The Stupidity of Evil
Adolf Eichmann (1906–1962) is one of those Nazis who has received lots of attention, both before and after his death. Recently, that attention received a new boost.
After multiple efforts with the German authorities, Israeli filmmaker Yariv Mozer gained access to the “Eichmann tapes” –containing interviews he gave in 1957 to a Dutch journalist and Nazi sympathizer (when Eichmann was living and working in Argentina under a false name). The tapes had been archived for more than fifty years. Mozer got a documentary out of them, which is still unavailable in these parts. But we already know the gist of what Eichmann said, which may prompt some people to wonder whether Hannah Arendt’s “banality of evil” theory is flawed.
I explore herein another angle to the problem posed by evil. My suggestion is that evil springs from stupidity, regardless of whether those who commit evil are banal or, on the contrary, are smart, charismatic, charming, display leadership or are somehow out of the ordinary.
Humans do evil because they are often conditioned by their innate, or acquired, stupidity. By stupidity I mean behavior that displays a lack of good sense or judgment. Given that definition, the deeds of seemingly intelligent people can be stupid. Mass murderers are at the top of that list.
Eichmann’s Banality
Arendt based her assessment of the former SS officer, in great part, on Eichmann’s own testimony at his 1961 trial. That testimony featured a self-serving and untruthful depiction of his supposedly modest role, and of his alleged lack of political and antisemitism motives. In the tapes, however, Eichmann is heard painting a different picture, admitting to his hatred for the Jews and to his satisfaction at having contributed to the defeat and near-annihilation of such an “enemy.”
Some may argue that, since the interviewer, Dutch national William Essen, was also a former member of the SS and a friend of Eichmann’s, the pleaser and joiner that Eichmann was may have played a part in him exaggerating his role and feelings. But the facts point in a different direction. Even in the absence of the tapes, it has been well-established that Eichmann’s actions against the Jewish populations of Germany and the territories occupied by the Nazi war machine precede 1942, when he participated in the infamous Wannsee conference.
Eichmann’s trial, and Arendt’s brilliant musings in her articles for The New Yorker, made into a book titled Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963), have prompted many to ask whether Eichmann was an ordinary man in an evil empire, and hence less culpable than the likes of Hitler, Himmler or Heidrich; or whether he, like Hitler and the others, was evil himself. Mostly, Arendt invites us to reflect on whether the most ordinary and seemingly unmotivated, directionless and unoriginal person can nonetheless become an important cog in the machine implementing murderous policies of genocidal proportions. That is, whether evil can spring from “banality.”
The Spanish Language dictionary of the Real Academia de la Lengua Española defines “banal” as “trivial; common; unsubstantial.” The Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary defines the term as “lacking originality, freshness, or novelty.” The online version of Merriam-Webster offers the following definition: “lacking in qualities that make for spirit and character.” Among the synonyms and related terms that it suggests are: flat, insipid, uninspiring, unrewarding, bland, boring, lifeless, monotonous, pedestrian, uninteresting, common, ordinary, and unexceptional.
Arendt stressed how Eichmann’s trial showed that evil can be a consequence of humans’ all too frequent inability “to think,” i.e., the inability to feature a modicum of abstract thinking (which in turn should lead to compassion and/or empathy). I believe that such argument remains mighty plausible, even if Eichmann’s trial testimony and demeanor were a façade.
The Israeli prosecution team that had the burden of establishing Eichmann’s culpability knew of the existence of the tapes, but failed to obtain them. As it turned out, the tapes were not needed to find Eichmann guilty as charged. The documentary and testimonial evidence was compelling enough. Moreover, Eichmann’s self-serving version of the facts and of his state of mind just didn’t add up.
Arendt agreed with the judgment, while stressing that evil can be compatible with mediocrity, blandness, and want of imagination and intelligence. I find it impossible to argue with that. But, as mentioned at the outset, I want to explore hereinafter whether evil is the most extreme manifestation, not of mediocrity and ordinariness, but of human stupidity.
Eichmann was convicted by the Israeli court, and he was also condemned by public opinion. It seems that no one gave credit to the claims he uttered in his defense: either that he did not know that the people transported by train (transportation organized by Eichmann) would meet their deaths; or, even if he knew of that likelihood, that he “merely” organized the transportation; that he himself did not kill a soul. Arendt did not give them credit either, but what struck her was the mediocre man uttering those “explanations,” belying a person with no depth, no intellect, and no imagination. He also displayed lack of remorse, and a substantial dose of self-pity.
Of course, one response to Eichmann’s arguments is that pretending to dissociate yourself from a criminal, murderous enterprise –to which you contributed– by claiming that you did not actually “pull the trigger(s),” is disingenuous at best. Moreover, when confronted with the instances in which he was present at places were atrocities were being committed, he responded with implausible excuses and nonsense.
Unremarkable Youths
Eichmann was indeed an unremarkable man, whose childhood and early adulthood promised nothing out of the ordinary and the dreary. He did not finish high school or technical school, and he worked at jobs that left him feeling unfulfilled. Before joining the Nazi Party in 1932, Eichmann had not discovered having himself some special talent or other. He had no political connections, nor political ambitions. He became a Nazi at the urging of a friend who looked down on him (Nazi lawyer and criminal Ernst Kaltenbrunner, who was tried, convicted, and hanged at Nuremberg).
It was in the SS that Eichmann found a home, and discovered –more importantly, others discovered– that he was dependable, obedient, and good at organizing and at complex logistics. Those qualities proved useful to the regime in the implementation of policies directed at harassing, uprooting, and later exterminating the European Jewry. But, in essence, Eichmann was a follower, with little imagination or initiative.
What about more charismatic, more driven, smarter men with leadership qualities at the upper echelons of the Third Reich? Whom of those Nazi leaders were “remarkable” or “charismatic”? One would probably think of Hermann Göring as a charismatic, smart member of Hitler’s inner circle. What about Hitler himself? Was the Führer an extraordinary, talented, charismatic man? If so, what was it that made him stood above the fray?
Like Eichmann, Adolf Hitler had an unremarkable childhood and adolescence. Displaying no interest in academic subjects, his only hobbies were drawing and, later, painting. As a young man, he enjoyed the theater, particularly Wagner’s operas, which stimulated his imagination, his pride in his Germanness, and his delusions of grandeur. Hitler liked books, but his reading list was not particularly remarkable or diverse. And he was a dreamer, not a doer. Daydreaming was almost all he did. Most things did not interest him. Today, Hitler probably would have been diagnosed with ADD (or ADHD), attention deficit for short.
The Adult Adolf Hitler
During his late teens and early twenties, Hitler was a drifter, mostly penniless and often homeless, who was rejected twice for admission in the Viennese Academy of Fine Arts because of his want of artistic talent. The deficit of talent itself, and his megalomania, did not allow him to recognize his limited visual artistry.
During his vagabond years in Vienna, Hitler barely supported himself by painting postcards that another man sold to tourists visiting Vienna. He only found something of a home in the German Army, after he volunteered for conscription in 1914, seeing action during World War I. As a soldier, he was also unremarkable, although brave, working mostly as a courier dispatching messages between headquarters and the battle front.
Although filled with nationalist sentiments and Pan German ideas, when the war was over Hitler’s mind was arguably still up for grabs. He happened to be attracted to, and influenced by, the most extreme right-wing, nationalistic, racist politics that post-war Munich had to offer.
Hitler had certain charisma, particularly as an orator. He also seemed to be able to display charm, although he also was irascible and intolerant. Along with his oratory prowess, Hitler was a good actor. Then was his determination to get his way. His persistence was mixed with a remarkable impatience. Hitler wanted things to happen right away.
Evil Stems from Stupidity
It is true that those few “at the top,” who manipulate the many, do need others –including, of course, “the masses”– to accomplish their goals. The “leaders” often rely on propaganda –spreading seemingly plausible lies and demagogy– which in turn indoctrinates those many who are ripe for mobilization in order to commit plain-old stupid things, i.e., evil deeds (or to simply tolerate them while being credulous sheep).
A version of that kind of evil is currently taking place in the United States, where the GOP has become an evil organization. It is interesting to notice that, in the Germany of the 1920s and early 1930s, the Nazi Party was never a “mainstream” party. The GOP has been such a party –but it has become a rogue organization, with a clearly authoritarian ethos, intent on destroying what is left of pluralism and reasonableness.
In modernity, we often turn out to be much less than what we should aspire to become. We turn into nihilists, or apathetic shadows, or religious fanatics, or followers of mass movements intent on destroying whatever is left of societal pluralism and creative beauty. Arendt herself proposed that modernity, with its acceptance and implementation of Enlightenment ideas that treated politics as a means to the ends of private contentment and economic prosperity, has yielded a mass of humans with no identities, with a chronic malaise and unfulfillment that makes them relatively easy prey of totalitarian politics.
Adolf Eichmann may not even be the best example of the “banality of evil.” Yes, before joining the Nazi Party he was as ordinary as any German who, like him, was alienated from the public sphere and thus vulnerable to the Nazi Party qua mass movement offering self-esteem, a sense of belonging, and a narrative of national redemption and triumph. But he later became an insider; he became familiar with the behind-the-curtain dealings of the regime, while working as an SS officer and top bureaucrat. That transformation may be deemed to be significant.
Eichmann was not one of those sadistic guards who tortured fellow humans at the concentration camps, just for kicks. He was present at the early 1942 meeting (the “Wannsee Conference”), in which himself and the other participants pondered how the “Final Solution” would be achieved; that is, how they would exterminate the European Jews. But, before that meeting, he had already graduated from being a patron at the restaurant, to someone in the kitchen doing the cooking.
That is, Eichmann became an insider, so that, from then on, he could not plausibly claim ignorance about the mass-murder policies of the Third Reich. Nor could he plausibly claim that he did not participate both in the conspiracy and implementation stages. His position in the hierarchy of the Nazi regime also made him much more of a stakeholder than he would have been if he had stayed on the sidelines, as an ordinary German “citizen” of the Reich.
On the other hand, Eichmann’s Führer Adolf Hitler lacked the natural talent and focus, and certainly lacked the informal and formal education, to become a deep thinker. He was a fanatic of many half-baked, bad ideas about history, race, and sociopolitical processes. If he was smarter than Eichmann, he did not know more about the world than Eichmann did. Part of his appeal maybe lied in his fanaticism, in being mesmerized by his own security in the rightfulness of his ideology. The mesmerized one mesmerized his audience.
Hitler thought that he had all the answers, which may be the worse folly that a human being can display. It may be the utmost form of idiocy. Evil may or may not appear in banal garbs. But it may very well be that evil –doing evil things like, say, mass murder– is the most extreme manifestation of folly — of human stupidity.
