where anti-Semitism was intense, the government was despotic, and life conditions near the end of World War I were difficult? Normally, there are a number of potential enemies. The Soviet leaders had an ideology that identified the wealthy as the enemy. This built on deep-seated class divisions in society. The ideology justified violence for the sake of the better world that the Communist Party and the new state were going to create. Eventually, it too led to the deaths of many millions under Stalin.
The role of bystanders
Another important factor is the role of bystanders, those members of society who are neither perpetrators nor
