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

a continuum of destruction also decreases when free expression is inhibited, because of a uniform definition of reality: the government propagates its views and no others are heard. (Even in a democratic system, ideology, government information management, and lack of press vigilance may result in a relatively uniform definition of reality; see Chapter 17.) If everyone seems to be thinking the same way, it may stifle doubt or resistance, even inner resistance. Many people report seeing two lines of clearly different length as equal when a number of other people before them report seeing the lines as equal.⁶² Social reality can be even more strongly affected by the views of others. The way some people define the meaning of events powerfully influences other bystanders’ reactions to emergencies. Even what people regard as sounds of distress and how they react to distress depends on what other people say.⁶³ A culturally induced respect for authority can join with governmental propaganda and repression in creating uniform views of events. Eichmann noted at his trial that there were no voices raising questions about the Nazi exterminations, nothing to implant doubt.⁶⁴

Authorities also create facts. Hitler used the pretext of a Polish attack to invade Poland; actually the attackers were SS members dressed in Polish uniforms. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, used to extend American involvement in Vietnam, may have been intentionally created and falsely reported.

Even in a democratic system leaders are often isolated. Surrounded by a small group of decision makers, they lack direct contact with citizens. Moreover, their power can be enormous even in a system of government purportedly based on checks and balances. Inherent in the leadership role, unfortunately, is a tendency to view people as instruments and devalue opposition. This is more likely when the leader’s power is great and his accountability low, and when the leader is guided by a coherent ideology, which offers certainty of goals. Institutions that expose leaders to varied views and increase their accountability may counteract this process (see Chapter 17).

Social institutions

Social institutions affect the likelihood of group mistreatment in several ways.

Discrimination. Discrimination against subgroups combines with cultural images and stereotypes to further ingroup-outgroup distinctions and devaluation. Segregation in housing, movements like the Ku Klux Klan or anti-Semitic political parties in Europe, and discriminatory quotas in education and jobs are among institutions and policies that contribute to this. Discrimination is also served by poverty and persistent differences in social status, together with institutions that limit social mobility.

Organizations capable of carrying out mistreatment. Motivation for mistreating a group is not enough; the capacity to fulfill it must be present. Often the motivation does not even fully arise until there is belief in the capacity to fulfill it.⁶⁵ A monolithic central party, a powerful military, and other organized groups loyal to the government are often necessary conditions. A machinery of destruction has to be created.⁶⁶ In Germany the SS and prior experience with “euthanasia” provided the instruments and techniques for extermination. In Turkey, Argentina, and elsewhere organized groups either existed or were created.

Institutions creating societal climate. A society’s institutions help determine whether its spirit is one of harmony, cooperation, and altruism or one of disharmony, conflict, and harm-doing; for example, compare the English system of voluntary blood donation with the widespread buying and selling of blood in the United States.⁶⁷ In schools, emphasis on competition (as opposed to cooperative learning) greatly affects the experience of self and others (Chapter 17). Unfortunately, even cooperative and harmonious institutions may exclude some groups. There is a sharp turn towards group violence when institutions are created or existing institutions assigned the task to harm a subgroup of society. In Germany the Ministry of Propaganda and the SS were such institutions.

In sum, a constellation of characteristics makes a society likely to respond to difficult life conditions in ways that ultimately lead to violence against a subgroup (or another country). All the components need not exist for a society to start along the continuum of destruction; part of a pattern is sufficient. Nevertheless, the absence of a crucial characteristic can inhibit mistreatment or violence or lead to counterreactions that stop its progression. For example, in a pluralistic system, people can speak out against and prevent progress toward genocide.

^a There is a great deal of controversy about sociobiological views on the genetic basis of human social behavior,⁹ and my own views differ from Wilson’s. For example, I regard Mundurucú culture as demonstrating the role of culture in aggression. Sociobiologists’ proposals concern the sources of human behavior in the gene pool, in the shared human genetic heritage. Philip Rushton and his associates have suggested that individual genetic variation exists in altruism and aggression.¹⁰ Their conclusions are based on self-reports in questionnaires, not direct information about behavior. They found greater similarity between more genetically related individuals (e.g., identical twins in contrast to fraternal twins). It is unlikely that certain genes directly result in more or less aggression or altruism. More likely, genetically based temperamental differences (e.g., in infants’ activity levels, intensity of emotion, and social responsiveness) affect the way parents and others relate to infants. This shapes the child’s altruistic and aggressive behavior, or, what Rushton and his associates actually measured, verbal self reports related to altruism and to self-other relations. (When reared together, identical twins are also treated more alike than fraternal twins.)

5 The psychology of perpetrators: individuals and groups

Who become the direct perpetrators of violence and the policymakers, and how? It is decision makers who initiate, lead, give orders, and in most cases assume responsibility. Irving Janis found that decision-making groups engage in “groupthink.”¹ Members are reluctant to contradict each other. Once an idea has gained any support, especially by the leader, members refrain from criticism or the introduction of new ideas, which limits alternatives.

Groupthink often leads to unintended outcomes. However, genocide and mass killing frequently fulfill the decision makers’ intentions and goals. In some instances, as in the case of Hitler and the Holocaust, the ideas that led to genocide evolved well before the