Complicity and the greater good

(Nimue)

One of the easiest ways to get people complicit in oppression is to convince them they are acting for the greater good. Most people mean well, and want to do what’s right, or at the very least want to feel comfortable with their choices. Persuade them that the abominations you have in mind are necessary, and you can get them onboard. This often involves demonising the target group so that people feel virtuous about attacking them.

We can see all of this in action around racism, transphobia, homophobia, Islamophobia and anti-Sematism. We can think about how, historically, witches were scapegoats. We can think about how some religions have encouraged people to believe that killing other people was going to save souls. It’s there in the politics of austerity as we’re sold the lie that making vulnerable people suffer now will somehow win us a more stable economic future. That manifestly doesn’t work.

There are a number of factors at play here. People want to trust apparent sources of authority, and want to believe in this ‘greater good’ they can build. Many people have limited critical thinking skills, and not enough information or education to challenge what’s asserted in situations like these. We’re communal creatures, so we are predisposed to go along with what everyone else is doing. Scapegoating is a persuasive tactic – so many people are engaged by it, perhaps because it helps them feel better about themselves.

It’s worth bearing in mind that in the UK, people used to go to public executions as a form of entertainment. I suspect that very few people who did so considered themselves evil. What seems normal is of itself persuasive, and with an execution, you’re getting rid of the ‘bad guys’ so that has to be good, right?

Ironically I think the language of good and evil is itself an approach that leads us towards things that are more intrinsically evil. This is in no small part because we will all imagine ourselves as good, and right, and that means anyone opposing us is evil. What seems necessary (because we are good, and they are evil) is already going to be distorted by that thinking. Whenever something is framed as ‘good’ we should ask who it is good for and what it costs.

This is why I prefer to focus on kindness. If you aim for kindness there’s no way you can decide to throw someone under a bus because it allegedly serves a higher cause. If kindness is the only goal, then there is no higher cause that can be served in the short term by cruelty. The idea that there are no alternatives – that we must harm certain people to save others – should itself be highly suspect. There are always alternatives. Presenting a simple choice, a good/evil dynamic, a narrow array of options is itself a tool of oppression. There are always better options, we just need the creativity and determination to find them.