Tea1

TeddyTea
SOCI178
Biernacki
8November,2013
StateofAgencyvsBanalityofEvil
StanleyMilgramsstateofagency,thathegeneralizedfromhisfamousMilgram
Experiments,wastheideathatpeoplehavedifferentstatesofbehavingwhenundera
legitimateauthority.Heexplainsthatthisdifferentstateallowedthemtoactagainsttheir
moraljudgmentandsimplyobeytheauthoritythattheywereunder.HannahArendt,
anotherphilosopherinthefieldofHolocaustbehavior,cameupwithherownidea,
whichbecameknownasherbanalityofeviltheory.Herideacameintoperspective
whilestudyingthetrialsofAdolfEichmann,andfocusedontheinabilitytothinkthat
allowsanyordinarypersonlikeEichmanntobecomethethoughtlessmurdererofan
entirerace.Therearecountlesssimilarities,asbothtrytoexplainhowthehumans
allowedtheHolocaust.Thedifferenceshowever,willseteachapartinexplainingthe
behavioroftheperpetratorintheeventsoftheHolocaust.WhileMilgramsexperiments
emphasizestheexternalityandimpactofthesurroundingsontheperpetrator,Arendts
banalityofevilshiftsawaythesurroundingcultureforafocusontheinternalnatureof
theperpetrator.Thisdifferenceallowsustounderstandnotonlybehavioralinstinct
withinus,butopennewideasabouthowhumansgeneralizetheconsequencesoftheir
actions.
ItseasytobeconfusedthatArendtandMilgramstudiedthesamesituationand

Tea2

endedupwiththesameconclusion.Itseemsasiftheybothtargetthesamequestions
concerningtheperpetratoroftheHolocaust,andbothattempttocomeupwithareason
whyhumans,orGermansarenotsimplysickandtwistedfortryingtoexterminatean
entirerace.However,anindepthanalysisallowsthesesimilaritiestostopandthen
starttoresembleanaturevs.nurturediscussion.Theybothacknowledgethat
surroundinginfluencesandinternalnaturesaffectthewayaperpetratoracts,but
Arendtsbanalityofeviltakesonapersonalinternalstance,andMilgramsstateof
agencyemphasizesthesituationalandsurroundingcircumstances.Eventhequestions
theytrytoanswersseemtodeviatefromeachother.
Milgramtookparticularinterestedtheingroupeffects,andtheeffectsof
obedienceandauthoritythatsostronglydrovetheperpetratorsoftheHolocaust.More
specifically,heasksthequestion,Whatisthereinhumannaturethatallowsan
individualtoactwithoutanyrestraintwhatsoeversothathecanactinhumanely,harshly
andseverely?(TheHumanBehaviorExperiments,2:47).Thatisthebeginningof
wherehestartstodeviatefromArendtsideology,becauseArendtasksanothersetof
questionsabouthumanbehavior.
Mostimportantly,thewaythatMilgramtheorizesabouttheconductofa
perpetratorisfocusedontheinfluenceoftheexternalityontheindividual,andhis
studiestriedtoreplicatefactorsofauthorityandresponsibilitythatwouldinturn
replicateperpetratorbehaviorandthestateofagency.Thisexternalcharacteristicis
evidentinboththewayheconductedhisexperimentsandthewayheexplainshis
results.Hetookgreatdetailindetailinghisexperimentsothathissubjectbelievedthe

Tea3

situationthatMilgramputthemin,andhesucceededpartlywithhisdegreeintheatrics
(Biernacki).Forexample,inhisoriginalsetofMilgramexperimentswhenpickingout
individualsfortheexperiment,usingvolunteersassubjectallowedhimtoreplicatethe
ideathattheycouldleaveatanytime.Thenthemostimportantaspectwastheauthority
figurewhohadtobedirectlybehindyougivingyouorderstocontinueadministering
shocks.Notonlythat,buttheauthoritywassupposedtobepersistentwiththeshocks.
WithalltheseexternalfactorsisMilgramabletoactivatethestateofagencythattook
overtheGermanpeopleduringtheHolocaust.
Thescopeofhistestingevenrepresentedhisinsistenceonthesurrounding
stimulithatsupportedhisstateofagency.Inhistests,hewouldwoulddifferentfactors
oftheexperiment,allexceptforthechoiceofpeople,whichstayedvolunteers.He
varieditsomuchthathefounditunnecessarytoregardthedifferencesinpersonalityof
hissubjects.Hisinsistenceinlookingattheexternalfactorsandoutsidestimuliis
backedbyhisconclusionthathedidnotneedtotakehisteststoGermany,becausethe
consistencyoftheresultsprovedpeopletobesoobedient,thathehardlysawtheneed
fortakingtheexperimenttoGermany(Meyer119).Atfirstthismayseemlikea
simplificationofhisresearch,butultimatelythisshowsthathedisregardedthepersonal
differencesinfavorforanexternalatmosphericapproachtotesting.Infact,hedidthis
somuch,thatotherscientistwhotookaninterestintheMilgramexperimentsnoticed
thathedisregardedpersonaltraits,andtheythemselvesvariesthesubjects(Blass
399).Still,Milgramconcludesthatnomatterhowhevariedtheexperimenthewould
resultinsignificantlevelsofobediencethatexemplifythestateofagency.

Tea4

Withenoughexternalstimuli,Milgramwasabletobringoutthestateofagencyin
manyofhissubjectsandturnthemintothesametypeofperpetratorsasthecriminals
oftheHolocaust.AlthoughMilgramacknowledgestheinnerstateofagencyinhis
subject,heattributesittothesurroundings:thelegitimateauthority,theabsenceof
blameandresponsibility,andthepersistentnatureoftheauthority.
Arendt,incontrasttoMilgram,basesherideasoninternalpersonalinfluences
andevenseemstohaveadifferentsetofinterest.Herinterestinperpetratorbehavior
provokesthequestions:Isevildoing,notjustthesinsofomissionbutthesinsof
commission,possibleintheabsenceofnotmerelybasemotivesbutofanymotivesat
all,anyparticularpromptingofinterest?andotherquestionsinvolvingthemorality
behindaperpetratorsconduct,ratherthantheeffectofobedienceandauthority
(Arendt,418).Herexplanationfocusesontheinternalandindividualnatureofthe
perpetratorratherthanthesurroundinginfluencesthatMilgramfocusedon.Thiswas
probablybecauseshedevelopedhertheoriesbasedonthetrialsofEichmann,andwith
justonesubjectshewasabletogetindepthandexplorepersonalityand
internallyinfluencedperpetratorconduct.Inherbook,
EichmanninJerusalem
,shestart
tohintatherbanalityofevilargumentthatarguesthatperpetratorsarenotevilwith
hatredorintenttoharm,butevilinthewaythattheymindlesslyallowthemselvesto
commitindecentdeeds.Inherwords,howevermonstrousthedeedswere,thedoer
wasneithermonstrousnordemonic,andtheonlycharacteristic...wasthecurious,
quiteauthenticinabilitytothink(Arendt,417).Thisqualityofbeingunabletothink,
specificallytargetsperpetratorsinternalqualitiesasanexplicitresultofthebanalityof

Tea5

evil.
Inherbook,Arendtalsodistinguishesherthoughtonaperpetratorsconscience
asaresultofindepthpersonalityanalysis,incontrasttoMilgramssituationalbased
analysis.ArendtbelievedthatEichmannactivelyusedhisconscienceduringhis
deportationofJewstotheirdeaths.Forexample,shementionsthatEichmannsaid,
accountswouldbedemandedoneday,toshowtoEichmanndidhaveanactive
conscience.ButdespitethathewouldcontinuetosendJewstotheirdeaths.In
explainingtheconscience,againsheexplainstheinnernotionofthebanalityofevil.
SimilartothesubjectsoftheMilgramexperiment,aconscienceassumesthatthe
perpetratorisconflictedindoingevildeedsofaperpetrator.ButwhereasMilgram
explainsitasthestateofagencywhichovercomesthisconflictofmorals,Arendt
explainsitasthethoughtlessnessoftheindividualthatallowsthecrimetocontinue.
ArendtsbanalityofevilcanalsobeappliedtosituationsoutsidetheHolocaust,
toexplainthebanalityofsystematicevilwhereperpetratorsareordinarypeopletoday.
InLudlowsarticleaboutbanalityofEvil,heshowscasesinwhichpeopleblowthe
whistleagainstactstheyfeelunjustabout.Thisshowsthatthebanalityofevilis
inherentinpeople,muchmoreregardlessofthesituationthatMilgramemphasizes.The
articledealswiththeinternalizedfeelingsofSnowdenwhofeltunjustaboutnottelling
peopleabouttheNSA,ratherthanexplainingthesituationalfactorsthatMilgramsstate
ofagencywouldhavetriedtoexplain.Thisarticleagain,reflectshowthebanalityofevil
tendstobeaninternalpersonalapproachtoperpetratorconduct.
BothArendtsbanalityofevilandMilgramsstateofagencyareveryvalid

Tea6

explanationstothebehaviorofperpetratorsbothgenerallyandspecifictothe
Holocaust.Thecontrastbetweenhowperpetratorsskewtheirmoralstodothecrimes
theydo,showusthatourmoralsarebothweakandalwayschanging.Formanypeople,
itwouldbeeasytoletthesituationdeterminetheexcusetobreakmorality,andletour
stateofagencytakeover.Othertimes,itisjustaseasytobreaktheirmoralitybysimply
notthinkingabouthowbanalyetevilcrimesareinthefirstplace,asexplainedbythe
banalityofevil.Essentially,ArendtandMilgramanalyzedhoweasilyitwastobreach
ourownpersonalsenseofmorals,whichonlydrivesustoconsiderhowlaxourmorals
aretoday,andtheresultoftheselaxmorals.KnowingMilgramsstateofagency
definitelysparksadesiretothinktwicebeforetakingordersfromahigherauthority,in
ordinaryplaceslikeschoolandwork.Specifically,forexample,onanormalday,killing
anyonewouldbeanactmostpeoplewouldneverconsiderdoing.However,intimesof
war,whenalieutenantasksasquadtofightinawar,itseemsasifittakesfewwordsto
mobilizehundredsofsoldiersintoakillingzone.Arendtsbanalityofevildrivesustobe
moreawareofwhatweredoing,insteadofmindlesslypartakinginasystemofdrollery,
drudgeryandpossiblyevil.Forahistoricalexample,slaverywasnottoolongagoan
acceptedformoflaborthatpeoplesimplypartookin.Mostpeoplewhopartookin
slaveryprobablydidnotthinktwiceaboutthemoralityofusingpeopleforlabor.But
now,slaveryisseenbymostpeopleasanimmoralactofthepastthatshouldneverbe
practicedinthefuture.
IncomparingthedifferentapproachesofMilgramandArendt,Iamnottryingto
pickoneastheclearerrepresentationofperpetratorconduct.Itisnotactuallyadebate

Tea7

betweenMilgramandArendtbecausetheideasofthebanalityofevil,andstateof
agencycancoexisttoexplainthedifferentphenomenaofcriminalsinmanydifferent
cases.Butinrealizingthecontrasts,weexploretwodifferentwaysinwhichhuman
behaviorisunpredictable.Thisunpredictablenatureofhumanbehaviormakes
predictingperpetratorbehaviorevenharder,nomatterhowmanywaysweanalyzeit.

Tea8

WorksCited
Arendt,Hannah."ThinkingandMoralConsiderations:ALecture."
SocialResearch
38
(1971):41746.
Jstor
.Web.8Nov.2013.
Biernacki,Richard."MilgramExperiments."SOCI178Lecture.UCSD,LaJolla.Lecture.
Blass,Thomas."UnderstandingBehaviorintheMilgramObedienceExperiment:The
RoleofPersonality,Situations,andTheirInteractions."
JournalofPersonalityand
SocialPsychology
60(1991):398413.Print.
TheHumanBehaviorExperiments
.Prod.SunDance.
YouTube
.NoahNeo,2006.Web.
8Nov.2013.
Meyer,Phillip."IfHitlerAskedYoutoElectrocuteaStranger,WouldYou?Probably."
Esquire
Feb.1970:n.pag.Web.