How the Human Mind Rationalizes Evil My name is Rayna Gerakian – but I’m known as Rayna Barton. My grandfather, George Gerakian of Armenian descent, changed his last name to Barton for fear of living in constant scrutiny because of his parents’ heritage. But he should be proud. His father was a survivor.
Although studied far less in today’s culture the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide was highly influential in creating conditions for it. Genocide is the systematic killing and deportation of a certain race, and the massacre of the Armenians is considered the first modern genocide of the 20th century.My ancestors died at the hands of the Young Turk government. Generations later, the Turkish government still does not officially acknowledge the genocide. After reading the book “How We Decide” by Jonah Lehrer about the human mind and its decision-making tactics, I sought to examine the act of genocide through the psychology of the act. What drives a person to commit mass murder? How does one follow the command to commit mass genocide? In times of war, what drives a person to commit unspeakable acts, and in this case, against Armenian civilians of the Ottoman Empire?In numerous studies done by neurologists and researchers of all statures, evidence has shown that social pressure can drastically change what we deem acceptable – especially in situations while faced with a question of morality versus obeying an authority figure.
Eric Hoffer, author of “The Passionate State of Mind” said, “Our sense of power is more vivid when we break a man’s spirit than when we win his heart. ” Unfortunately, this is exactly what can be inferred from studying the act of genocide.We can decipher from historical events, big or small, that mankind desires power and control, and I’ve stood by that fact since writing an angry essay during the modern European history AP exam my sophomore year in high school. The greed and thirst for power has driven some of us to atrocious measures, especially in times of need, as most apparent during the aftermath of WW1 in which Germany was destitute and powerless. Hitler promised a return to glory and the German people were all too ready to believe him.
He even justified the Holocaust to come, citing the Armenian genocide.At the precipice of WW1, the Ottoman Empire was at the brink of disbanding. On April 24, 1915, the Young Turkish government rounded up hundreds of Armenian intellectuals and government leaders and assassinated them under no pretense. From 1915 to 1923, Armenian civilians were deported to camps located in Saudi Arabia and in remote deserts and slain.
In our day-to-day lives, we see examples of social pressure all around us. Whether on a small scale like skipping homework to go to the movies with some friends, or on a slightly larger one such as smoking marijuana with friends although you are aware it is illegal (and unhealthful in some cases).There are many ways people can feel socially pressured to partake in an action that they deem to be unethical, both indirectly and directly. An example of a direct way to pressure someone is to offer him or her something, only to insult them for doing anything but that. On the contrary, indirectly pressuring someone can occur when things are not being spoken, but implied. Although in times of genocide the stakes are much greater, we have examples of these types of pressure occurring in our lives daily.
There has always been a leader in which the act of genocide can be traced.The most evident of that in history, was the Nazi leader Adolf Hitler. The human mind maintains a certain inevitable connection to a leader, or to a group that one belongs to, that makes one feel like it is acceptable to commit these acts of genocide. In the article The Journal of Hate Studies, author James Waller concludes that basic factors of human nature called ethnocentrism (the belief that one’s own group is the best), and xenophobia (the tendency to fear outsiders or strangers) tend to influence our thinking, and rationalize evil acts.Read also Ethnocentrism is at ETH125 Final ExamThis may have been why so many Germans or Turks felt it was easier to just “follow the crowd” than follow an ethical state of mind, which they may or may not have had.
Although it is possible, most of us find it daring and terrifying to stand up for what we believe in – especially if it means disobeying an authority figure. The evolutionary basis for this can be found in the article “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem” by Erich Fromm. It dates back centuries, to the earliest man, in which “few have always ruled the many. An individual must keep in line and obey in order to get a chance at enjoying the good things.
Disobedience was considered sin. In order for a sadist ruler to rule over us, we must want to and even need to obey – there needs to be a deep rooted alliance that over powers the fear of disobedience. Fear must be deep rooted in a human’s heart. There’s no other way to get an individual to sacrifice or betray everything they believe in.
At the time of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, there was a lot of hatred and racism in the Turkish government.Although not just Armenians were affected by the massacre (Germans and Greeks were also victimized), most of the violence was directed toward the Armenians. My great-grandfather (who witnessed the genocide) has spoken of violent rapes of women and children, violent beatings and dismembering, the murder of unborn babies, and the drowning of infants. Such disturbing acts of murder cannot be rationalized, so how are they done? How can people succumb to such grotesque requests from their authority figures?The answer can be found in a study discussed by Stanley Milgram in his article “The Perils of Obedience” in which test subjects were asked to administer a series of electrical shocks to an actor when he/she answered wrong to a series of questions. The study was meant to understand how far individuals would go to inflict pain upon another, powerless person if it meant following “orders”. Some of the test subjects refused to continue with the experiment once the amount of pain they were inflicting became unbearable.
However, some are able to continue until the end, when the proctor had finished the experiment. One of the test subjects, Mr. Braveman, interviewed in a conclusion to his portion of the experiment, was shocked to find he followed through as long as he did, stating, “What appalled me was that I could possess this capacity for obedience and compliance to the central idea, the value of a memory experiment, even after it became clear that continued adherence to this value was at the expense of violation of another value, don’t hurt someone who is helpless and not hurting you,” (Milgram).What Milgram was able to conclude from the experiment was that “if a person is placed in a situation in which he has complete power over another individual, whom he may punish as much as he likes, all that sadistic and bestial in man comes to the fore”. (Milgram).
This is why seemingly unsuspecting people are able to carry out the vicious demands of their authority figures: They are conditioned and in the hot seat – nobody is going to fight back against them.The perpetrators of the Armenian genocide, fueled by hatred and anger, were able to let go of any moral obligations to become the murderers of death to 1. 5 million Armenians. An article titled “The Stanford Prison Experiment” by Philip G. Zimbardo offers an example of how regular people react when first given a point of power over another, and then given permission to manipulate that power.
In the Stanford Prison Experiment, there were two sets of students selected at random to preform either the duty of being the security guard or the prisoner.Zimbardo reflects that, “(There is a) dehumanizing tendency to respond to other people according to socially determined labels and often arbitrarily assigned roles…many of the ‘mock staff’ took advantage of their power to act in ways comparable to our mock guards by dehumanizing their powerless victims,” (Zimbardo). This same circumstance can be applied to the Armenian Genocide if you compare the prison guards to the perpetrators, and the prisoners to the victims. The prisoners and victims were powerless, while the guards and the perpetrators resorted to a manipulation of power.The article, the “Journal of Hate Studies” by James Waller, examines how normal human beings can be molded into monsters.
He studies the reaction to the questionable morality of authority based on the principle of evolution. The principle of evolution is based on the fact that there is a universal human nature and that “this nature is adapted to the way of life of hunter-gathers, and not necessarily to our modern circumstances. ” (Waller). Through this basic principle, Waller was able to conclude that there are three tendencies when it comes to our response to authority.The most important of these I believe is to be that of aggression and violence that rises out of an innate desire for power – power over death.
” (Waller) This form of evolutionary psychology reaffirms the belief that under certain pressures human beings are able to resort to violent tactics because, under the Darwinian principle, survival of the fittest is the elite. Since the group of perpetrators in the attack on the Armenians was relatively small, that fear of death rebellion was even greater. Waller goes even further to explain that evil actions don’t always equal evil personalities.There are many influences that factor in the development of personality. Some grow more intensely on others, and that is why they are able to (more easily) commit acts of atrocity.
These include cultural influences, moral exclusion, and an ego investment in an organization. Our personal ties and connections sometimes interfere with making the right decision, especially when the two conflict each other. For example, when I was in eighth grade, I let my friend cheat off of my history homework. When we were both confronted as to who had cheated off whom, we both pointed fingers at each other.
Although we were friends, we had to make the decision whether to save ourselves or to hold true to the implied duty we had to each other as friends. In this case, my personal ties interfered with my moral obligations. Consequently, we both held true to ourselves and are no longer friends. The chapter “The Moral Mind” in the book How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer, is all about how we are able to rationalize our actions through our morals.
An important point that he argues is the symbiotic connection between morality and sympathy.The reason that genocide lasts for so long without interference, is that the leader, such as Hitler, doesn’t have to look at the people they’re hurting. Lehrer argues that if you cannot see the person you are hurting, you lack sympathy for them, and you are no longer able to make a moral decision regarding them. Instead, it ends up being purely rational. This is how serial killer John W.
Gacy and Hitler reacted. Once you put a face to something, an individual’s sympathy and morality can suddenly put a stop to their actions. Even Mother Teresa is to have said, "If I look at the mass, I will never act.If I look at the one, I will.
” The mass execution of the Armenian population in the early 20th century was conducted and carried out by people just like me. Through studying influential authors like Lehrer, I was able to analyze the moral and decision-making brain of the genocide offenders. Although it will never be rationalized, genocide does happen for a reason – whether we’re raised differently or revelations come to us later on in life, there will always be people who have grown up to believe in violence to solve problems or impose their will.As long as there are those who lack sympathy and empathy for others, there will be those who follow suit due to the drastic impact social pressure can have on our actions.
Human beings will forever carry that natural instinct cited by James Waller: to pursue power through any means, and to survive at the expense of others or the innocent. Works Cited Fromm, Erich. “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem. ” Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum: Brief Edition. 3rd ed. Eds.
Laurence Behrens and Leonard J. Rosen. New York: Pearson, 2009. 245-250.
Lehrer, Jonah. "The Moral Mind. " How We Decide.Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009. 167-95.
Print. Milgram, Stanley. “The Perils of Obedience. ” Current Issues and Enduring Questions. 7th ed.
Boston: Bedford-St Martin’s, 2005. 883-95. Waller, James. "Explanatory Model of Extraordinary Human Evil. " Perpetrators of Genocide: an Explanatory Model of Extraordinary Human Evil.
1st ed. Vol. 1. Spokane, WA: Gonzaga University Institute for Action Against Hate, 2002. 18-21.
Print. Zimbardo, Phillip. “The Stanford Prison Experiment. ” Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum: Brief Edition. 3rd ed. Eds.
Laurence Behrens and Leonard J. Rosen. New York: Pearson, 2009. 233-44.
