Is every man capable of cruelty?
The henchman of Pol Pot, Duch, on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity during Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge reign of terror from 1975-1979.
A couple of days ago I was going through the newspapers when I saw a news article on the henchman of Pol Pot during Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge years being put on trial for crimes against humanity. His name was Duch and he had been the head of the infamous S-21 prison in Phnom Penh where he had engaged in several inhumane acts against the prisoners, which include torturing them, using electric shock in forcing confessions, pouring water into their noses, and bludgeoning them to death in fields. Duch and four other senior Khmer Rouge cadres are alleged to have caused the deaths of 1.7 million people from 1975-1979. There is a detailed report on Radio Free Asia [here].
One thing that struck me while reading the report was a survivor who said “All I want to know is why he did it. How can a human commit such atrocities against other human beings?”
After the communications class on Friday in which we went through the concept of “groupthink”, I shall make an attempt to explain my understanding of how man can commit hideous war crimes.
How cruel is a man by himself? Throughout history we have had serial killers, rapists and murderers, but overall I would say that a man left to himself is of little harm in the general public (unless, of course, he is Stalin or Hitler or Mao Zedong, and even then they committed crimes alongside their top supporters). The truly cruel side of a human being comes out when he is among a group of other people committing the same cruel acts. ‘Groupthink’ is defined as “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when members” strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action’. In layman’s terms, it means that a close group will override morals and negative feedback in order to perform according to their beliefs.
I believe this is what happened with the Khmer Rouge officials and other notorious political criminals such as the Nazis, Communists, Japanese imperial army during WW2, etc. They had faith in their own morality (“it is right to kill those who oppose us even if they are merely civilians”), collective rationalization (together, they convinced themselves of the so-called ‘justice’ of killing millions in the name of Communism), shared stereotypes (“all Jews must be executed for good of the world”), pressure on dissenters (those who were against the regime would be persecuted alongside the other ‘political prisoners’), and mind-guards (propaganda generated from the higher ups). As a group, they formed their own morals and acted accordingly.
It also reminds me of something I learned in my Social Psychology class back in my polytechnic days, which is very much similar to ‘groupthink’; the experiment of how far a person would go under orders. An experiment was conducted in which a person was told to ask another person questions. If person B answered the questions wrongly, person A was to administer a mild electric shock to him. It turned out that person B answered many questions wrongly (unawares to person A, he was acting as part of the experiment) and person A continued administering electric shocks to him even after B was screaming in pain. Many soldiers, when questioned on their acts after the war, replied simply “I was under orders.” This experiment proves that a normal man can, indeed, torture and kill fellow human beings when under orders.
A group that is under orders or performing the same acts together, is capable of far greater cruelty than a man operating on his own. For one, you do not wish to appear ‘against’ the group, nor do you want to risk punishment that may follow from not conforming. For two, acting as a group gives you a false sense of morality through collective reasoning. For three, it gives you courage as you tend to believe that you are more invulnerable as a group than as an individual, and therefore consequences from these acts should cause you less harm.
I hope that all of us can understand from Khmer Rouge, Nazis et. al how frightening ‘groupthink’ can be. As a Chinese saying goes, ‘one chopstick alone can be broken, but many chopsticks together cannot’.
What are you guys’ views on groupthink? Do you think it explains in part the horrifying acts of Khmer Rouge against the Cambodians from 1975-1979, and all the other war crimes committed in the history of warfare?
Pree replied:
I DEFINITELY think ‘groupthink’ plays a HUGE part in explaining these horrible acts. And, i take it you are talking about Milgram’s experiment? We had to watch that in our psychology class too. I couldnt stand to watch it after an hour because it was just so scary and disturbing. Surprisingly enough, when i told my friends who had watched it with me, they were not disturbed at all. They said ‘It’s what people USED to do’ but the truth of the matter is that it still goes on. Some of them even laughed!
To add to your example, in the place where i live, there were some riots a few weeks back because the home group won in American football. These riots resulted in tearing down of bus stops, even throwing rocks and breaking windows of the public library, and this was supposedly a ‘celebration’ of their success. My friend and i were quite disturbed because…what had the library done or the bus stop for that matter to deserve such vandalism? Anyway, we talked to our friends who were in the riots and they said it was ‘hilarious. You couldn’t just NOT join the fun.’ and they even have pictures on which they look back fondly. They would have never been able to do this alone, but it was due to the ‘mob mentality’ that they felt safe committing such acts.
Also, you mention that the Nazis, and the Japanese imperialists etc had faith in their own morality. In fact, i would go a bit farther. I would say that they had faith in the ‘group’s’ morality than their own. As you mentioned, Propaganda, shared stereotypes etc played a huge role in these acts of cruelty, and these people were brainwashed to think the way they did, so it wasn’t a question of their personal ethics, but the group ethics.
Great question by the way. I really enjoyed looking into it!
February 23, 2009 at 1:11 am. Permalink.
Mich replied:
The experiment with which you refer to is the Stanley Milgram Experiment used to test obedience and conformity. I would like to point out that everyone has varying degrees of a “conscience”. Some may consider those commit atrocious acts are actually a god-sent messenger commanded to “purge” society of the inferior. That is how many genocides occur. A sense of superiority and the need to carry out alleged purges that are desired by a higher being. Others are merely just pressured into the act.
Soloman Asch performed a conformity experiment where he tested individuals by showing them sample pictures of lines that are different length. Although maybe Line A is the longest, if a vast majority votes that Line B is the longest in spite of the obvious difference, the tested subject is likely to conform and vote Line B as the longest as well. Also, recently in my history class we examined Russia’s development into a communist state under Lenin and Stalin. We discussed and revealed in class that much of the people Stalin purged were people tortured and convinced into admitting crimes of treason that they never actually committed. These people conformed because they were a minority under the great regime of Stalin and under pressure and terror, their only possible escape route was to conform and accept the fate that Stalin assigned. I think from Asch’s experiment and Stalin’s reign of terror, it’s easy to say that groupthink is crucial in determining behavior. Because if a majority wants something to happen, it is more likely that those who disagreed initially will eventually acquiesce. That is why a group who believes in the same thing and acts the same is more worthy of far greater crimes and cruelty. We are, after all, evolved animals struggling in a survival-of–the-fittest society. In the end, as a pack (like hungry wolves or angered, territorial predators) we would invoke unthinkable harm.
So to sum up my thoughts, the answer is yes. I do believe groupthink plays a huge role in driving the Khmer Rouge to act. It’s also a reason as to why many of the unthinkable massacres and violence we faced and will face is continuing. Ultimately, human nature and the inability of standing alone will win out against thinking. Need I mention Lord of the Flies?
By the way, I love how your topics evolve so much around the human perception. Please continue on with the great work and I’ll be looking forward to more of your discussion topics.
February 23, 2009 at 4:22 am. Permalink.
Geri replied:
I think ‘groupthink’ has the ability to give one a sense of moral justification- everyone thinks it’s alright, therefore it *is* alright. A man left to himself can be cruel and sadistic, but because he is by himself, he can only be influenced by his own thoughts and principles. If there is a hint of conscience in him, he will be liable to commit a lesser outrage. ‘Groupthink’ banishes this individualism. It’s rather disturbing.
February 23, 2009 at 11:40 am. Permalink.
Rei replied:
This brings back memories from my Sociology modules.
Other than the famous Milgram experiment which you highlighted, there is another one conducted by Psychologist Philip Zimbardo widely known as the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Undergraduates were selected and assigned into mock roles of prisoners and guards randomly. They were screened and had no history of crime or mental disability. The groupthink part started when both sides settled into their respective roles very quickly and started to act in ways that exceeded the researcher’s expectations. Guards were treating the prisoners sadistically (sexual degradations and repression) and the prisoners start to display signs of psychological distress. A few of the guards and prisoners had to be taken off the experiment before the schedule.
The scary thing was that even the researcher did not realize that he was actually passively condoning such sadistic acts until a student confronted him.
The experiment was subsequently called off.
What Zimbardo said to the guards was just “You can create in the prisoners feelings of boredom, a sense of fear to some degree, you can create a notion of arbitrariness that their life is totally controlled by us, by the system, you, me, and they’ll have no privacy… We’re going to take away their individuality in various ways. In general what all this leads to is a sense of powerlessness. That is, in this situation we’ll have all the power and they’ll have none.”
Not a word indicating that violence was okay but the guards still did it anyway. There is definitely groupthink involved here and also an element of “internalization” where they truly accepted their respective roles.
We had the Abu Ghraib tortures, and the Nazis, the Japanese imperial army, the genocide in Darfur and Rwanda. And of course Khmer Rouge. There are so many examples showing how far groups of people can go to defend their “morality”. While groupthink is important in explaining the atrocities committed by otherwise innocent people, it cannot be an excuse.
February 24, 2009 at 2:52 pm. Permalink.
a.m. replied:
Ah, I remember learning about these concepts when I took an introductory psychology class last year. I agree with you when you say that man by himself is pretty harmless. Even if that person had a cruel idea to torture and murder millions, if no one followed him, took his orders, or decided to join him, in the end he cannot accomplish much and can even be contained. It really is the group that strengthens and bolsters even the most inhumane and cruelest of ideas. People are strengthened in their beliefs when they are united, and part of this is because they themselves believe it too but another part of it is because of peer pressure – not necessary from the people around you but the tendency to follow the crowd, to do things because everyone else is doing it. I agree with you when you say “[a group acting together gives] you courage as you tend to believe that you are more invulnerable as a group than as an individual”. People like security, and acting in a group gives them that.
Also taking orders from higher-ups affects people mentally. As you have mentioned, soldiers will say they were taking orders when they were asked how they could perform atrocious acts. It doesn’t matter who orders you – as long as that person seem to have an air of authority, you will start to follow, and if you do it for a long enough time it will become something you will mold yourself into.
In interacting with each other, people will discuss, agree, be in conflict, give and take orders and through this the world can become a better place but it can also become a living nightmare.
February 25, 2009 at 3:31 am. Permalink.
legongsimihuh replied:
being in a group gives ppl the courage they would never be able to sum up on their own. having someone else who share the same sentiment makes room for delusion and rationalisation of the most horrifying ideologies and behaviour. and when u’re doing something that involves desecrating another human being’s right to live, backup’s always good. i believe we were all born with a conscience, but we learn about malice faster than we learn to love, but we always have a choice over which compulsion to give into. it just doesnt help when someone else’s voice starts to creep into your head to act out the worst of your fantasies.
February 28, 2009 at 5:14 am. Permalink.
Lib replied:
Actually, I’ve never thought of ‘groupthink’ as an excuse, but now that you’ve brought it up, it’s one that does make sense.
I remember reading a few years back, “The Rape of Nanking” by Iris Chang. And I’d like to bring up that while you pointed out ‘groupthink’ as a means of explaining possibly why immoral acts are done at the same time, it can work in the positive. There was a part in the book based upon the heroic acts of the foreigners who were in Nanjing at that time that aided Chinese victims by setting up a missionary. These missionaries were faced with daily threats by the Japanese soldiers and many were harassed and victimized themselves despite the fact that they were Westerners and therefore “safe” from Japanese torture. In such a situation, the missionaries came together and managed to fight against the more powerful Japanese army.
I think as with many things in the world, there is a positive and a negative. Unfortunately, it’s more often the negatives that we remember. And a portion of ‘groupthink’ is based on primarily on one’s own morals. I believe humans are born with the ability to differentiate between right and wrong, but at the same time, it’s also society that helps us judge and form our views of right and wrong. If everyone around us leans towards a side that we innately know to be wrong, it’s hard to summon the strength to voice our opinion. There was this one quote in my elementary class based on the Holocaust and I believe it’s something that everyone should read and digest.
“They came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by then no was left to speak up.”
— Pastor Martin Niemoller
February 28, 2009 at 7:16 am. Permalink.
wen replied:
definitely, ‘groupthink’ contributed to the terrible war crimes perpetrated by pol pot, the nazis, and the japanese imperialists. it was also at the root of mao ze dong’s ‘great leap forward’ and his so-called ‘cultural revolution’ during the height of the communist regime in china. even today, i’m sure it’s happening in north korea, where millions of people are willing to stay in a country under a crackpot dictator, suffering from starvation and living in inhumane conditions. or the fundamentalist radical muslims, who go willingly to their deaths believing in a greater glory.
it seems so inexplicable, why people would decide to act in a so-called inhumane way – but if we look at it another way, aren’t our morals, ethics, and social mores a form of groupthink as well, albeit a more benign form of it?
maybe it originated from millions of years ago, during the process of evolution. animals like gazelles have this ‘herd instinct’ whereby if one animal switches direction during running, the whole herd will swerve with it. such coordinated action may have spelt the difference between life and death on the plains while they were trying to escape from their predators.
maybe ‘groupthink’ is a vestige of that primitive ‘herd instinct’. there’s no denying that at a less intense level, it serves to organise and guide behaviour in society and ensures that there is a certain degree of order. but taken to its extremes, it’s so much more harmful.
under mao ze dong, the citizens had to be suspicious and keep a look-out for anyone who might have deviant thinking – anything that did not align with communist beliefs – and they had to denounce them or be punished themselves. it did not matter if they were your parents, siblings, friends or loved ones. it was barbaric, no better than the behaviour of animals.
March 3, 2009 at 10:25 am. Permalink.
Javiera replied:
Man, the comments left on this subject have sure been interesting to read. As awful as this topic is, it need discussing, clearly.
I do think, though, that ‘groupthink’ or ‘peer pressure’ or ‘taking orders’ are the excuses we use, consciously or not, to do stuff we actually WANT to do. I believe we have a choice, and it is an individual choice, not one forced on us. In the end, we do things because we BELIEVE in them, whether it’s ‘I’m doing the right thing’ or ‘I don’t really care for it’, the group that surround us just give us an excuse (or reason) to execute an action we *individually* think needs to be taken.
Our actions, in the end, are our own only. Of course, our understanding of right and wrong depends on the society we grow up in, so there is still an element in the decisions we take that’s out of our hands, but considering there are cases of people that manage to ‘break free’ of the conventional thinking of their societies (or say ‘no’ to peer pressure), we do have the ability of changing our minds, of thinking on our own. We commit hideous crimes on our own, just like we decide to help others on our own, or just do nothing, all on our own. Yes, in the extreme cases were you either kill or are killed, doing the ‘right thing’ doesn’t exactly bring a ‘happy ending’ either way, but whatever happens is our decision to make, not the group’s.
As for WHY is it that people commit crimes in the first place? Those called ‘hideous’ and ‘senseless’, mostly? We get answers like ‘I was just taking orders’ but it actually is ‘I didn’t care’ or ‘I thought it was the right thing to do’. My grandpa on my mom’s side was a nazi. His reasons were ‘I was defending my country’, simple as that. Back then he lived far away, most of his family left Germany after the first World War, but then WWII started and it didn’t really matter if Germany was to blame, his country was under attack, so he went back to defend it. My mom told me he didn’t talked about it until he was about to die. He probably felt guilty about a lot of things, we will never know for sure. And I can’t say his reasons were valid, not really, but there was no ‘groupthinking’ there. Just, and individual decision and then personal regret.
As much as we work in groups, and sometimes we would like others to think for us, to make the decisions for us, the moment we agree to them, WE are taking that decision. ‘Groupthink’ is the excuse, the *reasoning* all of us use to explain the awful behavior of masses of people, and the problem with that, for me personally, is that it takes away responsibility. We should be responsible for our actions, doesn’t matter if they were taken under pressure or not, not really.
March 6, 2009 at 7:34 pm. Permalink.
Joanne replied:
Reading your post remind me of something. I did a presentation on Cambodia Khmer Rouge before in my poly times. And, yes, sadly to said, this geneocide is not known to many people until lately. Therefore, many of the participating members are still scoff-off, happily living, in Cambodia. Some even become minister of the country.
Anyway, I agreed that this has got to do with groupthink. Pol pot group has such strong illusion to reality that they think that, or is that guy, Pol pot, think that killing all the citizen of Cambodia for having to have a ‘brand’ new Cambodia, so that the country can start from ‘zero’
Seriously, I think is crap. I think that if groupthink exists in a group like this, it is a tragic. But, I don’t understand why people will agree to his viewpoints.
And, we should all be responsible for our own actions. Although Pol pot has passed away, he died due to illness and not because of the actions he had done.
OK. All of the above are just my personal view. I hope I don’t offend anyone. =)
March 12, 2009 at 5:42 pm. Permalink.