by Ruth
（Continue from last week）
I knew well that in previous years, many of my colleagues succumbed to Andrew’s pressure and offered biased reviews against those he disfavored. Worse still, some faked data per the boss’s demand. When asked why, they said they were simply following orders from above. Yes, ordinary people can conduct evil deeds because of pressure from hierarchical structures or societal norms.
With God’s mercy, in the end, I stood by my principles and refused Andrew’s request. Before he could punish me for not obeying his order, our entire department was laid off. In a way, God delivered me from an undesirable situation. Yet, to this day, I still ask myself, “What if it happens again without God’s deliverance? Will I make a different decision?”
Years ago, Hannah Arendt, a German-American political theorist, tackled the concept of “mediocre evil” with a unique perspective. Coined during her coverage of the Adolf Eichmann trial in Jerusalem in 1961, Arendt’s term “the banality of evil” provides profound insights into how ordinary individuals can commit abhorrent actions under particular circumstances.
Adolf Eichmann was a key player of the Holocaust, coordinating the logistics of mass deportation and extermination of millions of Jews. Captured in Argentina in 1960, Eichmann was brought to trial in Jerusalem. Arendt, covering the proceedings for The New Yorker, anticipated encountering a monster of diabolical proportions. Instead, she found Eichmann to be disturbingly average—a man not driven by fanatical hatred but rather by a dull, bureaucratic obedience to orders.
Eichmann’s lack of deep-seated ideological cruelty so startled Arendt that she proposed a bold thesis: evil can manifest through the unremarkable adherence to rules/orders and a failure to think critically about one’s actions—an unsettlingly mundane form of malevolence.
In her seminal book, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, Arendt argued that Eichmann’s crimes stemmed not from a place of monstrous hatred, but from a thoughtless engagement with what he perceived as mere duties. His actions, she contended, were rooted in conformity and a refusal to reflect on the ramifications of his work.
Arendt posited that this “banality” was far more terrifying than demonic violence. While society can recognize and guard against explicit evil, the insidious nature of banal evil lies in its ability to operate under the guise of normalcy, hidden behind bureaucratic language and procedure.
Arendt’s insights into the banality of evil raise significant questions about the structures of society. In a world where processes and hierarchies dominate, it becomes easier for individuals to abdicate their moral responsibility. The average worker fulfilling their tasks without considering the broader implications can become a cog in a harmful machine.
This notion prompts an essential question for today’s world: Are systems that prize obedience over ethical contemplation inadvertently cultivating environments where mediocre evil thrives?
From corporate scandals to governmental failings, examples abound of misconduct excused or overlooked due to hierarchical compliance. As bureaucracy expands, the risk increases that individuals may prioritize orders from higher-ups over ethical decision-making, enabling systemic wrongs.
Arendt’s work insists on the necessity of critical thinking and moral introspection. In recognizing the potential for average individuals to participate in mediocre evil, society must foster an environment that encourages questioning and ethical reasoning.
As Christians, we must be vigilant not only against overt malice but also against unthinking compliance. The true measure of a moral society may lie not just in its laws and punishments but in its capacity for self-reflection and its commitment to ethical consciousness.
