Nazis Are Human

Joseph Urban
Aug 28, 2017 · 4 min read

I sat next to my pastor yesterday at a picnic. We talked about the protests and counter-protests that enveloped our city the day before. We didn’t yet know about the violence that was developing in Berkeley within hours. While we didn’t arrive at greater insights or establish more emphatic conclusions about the issues, it did give me a reason to think more broadly about the people involved with more empathy. This required an effort as I’m highly disposed to punching a Nazi if given the right context. But, here I was talking to my pastor and proposing that sort of solution might derail the picnic — so to speak.

Empathy. On both sides. Or, on all 14 sides (or 20, or whatever). Empathy is not an exercise to use for apologizing for some person’s intransigence. But it is a good tool to understand where they are coming from. In order to find a solution, you first need to understand the as-is conditions. In order to build a roadmap towards that solution you need to understand how those undesirable as-is conditions became what they are. As the great poet David Byrne said “Well, how did I get here.” Yes, how DID they get there.

It’s complex

I would like to hypothesize that every American Nazi, white supremacist and KKK member has a unique path towards their present world view. And, every Antifa member willing to swing a club at aforementioned nazi, supremacist and KKK member also has a unique story. While we may not all arrive at the same level of intensity of position held by members of these groups, I suspect that some part of their story is something we probably can all relate to. We may have felt powerless — or been abused — or been frustrated with an injustice that we couldn’t resolve — or been harmed by a member of a racial group — or any number of experiences that contribute to a comprehensive world view aligned with a public group. If we were to understand that journey, maybe we could adjust our ultimate reaction to who they are today and approach them with more sobriety and effectiveness. We might even have something in common, on topic, to talk about.

I’m more confident in proposing this risky path (I’ve got to assume that some readers are anticipating that I’ll be defending one of these groups) because of a model of thinking I started to develop in an earlier essay: I Parse. In it I propose that at-issue with our understanding of these groups is our propensity to attribute all manner of stereotypes across the entire group. “Blue is a color, therefore all colors are blue.” While this is absurd, it is consistent with how we label people within these groups. And, it provides assurance to the opposing forces to treat them poorly.

What I believe is required is an understanding of how our own journey could have brought us down the path towards extremists views. Most in our culture are not extremists, but have had experiences that could have altered our journey had they happened in a more effective context. The extremists are those people.

Yet, this is an academic insight with little use towards resolving the kinetic issues we witness at these protests. Empathy is pretty useless in a shouting match with baseball bats in hand. The work to resolve the root cause is upstream in time. We first need to re-humanize our opponents and strive to empathize with their views. Then we need to call out the fallacy of grouping that allows us to stereotype those participants and de-humanize them. That “groupism” fallacy needs to be called out whenever blanket statements are made against a person or their colleagues. No argument should proceed until the groupism is recognized by the offender. If they fail to recognize their groupsim then that’s where the argument ends. You need to state that if you want to proceed with discussing the topic, they need to recognize their propensity towards groupism. Otherwise all further words are compromised in erroneous assumptions. The argument gets sloppy and both sides get frustrated. I’ve often disengaged from Facebook comment-arguments because of this.

The Kinetic Response

While I believe these insights apply to all violent extremists, I do believe that pressure to de-normalize extremists — and especially violent extremists — is necessary for ensuring a peaceful society. Allowing hate groups to gain traction within the culture is counter-productive to the culture itself. But the target of the counter-pressure should not be towards those hate groups, but towards those that are on the sidelines and considering joining them. At the moment of impact at a protest/counter-protest, violent clashes will never change minds nor impact the trend of each cause. They are more likely to encourage it. Yet, spectators ARE influenced. And, when the groupism is enforced by anecdotal scenes of violence and foolishness, the spectators move towards more extremist positions. And, some end up joining in on the extremism. Consequently, we witness a greater polarization in our culture that does little to ensure a harmonious and productive future. The effective voice of the counter-protest is one that disables any trend towards more participation with those hate groups. And, it might even influence a few present-members to re-think their participation. And, if we recognize our weakness and propensity towards groupism, we improve our chances for building a better society.

)
Joseph Urban

Written by

Enterpreneur, consultant, inventor

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade