When we hear about something repugnant—whether it’s a mass
murderer venting anger with a bomb or a semi-automatic rifle, or just a public
figure or celebrity cheating to win, or using a repulsive term for other human
beings—our first tendency is to put distance between us and the offender. We become curious about them, but mostly to
identify the ways in which we are not them.
‘They did it because they’re a … Muslim Fundamentalist … crazed gun-nut …
racist cracker … whatever; fill in the blanks.
The bottom line is that we feel some vindication in knowing that ‘we’
are not ‘them’, and could never do or say the horrific or objectionable thing
that caught our attention.
This is a totally understandable response, but is not
productive. As comforting as it is to distance
ourselves from those we detest, insight is only gained when we look at how we
are similar. This is not the same as
sympathizing with them – it’s just gaining knowledge. When we deny our capacity for evil—whether in
the form of religious or racial intolerance, uncontrolled anger, greed, or any
number of other infractions—we erect a wall of cognitive dissonance, and through
our willful blindness actually become more susceptible to manifesting evil.
To borrow from Nietzsche, any claim on self-knowledge is
limited until one is able to ‘gaze long into the abyss’, and honestly confront
the specter which returns our attention.
