The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group violence

and the morality of collectives, whether races, classes or nations.”⁴ Collectives have a brutal character. In groups egoism and self-interest resist all moral or inclusive social interest.

Our contemporary culture fails to realize the power, extent and persistence of group egoism in human relations. It may be possible, though it is never easy, to establish just relations between individuals within a group by moral and rational suasion and accommodation. In inter-group relations this is practically an impossibility. The relations between groups must therefore always be predominantly political rather than ethical, that is, they will be determined by the proportion of power which each group possesses at least as much as by any rational and moral appraisal of the comparative needs and claims of each group.⁵

Even the individual’s capacity for altruism is subverted by the group. The ethical paradox of patriotism is that it “transmutes individual unselfishness into national egotism... .The unqualified character of this devotion is the very basis of the nation’s power and of the freedom to use power without moral restraint.” Critical loyalty to the group is very difficult to achieve, and the group frowns upon it. Another source of support for the group is that individuals try to fulfill egoistic needs and elevate themselves through the nation. Still, unity even within nations is difficult to achieve, partly because privileged groups are concerned with their own self-interest, not the interest of the whole nation. “National unity of action can be achieved only upon such projects as are either initiated by the self interest of dominant groups, in control of the government, or supported by the popular emotions and hysterias which from time to time run through a nation.”⁶

This is a highly pessimistic view. The history of the twentieth century may make it seem realistic. Niebuhr criticizes social scientists for unrealistic belief in the possibility of radical change by “reorganization of values” or by socializing the young. However, it may be Niebuhr’s assumptions that are incorrect.

Life arrangements vary greatly. The evolution of societies can lead to more or less differentiation among members and more or less justice. India is currently struggling to eliminate the pervasive differences institutionalized in the caste system. In the United States tremendous changes in race relations have resulted from the civil rights movement. Slavery, once common in many regions of the world, has essentially disappeared. Some once warlike nations, for example, Denmark and Sweden, have had harmonious internal and external relations for many years. Although the struggle for power and wealth and a forceful defense of privilege are often dominant in the behavior of both individuals and groups, the desire to create just and caring societies appears again and again, and not only among those who lack privilege.

An alternative view of individual and group potentials

Individuals’ and societies’ assumptions about human nature and the nature of groups will significantly shape their realities. Our assumptions determine how we perceive others’ actions. Seeing the world and human beings as hostile, we may perceive ambiguous acts as threatneing and friendly acts of individuals or groups as devious and manipulative. Perceiving others’ actions as hostile we act to defend ourselves. We escape or aggress. Others’ reactions to our actions confirm our original assumption. Through a cycle, which is often a vicious cycle but can instead be a benevolent one, we create and maintain our realities.

There are basic human needs for material and psychological security, for a positive view of the self and of one’s group, for a world view that offers comprehension. The experience of insecurity arises not only from actual threat but from the very fact of otherness. Since establishment of an identity as an individual and member of a group is both inevitable and desirable, the potential for feeling threatened and for devaluing others is always present. Since human societies and individual relations are rarely static, especially in the modern age, the needs and motives that arise from change are also ever present. Schmookler in his Parable of the Tribes suggests that if among neighboring groups one begins to arm, the others will be threatened and will have to follow suit. However, as much of this book suggests, the experience of threat can arise from psychological and societal sources, without real external threat.

Power offers protection against attack. It also assures persons and groups that they can fulfill their basic needs. Are the motives for power and dominance and wealth basic and fixed, or are they strong because they ensure security and the fulfillment of other important needs? Can they be replaced or superseded?

Abraham Maslow offered a conception of a universal hierarchy of human needs, from safety, the most basic need, to esteem, creativity, and self-actualization.⁷ Maslow’s “higher” needs seem more like important potentials that may or may not evolve as a function of experience. Although the exact nature of an individual’s hierarchy is certainly affected by nurture and not only by our shared genetic makeup, the need for safety or security is basic. A related need is efficacy and control, the capacity to influence events. This need is greater if the environment is perceived as hostile. Even if actual control is limited, the illusion of control is essential.⁸ Power and dominance and wealth and privilege offer the reality or illusion of security and control.

Humans are malleable. Given insecurity in childhood and authoritarian child rearing, the need for security, power, and control can become profound motives, persisting through life. In a benevolent environment, however, the needlike quality of security, its imperative force, may be lost. This is true of collectivities as well as individuals. Deep individual connections to others and the experience of benevolent persons and institutions result in feelings of safety and trust. Connection and community offer deep satisfaction and can become valued and even dominant in the hierarchy of motives. As heroic self-sacrifice proves, the values of community, caring, and connection can supersede the need for security. Moreover, in a benevolent environment both individuals and groups can acquire confidence in their ability to gain security and fulfill essential