Jim Shark

It is a hopeful idea that the atrocities of human history are not due to an innate human capacity for savagery, but to the sociopathic tendencies of deranged leaders. The Milgram experiment would certainly attest to the profundity of pressure on human decision making, but like the proponents of the “ordinary men” philosophy have used it to absolve humanity of a great number of its crimes, they seem to view all things in favor of acquittal. For one, the Milgram experiment is just one experiment. It is not a body of research conducted in many different forms or across a wide variety of culture, so it is immediately dubious that its findings apply to the cross-cultural and amorphous nature of genocide. Many of the atrocities committed in genocides are not done with a man in a lab coat and a patient behind a curtain; the hacking and chopping and slicing of human flesh as was done in Rwanda has yet to be replicated in an experimental setting. Critics of what many outraged people sedated by the just-world hypothesis consider a cynical view of human nature - like Christopher Browning - rely on much evidence that points in the opposite direction. Stories of soldiers defying orders are memorable and certainly encouraging, but they are stories, anecdotal in nature. And while one might contest that bone chopping is equally anecdotal, one of these two things occurred en masse, while the other did not. If humans are truly able to maintain their humanity in times of great humanitarian crisis, then we should wonder why those who dare to oppose the grain are so few and far in between. Under the “ordinary men” hypothesis, one must defend the position that Nuremberg war criminals were only following orders, but they must also defend the position that the murderous and willing brutality - like the Nazi death marches - are abnormalities not representative of human nature. How can they justify this? Indeed, these criminals had retained their humanity, but in a very different way. Rather than being pressured into wickedness, it was the innate capacity for wickedness in all people that the Nazis had been able to manipulate so deftly. When psychologists tested the Nuremberg war criminals, they found no abnormalities on their Rorschach personality tests. Instead, they seemed very much like ordinary people, but unlike “ordinary people,” they were ordinary in the sense that they possessed an innate capacity for wickedness. The results were swept under a rug and dismissed as a glitch, but none need question why. Empathetic creatures are far too willing to view empathetic creatures as immune from genocidal atrocity. It is in human nature - as it is to murder and torture - to inaugurate grave crimes against humanity. To prove this, we only need wonder a world filled with seven billion humans still swarms with inhumanity: crippling poverty, mutual hatred, unjust discrimination, and greed. People are ordinary, but so is atrocity. For far too long, “ordinary people” has connoted an angelic conscience, owing to the opiate of condemnation, to the naive certainty that humans are incapable of inhumanity, compelling ordinary people to kill and brutalize the victims of infinite future genocides.