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

by Ervin Staub

  Persistent difficulties of life also disrupt the relationships among members of the group. They disrupt human connections. People focus on their own needs, compete with others for material goods, and feel endangered by others. The need for connection, enhanced by suffering, will be powerful.

  These psychological reactions and motivations are natural and often adaptive. People are energized by a sense of personal value and significance, connection to other people, the feeling of mutual support, and a view of the world that generates hope. However, when these motivations are very intense and fulfilled in certain ways, they become likely origins of destruction.

  Threats and frustrations give rise to hostility and the desire to harm others. The appropriate targets of this hostility are, of course, the people who caused the problems, but usually they cannot be identified. Often no one is to blame; the causes are complex and impersonal. At other times those responsible are too powerful, or they are leaders with whom people identify too much to focus their hostility on them. The hostility is therefore displaced and directed toward substitute targets. Hostility is especially likely to arise if people regard their suffering as unjust, as they often do, and especially if some others are not similarly affected.

  Ways of coping and fulfilling needs and goals

  Constructive actions have beneficial, practical effects and also help a person cope with the psychological consequences of life conditions. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to find and to follow a practically beneficial course of action. When this is the case, it is easy for psychological processes to occur that lead people to turn against others. The psychological needs must be controlled, or satisfied in other ways. People must unite without creating a shared enemy or an ideology that identifies enemies. Wisdom, vision, the capacity to gain trust, and effective institutions are needed to strike out on a constructive course of action.

  Certain ways of seeing and evaluating events and people require no physical action (and any actions that follow from them usually do not change life conditions), but they help people satisfy at least the psychological needs and goals that arise from difficult life conditions. Some of these internal processes are basic psychological tendencies common to all human beings: differentiation of ingroup and outgroup, “us” and “them"; devaluation of those defined as members of an outgroup; just-world thinking, which is the tendency to believe that people who suffer, especially those already devalued, must deserve their suffering as a result of their deeds or their characters; and scapegoating, or blaming others for one’s problems. Individuals differ in such psychological tendencies depending on their socialization and experience and resulting personality; societies differ depending on their history and the resulting culture.

  Blaming others, scapegoating, diminishes our own responsibility. By pointing to a cause of the problems, it offers understanding, which, although false, has great psychological usefulness. It promises a solution to problems by action against the scapegoat. And it allows people to feel connected as they join to scapegoat others. Devaluation of a subgroup helps to raise low self-esteem. Adopting an ideology provides a new world view and a vision of a better society that gives hope. Joining a group enables people to give up a burdensome self, adopt a new social identity, and gain a connection to other people. This requires action, but it is frequently not constructive action.

  Often all these tendencies work together. The groups that are attractive in hard times often provide an ideological blueprint for a better world and an enemy who must be destroyed to fulfill the ideology. Sometimes having a scapegoat is the glue in the formation of the group. But even if the ideology does not begin by identifying an enemy, one is likely to appear when fulfillment of the ideological program proves difficult. Thus these psychological tendencies have violent potentials. They can bring to power a violent group with a violent ideology, as in Germany, or shape an ideology, as they probably did in the case of the Pol Pot group that led the Khmer Rouge to genocide in Cambodia.

  The continum of destruction

  Genocide and mass killing do not directly arise from difficult life conditions and their psychological effects. There is a progression along a continuum of destruction. People learn and change by doing, by participation, as a consequence of their own actions. Small, seemingly insignificant acts can involve a person with a destructive system: for example, accepting benefits provided by the system or even using a required greeting, such as “Heil Hitler.” Initial acts that cause limited harm result in psychological changes that make further destructive actions possible. Victims are further devalued; for example, just-world thinking may lead people to believe that suffering is deserved. Perpetrators change and become more able and willing to act against victims. In the end people develop powerful commitment to genocide or to an ideology that supports it.

  Deeply ingrained, socially developed feelings of responsibility for others’ welfare and inhibitions against killing are gradually lost. Often the leaders assume responsibility, and accountability is further diminished by compartmentalization of functions and the denial of reality. The most terrible human capacity is that of profoundly devaluing others who are merely different. Often there is a reversal of morality, and killing them comes to be seen as good, right, and desirable. In the course of all this, new group norms evolve, and institutions are established in the service of genocide or mass killing. The progression may occur in a short time, although often intense devaluation has already developed by the time those who become the perpetrators of genocide appear on the scene.

  Some people become perpetrators as a result of their personality; they are “self-selected” or selected by their society for the role. But even they evolve along the continuum of destruction. Others who were initially bystanders become involved with the destructive system and become perpetrators. Even bystanders who do not become perpetrators, if they passively observe as innocent people are victimized, will come to devalue the victims and justify their own passivity.

  There are usually some people whose values or other personal characteristics make them oppose the treatment of the victims. Most such people, if they are to remain opposed, need support from others. With that support, some may come to resist the killing or the system that perpetrates it. Small initial acts can start a progression on a continuum that leads them to heroic resistance and to risking their lives to help the victims.

  Cultural- societal characteristics

  The characteristics of one’s culture and society determine not only the consequences of difficult life conditions and the choice of avenues to satisfy needs, but also whether reactions to initial acts of mistreatment occur that might inhibit further steps along the continuum of destruction. Most cultures have some predisposing characteristics for group violence, and certain cultures possess a constant potential for it. Also, when life problems are more intense, a weaker pattern of cultural-societal preconditions will make group violence probable.

  The cultural self-concept of a people greatly influences the need to protect the collective psychological self. A sense of superiority, of being better than others and having the right to rule over them, intensifies this need. Collective self-doubt is another motivation for psychological self-defense. When a sense of superiority combines with an underlying (and often unacknowledged) self-doubt, their contribution to the potential for genocide and mass killing can be especially high.

  Nationalism arises partly from this combination of superiority and self-doubt. One form of nationalism is the desire to enlarge the nation’s territory or to extend the influence of its values and belief system. Another form is the desire for purity or “cleansing.” Nationalism is often strengthened under the influence of diffiult life conditions. Strong nationalism sometimes originates in the experiences of shared trauma, suffering, and humiliation, which are sources of self-doubt.1

  Societal values can embody a positive or negative evaluation of human beings and human well-being. But even in societies that do value human welfare, an outgrou
p may be excluded from the moral domain.

  “Us”-“them” differentiation is a basic human potential for which we even carry “genetic building blocks” (see Chapter 4). It is one source of cultural devaluation. Negative stereotypes and negative images of a group can become deeply ingrained in a culture. The needs I have described are often fulfilled by turning against such a “preselected” group. Its members are scapegoated and identified as the enemy of the dominant group’s wellbeing, safety, and even survival, or as an obstacle to the realization of its ideological blueprint.

  Strong respect for authority and strong inclination to obedience are other predisposing characteristics for mass killing and genocide. They make it more likely that responsibility will be relinquished and leaders will be followed unquestioningly. People who have always been led by strong authorities are often unable to stand on their own in difficult times. Their intense need for support will incline them to give themselves over to a group and its leaders.

  A monolithic, in contrast to a pluralistic, culture or society is another important precondition. In a monolithic culture there is limited variation in values and perspectives on life. In a monolithic society strong authority or totalitarian rule enforces uniformity. The authorities have great power to define reality and shape the people’s perception of the victims. Societies with strong respect for authority also tend to be monolithic, and this combination makes adjustment to social change especially difficult.

  In a pluralistic society with varied conceptions of reality and greater individual self-reliance, people will find it easier to change and gain new perspectives and accept new customs and mores. Reactions against initial harmful acts are more likely to occur and to inhibit the progression along the continuum of destruction.

  As I have noted, an ideology with a destructive potential can become a guiding force, overriding contrary elements in culture or society. However, an ideology has to fit the culture if it is to be adopted by the people.

  Partly but not entirely as a result of the above characteristics, societies vary in aggressiveness. Some have a long history of violence: aggression has become an accepted mode of dealing with conflict, even valued and idealized. Institutions that serve as the machinery for destruction may already exist.

  Even more important than the current tendencies of a society is its deep structure. In the late nineteenth century, France might have seemed as likely as Germany to turn on the Jews. Anti-Semitism, as expressed in the Dreyfus affair, was widespread and racial ideologies attracted sympathetic interest. But the deep structure of anti-Semitism was stronger in Germany; for example, the medieval persecution of Jews was especially intense and cruel there.2 There was also a long authoritarian tradition, as opposed to the celebration of individual freedom and rights by the French Revolution.3 A deeply embedded anti-Semitism joined with other cultural characteristics and with difficult life conditions to create the conditions for genocide.

  Why was there no Holocaust in Russia, where anti-Semitism was intense, the government was despotic, and life conditions near the end of World War I were difficult? Normally, there are a number of potential enemies. The Soviet leaders had an ideology that identified the wealthy as the enemy. This built on deep-seated class divisions in society. The ideology justified violence for the sake of the better world that the Communist Party and the new state were going to create. Eventually, it too led to the deaths of many millions under Stalin.

  The role of bystanders

  Another important factor is the role of bystanders, those members of society who are neither perpetrators nor victims, or outside individuals, organizations, and nations. In most societies there are some who are prepared to turn against other groups. It is the population as a whole that provides or denies support for this. The people’s support, opposition, or indifference largely shapes the course of events.c Opposition from bystanders, whether based on moral or other grounds, can change the perspective of perpetrators and other bystanders, especially if the bystanders act at an early point on the continuum of destruction. They may cause the perpetrators to question the morality of their violent acts or become concerned about the consequences for themselves. Internal opposition from bystanders may require great courage. Other nations are often passive, even though attempts to exert influence may require little courage or real sacrifice from them.

  The role of motivation

  My conception of the origins of genocides and mass killings (see Table 1) is based on a theory of motivation and action, personal goal theory, that I have developed in other publications.4 According to this theory, both individual human beings and cultures possess a hierarchy of motives. Individuals and cultures do not always act on their most important motives. Circumstances can activate motives lower in the hierarchy. For example, the need for self-defense and the need for connection to other people can be important or relatively unimportant motives. The lower a motive is in an individual’s or culture’s hierarchy, the more extreme the life conditions needed to make it active and dominant.

  Table 1. The origins and motivational sources of mistreatment

  * The difficult life conditions, cultural and personal characteristics (preconditions), and organization of society shown in column one join to create the motives listed in column two. Especially the last two components also influence the methods employed (shown in column three) to fulfill these motives.

  * Other results can be giving up or succumbing to feelings of hopelessness and depression.

  Whether a motive is expressed in behavior depends on the skills and competencies of individuals, or on the social institutions. Even the intention to commit genocide cannot fully evolve without a machinery of destruction. Personal goal theory describes how individuals and cultures select goals to actively pursue and suggests ways to determine when it is likely that they will act to fulfill them.

  This is a probabilistic conception. The combination of difficult life conditions and certain cultural preconditions makes it probable that motives will arise that turn a group against another. This combintion makes it probable that initial acts of harm-doing will be followed by further steps along the continuum of destruction. The behavior of bystanders can faciliate or inhibit this progression. Genocide arises from a pattern, or gestalt, rather than from any single source.

  The outcome of this evolution and the immediate cause of the genocide is that perpetrators come to believe either that the victims have something they want or (more likely) stand in the way of something they want. In Germany the victims threatened an imagined racial purity and superiority and stood in the way of the nation’s (and humanity’s) improvement. In Turkey the victims seemed to threaten a pure national identity and a return to past greatness. In Cambodia the victims were seen as class enemies or judged incapable of helping to create a particular type of communist society. In Argentina the victims were seen as threatening national security, a way of life, and religious ideals, as well as the perpetrators’ own safety.

  Leadership and followership

  The genocide of the Jews could hardly have occurred without Hitler, but that does not mean the accident of his presence was responsible. There will always be individuals with extreme views, radical ideologies, and the willingness to use violence who offer themselves as leaders. Cultural preconditions, combined with difficult life conditions, make it probable that they will be heard and accepted as leaders. Hitler’s ideology and mode of leadership fitted important characteristics of German culture, tradition, and society.

  Leaders also vary in personal characteristics, charisma, organizational ability, and the like. But even here culture has a role. Non-Germans always had trouble comprehending Hitler’s personal appeal.5 Leadership is crucial to move people and give them direction, but it is a transactional process, a relationship between group and leader. Because of shared culture, what a leader offers often naturally fulfills cultural requirements. Leaders also intentionally adjust their style and vision to the group. Hitler’s authoritarian leaders
hip was effective in Germany (in the United States, for example, appeal to individualism seems required of a leader).

  If difficult life conditions persist and the existing leadership and societal institutions do not help people cope at least with the psychological effects, the people are likely to turn to radical leadership. In general, our capacity to predict what kinds of leaders emerge and where they lead is limited. However, conditions conducive to genocide and mass killing are likely to give rise to the kind of leadership that plans and promotes these acts. If Hitler had not existed, Germans would probably still have directed violence against some subgroup or nation; the environmental and cultural preconditions were both present. But even in Germany, leaders might conceivably have emerged who provided more peaceful and cooperative solutions. Conversely, if Hitler had lived in a country with fewer of the cultural preconditions for genocide, he would have been much less likely to gain power. And if the society were not facing severe life problems, his capacity to influence would have been further reduced.

  The individual and the system

  Genocide is usually organized and executed by those in power, by a government or ruling elite. Governments will commit genocide if the way of thinking and motivations out of which genocide evolves are already consistent with the culture or if they become so under the influence of the government. What is the relationship between the characteristics of individuals and those of the system to which they belong? What is the relative contribution of each to cruelty (or kindness)?

  Human beings have genetic propensities for both altruism and aggression. Which of these propensities evolves more depends on individual socialization and experience. A child in a family that is highly aggressive and antisocial will usually grow up aggressive and antisocial. In a family that prohibits the expression of anger (or joy) children will learn that it is wrong to express and even to feel anger (or joy).