The Holocaust: A Psychological Explanation
Provide a clear description of the crime or incident of collective violence and a brief biographical overview of the offender or a historical description of the example of collective violence.
The Holocaust refers to the mass murder of 6 million European Jews. This horrendous proceeding was a result of the German Nazi regime during the Second World War between 1933 and 1945. The Nazi party leader, Adolf Hitler, believed Jews were an inferior race which served as a threat to the countries success and German racial purity. After the Nazi party ruling for several years, Hitler executed what was known as the ‘final solution’. Mass killing centres were constructed in concentration camps where nearly 7 out of every 10 Jews living in Europe, were killed. Antisemitism in Europe did not begin with Adolf Hitler. In the 19th century, legislation was implemented that put an end to long-standing restraints on the Jewish community. However, anti-semitic views remained strong amongst German society. It was soon after World War 1 ended that Hitler became apart of the Nazi Party and was known to be fixated on this idea of the ‘pure’ German race. In 1934, Hitler became Germany’s supreme leader. The genocide began late 1941, where Jews who were sick, old, weak and very young were transported in mass from the ghettos in Poland to the concentration camps. All found Jews were eventually deported to a variety of different fields across Europe. Although the Nazis attempted to keep their operation a secret, the scale of killings made this impossible. As the public became aware of the atrocities taking place, allied governments were harshly criticised for their failure to respond or publicise news of the slaughter of innocent people. The lack of action may be partially attributed to the denial and disbelief that acts of such brutality could be happening to such a large extent. At Auschwitz alone, over 2 million people were murdered. Though only Jews were gassed, thousands of others who identified in a minority group died of starvation or disease. This essay will seek to answer, how could human beings have perpetrated a crime this severe? Previous research has attempted to answer this question through reflection on German history, antisemitism and the impact of World War 1. However, some psychological explanations and theories are crucial to consider when discussing a genocide of such tremendous implications.
Use the theory to explain the violent crime(s) or acts that you have chosen.
An integrated, multi-level framework has been designed to understand further why mass murder occurs. This framework consists of five elements: evolutionary, social structure and cultural, individual, situational and motivation. A theory that uses a combination of these elements and can be used to explain the Holocaust is Bandura’s model of moral disengagement. Moral agency is an individual’s ability to make moral judgements based on the notion of right and wrong. Moral agency is embedded in an individual's ability to self-regulate their behaviour and actions towards others. Moral disengagement as referred to by Bandura’s model often centres around restructuring what we come to know as ‘humane’ behaviour. Denial of personal agency in the harm of another occurs through a lack of compassion, displacement of responsibility, disregarding or minimising the effects of one’s actions and attribution of blame to, and dehumanisation of, those who are victimised.
People do not tend to engage in harmful acts until they have justified, to themselves, the morality of their behaviour. Through this process of self-reason, often immoral and unlawful conduct is made personally and socially acceptable by conveying it to serve a valid purpose. Like that of the Holocaust, a shift from socialised individuals to murderers didn’t occur through altering their personality makeup, moral standards or beliefs. Instead, it was made by altering the morality of killing so that this could be done free from self-censure. By justifying this violence, the Nazi party viewed themselves as protecting their families, values and country by honouring them. Moral disengagement operates by one minimising and disassociating themselves with the harm one causes. When an individual sees their actions as an aspect within a group or simply following instructions from authority, they are less likely to accept personal responsibility for them. Nazi prison commandants and their staff divested themselves of any personal blame for their inhumane acts as they claimed they were simply, following orders.
An aspect of the moral disengagement model refers to the minimising, disregarding or distorting the effects of one’s actions. It is easier to take part in damaging behaviours when the suffering of others is not visible. The mass murder that was the Holocaust resembles this as once the Jews were in the gas chambers, those killing them had no real connection to their crime or the level of destruction that they were perpetrating. When individuals are aware of the distress they are creating, they tend to be more restrained from aggressive acts. Studies that have focussed on obedience show that people are less compliant to the commands of those in authority when the victims suffering becomes evident. Even when there is a high sense of personal responsibility associated with the behaviour individuals are still more likely to proceed if they do not physically see the harm inflicted on the victim.
An essential element of this theory focuses on moral self-censure which refers to how the perpetrators view the victim, in this case, how the Nazi Party viewed the Jewish community. To perceive another as a human of equal status initiates empathetic reactions through perceived similarity. Typically, people struggle to treat humanised people poorly without feeling a sense of guilt. Blaming oneself for a harmful act can be disengaged by the dehumanising of another. Once a person is stripped of their identity, they are no longer seen as having feelings, hopes, or fears; instead, they are viewed as subhuman objects. The Nazi party often referred to Jews as vermin, and by doing so, made the brutal punishment they put them through easier to justify as they were seen as low animal forms. This act is common during wartime, as entire nations cast their enemies in a negative light in order to justify their killings. Studies that have been conducted surrounding the power of dehumanising show that individuals who are given the power tend to treat dehumanised people more harshly than those whom they view as holding human qualities. This study also conveyed that the personal responsibility and humanising of others, when combined, had a powerful self-restraining effect. Primo Levi (1989) asked a Nazi commandant why they degraded their victims so severely when they were going to be killed regardless. The commandant responded with, “It was not a matter of purposeless cruelty. The victims had to be degraded to subhuman objects so that those who operated the gas chambers would be less burdened by distress.”
A vital element of Bandura’s model of moral disengagement is the place of the blame on the victim. Through viewing themselves as faultless, those engaging in harmful acts justify their behaviours by claiming provocation. Severe violence becomes justifiable when it is believed that the victims brought their suffering on themselves. By blaming another, extreme actions which a relatively ‘stable’ person commits can be viewed as excusable given compelling circumstances. The Holocaust is an example of this, as heavy blame was placed on the Jewish community for Germany’s loss in World War 1.
These findings regarding moral disengagement are consistent with human atrocities across history. Specific social conditions are required to produce such harmful deeds; it is not necessarily just monstrous people alone. Given any extreme condition, ordinary people can commit a hideous crime. Disengaging will not automatically result in a cruel individual. Instead, disengagement gradually can lead individuals to mildly damaging behaviours while tolerating the sense of discomfort and guilt associated with doing so. After a period, individuals can become disconnected with their sense of empathy and an act that once would have seemed ruthless, no longer appears as extreme of harmful as they feel little anguish. As small behaviours become habits, a person’s moral thought, affect and action is transformed often without the individual even being aware of it.
The threat to humankind stems predominantly from deliberate acts of principle rather than from impulsive acts. This concept underpins the Nazi ideology. The mass murder of 6 million Jews was not committed on a whim. It was a thought-out, predisposed act of brutality which was built of decades of resentment and anger. As C.P Snow said, “More hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience, than in the name of rebellion.” Given the potential consequences of moral engagement, societies must rely on individuals moral standards to stand firm against human cruelty. Compassionate behaviour and empathy for another are essential to push against brutal crime and to strive for civilised living.
Note the limitations of the theory or theories that you have chosen. What do they leave out? What other factors might be important? What more information would you need to better evaluate the theory?
Conclusion
References
Bandura, A. (1973) Aggression: a social learning analysis.
Bandura, A. (1992) Social cognitive theory of social referencing. Social Referencing and the Social Construction of Reality in Infancy.
Browning, C. R. (1996). Human nature, culture, and the holocaust. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 43(8), 1.
Levi, P. (1987) The Drowned and the Saved.
Rocque, M., & Duwe, G. (2018). Rampage shootings: an historical, empirical, and theoretical overview. Current opinion in psychology, 19, 28-33.
Albert Bandura (2002) Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31:2, 101-119.
https://web.stanford.edu/~kcarmel/CC_BehavChange_Course/readings/Additional%20Resources/Bandura/bandura_moraldisengagement.pdf
https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/the-holocaust
MILGRAM, S. (1974) Obedience to Authority: an experimental view (New York, Harper & Row).
TILKER, H.A. (1970) Socially responsible behavior as a function of observer responsibility and victim feedback, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, pp. 95–100.