For the unfamiliar, Patrick is a trained historian, author, (former?) MMA commentator, and podcaster. He was originally known for his Fall of Rome series, but his primary field of academic study...
Exemplary
For the unfamiliar, Patrick is a trained historian, author, (former?) MMA commentator, and podcaster.
He was originally known for his Fall of Rome series, but his primary field of academic study was the medieval and early-modern range IIRC.
His current podcast series is Tides of History and covers basically all flavors of global premodern history. His writings are typically a coalesced synthesis of his podcast material into discrete theses, where he follows a single abstract topic across the specific times and places he covers on the show.
I think you bring up some good points on holding people to a standard and the normalization of deviance. In terms of what is "normal" behavior, or what constitutes an "ordinary" person, I think...
I think you bring up some good points on holding people to a standard and the normalization of deviance. In terms of what is "normal" behavior, or what constitutes an "ordinary" person, I think what we're really talking about is the social contract that person is part of. Anything other than that, whether it's elite military service or special privileges due to rank or position, are really exceptions to that social contract. With those exceptions come certain responsibilities but at the same time society, or part of its structure, sometimes waives the consequences of those responsibilities (I'm reading The Future of War: A History and it's full of examples of this within international conventions and doctrines).
Take for instance gladiatorial games. A lot of that bloodsport and punishment-as-sport would not be acceptable today. It wasn't acceptable back then, though it was alright to watch in certain circumstances. The social contract and acceptability evolved over time, but what humans are capable of, and susceptible to, hasn't really changed. To that end, I think enjoying bloodsport is "normal" in the sense that ordinary people are capable of enjoying it. It may not be moral to do so, and that's part of the social contract put in place. We don't do that, so it's not acceptable. But once someone knows that others are doing it, it's no longer the individual, it's the group and there's suddenly an "us vs them" situation on top of indoctrination and normalization. I think we sort of run a risk by equating normalization with "normal." It's normal to stray from the social contract, to push the boundaries or rules, but straying too far might have very real consequences and so whatever was normalized was not acceptable. Therefore it's not normal.
The essay/op-ed closes on a good, cautionary message: "we're all susceptible." So I wonder if, with ordinary people being so capable, we should focus more on their restraint, which is to say their ability to be capable and still resist pushing those boundaries, instead of the outliers who breach that social contract and were found susceptible. Like do something about the people responsible for those acts, but let's also praise the people who didn't go that far, or who avoided getting pulled into a problem in the first place. To what extent people should be punished, demonized, or rehabilitated for committing barbaric acts, acts of cruelty, or acts of hate and malice, is another question. I just think there's something to be said for moderation and perhaps the reward for moderation is contentment (I wish it were cake, but let's have some moderation here). I could watch gladiatorial games, but I get along just fine with some very physical basketball or football (your choice). I could watch people on reality TV tear each other down, but I can get by with some good British dramas.
I recently read Outlaw Platoon, which was an entirely more wholesome and level-headed biography than I expected. At the end I was struck by how many of the stories were really accounts of restraint. Attacked by a force several times their own size? They kept their cool, stuck together, and managed their finite resources effectively. While under intense artillery shelling from forces in Pakistan they again restrained themselves and got through the situation without causing a diplomatic incident. Returning to their FOB where they were treated differently than other platoons they demonstrated their professionalism. The platoon's circumstances were objectively unfair each time, but each time they also demonstrated their capability to restrain themselves when necessary. They were rewarded for that, and if I might go out on a limb and posit that it wasn't because they were extraordinary human beings, but because they were very ordinary human beings in extraordinary circumstances and they held onto their humanity despite that. They didn't have to, but they did, and for that I think they deserve some accolades (and some cake).
So while I appreciate the message that the essay/op-ed ends with, I wonder if he posits a solution. How do we achieve moderation in day to day life and do we praise the ones who meet our social expectations day to day? We can't give them cake every day. And a little cake might not be enough incentive to keep people from straying too far from the social contract.
I totally agree with your viewpoint (and the author's) that normal people can do terrible things. That much is basically as true as fact, as far as I can tell. But in regards to this, I think we...
I totally agree with your viewpoint (and the author's) that normal people can do terrible things. That much is basically as true as fact, as far as I can tell.
the cultures of the fighting units very quickly indoctrinate to normalise deviance
But in regards to this, I think we should think about how we define these terms. In order to be deviant, you need to both 1) have a normal and 2) break away from that normal. What the author is arguing is rather that the normal is terrible, horrific, etc etc. Most of us are normal (by definition), and we would just go with the flow and gun down the prisoners without much pushback. It's rather the deviants who (eagerly gun down prisoners OR refuse to gun down prisoners). Instead, I would say that by default we are terrible, and it's society keeping us from murduring people and helping us deviate from our default state.
There was a Q&A episode with the author later on in that podcast season about what was the most disappointing thing he learned while making that season. While researching pre-history, he was always looking for "happy time", when people were nice to each other before the modern age ruined everyone. Turns out, people were horrible to each other for as far back as we have history.
As someone who's somewhat familiar to this idea, I haven't found much about this article that is especially interesting. It's a nice application of the idea to different historical contexts, but I...
As someone who's somewhat familiar to this idea, I haven't found much about this article that is especially interesting. It's a nice application of the idea to different historical contexts, but I wish there were also new insights, even if small.
Another point I want to mention is that this approach could have the opposite of the intended reaction. The author most probably wants to prevent the banality of evil, but in the article, there's no remedy or insight that could lead to a remedy. If anything, I left with a sour feeling, because it made it seem like inescapable. If pretty much everybody can be evil, then why should I try to be different? This is not the intended message, but I left feeling that way.
Edit: I feel like I can't stress enough how demoralizing it is to constantly see opinions that focus on the evils or potential evils of humanity. I mean, yeah, regular people can do moderate or extreme evils. But what should we do about it, as a society, a group of people, or an individual? Is it even feasible to stem the tide?
I understand. Then I'm going to be harsher in my criticisms, because the thing I pointed out is not just a case of miscommunication on the author's part. The author doesn't provide any insight to...
I understand. Then I'm going to be harsher in my criticisms, because the thing I pointed out is not just a case of miscommunication on the author's part.
The author doesn't provide any insight to this subject, adds nothing new. I haven't seen in this essay a topic I haven't been led to think about in the numerous other sources on the subject. So it seems more ironic to me that he provides a most mundane overview of the topic, and just leaves the end result as a bygone conclusion.
Every society has its evils, and every society has people that fight against these things. In addition, societies differ from each other in their levels of violence regarding various subjects. So, leaving the conclusion as "This will always be so," is an oversimplistic approach to these kinds of subjects. Why are some people more prone to violence? Why do some people, even when violence is rampant and accepted widely, go against the grain? Why are some societies more violent or inequal? Why and how do societies change? After all, we do know change can and does happen e.g. advancements in minority rights, women's rights, queer rights in the developed countries in the last few decades.
The author doesn't answer any of these questions, he doesn't even engage them. So, I would say this essay is extremely simplistic to a fault. But even worse, it's fatalistic based on an oversimplified understanding.
I dislike the so called sugar pills too, so I definitely feel you on that regard. But there's a vast difference between providing easy solutions and being fatalistic. There are so many different possibilities other than these two extremes. Overlooking these, I think, isn't a good way of dealing with it. Especially for a historian. I would even say it should be unacceptable for a historian. Every societal cause for justice I've seen was and is an uphill battle. Some of them failed, some of them succeeded, some of them achieved partial success, and a lot of them are still going on.
Furthermore, systemic changes do affect violence levels to an extreme degree. For example, there's a good amount of scientific evidence that suggests that birth of the state decreased violence by a good deal. Here's an Our World in Data link presenting some of the evidence, and here's an article that talks about this phenomenon.
For some reason, the author made it seem like violence is always constant or inescapable, or that there's nothing societies can do about preventing violence, when none of these are true. I generally want to mention the field of peacebuilding here, because there's a lot of literature in that field that aims to resolve conflict in a peaceful way, and as a result engages the nuances I mentioned.
For the unfamiliar, Patrick is a trained historian, author, (former?) MMA commentator, and podcaster.
He was originally known for his Fall of Rome series, but his primary field of academic study was the medieval and early-modern range IIRC.
His current podcast series is Tides of History and covers basically all flavors of global premodern history. His writings are typically a coalesced synthesis of his podcast material into discrete theses, where he follows a single abstract topic across the specific times and places he covers on the show.
I think you bring up some good points on holding people to a standard and the normalization of deviance. In terms of what is "normal" behavior, or what constitutes an "ordinary" person, I think what we're really talking about is the social contract that person is part of. Anything other than that, whether it's elite military service or special privileges due to rank or position, are really exceptions to that social contract. With those exceptions come certain responsibilities but at the same time society, or part of its structure, sometimes waives the consequences of those responsibilities (I'm reading The Future of War: A History and it's full of examples of this within international conventions and doctrines).
Take for instance gladiatorial games. A lot of that bloodsport and punishment-as-sport would not be acceptable today. It wasn't acceptable back then, though it was alright to watch in certain circumstances. The social contract and acceptability evolved over time, but what humans are capable of, and susceptible to, hasn't really changed. To that end, I think enjoying bloodsport is "normal" in the sense that ordinary people are capable of enjoying it. It may not be moral to do so, and that's part of the social contract put in place. We don't do that, so it's not acceptable. But once someone knows that others are doing it, it's no longer the individual, it's the group and there's suddenly an "us vs them" situation on top of indoctrination and normalization. I think we sort of run a risk by equating normalization with "normal." It's normal to stray from the social contract, to push the boundaries or rules, but straying too far might have very real consequences and so whatever was normalized was not acceptable. Therefore it's not normal.
The essay/op-ed closes on a good, cautionary message: "we're all susceptible." So I wonder if, with ordinary people being so capable, we should focus more on their restraint, which is to say their ability to be capable and still resist pushing those boundaries, instead of the outliers who breach that social contract and were found susceptible. Like do something about the people responsible for those acts, but let's also praise the people who didn't go that far, or who avoided getting pulled into a problem in the first place. To what extent people should be punished, demonized, or rehabilitated for committing barbaric acts, acts of cruelty, or acts of hate and malice, is another question. I just think there's something to be said for moderation and perhaps the reward for moderation is contentment (I wish it were cake, but let's have some moderation here). I could watch gladiatorial games, but I get along just fine with some very physical basketball or football (your choice). I could watch people on reality TV tear each other down, but I can get by with some good British dramas.
I recently read Outlaw Platoon, which was an entirely more wholesome and level-headed biography than I expected. At the end I was struck by how many of the stories were really accounts of restraint. Attacked by a force several times their own size? They kept their cool, stuck together, and managed their finite resources effectively. While under intense artillery shelling from forces in Pakistan they again restrained themselves and got through the situation without causing a diplomatic incident. Returning to their FOB where they were treated differently than other platoons they demonstrated their professionalism. The platoon's circumstances were objectively unfair each time, but each time they also demonstrated their capability to restrain themselves when necessary. They were rewarded for that, and if I might go out on a limb and posit that it wasn't because they were extraordinary human beings, but because they were very ordinary human beings in extraordinary circumstances and they held onto their humanity despite that. They didn't have to, but they did, and for that I think they deserve some accolades (and some cake).
So while I appreciate the message that the essay/op-ed ends with, I wonder if he posits a solution. How do we achieve moderation in day to day life and do we praise the ones who meet our social expectations day to day? We can't give them cake every day. And a little cake might not be enough incentive to keep people from straying too far from the social contract.
I totally agree with your viewpoint (and the author's) that normal people can do terrible things. That much is basically as true as fact, as far as I can tell.
But in regards to this, I think we should think about how we define these terms. In order to be deviant, you need to both 1) have a normal and 2) break away from that normal. What the author is arguing is rather that the normal is terrible, horrific, etc etc. Most of us are normal (by definition), and we would just go with the flow and gun down the prisoners without much pushback. It's rather the deviants who (eagerly gun down prisoners OR refuse to gun down prisoners). Instead, I would say that by default we are terrible, and it's society keeping us from murduring people and helping us deviate from our default state.
There was a Q&A episode with the author later on in that podcast season about what was the most disappointing thing he learned while making that season. While researching pre-history, he was always looking for "happy time", when people were nice to each other before the modern age ruined everyone. Turns out, people were horrible to each other for as far back as we have history.
As someone who's somewhat familiar to this idea, I haven't found much about this article that is especially interesting. It's a nice application of the idea to different historical contexts, but I wish there were also new insights, even if small.
Another point I want to mention is that this approach could have the opposite of the intended reaction. The author most probably wants to prevent the banality of evil, but in the article, there's no remedy or insight that could lead to a remedy. If anything, I left with a sour feeling, because it made it seem like inescapable. If pretty much everybody can be evil, then why should I try to be different? This is not the intended message, but I left feeling that way.
Edit: I feel like I can't stress enough how demoralizing it is to constantly see opinions that focus on the evils or potential evils of humanity. I mean, yeah, regular people can do moderate or extreme evils. But what should we do about it, as a society, a group of people, or an individual? Is it even feasible to stem the tide?
I understand. Then I'm going to be harsher in my criticisms, because the thing I pointed out is not just a case of miscommunication on the author's part.
The author doesn't provide any insight to this subject, adds nothing new. I haven't seen in this essay a topic I haven't been led to think about in the numerous other sources on the subject. So it seems more ironic to me that he provides a most mundane overview of the topic, and just leaves the end result as a bygone conclusion.
Every society has its evils, and every society has people that fight against these things. In addition, societies differ from each other in their levels of violence regarding various subjects. So, leaving the conclusion as "This will always be so," is an oversimplistic approach to these kinds of subjects. Why are some people more prone to violence? Why do some people, even when violence is rampant and accepted widely, go against the grain? Why are some societies more violent or inequal? Why and how do societies change? After all, we do know change can and does happen e.g. advancements in minority rights, women's rights, queer rights in the developed countries in the last few decades.
The author doesn't answer any of these questions, he doesn't even engage them. So, I would say this essay is extremely simplistic to a fault. But even worse, it's fatalistic based on an oversimplified understanding.
I dislike the so called sugar pills too, so I definitely feel you on that regard. But there's a vast difference between providing easy solutions and being fatalistic. There are so many different possibilities other than these two extremes. Overlooking these, I think, isn't a good way of dealing with it. Especially for a historian. I would even say it should be unacceptable for a historian. Every societal cause for justice I've seen was and is an uphill battle. Some of them failed, some of them succeeded, some of them achieved partial success, and a lot of them are still going on.
Furthermore, systemic changes do affect violence levels to an extreme degree. For example, there's a good amount of scientific evidence that suggests that birth of the state decreased violence by a good deal. Here's an Our World in Data link presenting some of the evidence, and here's an article that talks about this phenomenon.
For some reason, the author made it seem like violence is always constant or inescapable, or that there's nothing societies can do about preventing violence, when none of these are true. I generally want to mention the field of peacebuilding here, because there's a lot of literature in that field that aims to resolve conflict in a peaceful way, and as a result engages the nuances I mentioned.