Institutionalized evil by ordinary citizens exceeds malevolent individuals in destructiveness

Evidence

We begin this section with John Darley’s social psychological analysis of one of the most important and least systematically studied topics within the field of political psychology, namely the organization and production of evil. After exploring conceptual definitions of “evil,” Darley distinguishes between two different forms of evil-doing: (a) the kernel of evil form of evil-doing, which results from the actions of truly malevolent individuals, and (b) institutionalized evil, which is the product of “normal” individuals working within the context of malevolent institutions or organizations. Darley points out that while “kernel of evil” malevolence is certainly a problem, it is neither as destructive nor as philosophically perplexing as the institutionalized evil perpetrated by ordinary citizens. At the heart of Darley’s project is the drive to understand how malevolent organizations are created and sustained. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3817

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the kernel-of-evil vs. institutionalized-evil distinction central to Darleys analysis.
• XREF: Connects directly to Milgram, Zimbardo, and banality-of-evil literatures (Arendt); also the genocide and atrocity studies of Staub. — connects to: Ordinary people become destructive agents through duty, not hostility — Leonard S. Newman and Ralph Erber (eds.), Understanding Genocide: The Social…, 606
• BMF: The ‘evil perpetrated by ordinary citizens within malevolent institutions’ structure evokes the casual complicity and bureaucratic harm in Yevgeny Zamyatins We, where the One State’s citizens systematically participate in atrocity through unquestioning institutional participation rather than individual malevolence.