Comments on: Bad Apples and Bad Barrels: Bad Metaphors and Blind Spots Regarding Evil? http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2007/05/07/bad-apples-and-bad-barrels-bad-metaphors-and-blind-spots-regarding-evil/ Thoughts by Stephen Soldz on war, peace, politics, psychoanalysis, and research methods Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:36:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Alex Haslam http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2007/05/07/bad-apples-and-bad-barrels-bad-metaphors-and-blind-spots-regarding-evil/#comment-89132 Alex Haslam Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:02:14 +0000 http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2007/05/07/bad-apples-and-bad-barrels-bad-metaphors-and-blind-spots-regarding-evil/#comment-89132 The basic point here is a very important one, and ties in closely with points made by Carnahan and McFarland (2007) in their recent PSPB paper. This is not the place to provide an extensive review of Zimbardo’s book, but it is worth noting that similar blind spots underpin his “Ten-step program” by which means individuals are encouraged to resist evil. Starting with the recommendation that the evil-doer acknowledge “I made a mistake” and ending with the affirmation “I can oppose unjust systems”, this program is quite stunning in its political (and social psychological) naivety. In response to conclusion of the present blog, though, I would suggest that we also need to move beyond the wisdom of some previous commentators (notably Milgram and Arendt). As outlined in our response to Carnahan and McFarland (Haslam & Reicher, 2007), the idea that evil is simply banal fails to do justice to the complex psychological and political process through which tyranny is normalized so that ‘mistakes’ become ‘complex issues’ and ‘unjust systems’ become ‘noble causes’. Sadly, however, the debate that might prompt such considerations is one which Zimbardo has chosen to suppress rather than promote. References: Carnahan, T. & McFarland, S. (2007). Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: Could participant self-selection have led to the cruelty? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 603-614. Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2007). Beyond the banality of evil: Three dynamics of an interactionist social psychology of tyranny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 615-622. The basic point here is a very important one, and ties in closely with points made by Carnahan and McFarland (2007) in their recent PSPB paper.

This is not the place to provide an extensive review of Zimbardo’s book, but it is worth noting that similar blind spots underpin his “Ten-step program” by which means individuals are encouraged to resist evil. Starting with the recommendation that the evil-doer acknowledge “I made a mistake” and ending with the affirmation “I can oppose unjust systems”, this program is quite stunning in its political (and social psychological) naivety.

In response to conclusion of the present blog, though, I would suggest that we also need to move beyond the wisdom of some previous commentators (notably Milgram and Arendt). As outlined in our response to Carnahan and McFarland (Haslam & Reicher, 2007), the idea that evil is simply banal fails to do justice to the complex psychological and political process through which tyranny is normalized so that ‘mistakes’ become ‘complex issues’ and ‘unjust systems’ become ‘noble causes’.

Sadly, however, the debate that might prompt such considerations is one which Zimbardo has chosen to suppress rather than promote.

References:
Carnahan, T. & McFarland, S. (2007). Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: Could participant self-selection have led to the cruelty? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 603-614.

Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2007). Beyond the banality of evil: Three dynamics of an interactionist social psychology of tyranny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 615-622.

]]>