In 1962, Otto Eichman was charged and convicted of the war crimes committed during the Holocaust. He held the dispositions that he was obligated by an oath of loyalty. This defense was used by many other convicted nazis and still continues to be a guiding principle for criminal defenses today. By being within a specific position of power, one could behave as they see fit or take any action necessary due to their capacity. It is how Erich Priebeke successfully won his trial and how Court Martial William Calley unsuccessful lost his. Is this motive within reason? To answer this we have to examine what a group is, how it is set to function, and the interplay between individual and group needs.
A group consist of more than two members who set out to achieve a specific mission. Each organization or social group has a specific structure of group roles and group goals to achieve and each role is set to fulfill a part of said goal. Most often, people of likeminded nature join together to form groups. Even if the individuals are unknown to each other, they may still unite for a special cause. Alcoholics anonymous and M.A.D.D (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) are two instances where those unknown individuals congregate over important issues. In a group, each member applies specialized knowledge to help promote the groups’ goal. This process allows better efficiency and organization.
The group identifies an agenda, assigns each member to a specific goal or task. Once the goal is fulfilled, the group disbands or recreates a new goal. There may be cases where an organization has the goal of promoting terror or discrimination. A few of those organizations include the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, or ISIL/ISIS. These organizations have set distinct goals to deny the rights and civil liberties of others, antagonize and intimidate groups they dislike, and recruit more support for their beliefs. Even as hate groups, there are still goals and roles. It is especially important that these groups maintain affiliation, achievement, and power. These groups need to maintain affiliation to withstand the incongruities and fallacies within the groups mentality. Having a large amount of followers keeps social support and influence large enough to fight criticism. This agrees with the notion that there is strength in numbers. These groups also need achievement. The need for achievement is high, as there is a great need to have a source of credibility and some validation for the group. Achievement is also necessary to combat opponents’ criticism. Finally, the groups need power to influence others for recruitment. Each group attempts to use each of the five bases of power to maintain internal integrity.
As a part of human nature, individuals have their own opinions and preferences. Our own experiences give us specific impressions and interpretations of the world around us. No matter if in a group, individuals will have their own personal likes and dislikes. No particular legislation could mandate a specific opinion, nor should any try to. The freedom of personal expression and thought is an important factor in healthy, functioning societies. Nevertheless, groups are particularly useful in swaying opinions and forming a uniformed “mind”. Groupthink, herd mentality, and the bandwagon effect are examples of this. Some individuals may use their roles to fulfill the goals of the group and others may use their roles to fulfill their personal goals. The issue comes into play when personal opinions are used by those in positions of power to violate the rights and individual liberties of others; and when the goal/mission of an organization is to cause harm to others. In such instances, others are negatively impacted by the actions of the group members. Nazi soldiers, acting under Hitler’s Oath, committed forced imprisonment and murder against the Jewish, homosexuals, and other groups. Acting on sentiments of discrimination, J. Edgar Hoover, William Sullivan, and Robert F. Kennedy ordered directive and initiatives for an FBI program coined COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) that aimed to dismantle, disrupt, and diffuse Civil Rights organizations. George Wallace was a known racist who used his position as Governor discriminatorily against African Americans. In the instances of George Wallace, his role within the states’ government is disregarded in favor of his personal resentments toward African Americans. In the case of the FBI and the Nazi’s the organizations are directly influencing a lower quality of life for those they targeted. So we have it that a person may have prejudice feelings and a group may be organized to discriminate. How do we discontinue these behaviors from the individual in their role and how do we stop these organizations? We apply practices that may eliminate these actions. Integrating individuals of different backgrounds, ethnicities, and races may prove helpful. Applied social psychologist could strategize policies that promote the celebration of multiple cultures; or promote the inclusion of a variety of ideas from all levels of an organization or members of a group. There could also be no-tolerance policies that place harsh penalties on discrimination.
Again the question is asked: Is is legitimate to use your position or power as a defense? Not at all. The civil rights of life, freedom, and property to all is prioritized above the goal of any group or organization. No matter the position, opinions and stereotypes are not justifiable to use in any position as it undermines the integrity of the operating organization and it implicates unfair disadvantage to all who are governed by the position. Psychological interventions can be aimed at promoting impartiality.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright and A. Zander’s Group dynamics. New York: Harper & Row.
Jamal, M. (1984). Job stress and job performance controversy: An empirical assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33. 1-21.
Rizzo, J.R., House, R.J., & Lirtzman, S.I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15. 150-163.
Shaw, M. (1981). Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill.