Banality of Heroism
Banality of Heroism
Banality of Heroism
The Banality
of HEROISM
Circumstances can force almost anyone to be a bystander to evil,
but they can also bring out our own inner hero. Zeno Franco and
Philip Zimbardo show how we’re all capable of everyday heroism.
thirty-five years ago, one of us scheduled to last two weeks, ended abrup- the permeability of that line. Some people
(Philip Zimbardo) launched what is known tly after six days. are on the good side only because situa-
as the Stanford Prison Experiment. Twen- As we have come to understand the tions have never coerced or seduced them
ty-four young men, who had responded to psychology of evil, we have realized that to cross over.
a newspaper ad calling for participants in such transformations of human character This is true not only for perpetrators
a study, were randomly assigned roles as are not as rare as we would like to believe. of torture and other horrible acts, but for
“prisoners” or “guards” in a simulated jail in Historical inquiry and behavioral science people who commit a more common kind
Stanford University’s psychology depart- have demonstrated the “banality of evil” of wrong—the wrong of taking no action
ment. The “prisoners” were arrested at their —that is, under certain conditions and when action is called for. Whether we con-
homes by real police officers, booked, and social pressures, ordinary people can com- sider Nazi Germany or Abu Ghraib prison,
brought to the jail. Everything from the mit acts that would otherwise be unthink- there were many people who observed
deliberately humiliating prison uniforms to able. In addition to the Stanford Prison what was happening and said nothing. At
the cell numbers on the laboratory doors to Experiment, studies conducted in the 1960s Abu Ghraib, one photo shows two soldiers
the mandatory strip searches and delousing by Stanley Milgram at Yale University also smiling before a pyramid of naked pris-
were designed to replicate the depersonal- revealed the banality of evil. The Milgram oners while a dozen other soldiers stand
izing experience of being in a real prison. experiments asked participants to play the around watching passively. If you observe
The men who were assigned to be guards role of a “teacher,” who was responsible for such abuses and don’t say, “This is wrong!
were given khaki uniforms, mirrored administering electric shocks to a “learner” Stop it!” you give tacit approval to contin-
glasses, and billy clubs. when the learner failed to answer test ques- ue. You are part of the silent majority that
The idea was to study the psychology tions correctly. The participants were not makes evil deeds more acceptable.
of imprisonment—to see what happens aware that the learner was working with In the Stanford Prison Experiment, for
when you put good people in a dehuman- the experimenters and did not actually instance, there were the “good guards” who
izing place. But within a matter of hours, receive any shocks. As the learners failed maintained the prison. Good guards, on
what had been intended as a controlled more and more, the teachers were instruct- the shifts when the worst abuses occurred,
experiment in human behavior took on a ed to increase the voltage intensity of the never did anything bad to the prisoners,
disturbing life of its own. After a prisoner shocks—even when the learners started but not once over the whole week did
rebellion on the second day of the experi- screaming, pleading to have the shocks they confront the other guards and say,
ment, the guards began using increasingly stop, and eventually stopped responding “What are you doing? We get paid the
degrading forms of punishment, and the altogether. Pressed by the experiment- same money without knocking ourselves
prisoners became more and more passive. ers—serious looking men in lab coats, out.” Or, “Hey, remember those are college
Each group rapidly took on the behaviors who said they’d assume responsibility for students, not prisoners.” No good guard
associated with their role, not because the consequences—most participants did ever intervened to stop the activities of the
of any particular internal predisposition not stop administering shocks until they bad guards. No good guard ever arrived a
or instructions from the experimenters, reached 300 volts or above—already in the minute late, left a minute early, or publicly
but rather because the situation itself so lethal range. The majority of teachers deliv- complained. In a sense, then, it’s the good
powerfully called for the two groups to ered the maximum shock of 450 volts. guard who allowed such abuses to happen.
assume their new identities. Interestingly, We all like to think that the line between The situation dictated their inaction, and
even the experimenters were so caught up good and evil is impermeable—that people their inaction facilitated evil.
in the drama that they lost objectivity, only who do terrible things, such as commit But because evil is so fascinating, we
terminating the out-of-control study when murder, treason, or kidnapping, are on the have been obsessed with focusing upon and
an objective outsider stepped in, reminding evil side of this line, and the rest of us could analyzing evildoers. Perhaps because of
them of their duty to treat the participants never cross it. But the Stanford Prison Ex- the tragic experiences of the Second World
humanely and ethically. The experiment, periment and the Milgram studies revealed War, we have neglected to consider the flip
What is heroism?
Frank De Martini was an architect who
had restored his own Brooklyn brown-
stone. He enjoyed old cars, motorcycles,
sailing, and spending time with his wife,
Nicole, and their two children.
After the hijacked planes struck the
World Trade Center on September 11, 2001,
De Martini, a Port Authority construc-
tion manager at the Center, painstakingly
searched the upper floors of the North
Tower to help victims trapped by the attack.
De Martini was joined by three colleagues:
Pablo Ortiz, Carlos DaCosta, and Pete
Negron. Authors Jim Dwyer and Kevin
Flynn piece together the movements of De
Brad Aldridge Martini and his colleagues in their book,
102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to
side of the banality of evil: Is it also possible tendencies. The first is to ascribe very rare Survive Inside the Twin Towers. The evidence
that heroic acts are something that anyone personal characteristics to people who suggests that these four men were able to
can perform, given the right mind-set and do something special—to see them as save 70 lives, moving from problem to prob-
conditions? Could there also be a “banality superhuman, practically beyond com- lem, using just crowbars and flashlights—the
of heroism”? parison to the rest of us. The second is the only tools available. There are indications
The banality of heroism concept sug- trap of inaction—sometimes known as the that De Martini was becoming increasingly
gests that we are all potential heroes wait- “bystander effect.” Research has shown concerned about the structural integrity of
ing for a moment in life to perform a heroic that the bystander effect is often motivated the building, yet he and his men continued
deed. The decision to act heroically is a by diffusion of responsibility, when differ- to work to save others rather than evacuat-
choice that many of us will be called upon ent people witnessing an emergency all ing when they had the chance. All four men
to make at some point in time. By con- assume someone else will help. Like the died in the collapse of the tower.
ceiving of heroism as a universal attribute “good guards,” we fall into the trap of inac- These were not men who were known
of human nature, not as a rare feature of tion when we assume it’s someone else’s previously as larger-than-life heroes, but
the few “heroic elect,” heroism becomes responsibility to act the hero. surely, most of us would call their actions
something that seems in the range of pos- In search of an alternative to this inac- on September 11 heroic. But just what is
sibilities for every person, perhaps inspiring tion and complicity with evil, we have been heroism?
more of us to answer that call. investigating the banality of heroism. Our Heroism is different than altruism.
Even people who have led less than initial research has allowed us to review Where altruism emphasizes selfless acts
exemplary lives can be heroic in a particu- example after example of people who have that assist others, heroism entails the
lar moment. For example, during Hurricane done something truly heroic, from indi- potential for deeper personal sacrifice.
Katrina, a young man named Jabar Gibson, viduals who enjoy international fame to The core of heroism revolves around
who had a history of felony arrests, did those whose names have never even graced the individual’s commitment to a noble
something many people in Louisiana con- the headlines in a local newspaper. This purpose and the willingness to accept the
sidered heroic: He commandeered a bus, has led us to think more critically about the consequences of fighting for that purpose.
loaded it with residents of his poor New definition of heroism, and to consider the Historically, heroism has been most
Orleans neighborhood, and drove them to situational and personal characteristics that closely associated with military service;
safety in Houston. Gibson’s “renegade bus” encourage or facilitate heroic behavior. however, social heroism also deserves
arrived at a relief site in Houston before any Heroism is an idea as old as humanity close examination. While Achilles is held
government sanctioned evacuation efforts. itself, and some of its subtleties are becom- up as the archetypal war hero, Socrates’
The idea of the banality of heroism ing lost or transmuted by popular culture. willingness to die for his values was also a
debunks the myth of the “heroic elect,” Being a hero is not simply being a good heroic deed. Heroism in service to a noble
a myth that reinforces two basic human role model or a popular sports figure. We idea is usually not as dramatic as heroism
Under certain
person caught up in the situation interact in
unique ways. We remain unsure how these
personal characteristics combine with the
conditions
situation to generate heroic action, but we
have some preliminary ideas. The case of
Sugihara’s intervention on behalf of the
and social
Jews is particularly instructive.
Accounts of Sugihara’s life show us that
his efforts to save Jewish refugees was a
pressures,
dramatic finale to a long list of smaller
efforts, each of which demonstrated a
willingness to occasionally defy the strict
ordinary
social constraints of Japanese society in
the early 20th century. For example, he
did not follow his father’s instructions to
people can
become a doctor, pursuing language study
and civil service instead; his first wife was
not Japanese; and in the 1930s, Sugihara
resigned from a prestigious civil service
unthinkable.
to assert his individual view than others
around him who preferred to “go along to
get along.”
Also, Sugihara was bound to two differ-
visas for Jews hoping to escape the Nazi bystanders, situations also have immense ent codes: He was a sworn representative
invasion, despite his government’s direct power to bring out heroic actions in people of the Japanese government, but he was
orders not to do so. Every morning when who never would have considered them- raised in a rural Samurai family. Should he
Sugihara got up and made the same deci- selves heroes. In fact, the first response of obey his government’s order to not help
sion to help, every time he signed a visa, he many people who are called heroes is to Jews (and, by extension, comply with his
acted heroically and increased the likeli- deny their own uniqueness with statements culture’s age-old moré not to bring shame
hood of dire consequences for himself and such as, “I am not a hero; anyone in the on his family by disobeying authority)? Or
his family. At the end of the war he was same situation would have done what I should he follow the Samurai adage that
unceremoniously fired from the Japanese did,” or, “I just did what needed to be done.” haunted him, “Even a hunter cannot kill a
civil service. Immediate life and death situations, such bird which flies to him for refuge”? When
as when people are stranded in a burning the Japanese government denied repeated
What makes a hero? house or a car wreck, are clear examples requests he made for permission to assist
Our efforts to catalogue and categorize of situations that galvanize people into the refugees, Sugihara may have realized
heroic activity have led us to explore the heroic action. But other situations—such as that these two codes of behavior were in
factors that come together to create heroes. being witness to discrimination, corporate conflict and that he faced a bright-line ethi-
It must be emphasized that this is initial, corruption, government malfeasance, or cal test.
exploratory work; at best, it allows us to military atrocities—not only bring out the Interestingly, Sugihara did not act
propose a few speculations that warrant worst in people; they sometimes bring impulsively or spontaneously; instead, he
further investigation. out the best. We believe that these situa- carefully weighed the decision with his
We have been able to learn from a body tions create a “bright-line” ethical test that wife and family. In situations that auger
of prior research how certain situations can pushes some individuals toward action in for social heroism, the problem may cre-
induce the bystander effect, which we men- an attempt to stop the evil being perpe- ate a “moral tickle” that the person can
tioned earlier. But just as they can create trated. But why are some people able to not ignore—a sort of positive rumination,