Customer Reviews

Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I purchased this book because it was a requirement for a Political Psychology college course I'm taking this semester. In the last month or so, our class has analyzed and discussed this book thoroughly. Waller provides a four-part conceptual model in order to explain why he believes genocide and mass killing occur. He also writes about specific case examples at the end of each chapter in order to further articulate his feelings. Anyway, Waller seems to believe very strongly in one "ultimate influence" in order to explain our behavior--evolutionary biology/psychology precede and precipitate his other three "proximate influences," which are social construction of cruelty, cultural construction of worldview, and psychological construction of "the other." He contends that we, as humans, are programmed to committ evil as a result of natural selection; that is, our ancestors survived because of their ability to defeat potential enemies within a scarce realm. Academic stuff aside, this book is very easy to read, incredibly interesting, and is a great start for those who would like to delve into this fascinating subject.

This is brilliantly researched, thought through and lucidly written. To clearly present such a comprehensive, careful and meticulous multi-dimensional explanatory model of a most difficult and complex phenomenon is a stunning accomplishment.

Waller is sensitive and most thoughtful in carefully evaluating various possible hypotheses for explaining how ordinary people commit extraordinary evil. I cannot recommend this book enough.

Becoming Evil is a fascinating book about how ordinary people partake in acts of genocide.

The book's major flaw is that is that at times it comes across as overtly academic. As someone who was nor reading the book for a course, I found the first third of the book mechanical as it went about presenting various academic arguments in a contrived manner.

But once the author allowed himself a bit more freedom to discuss the subject matter, the book became gripping reading and made several compelling arguments that made me re-examine my beliefs in regards to the subject matter.

The most gut-wrenching sections are the extracts from first-hand accounts of those who witnessed genocidal acts. It makes for harrowing reading but is absolutely necessary to raise our awareness about this most brutal of crimes.

The author discusses (p.12) the difference between human and natural evil, which his theory (when human nature is "activated" by proximate cultural, psychological, social constructions, the person affected is very likely to engage in extraordinary evil [p.287]) blurs significantly.

He labels social reform "misguided optimism" and says that we (average people) believe that evil can be "obliterated" by social reform (p.22). Whoever made such a claim? So he is obviously not a fan of social reform. However later on the same page, he writes that we ought to "structure" society so that the likelihood of extraordinary human evil is constrained. So now he is for social reform? What is the difference between social reform and restructuring society? This issue is never resolved.

The author's final conclusion appears to be that education (p.287) will significantly lessen the likelihood of genocide & mass killing. To me, education seems to be inadequate.

The author discusses (p.70-71) the severe criticism that the Rorschach inkblot test and other projective tests have received from the community of psychologists. Yet on p.77, the author virtually gushes over the wonderful validity & comprehensiveness of the Rorschach inkblot test. Why? Apparently because he needs it to validate his belief in the psychological heterogeneity of high-level Nazi officials, who had been administered the test. Of course, the author may just be a big fan of the test, even though it has been severely criticized.

The author criticizes Daniel Jonah Goldhagen and his book "Hitler's Willing Executioners" for ignoring or not taking seriously evidence that conflicts with his (Goldhagen's) thesis. Yet this is exactly what the author does in his own book.

The author writes "we" several times in the book. But it is not clear whom he is referring to: "we do know..." & "we also suspect..."

The author's thesis is based on evolutionary psychology, which has received a lot of criticism, but he mentions none of these criticisms. The author's attitude toward evolutionary psychology is that of a five-year-old toward his parents: whatever mommy & daddy say.

The author writes (p.155) that, because we have many instincts, we are not "constrained" by any of them. But his entire thesis contradicts this. He goes on and on about how, when people are exposed to certain situations, their instincts place them under enormous pressure to behave in certain ways. He acknowledges this (p.295) when he writes that only a person exhibiting a "rare degree of individual strength" can resist these pressures. If that is not "constraint," what is?

The author writes (p.294-5) that perpetrators are not just the victims of their instincts and their immediate social context, but his thesis strongly implies that they are. He writes that perpetrators retain full moral responsibility for their crimes, but his thesis seriously undermines their moral responsibility. He even criticizes three other researchers (p.258/Evelin Gerda Linder & p.126-7/Stanley Milgram & Robert Jay Lifton) because their theories undermine perpetrator moral responsibility.

What I dislike most about this book is the author's intellectual dishonesty.