“It’s Alright as Long as Its Just the Jews” – Removing the Blinders
[image error]
In Germany and other parts of Europe artificial social constructs, antisemitism, unrelenting propaganda, and fear led to the horrific result of the murder of six million Jews. Without drawing an equivalence, there are lessons we can learn as we mourn the murder of George Floyd and other African Americans and watch and/or participate in the protests against racial inequity and police brutality. These events call us to question the social constructs and propaganda that permeate our society. The lessons that Eva Fogelman teaches about when and how we fight against these messages and how we move from ignoring and not seeing, to seeing and acting, are immensely relevant today.
Fogelman explains that through an “elitist construction of social hierarchy” the Germans were able to stifle the natural empathy that might ordinarily be present. “Compassion for others,” she argues, “rests on the recognition that the one asking for help differs little from the one offering it. By making empathy with Jews difficult, Nazi propaganda became an integral part of the Final Solution. ‘It is all right as long it is only the Jews,’ the populace was encouraged to believe. ‘They don’t respond as we do.’” (Fogelman 46)
Fogelman also describes how people did not see the cruelty that was before their eyes. It was as if they had blinders on and could not see to the right or the left. She cites the work of the psychologist Daniel Goleman. In Viral Lies, Simple Truths Goleman describes “psychic obtuseness,” as a response to the danger of living under Nazi occupation. It was a form of “[s]elf-preservation [that] did not allow the reality of the Jews’ fate to become conscious; it would have been too painful, too dangerous, too terrifying.” [Id.] Bystanders focused all their energy on survival and protection of their family. Mistreatment and murder of Jews, who were not considered equals, Fogelman states, “became background noise.” (Fogelman 47)
[image error]
So how did some “see” what was going on and even more importantly, how did their awareness lead to action.
To reiterate the five-stage process enumerated by Bob Latane and John Darley:
Noticing that something is amiss;
Interpreting the situation as one in which people need help;
Assuming responsibility to offer that help;
Choosing a form of help;
Implementing that help.
It’s the first two stages in which the bystander removes the blinders. They may have a “transformative encounter.” This encounter is not just a moment of realization that Jews are being mistreated or even murdered. It is a moment in which the person is changed – they “see” what is going on and realize that someone really needs help. She sites the case of Oskar Schindler who, while horseback riding, watched as a long line of Jews being marched away. He saw a Nazis who discovered a woman hiding with her baby. The Nazi shot the woman in in the neck and took the whimpering child and bashed his head on the ground. “’Beyond this day,’ Schindler claimed, ‘no thinking person could fail to see what would happen. I was now resolved to do everything in my power to defeat the system.’” (Fogelman 54)
There were others who “saw” the horrors, even if they did not have a transformative experience. They saw because they may have suffered at the hands of the Nazis. Someone in their family may have been murdered, arrested, or beaten. Such personal suffering led them to see the suffering of others.
After these initial two stages, the bystander can assume responsibility, choose a form of help and act on the desire to help. This is not to make it sound easy. It was not. Fogelman cites Milgram’s obedience studies to show how hard it is to disobey authority. To become a rescuer, you were engaging in an illegal act and such behavior “ruined any chance of preserving a normal life.” (Fogelman 50) Rescuers asked, “Can I live with myself if I say no?”
Fogelman explains that most rescuers did not initiate the rescue. “A direct, personal request,” Fogelman describes, “provided an opportunity to act on individual intentions. Those who took responsibility were not hindered by how that help would endanger them and their family. All they thought about was that someone was in trouble. Of course they would help.” (61)
Once a rescuer decided he or she must help, there was no longer a choice. It was just what to do and how to implement (stages 4 and 5).
I see all these stages in the case of Styś family’s rescue of Esther, Moishe, and Chaim in September of 1942. The Styś family knew something was amiss – their farm was four kilometers from town, and they saw and heard what happened. Jan, then eleven years old, told his family what he saw out the window of his school. He saw the Nazis march the Jews to the cemetery and shoot them into a pit. As he retold this story to us, seventy-three years later, tears ran down his face. It was a transformative experience for this eleven- year-old boy and perhaps for his entire family.
[image error]
[Photo: Shlomo walking the path to Helena Styś‘s home]
When Esther, Chaim and Moishe showed up at Helena’s door asking for help – for food and to hide – this was a direct ask for assistance. Helena knew of the dangers, but she may have asked herself – “can I live with myself if I say no?” These people, who she knew from town, were in trouble. Of course she would help. The implementation involved two entire families – providing places to hide in their barns, food, opportunity to repair clothing, as well as friendship and psychological support. Janina, Helena’s daughter, described to us how she and Esther became friends. They would discuss many topics, from religion to mushroom soup.
Some in our country are taking off the blinders and looking at the social constructs. Perhaps some are having transformative experiences and perhaps others who have suffered see this as a personal call to action. We are living through challenging times and it can be hard to know what actions to take in the midst of a pandemic. But, I believe we have an opportunity to look at ourselves and our society in a new way and I believe that Fogelman’s study of rescuers during the Holocaust can help us articulate how we might move from bystander to activist.
Fogelman continues to deepen our understanding of the psychology of rescue by describing categories of rescuers. I found it fascinating to try placing the Styś family members in one of her categories. Stay tuned.
