This link has been bookmarked by 2 people . It was first bookmarked on 11 Oct 2008, by harry palmer.
If the proposition is correct that compassion is biological, that we feel an "animal pity" looking upon the suffering of our fellow, then our civilization, in order to accomplish cruel or immoral goals, must find a way to counter pity.
In the previous essay, I quoted Zygmunt Bauman for the proposition that bureaucracy overcomes pity by distancing the human subject and by spreading responsibility across the organization and diffusing it down the hierarchy. The distancing is accomplished in two ways: the human affected by our actions is redefined as an "animal", as "the other"; and technology permits us to act upon humans who are at such a distance that we cannot directly observe what we have done to them. This last point--that the psychological consequences are less when technology permits us to act at a distance-- is supported by studies comparing the post-Vietnam war suffering of infantry, who had shot people at close range, and of pilots who had dropped bombs on them from higher altitudes. Bauman says that animal pity is inspired by the proximity of the sufferer, and it seems contradictory but true that it is harder to kill one person with one's hands than a million by pressing a button.
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.