Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 38, Number 13. 12th June 1975
Dynamics of Collective Evil
Dynamics of Collective Evil
This may be examined in four areas:
1) Its authorisation — the question is how does a rational person stop thinking as an individual and do something in the name of the group which may be totally in opposition to his own personal ethics. This group mentality may be seen to develop in a number of ways. Firstly through a loss of individual identity so that weak individuals may feel strength through forming a group. Because the strength of the group becomes all important it will react strongly against any threat to its identity. An example is the police over-reaction when the values they protect are threatened — eg. the Chicago Convention police brutalities. Secondly, an assumed superiority may develope which is often characterised by the creation of a myth or ideology such as the 'Aryan' myth to give the impression of superiority over other groups. Thirdly the individual recognises a loss of responsibility as he is placed in the position more frequently of merely reacting to conditions — he is governed by traffic lights, queues, by laws, etc. He is increasingly being placed in the position of accepting orders without having any control over his actions. Lastly, there is a break in solidarity with anyone outside the group and raising their own group above criticism. This develops through the group turning a blind eye to its own faults — the classic example is when Governor Wallace on being asked to comment on the My Lai massacre said: 'I don't believe it — no Americans could ever kill a civilian. Any atrocities committed in this war were caused by the communists.'
By this time we see collective evil in one of its worst forms — the silent majority. This group being complacent, self-orientated and unconcerned about anything other than its own interests are totally malleable in the hands of a government, who may literally get away with murder.
2) Collective evil and its legitimisation — often an accepted value may be used to justify evil. Thus a war fought in the name of defence is thought to be good. But the American Government justified their presence in Vietnam on the basis of it being a defensive war. Strange justification when it is being fought on the other side of the world!
3) Collective evil and its victimisation — it is a natural concequence that when a person is evaluated as being less than a human being, he will be treated as such. It is the evaluation that is primarily evil, eg. the Vietnamese people were seen by the Americans as 'Gooks' or 'Commies' rather than human beings. Such attitudes are dehumanising and are a prologue to the actual killing.
4) Rationalisation of evil — what happens when an event is actually exposed as being evil. The first reaction is often to say that it didn't happen (the American reaction to My Lai) or that the press have distorted the facts or an admission that it did happen, but wasn't wrong; or that it may be wrong, 'but don't blame me', 'that it was bad, but what about...' These reactions have the effect of defusing the sense of responsibility.