Psychological, social, political, religious, cultural forces? How to explain cruelty?

To respond to those questions, I’ll explore three overlapping theses: the banality of evil; conditioned, automaton-like behaviour; the attraction of sadism. Following that exploration, and with a feeling of travelling up a tributary of the main arguments, I’ll also ponder the force of ideas about efficiency as a fuel for cruelty, though I’ll only be pursuing that line of inquiry with regard to the civil war between Colombian government forces and Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) rebels in Colombia. That exploration comes at the end of this chapter.

The banality thesis identifies widespread acceptance of cruelties if legitimized by states, their governments, their policies and/or by other powerful institutions. Analysis of conditioned behaviour refers largely to operators of state and non-state organizations who keep the wheels of cruelty turning, yet such personnel usually remain invisible, inaccessible and non-accountable. Completing the cruelty puzzles requires accounts of sadistic behaviour, which is embedded as much in cultures of violence as in the pathology of any one person.

The explanations overlap but have distinct characteristics.

The banality of evil

Conversations about cruelty usually prompt references to Hannah Arendt's concept ‘the banality of evil’. At the 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann, charged with the murder of millions of Jews during the Second World War, philosopher Arendt observed an apparent conventional individual who appeared to be blind to the evil he had committed. Supposedly bereft of any capacity to ponder the immorality of his actions, Eichmann could remain obedient to his Nazi masters and carry out his murderous tasks unhindered by ethical considerations.