The psychology of torture and torturers
As I have noted from time to time, the psychology of perpetrators presented in this book applies to torturers. Torture has been used for many purposes. Among these are eliciting information, forcing an admission of guilt, intimidating political adversaries, and establishing one’s power and the superiority of one’s group. In China and in medieval Europe torture was part of the legal process.14 Sometimes the scale of torture is limited, and sometimes (as in Germany, Cambodia, and Argentina) it accompanies mass killing or genocide. Although torture is more frequent in nondemocratic societies, it has also been practiced by democracies, both at home and in their colonial role; for example, the French used torture in Algeria extensively. Currently, torture is used in many countries.
When torture occurs on a limited scale or is performed by colonizers in a colonized country, it does not require broad societal processes, and torturers need not have psychological processes and motivations that are part of a more general societal psychology. In many ways, however, the psychology of the torturer resembles that of perpetrators of mass killing and genocide.
“Us”-“them” differentiation, the devaluation of victims, and just-world thinking (and other processes of moral exclusion that distance the self from victims), as well as a better-world ideology, often characterize torturers. Victims of torture are often seen as a threat to the ingroup. Perpetrators are self-selected or selected by people in authority. Their characteristics include obedience to authority, membership in trusted groups, and belief in the group ideology. Some may have an antisocial value orientation. A capacity and willingness to harm others is required and enjoyment of it is useful (although the torturer should not enjoy it too much, because he is there to do a job). Learning by participation contributes to the psychological evolution of torturers.
When torture is not part of a broad societal process, obedience to authority becomes more important. The group or its leaders must find the “right” persons to use as perpetrators, must further shape them, and at times must exert strong influence to gain obedience, especially in the early stages. The study of torturers has been limited, but it does seem that a mixture of self-selection and selection by personality, learning by doing, shaping, and “educating” is involved. In the case of the Greek torturers, special procedures were used to produce blind obedience. However, this might be unnecessary in groups with well-established hierarchical systems. For example, the relatively sudden onset of large-scale torture in Argentina suggests that the military personnel, who were the perpetrators, did not need special training in obedience. Military training itself aims to produce obedience. The motivations of many who later became torturers had evolved and their inhibitions had declined in the course of the increasing violence between left-wing terrorists and right-wing death squads partly composed of military personnel.g15
a It is possible that the Germans saw themselves as having achieved greatness between 1871 and 1914, which was followed by decline.
b The importance of the group in defining the “right” behavior is evident from reports about Vietnam veterans. The killing of civilians was widespread in Vietnam, partly as a consequence of the bombing and partly due to the belief that many civilians supported the Vietcong. Soldiers who did not go along, for example, those who withheld fire at My Lai, reported wondering whether something was wrong with them. Leaders often set the stage for atrocities in Vietnam by instituting body counts and search-and-destroy missions and by silence in the face of rumored atrocities.6
c In an experiment my students and I conducted in the early 1970s, we observed as passersby saw a person collapsing on the street. Some people, after a single but unmistakable glance, turned their heads and moved on without looking again, as if to avoid any further processing of the event they had witnessed. A few of them turned away when they reached the first corner, apparently in order to escape.10
d The courage needed is not necessarily a willingness to put one’s life on the line. It may be the courage to oppose the group and endanger one’s status or career. Many army leaders in Vietnam reported after the war that they disliked search-and-destroy operations and the policy of using body counts as an index of success. In a 1974 survey “almost 70 percent of the army generals who led the war in Vietnam were uncertain what the objectives of that combat were.. .and 61 percent believed that body counts, kill ratios.. .were inflated and invalid.” They seem to have kept quiet, according to researchers, because their careers were at stake.11The emotional difficulty of opposing the group must also have been important. Arguing against group policies should be respected and rewarded, but groups in general and the military in particular are disinclined to do this.
e It would be worthwhile to examine whether times of especially intense violence against Indians were also periods of economic hardship or other life problems.
f This model may also help us identify effective ways for bystanders to intervene. For example, in South Africa, actions that destroy the economy without producing other changes might make life more difficult and thereby increase the probability of genocide. Therefore, boycotts and divestment ought to be accompanied by other efforts, which must be based on understanding of the cultural self-concept, world views, and values of South African whites. Those who have friendly relations with South Africa should constantly communicate the values and beliefs that make them object to South African policies. They should point to positive values that white South Africans hold but do
