Banality of Evil - Criticism

Criticism

Reicher and Haslam have challenged Arendt's idea of the banality of evil. They acknowledge that ordinary people can commit evil actions, but assert that it is not simply a matter of “blind people following orders.” They point to historical and psychological evidence that suggests ordinary people become evil when they identify with evil ideology.

They cite Cesarani's Eichmann: His Life and Crimes, as “suggesting that Arendt’s analysis was, at best, naive.” In his work, Cesarani claims Arendt attended only the beginning of Eichmann’s trial and missed the defendant’s more revealing admissions. The author recalls that Eichmann spoke proudly of the creative measures with which he executed Hitler’s policy. To Cesarani, this was indicative of an active involvement in evil, not just a passive following of orders.

Reicher and Haslam have also reinterpreted the findings of a number of landmark psychological cases, including Milgram's obedience studies and Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment to conclude that people follow ideology, not just orders. They have proposed a number of factors that may be used to explain how people become swayed by evil ideology, including:

• individual differences (not everyone will choose to commit evil)
• crisis or group failures (people are most vulnerable in a crisis or when a social group they belong to falls apart)
• leadership (people require a strong leader to encourage them to commit evil).

Reicher and Haslam believe these are just some of the factors involved and that more research is needed. In part, they blame the popularity of Arendt’s concept of the banality of evil for handcuffing research for so long.