Humankind: A Hopeful History

Bregman offers a critical reevaluation of the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment, originally conducted by Philip Zimbardo in 1971. The experiment, aimed at investigating the psychological impact of perceived power, quickly descended into chaos. Participants assigned the role of prison guards engaged in sadistic behavior, leading to emotional distress among those playing prisoners. Zimbardo himself became so consumed by his supervisory role that the experiment had to be terminated prematurely. The chapter leans heavily on personal anecdotes and observations, questioning the innate morality or immorality of humans when exposed to environmental stimuli.

Bregman introduces revelations that fundamentally challenge the integrity of Zimbardo’s study. Drawing on the investigative work of French sociologist Thibault Le Texier, the chapter unmasks the premeditated and manipulated nature of the experiment. Guards were explicitly coached to create a sense of powerlessness among prisoners, fundamentally altering the interpretation of their actions from spontaneous cruelty to coerced behavior. This unveiling introduces the concept of “demand characteristics,” wherein subjects modify their actions to align with the researchers’ expectations, thereby compromising the study’s objectivity.

Additionally, Bregman discusses another significant but less sensational study by British psychologists Alexander Haslam and Stephen Reicher. Designed as a contrast to Zimbardo’s experiment and sponsored by the BBC, this study left the participants’ actions uninfluenced by the researchers. Contrary to Zimbardo’s results, the guards and prisoners in this study exhibited empathy and even formed a commune. Despite the absence of compelling drama, Haslam and Reicher considered their study a success, publishing multiple academic articles that suggest human behavior is not universally corruptible under the guise of authority.

The chapter thus serves as a dissection of two parallel but fundamentally different studies, both aiming to scrutinize the core elements of human nature under situational influences. While Zimbardo’s experiment has attained iconic status, the questions raised about its validity and ethical considerations are deeply unsettling. In comparison, the British study, although less captivating for mass audiences, presents a contrasting and potentially more realistic interpretation of human decency. These examples, in turn, challenge long-standing assumptions about the corrupting influence of power.

Chapter 8 takes on complex questions about authority, obedience, and human nature. Centered around Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments from the 1960s, the chapter first presents Milgram’s shocking findings that suggested most people would harm another under authoritative pressure. Milgram tied his results to larger atrocities, like the Holocaust, lending academic weight to Hannah Arendt’s concept of the “banality of evil”—the notion that ordinary people can commit horrifying acts under specific conditions. This seminal research became an accepted explanation for why people commit malicious acts, supporting Arendt’s analysis of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, whom she portrayed as an unthinking bureaucrat following orders.

However, the chapter uncovers inconsistencies and ethical concerns in Milgram’s work, spurred by researcher Gina Perry and others, who found Milgram had manipulated results to fit his thesis. This revelation invites a reevaluation of the banality of evil, opening a conversation about the ethics and integrity of psychological research itself. Psychologists Alex Haslam and Steve Reicher introduce an alternative explanation—that participants were identifying with the authority figure rather than mindlessly obeying them. This potential explanation raises the possibility that individuals may commit harmful acts because they believe they are contributing to a greater good. This theory reframes the conclusions from not only Milgram’s experiment but also the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment, offering the nuanced view that “evil” acts are often carried out under the guise of doing “good.”

Bregman pushes the reader further by exploring Adolf Eichmann’s trial, revealing that the man was not simply an obedient servant but a fervent ideologue. This finding supports the argument that humans, rather than being mere obedient automatons, are beings driven by a perverse sense of righteousness. This twist in understanding adds complexity to Arendt’s “banality of evil,” suggesting that malevolent actions may derive from a twisted sense of doing “good” rather from than blind obedience to authority.

Finally, Bregman offers a counterpoint to the inherently evil human nature hypothesis through the historical example of the Danish resistance against Nazi persecution. Contrary to Milgram’s assertion, the collective actions of the Danes demonstrate that people can, indeed, choose compassion and resistance over evil when morally engaged. By integrating psychological studies and historical case studies, Bregman challenges the reader to question conventional wisdom about human nature. The chapter argues that an understanding of inherent human goodness not only exists but also imposes a moral imperative to act against evil.

Bregman turns to exploring human behavior and social responsibility, using case studies and data to challenge prevailing assumptions. The chapter opens with the story of Kitty Genovese, a young woman who was murdered outside her New York City apartment in 1964. Despite her screams, no one came to her aid. This event was initially framed by the media as evidence of societal decay and moral apathy, giving rise to the psychological construct known as the “bystander effect.” Research by psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley provided scientific validation, with the researchers going so far as to posit that the more people who witness an emergency, the less likely anyone is to intervene, as each person assumes someone else will act.

The narrative pivots to another incident that occurred in Amsterdam in 2016, when a woman named Sanne and her toddler were rescued from a submerged car by immediate bystander intervention. The chapter pairs this event with discussion of a 2011 meta-analysis that reconsiders the bystander effect, suggesting that in life-threatening emergencies, bystanders often do intervene, especially if they can communicate with each other. Danish psychologist Marie Lindegaard’s real-world video analyses reinforce this finding, indicating that people help each other in 90% of observed emergencies.

As the chapter concludes, a fresh perspective on the Kitty Genovese case emerges through the meticulous research of amateur historian Joseph De May. His findings reveal that the media narrative was sensationalized and inaccurate. At least two calls were made to the police, and Kitty died in the arms of a neighbor, Sophia Farrar, who rushed to her aid. This reality conflicts with the popular depiction of the incident as a grim testimony of public apathy, a depiction nurtured by the media and even psychological studies.

Bregman calls for a reevaluation of widely accepted narratives and assumptions. Rather than relying on sensationalized accounts, he promotes a nuanced understanding. Human nature is complex, but it leans more toward compassion and community than commonly believed. From the cautionary tale of Kitty Genovese to the uplifting story of Sanne, the chapter stresses the importance of both action and inaction as indicators of societal values, advocating that understanding the intricacies of human behavior requires debunking myths and reassessing preconceptions.