In Lars Von Trier’s masterpiece Europa, whether by intent or design, he explores the concept of the ‘banality of evil’, a phrase coined by the philosopher Hannah Arendt in 1961 while observing Adolph Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem for war crimes. Eichmann, one of the main architects behind the Final Solution was so ordinary and bland that Arendt had a hard time reconciling the monster in her mind with what she saw before her; scribing her famous phrase to describe him in her book about the trial. Meant more as a warning, Arendt was describing how ordinary people tacitly co-sign evil, the danger that it could reach critical mass, setting a new, normalized standard into the collective. Von Trier expands on Arendt’s concept that “Evil is not by thought, but by its absence of thought” meaning people don’t mean to; it just happens bit by bit like the analogy of how to boil a frog. Europa tells of the tragic consequences of not taking a stand when there was still time to, intimating that not taking a stand is taking a stand; as in the case of his film. Evil will continue long after the main character is gone, his demise a consequence of malice that was not questioned or vigorously challenged enough. Ignoring it doesn’t make it go away; only allows it to camouflage itself better so as to be less obvious; no less insidious, just less obvious.
When people think of evil, they tend to think of it with easily defined and obvious hard-line parameters. But what about when the lines become fuzzy around the edges, is it any less evil? Is sewage any less revolting by calling it something else?
Too many of my life experiences have an abusive story line except I was consistently told those experiences did not meet the criteria for abuse; that I was just being too sensitive or exaggerating. I have done my best to dismiss these situations as isolated, not attributing any particular pattern. If anything, the only pattern I have attributed is that I am to blame. I’m now at the point in my life where I see clearly that it’s not my values are off, it’s theirs and society is complicit with its victim shaming and gaslighting becoming growth industries. The perpetrators got away with it while I continue to carry the harm. I’m not talking about a thoughtless utterance or something selfish as we’re all guilty of that - that is to be human. I’m talking about incidents with a plan; an intentional and deliberate abuse of my generosity. If it were just me that was injured then I might have just continued to flagellate myself for not doing better but what I have observed, thanks to our lives being played out on social media, are patterns of the human condition.
Whenever I follow the storyline of some social media fracas, I notice it never seems to be the aggressor’s first rodeo with the same pattern rearing its ugly head again and again. The names of the victims change but the patterns follow like a script. Allowing that to live among us with just a shrug of the shoulders “That’s life,” is how the Eichmanns of the world come to be. We only remember the larger than life examples, but it’s the overlooked, smaller stories where someone’s entire life trajectory is changed that happen on the daily and are no less egregious, no less evil that we need to pay closer attention to. Call it whatever you want; I call it evil, but garbage excuse for a human works for me too. Since it’s not the aggressor’s first rodeo tells me they know the difference between right and wrong and that they still knowingly choose to cross a line isn’t just a small transgression but a major one and should be called out as such.
I’ve also noticed a pattern among the victim blaming, or “Get over it”, crowd that they take a lot of liberty when it comes to deciding when something rises to the level of insidiousness, more often than not labeling it as inconsequential, completely ignoring the reality that it had a life long impact on someone else. While it’s not their responsibility to manage anyone else’s pain, it’s also more hubris than someone’s station in life can accommodate to think they are a good judge of what satisfies the requirements of something being baleful if you have low empathy and low self-awareness.
Arendt’s quote is still debated among the intelligentsia with regard to the definition of evil. Foul, dishonorable, degenerate, and depraved are some substitute words if that makes people feel more warm and fuzzy but there’s a common thread that connects them all as they are huddled together in the thesaurus; evil in its broadest sense is being morally reprehensible.
In simplest terms, evil is knowingly crossing boundaries for personal gain.
Some would say that evil is for describing catastrophic things like terrorism or other crimes against humanity. Ok, fair enough; it is a strong word choice, but is it no less catastrophic that someone’s life is destroyed because of someone else’s deliberate actions for their own self-serving interests, irregardless that the intent wasn’t necessarily borne from malice but instead a deep seated insecurity that presents as a toxic behavior pattern? The end result of what happens to someone is the same, so I find the distinction between the two that one is definitively worse than the other, to be dubious at best. What exactly is the acceptable number of ‘unintended consequences’, er, destroyed lives in polite society, and, which one of you would be willing to volunteer for it? Where does the line between good versus bad get drawn? Why is letting someone off the hook for atrocious and preventable behavior only worth a slap on the wrist label? There’s a lot of crossover words that also show up for evil when you plug the word bad into the ol’ thesaurus too. I’m not implying that things are so black and white that if someone makes a mistake they should be permanently branded as ‘evil’ because evil is not a mistake, it is taking a deliberate action. I am trying to make a point that when someone knowingly and repeatedly crosses what should be understood as an uncrossable boundary but does so anyway that it shouldn’t be treated as a ‘there, there’ and should be seen as the violation of the social contract that it is. Those repeated boundary crossings, like pennies that start adding up to real money; eventually divulge a person’s true core. People will always push boundaries because that is part of the human condition, but without pushback calling out a behavior that is wrong through an objective lens, there is the risk that the unattended or ignored grows into an unruly Hydra, becoming more and more difficult to reign in the longer it goes.
Psychological research over the years has shown that Arendt’s take wasn’t fully flushed out because Eichmann wasn’t just some run of the mill bureaucrat who came to be by happenstance. He was not just a simple man, minding his own business and by imperial fiat forced into arranging the repugnant Final Solution. His deflection that he was ‘just following orders’ and trying to paint himself as a victim of circumstance is no different than the garden variety narcissist who boundary crosses for their own benefit.
The part that Arendt missed was Eichmann was drawn to Hitler’s regime in the first place because he was already a sadist, not because some dormant part of him awoke. He came into it with a personality disorder and society allowed it in part because the patriarchal good ol’ boy network protected him and the Third Reich’s inner circle had more than enough DSM-V disorders in common to bond over. The braking to prevent normalizing atrocious behavior in the first place wasn’t firmly enough in place. Instead of focusing on the virtues of good character above behavior that is a clear violation of the social contract, we have weakened those societal bindings by emphasizing non-committal, wishy washy and inconsistent reprimands all in the name of sparing feelings and over time, the seepage of what should be considered unacceptable becomes more normalized. As the saying goes, give an inch and they take a mile, one day you realize too late that deplorable behavior is now woven into the fabric of society. We have normalized victimhood by never placing enough emphasis on whose responsibility it is to do better because we don’t emphasize enough what constitutes true remedy, saying it’s ‘just’ a small violation, don’t make a mountain out of a molehill. Invalidation of the victim is one of the cornerstones of the banality of evil.
Bullying, controlling or intimidating behavior is harmful and life-altering; full stop. Even if it is a small thing like a co-worker that gossips behind your back. Or a spouse that stonewalls you. Or a neglectful or abusive parent. Those ‘little things’ compound a lot of damage over time in the form of C-PTSD which impacts the body both physically and mentally and takes years to heal from, if ever. I’m trying to draw focus that no matter how small or seemingly innocent it seems, it actually is not when there is zero support for the true victim and nothing to instigate change to prevent future occurrences. It becomes a death by a thousand paper cuts as the life they could have had, should have had, slides out of their grasp.
Most people who violate big boundaries, the sensationalized cases we read about, don’t come right out of the gate being so obvious as to what they’re doing - they work their way up to it. There is a chasm of difference between a mistake and a boundary violation.
Boundary violators often project shame onto their victims as a way to control them because it’s effective; we’re hard wired to react strongly to shame. Logical fallacies such as ad hominems are done as a tactic of manipulation, something commonly used by boundary crossers. In Europa, the main character saw these violations all around him and said nothing. I’m saying something. I write about character, the human condition, peoplekind and my perspectives are outside of the box because I am outside the box. People may not like hearing it, but it doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
Cato said, “Live consistently”. He of course meant it from the four pillars of virtue but you can also consistently be a complete and utter asshole and society shouldn’t make excuses why it’s ok to tolerate it. You’re still free to be an asshole but it should be called out for what it is so others are freely choosing to associate with someone with less than honorable intentions, but that’s not what’s happening. People hide this side of themselves. Why? If you’re an asshole, a sneaky boundary crosser why aren’t you celebrating it? Wear a t-shirt telling the world! Create a flag, a club, whatever you need to do - rock that Machievellian style with pride. If you’re hiding it then you know it’s wrong and you’re making a choice. Own it. It’s as simple as that. I believe intentionally and repeatedly crossing a line when it’s clear it is hurting someone and then trying to deflect instead correct, fits the definition of evil. That doesn’t mean I think you’re evil every time you say or do the wrong thing. The ethical line in the sand for me is the lack of true remedy as well as the motivation to change. Be an asshole all you want; just do so on your own time and so it only impacts you.
I hear a lot of excuses for bad behavior but never one solid reason in the bunch. It’s all I’ve ever heard with regard to how my parents treated me and how my husband sometimes treats me. My parents had a difficult childhood and I couldn’t possibly understand; they did the best they could I’m told. My husband is the consummate bon homme - the always helpful, cheery ‘good guy’ and the fact that he has treated me with contempt and disdain in the past is just merely histrionic twaddle on my part because he can’t help that he is neurodivergent. The problem isn’t the behavior, that is human fallibility; it’s their insistence they don’t need to change is where I’m laser focused and that society supports their charges that it’s a me problem. And of course, since my life path has been greatly altered by their selfish and sometimes egregious acts leaves me with no receipts to satisfy the vox populi of social media with their toxic positivity and Pinterest feel good quotes that it’s a much larger, and urgent problem to remedy than they realize.
In fact it is exactly the mentality that allows a bad trait to flourish. Where are my excuses? I was certainly held to a much different standard and punished for the mere presumption of disagreement (even when defending myself against outright lies and patterns that don’t exist). I too had non-existent support, just like them; grew up in abusive circumstances just like them; had even more abusive experiences to add to my life scrapbook to reminisce in later years should I wonder why I feel so unfulfilled and with little joy, and even with all of that, I still chose not be like them. Ever. So try justifying their entitlement for being abusive to me now. And when you come for me, bring a thesaurus and some facts, mm, k?
Do I mean to imply that I’m a perfect person who’s never done or said something that hurt someone? Of course not. I am not downplaying my responsibilities one iota and that’s my point. I don’t cut and run or try to deflect. The difference is, any mistakes were made in the context while still learning and I have always owned up to my faults and have genuinely worked on self-improvement towards a better self so I could leave the world a little better than I found it. I don’t expect the world owes me anything; I need to earn my place. But so do they and I don’t believe there should be reinforcement of harmful behaviors by giving accolades of what a good egg someone is when they achieve it through questionable moral means. I constantly shed old habits and behaviors that don’t serve me well in my quest; not hold onto them for dear life. That does not mean that I do not have insecurities and sustained damage, because I do, I just don’t project them onto others for the sole purpose of doing anything I can to protect my ego because I have always strived to build a separate identity built on virtue not vanity so I always know who I am. All I am asking is the same affordance of introspection and accountability in return and I don’t think that is too much to ask. It is this inner confidence that others find so threatening and I’ve spent far too much of my life fending off their insecure assaults and quite frankly, I’m at the point where they simply do not have anything I want enough to care anymore what they think.
Control, it’s about control; nothing more, nothing less.
In an eye opening article at Voice Male, ‘Abusive Men Describe The Benefits of Violence’ author Chuck Derry flips the narrative asking what are benefits received from coercive control inflicted upon a partner instead of focusing on the customary list of personality traits found in abusers.
Derry writes the men were a little timid at first but once they got going the list grew, their shyness turned towards extolling, eventually running out of space on the white board. Derry’s conclusion was that one of the reasons it’s so difficult to create lasting change is because there is so much benefit and we need to consider that factor as a point of focus when trying to create a program to bring about permanent change. I’m going to take it a little further and focus on the fact that the men were timid at first as a sign that they are self-aware enough of their behavior that there was even that momentary pause of holding back for fear of being judged for a behavior that is frowned upon. Once they realized they were among friends and relaxed in the presence of the camaraderie from their fellow abusers, their diffidence fell by the wayside as they tried to oneupmanship each other at who was the best abuser in the bunch; jockeying for who gets to the be the alpha asshole. Do they want a party to go with that pony if they win the title? Behold the work of the patriarchy, so proud of its little dumpling all grown up; just a right hook off the old block. This is a real life example of how the banality of evil transforms mores and tolerances of behaviors that should never be acceptable. I think everyone except the men in this story can agree that domestic violence is wrong. The men don’t feel compelled to change because there is benefit, i.e. power, in maintaining that control. Sure, this behavior is called out more and more but so long as there is a benefit whether perceived or intrinsic, people will downplay the importance of exchanging one behavior for another. In other words, they won’t really do the work to get help to fix the problem because they don’t really feel compelled to - there is still too much benefit. Enough benefit that they are willing to manage the inconveniences of the legal system and the occasional insult from an outsider. DV is a clear cut line but it’s really not much different than a catty neighbor always making snide comments towards you or your family; or a petty friend - see, blurred lines - when it’s dissected you can see what they have in common. The thing that makes them all the same is the intent behind it - power and control.
Orwell famously said that power isn’t a means, it is an end.
When people feel a loss of control in their lives they will do what they can to maintain it. That is part of the human condition. It’s when it crosses the partition from confusing aggression as self-advocacy as a way to maintain order in your world is when it morphs from healthy coping skills into antisocial combatant fodder. We need to let people know that yes, yes Virginia, your behavior does meet the standard for abuse and now that you know, it is your choice what to do next; continue the same behavior and you should be shunned; or, choose to learn to do better.
We just tell the victim to move on and something is very backwards in that equation where the violator is valued more than the victim. Denigrating someone’s self-worth and humiliating them is a huge deal.
Abuse is evil; ask anyone who’s been on the receiving end of it, forever putting the pieces of their life back together.
Just like charity begins at home, so does the foundational values that compromise a healthy society and if we can strive towards a focus of not just telling everyone to be kind but also strongly reinforce the need for accountability and remedy, we might be onto something. The only way to teach is to lead by example and if I continue to be an outlier; outnumbered by a society that rewards objectively foul behavior that harms others by inventing psychobabble and turns a blind eye to what defines genuine amends and told that these posers, virtue signalers masquerading as good people are correct, then the world is fucked.
This is not about challenging one’s personal beliefs as we’re all entitled to make our own choices, this is about challenging a bad status quo versus a good one and deciding which one is allowed to flourish lest more of us become casualties of its cruelty. Living a life where abuse doesn’t harm you shouldn’t be a privilege but the norm.
My call to action is to stop this banality before it becomes evil.