Hitler and the Capacity for Evil
Over the last few weeks you may have run across the story that Hitler only had one testicle. Anyway, Ron Rosenbaum, author of Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of His Evil (which I haven’t read), had a really interesting article on Slate which basically suggested that people’s fascination with Hitler’s sexuality is little more than an attempt to explain him as something other than a normal human being who performed unbelievable atrocities.
As Rosenbaum puts it, “Isn’t it obvious by now what this is about? Our need to prove that Hitler was not ‘normal,’ thus not like us, normal human nature thereby exculpated from producing a Hitler. It fills a need to reassure ourselves there is no Hitler potential in human potential. We’re off the hook.”
Anyway, I got to thinking about Hitler and the capacity for evil in people. As The Stanford Prison Experiment showed, even regular folks can turn to the dark side quite quickly. Of course whenever we talk about someone who’s done terrible things, we talk about their past and the thing that “screwed them up.” But who’s to say that’s what turned them? As I wrote in a post on predictions that “A clue is only a clue if it helps solve a mystery, afterwards it becomes explanation, equally important (for our psyche) but a very different beast.”
Who is to say that we don’t post-rationalize these people’s past as the reason they did what they did in order to satiate our own need for them to be “different”? I actually just got finished watching Phillip Zimbardo’s TED talk on what he calls The Lucifer Effect (which is essentially how good people go bad). Zimbardo is most famous for The Stanford Prison Experiment which took regular college kids and split them into prisoners and guards, turning the basement of the psychology building into a makeshift prison. What happened over the next few days was horrifying as these kids who had been chosen for their stability began to abuse the “prisoners”. The two-week experiment was stopped after 6 days because of how crazy things had gotten. (The whole documentary is up on Google video, though I haven’t watched it yet.)
Anyway, Zimbardo makes a bunch of interesting points in his talk which revolves around both the experiment and what went on at Abu Ghraib. He begins by explaining what drove him into his area of study, “That line between good and evil, which privileged people like to think is fixed and impermeable, with them on the good side and the others on the bad side, I knew that line was movable and it was permeable.” That, ultimately is the point (and his big one). People aren’t evil or good, they’re put in situations and they act and eventually their behavior is judged as one or the other.
Zimbardo sums up the point with this excellent New Yorker cartoon, which features two men in a police interrogation room and the caption, “I’m neither a good cop nor a bad cop, Jerome. Like yourself, I’m a complex amalgam of positive and negative personality traits that emerge or not, depending on circumstances.”
Also included in his talk is reference to the other famous experiment that points to people’s ability to do evil, Stanley Milgram’s shock studies of the 1960s, which the New York Times describes as “a series of about 20 experiments, [in which] hundreds of decent, well-intentioned people agreed to deliver what appeared to be increasingly painful electric shocks to another person, as part of what they thought was a learning experiment. The ‘learner’ was in fact an actor, usually seated out of sight in an adjacent room, pretending to be zapped.” While the same article points out it’s hard to extrapolate the findings of these studies to either the Holocaust or Abu Ghraib, it also points out the enduring interest in the studies as a barometer for their importance.
In discussing them, Zimbardo makes a few key points, the most important of which was that “all evil starts at 15 volts” (the machines went all the way to 450 volts, which only 1/3 of participants refused to push). In other words, thinking of these transformations as immediate are wrong. People are not like Clark Kent, jumping into a phone booth to turn into Superman at the sight of evil. Rather they’re more like the drunk guy dancing around the bar, mild-mannered when he arrived, slightly slurring an hour later, visibly drunk after two and making a complete fool of himself after four. It’s a slow process which is dependent on a number of circumstances, most important of which is lack of intervention.
That intervention, Zimbardo points out, is actually what makes a hero. A hero, he explains, is the person who does what nothing else would do. In fact, he points out, heroes are deviants since they’re acting against the will of the group.
All of this has become a fairly long-winded way of saying that I think it’s a better thing for the future of humanity that people accept and acknowledge that anyone can be evil instead of trying to find the fatal flaw that “turned someone.” As Dostoevsky wrote (at least according to Zimbardo), “Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing is more difficult than to understand him.” Maybe in understanding we can be a bit more self aware and hopefully be able to catch ourselves when we’re caught up in a mob.
Update (12/1/08): After having a conversation with my mom this morning, I wanted to clarify something: There are genuinely crazy people who kill folks and do terrible things. Schizophrenia and other psychological problems are very real and can cause people to do totally crazy things. There are also folks who join the herd, like the trampling at WalMart or even the Germans who followed Hitler. These are people who get caught up in the moment/follow instructions and this is what most of the research from Zimbardo and Milgram is about. Then there are people like Hitler. By all accounts he was neither clinically crazy nor following anyone else’s lead. He was a person who hated a group of people and wanted them dead. Of course he probably got caught up in his own power, but the bottom line (and the point I was trying to make) was that he seems to have been a regular person other than that. That’s important to understand and acknowledge because it forces us all to acknowledge the capacity for extreme hatred in us.

Hi, I'm 
On the Hitler/one ball thing: Bin Laden was similarly explained post-9/11 — as having an extremely small penis.
Is this evidence of our need to distance ourselves from the very evil, or an attempt to condemn the really, really bad guys to the ultimate prison of sexual inadequacy?
you know how you said you want to be an economist the other day on twitter…i almost replied, “i want to be a social psychologist.” you had me at dehumanizing. so glad you chose to write this post rather than just link.
Very interesting to think through how we try to rationalize our own behavior by demonizing it in others. Great thoughts. If you don’t yet follow psychologist/consultant/personality type blogger Breanne Potter, you should – you guys share a lot of similar thoughts on the nature of evil inspired by the events of this weekend. Check out her post here:
Bystander Effect and Mob Mentality: Black Friday
I don’t know if you’ve seen this summer’s blockbuster, “The Dark Knight”, but it involves several scenes in which the villain tries to turn regular people into vengeful killers. While there is no real backstory as to why the killer does what he does, it shows how he could make regular people come to justify evil. There was a scene where two boats full of people are given a trigger to a bomb. One boat is full of convicts; the other is just full of regular people. One of the boats must blow up the other before a certain time to avoid death. Another incident caused by the villain severely traumatizes a supporting character causing him to become the opposite of what he once stood for.
“I’m neither a good cop nor a bad cop, Jerome. Like yourself, I’m a complex amalgam of positive and negative personality traits that emerge or not, depending on circumstances.”
but this teeters on the brink of what Ken Wilber would refer to as noetic flatness, or Boomeritis. I agree it’s important to “acknowledge the capacity for extreme hatred in us,” but I find it inaccurate to deem people neutral, with the same range of capacity, so to speak, for extreme hatred. some people work extra hard on limiting their ranges!
think about this in terms of technology. referring to technologies as inherently good or bad (e.g. Nick Carr’s question of whether Google is making us stupid) is technologically determinist, analogous to thinking that the line between good and evil is impermeable. but by deciding that a technology can be either good or bad depending on the circumstances (the conclusion of Carr’s article and so many others), we’ve made the technology neutral. i.e. we haven’t learned absolutely anything about it. both the internet and hammers can be used for desirable and undesirable ends, but there are still meaningful normative difference between them. I’m interested in moving beyond both technological determinism and technological neutrality towards a more nuanced framework for characterizing technologies. I have ideas; a crude-yet-interesting one is brand tags for technologies.
and you could tell a similar story for people.
Harold Bloom describes Iago as “…a moral pyromaniac setting fire to all of reality.” Bloom’s two contenders for perfectly rendered avatars of evil, Iago and Cormack McCarthy’s Judge Holden from Blood Meridian, are both men of exceptional intellect – and utterly devoid of moral principle – who use that intellect to destroy at will. Sounds like Hitler or Stalin to me.
When we analyse an individual who has committed an evil act, our first instinct is to explain it away as inhuman. The act of an individual who’s mind and conscience occupy a space outside of societal norms and rules.
But, I agree we have to accept all evil acts (no matter what the severity) are inextricably human and naturally occurring.
Of course we must first and foremost protect society from these acts and that has been catered for by the moral codes and laws that have been constructed over the years and govern society today. The only problem is these moral codes have become so entrenched that our collective response is to intuitively disassociate these individuals from society, to dehumanise them.
We should continue to deter through punishment but we should accept these actions not as weaknesses in the individual as a human but as signs of weakness in the fabric of society. Nature’s way of saying something’s up and it needs attention. The more we treat and dispose of these acts outside of societal boundaries the worse things will get (or have gotten). The greater we ostracise those who commit immoral acts the greater the fissures of indifference and misunderstanding will become (have become).
What was that you said about the iPhone??
Hey Noah,
Two things came to my mind after reading your post. Hannah Arendt had the idea of “banality of evil” to describe that people who commit unspeakable crimes are not crazy fanatics but rather ordinary individuals “following the rules”. This is nothing new, and more interesting here is her explanation: it’s the absence of thinking (she calls it imaginative capacities in those people that would have made the human and moral dimensions of their activities tangible to them). So, individual acts of “evil” are the problem of failure in their thinking & in the lack of self-reflection as a basis for judgement. That is for me awfully close to habitual responses (to obey authority, follow the rituals, and do things that “everyone else does”) – and here already mentioned Black Friday being an example. I have written on my blog about needs vs. habits and more and more I think that a lot, if not all, of our social behavior is a result of a habit. Habit = not thinking, automated response. (i guess this is where Zimbardo’s heroes come in as individuals who do think).
It then may be less a question of whether or not people are crazy (some indeed are), but why the structure of society often encourages habitual responses rather than self-reflective ones. There are crazy people like Hitler but more interesting here is why and how he got to assume such a giant power and influence to execute his craziness. It’s a network question: if the context is such to allow influence to spread, then any nut can become Hitler in the scope of her actions. If it’s not, then no one can execute his crazy on a large scale.
Interesting.
One of the things this post got me thinking about is how relative evil is.
A hundred years ago (a bit more than 1 generation) girls were regularly getting married at 15. Now the thought of sex with someone so young would be classified (rightly) as evil.
But maybe it’s just evil to me because I have a daughter and spent years watching shows on NBC.
The fact Hitler was able to get so many followers says less about evil and more about how relative it really is.
@Prince: Not Sure I follow …
Let me take another swing.
I grew up in a religious household. One day during dinner we had a discussion about how evil slavery was. So the question came up if slaveowners of the time went to heaven.
We came to the conclusion that evil, instead of being absolute, is relative. It’s based on the times and the situation (hence my 15yo example).
It’s a consensus today that what Hitler did was evil. But unfortunately, that wasn’t the consensus at the time in Germany. There, during that time and those circumstances he was a hero.
I’m sure in another 100 years history may look at us as ‘evil’ for sending people to prison (and ruining families and lives) for putting substances in their own bodies. And maybe someone will defend us by making up some argument about our testicles.
I’m just going to paddle in the shallow end. But Prince’s point on relativity reminded me of Steven Pinker’s TED talk about the myth of violence.
I suppose since evil is (like everything else, arguably) a human invention, it is subject to the conditions of time and culture as Prince says.
I’m going to go and torture a squirrel.