Last week, Os Guiness, author of 'The Dust of Death' visited varsity to give a brief lecture on what he called 'collective evil'. Unlike many of the prophets of doom gracing the literary scene, Guiness not only posed the problem, but also gave some basis for solution. Unfortunately the title given to his lecture may give problems to many — namely how to interpret the word 'evil' as the christian values he has placed on the word may not suit it at all. Notwithstanding this difficulty his views are worthwhile considering. The following is a summary of his lecture.

The problem of giantism - where [unclear: e] developed societies are being overdeveloped in comparison with underdeveloped societies — is a major threat to our basis for existence. In search of a solution, the forces within the society itself are being examined and especially the phenomena of collective evil.

Collective Evil Defined

The phrase may be defined as individuals or groups doing acts of 'evil' because they perceive some degree of social permission in what they do, with the result that they do not see their actions as being 'evil' at the time. Examples of this phenomena may be Watergate, the atrocities committed by the Americans in Vietnam, especially the My Lai massacre. These actions were done because the offenders saw within the authority structure some degree of subtle permission to commit 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.

Dangerpoints

At the moment there are certain key areas which are encouraging the growth of collective evil. These include the effect of propaganda through the media in the form of a repitition of an ideal to the point where it is unconsciously accepted by the individual, and the use of simplistic slogans to discourage individual reflection on issues; the desire to have secrets so that the degree of power is seen to be in direct proportion to the secrecy by which that power is wielded ( a corollary of this is it requires a strong police force to maintain the secrets — eg. the SIS); the manipulation of religion, turning a faith based on experience and personal involvement into an ideological glue to bind a society together, but taking out all the truth; and the over development of trade unionism as a form of collective evil.

Facing The Issue

A resistance to the trend of group thinking a collective evil depends on a reversal of the above considerations. At the moment, the extremes are the predominant factors — either collectivism or individualism with the results of potential over-control or chaos. There should instead be a unifying factor to allow some sense of identity, but not too much. The group should be able to remain 'humble in spirit' so that they never become giantists in the modern sense. Responsibility for an action should remain with an individual, so no group could overthrow the individual's judgement.

But how would this ideal be achieved? Firstly by not being an idealist — we cannot destroy the evils merely by denouncing or exposing evil, as this may become an evil in itself. However, there may be constructed certain pre-requisites for combating collective evil — personal integrity; a corporate demonstration — an individual is relatively ineffective to fight an institutionalised evil, but a group can present a clear alternative and offer critical discussion; a creative education — to filter out the influences imposed by the institutionalised 'norms'; and constructive legislation.