Making a Virtue of Evil: A Five‐Step Social Identity Model of the Development of Collective Hate

Abstract

In the first part of this paper, we re‐examine the historical and psychological case for ‘the banality of evil’– the idea that people commit extreme acts of inhumanity, and more particularly genocides, in a state where they lack awareness or else control over what they are doing. Instead, we provide evidence that those who commit great wrongs knowingly choose to act as they do because they believe that what they are doing is right. In the second part of the paper, we then outline an integrative five‐step social identity model that details the processes through which inhumane acts against other groups can come to be celebrated as right. The five steps are: (i) Identification, the construction of an ingroup; (ii) Exclusion, the definition of targets as external to the ingroup; (iii) Threat, the representation of these targets as endangering ingroup identity; (iv) Virtue, the championing of the ingroup as (uniquely) good; and (v) Celebration, embracing the eradication of the outgroup as necessary to the defence of virtue.

“Who is really British anyway?”: A thematic analysis of responses to online hate materials

“…This, in turn, echoes previous work focussing social identity processes (e.g. Blackwood, Hopkins, Reicher, 2012Reicher, Haslam, & Rath, 2008;Tajfel & Turner, 1979;Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987 This comment displays categorical thinking through its use of distancing pronouns, such as "their" foreign oppressive laws, implying that laws were not voted for or made by us (i.e. here, White people).…”

“…The term 'genocide' here also links to a perceived threat, ostensibly posed by immigrants, to posters' social identity (i.e. social identity threat; Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999;Reicher et al, 2008;Verkuyten, 2013) which will be discussed in more detail under Contesting Britishness.…”

“…Blackwood et al, 2012Blackwood et al, , 2013Blackwood et al, , 2015Reicher et al, 2008;Tajfel & Turner, 1979;Turner et al, 1987). In particular, posters attempted to align themselves with other posters whose views they shared (Us) and to differentiate themselves from those whose views they opposed (versus Them).…”

“…Along the same lines, some posters expressed a sense of identity threat by references to "cultural genocide" or "cultural cleansing" in relation to immigration. Here, such references create a sense of social identity threat (Branscombe et al, 1999;Reicher et al, 2008;Verkuyten, 2013) amongst those supporting Emma whilst simultaneously invoking conflict with the perceived out-group (i.e. foreigners).…”

Questioning authority: new perspectives on Milgram's ‘obedience’ research and its implications for intergroup relations

“…Furthermore, once Milgram explained the nobility of the enterprise (in terms of progressing human understanding), participants became reconciled to, and even enthusiastic about, the role they had played [26]. In the context of intergroup relations more broadly, this supports the argument that the more the ingroup cause is seen as virtuous, the MILGRAM TODAY 8 easier it becomes to inflict harm on the outgroup in its name [50,51]-and to feel positive about doing so.…”