If at this time the historical data is to be believed and the slaves actually outnumbered the whites, then why didn´t these people rebel? This can be classically defined as deindividuation i.e. the loss of a sense of individuality, the slaves were believing that they had no human worth, and their sole purpose in this life was to serve their white masters, who were superior in every aspect to them.
It appears it was the social norm amongst slaves to conform, forming a common denominator to obedience, i.e. responding to the direct requests/orders of any whites, and particularly as whites were seen as the `legitimate authority`. The cost/reward system we also see here whereby the slave counts the cost of responding and obeying to his masters demands, and counts the reward of remaining unbeaten and alive.
The slaves were in a permanent agentic state, i.e. directly answerable to any whites as they were seen as the legitimate authority at this time. (Gross-Science of mind & behavior 1999).
The Nazi regime employed the same basic methods, although the levels of violence and aggression by far superceded those of the slave owners, that being mass Genocide.
Dehumanization can clearly be seen in all historical data relating to concentration camps, i.e. the prisoners were forced to remain naked, they were starved and beaten, their heads were shaved and they had numbers tattooed on their bodies, this had the effect of reducing the prisoners to something less than human, and allowed the suspension of the usual moral prohibition on killing (Gross-Science of mind & behavior 1999).
Routinisation i.e. “ The massacre becomes a matter of routine, a mechanical highly programmed operation” (Gross-Science of mind & behavior 1999).
Adolf Hitler in his quest to perfect the perfect race, and the formation of the Nazi´s were, and still are, referred to as evil, however let us examine the definition of evil.
The most common and familiar form of human evil is violence, and one, which is most easily recognized, although oppression and cruelty may also be considered.
“The main prototypes of human evil involve actions that intentionally harm other people” (Baumeister. R- Evil Inside Human Violence & Cruelty 1999). Evil individuals, (in this case I will cite Adolf Hitler as example) are often marked by egotism i.e. seeing the world exclusively from ones own perspective. (Gross Science of mind & behavior 1999). Adolf Hitler did not lack in self-esteem, if anything he had too much of it, and over-estimated himself because of it, ultimately he committed suicide; this in itself can be seen as the most selfish act.
What was the influencing factor regarding Hitler? And how did this one individual exert such power and influence over an entire nation to the detriment and near destruction of the Jewish race? We know it wasn´t coercive power i.e. an underlying threat of physical harm, so perhaps Hitler´s suggestion of a `one nation community` appealed to all those just went along for the sake of conforming. Hitler systematically condoned the extermination “of those deemed to be threats to the biological and cultural unity of the supreme race” (Weindling P. Confronting the Nazi past, 1996).
It is felt that Hitler to some extent used the halo-effect i.e. to influence the views of the German people he used one negative trait against the Jews to infer another and so on.
Stereotyping may also be seen to be bigoted behavior, and also discriminatory, however “recent research suggests that such statements may stem from a very natural cognitive process called the `out-group homogeneity effect`” (Quattrone 1986 – Gross et al 1999).
Whereby people tend to perceive members of an out-group as highly similar to each other, (stereotype), but they tend to view all manner of individual differences among members of their own group (the in-group differentiation hypothesis: - Linville et al 1989), as these are all consequences of the acts of categorization.
The Nazi soldiers certainly to some extent must have practiced a catharsis behavior pattern i.e. by observing the aggressive behavior exhibited by another soldier, he may have found it easier to release his own aggressive feelings, to torture or kill for example, even when his own natural feelings of guilt may have prevented him from carrying out orders to the contradiction of his own feelings, also leading to a sense of diffusion of responsibility i.e. not solely responsible.
This behavior is proven clearly in American GI statements at the court marshall hearing following the infamous My-Lai massacre. One soldier, clearly very distressed and anxious was questioned, “Why did you kill innocent women and children?” he replied, “ I don´t know why, but I was crying inside when I done it, I was just following orders”.
(Internet resource- My-Lai court Marshall transcripts- Dec. 2000).
We know from these court transcripts that coercive methods were used by senior officers to imply that if these soldiers wouldn´t carry out their orders then court marshall, physical violence, and ostrasisation would follow. The soldiers acting on the orders from what they perceived as `legitimate authority`, (immediate superior in rank), complied, some with unquestioned obedience, or some with reluctance.
What makes one individual more likely to comply with an un-reasonable request and another refuse? My theory is that these individuals may have been influenced from early on in life, and by observing and learning from parents, peers, and similar social groups, particularly those of an authoritarian nature, they unquestionably carried out acts of seemingly in-human violence and aggression just because they perceive the order as coming from ` legitimate authority`.
Milgram states “ conformity has to do with the psychological need for acceptance by others and entails going along with ones peers in a group situation: - obedience has to do with the social power and status of an authority figure in a hierarchal situation” (Gross et al 1999). Although these soldiers may deny they conformed, as this would reduce their own sense of individuality, they denied responsibility of their actions in the case of obedience (he made me do it).
So how might we as a society reduce prejudice? There have been many ideas and concepts put forward but first of all lets look at integration as an option.
In the last 50 years or so integration has become so common this may in itself play a large role in striving to break down prejudicial barriers, we should feel proud of these efforts but how well might they have worked? It is true that as we get to know each other we see that our own prejudices reduced or even removed all together? Only under certain conditions, if blacks and whites live as equals, both at home and at work, it becomes easier to have frequent and informal contact thereby reducing the pre-judgments, which are usually made about a race before any sort of communication has taken place. If we look at the military after these men have lived, fought, and died together, then we see that equality is possible. It also becomes more evident that prejudice and racism are a learned behavior. If we look to the first American schools that were integrated we note these white students, who had never integrated with other races became more prejudiced. (Aronson – 1984 Gross et al-Science of mind and behavior 1999). This can be argued then that family and peer pressure was evident.
Aronson developed a teaching technique called `The jigsaw learning method`. This was a conducted as an experiment and the results were incredible, it is now called `co-operative learning`, and it works by grouping up students (in this case children), and giving each student a small part of the lesson to learn and then to tell their own group. Rather than have the time to tease and make fun of another student in the group, they now have to learn this piece of work as well as co-operating with other group members to make their project correct. The study found that the students actually helped each other learn and communicate therefore making studying easier and more fun! As well as getting to know each other better they began to develop respect for one another, empathize together and like each other. Unfortunately, the forced integration of schools in America during the 50`s and 60`s did not result in close contact with other races during the 70`s and 80`s, not many blacks were in the advanced classes, the situation was slowly changing but perhaps not as fast as we would like to think.
Aronson stated, “Just throwing different groups together in schools is not enough-we must work closely, cooperatively, and cordially together”. So why are we still not working together? Perhaps racial bias/prejudice is still alive and well, and certain groups within society are still pre-occupied with old hard to die social/cultural/economic prejudices.
We look at society and the rest of the world and conclude it is just. (Just world hypothesis) i.e. where we believe that “you get what you deserve”. Why do we do this? We deny the evidence or turn the whole situation around to suit ourselves. For example Lerner- Gross et al – Science of mind and behavior) conducted a study in which almost a thousand people watched a film of a woman being painfully shocked in a psychological learning experiment. (All of it was faked). Initially many of the viewers became anxious and upset, some angry towards the experimenter in the film. However shockingly towards the end of the experiment most of the viewers had adopted the `just world` way of thinking. They believed that the victim was ultimately an idiot to be sitting there and allowing herself to be shocked. Not one of the viewers made any sort of effort to protest against the experiments, they felt more comforted believing that “everything is fine”.
The most worrying aspect of this is that the offenders of this behavior are becoming younger. Two weeks ago at the beginning of December a ten-year boy called Damilola Taylor was murdered in Peckham, South East London. The death of any child is devastating, but even more so when this murder is believed to have been carried out by other children. Damilola was Nigerian; his attackers are also thought to be black, although at this point the police are unsure, as they may be West Indian or African.
The attackers ages are thought to range from twelve upwards. Two weeks later another child, 13-year-old Danny Herbert is fighting for his life. Danny is of mixed race and the police feel that this attack was racially motivated. Again the attackers were early teens and the weapon used was glass, Danny is still in critical condition at this time of writing, Damilola unfortunately died where he was attacked.
Can authoritative parenting be all to blame? The pressure from peers? The Media? Music?
Media is being used by the police in the case of Damilola Taylor, whereby a famous football idol, Rio Ferdinand, is being shown to encourage to tell the truth. He will appeal to mostly young males and this author believes was chosen psychologically for that reason alone. But why would it be called a “Racial attack” if the attackers are also believed to be black? Within African societies there are many different tribes and a hierarchy certainly does exist, but so extreme as to see children resorting to violent crime and murder almost baffles belief.
Conflict resolution techniques used from early on in school, as well as the cooperative learning method are at least two examples of how prejudice could be reduced from a young age, until state education employs these techniques children will stay aggressive and not really understand why.
Bibliography
Ezekiel 25:17 The New Testament
Gross. R 1999 Psychology The Science of Mind
