The further the destruction has progressed, the more difficult it is to halt it. Human beings have a tendency to complete what they start. Kurt Lewin described this in terms of a goal gradient: the closer you are to a goal, the stronger the motivation to reach it.31 Interruption of goal-directed behavior is a source of tension; the closer the goal, the greater the tension. Cognitive consistency theories also present human beings as motivated to reach closure.32 The further you have progressed toward a goal, the more difficult it is to give up. Combined with personal and societal changes this explains why Germans, while losing the war, diverted substantial resources for the continued killing of Jews. Continued killing may also have served to give the Nazis a feeling of power and invulnerability as their fortunes declined.33
A progression of changes in a culture and individuals is usually required for mass killing or genocide. In certain instances – the Armenian genocide, for example – the progression takes place over decades or even centuries and creates a readiness in the culture. In other cases there is a speedy evolution of ideology, personalities, or social conditions that ready people for mass killing.
“Vicarious” rather than direct participation can also contribute to this evolution. Members of Nazi movements outside Germany identified with German Nazis and vicariously participated in their practices.34 This prepared them for their role as perpetrators when their country was later occupied by or allied itself to Nazi Germany. However, several such countries had themselves enacted anti-Jewish laws, so that learning by direct participation also occurred (see Chapter 11).
Other origins of mistreatment
The model presented here, with its emphasis on the psychological roots of group violence, is not always fully applicable. Leaders in nondemocratic states, protecting their power from real or imagined threats, may perpetrate wide-scale violence even when life conditions are not unusually difficult and the group membership of victims is poorly defined. In Stalin’s purges the criterion was at first ideological, but people were encouraged to betray others and did so for many reasons, including past enmity and a desire to please the authorities.35
The desire for material gain or power can be important. North and South American Indians were killed mainly because others wanted their land. In Paraguay, for example, roads were built into the jungle, greatly increasing land values, and the Ache Indians became “inconvenient.”36 In such cases of “internal colonialization,” cultural preconditions include profound devaluation and a history of discrimination – the victims often excluded from participation in society- and at times a history of conflict and mistreatment. In genocides and mass killings that follow decolonialization, as in Burundi and Biafra, deep-seated historical conflicts can come to the fore in the context of profound social-political change. A history of conflict and antagonism fuels a power struggle that ends in genocide.
In these cases and others when mass killing serves to gain wealth or power or to protect entrenched interests, the model is still at least partially applicable. The conflict is fueled by social disorganization and intense devaluation along class or other group lines. Authoritarian systems may limit free exchange. Ideological components (such as anticommunism) may result in a very broad definition of the enemy group.
Relations between a dominant and a subordinate group often remain peaceful until difficult life conditions, social change, or a new ideology intervene. A subordinate group’s claims to greater privilege are a threat not only to the material interests of the dominant group, but also to its self-concept and sense of what is right. The established order has usually been elaborately justified by devaluation, an elevated view by the privileged of themselves, and a world view, all fortified by social institutions. Thus the conflict of interests is psychologically enlarged. In countries like Argentina, Guatemala, and El Salvador, anticommunism, belief in free enterprise, and perceived threat to Christianity all have bolstered opposition to social change.
Selection for mass murder may be based not on cultural devaluation, but on a newly evolving or speedily adopted ideology. Usually, the ideology still draws on existing divisions in society. The identification and elimination of class enemies has often been part of established communist practice. In Cambodia, a country traditionally divided between a peasant countryside and cities dominated by a small and partly foreign ruling and commerical class, city dwellers were identified as incapable of contributing to a communist society. Thus, the Cambodian genocide had roots in Cambodian culture and communist ideology.
Leaders’ decisions, of course, are also crucial.37 At times they simply express a leader’s personality, motives, or world view. More often the leaders offer devaluation, scapegoating, and murder as ways to deal with persistent life problems and their psychological effects.
The role and power of bystanders
Bystanders, people who witness but are not directly affected by the actions of perpetrators, help shape society by their reactions. If group norms come to tolerate violence, they can become victims. Bystanders are often unaware of, or deny, the significance of events or the consequences of their behavior. Since these events are part of their lifespace, to remain unaware they employ defenses like rationalization and motivated misperception, or avoid information about the victims’ suffering.
Bystanders can exert powerful influence. They can define the meaning of events and move others toward empathy or indifference. They can promote values and norms of caring, or by their passivity or participation in the system they can affirm the perpetrators.38
Research on helping in emergencies has shown that, when a number of people are present, responsibility is diffused, and each person is less likely to help.39 Another consequence is what Bibb Latane and John Darley call pluralistic ignorance.40 People tend to inhibit expressions of feeling in public. In an emergency, the fact that all bystanders are hiding their feelings may lead them all to believe that there is no need for concern and nothing need be done. Hiding reactions is also common when suffering is inflicted by agents of society on members
