I gradually became aware that the Social Democratic press was directed predominantly by Jews … there was not one paper with Jews working on it which could have been regarded as truly national, according to my education and way of thinking.
… I took all the Social Democratic pamphlets I could lay my hands on and sought the names of their authors: Jews. I noted the names of the leaders: by far the greatest part were likewise members of the “chosen people,” whether they were representatives of the Reichsrat or trade-union secretaries, the heads of organizations or street agitators. It was always the same gruesome picture. The names of the Austerlitzses, Davids, Adlers, Ellenbogens, etc. will remain forever graven in my memory. One thing had grown clear to me: The party with whose petty representatives I had been carrying on the most violent struggle for months was, as to leadership, almost exclusively in the hands of a foreign people; for, to my deep and joyful satisfaction, I had at last come to the conclusion that the Jew was no German.15
Hitler detailed his futile attempts to persuade the Jewish members of the party of the “madness of their doctrine.”16 But he eventually concluded that they had no interest in whether their beliefs were good for the future of Germany. And just when he thought he had them persuaded, they would turn around and spout the “same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement.”17 Hitler was intensely frustrated by these interactions with Jews, marveling at the “agility” of their persuasive language and the “virtuosity” of their deceit.18 There was a clear, invidious residue produced by his being outwitted, but the plain result was that he hated Jews with a ferocious passion.
Decades later, when Albert Speer, Hitler’s top architect, was asked why Hitler was anti-Semitic, he gave three reasons. One was Hitler’s pathological desire to destroy. Another was that he blamed the Jews for Germany’s defeat in World War I, thus denying him the opportunity to achieve his dream of becoming an architect. But a third reason, probably related to his frustrated dreams as well as to a desire to destroy, was that he “secretly admired and envied the Jews.”19
Speer knew Hitler about as well as anyone, and I think that Speer was right on the mark. It is likely that a part of Hitler’s “struggle” was with his envy. Initially, he had claimed to be appalled by the way Jews had been treated in previous centuries and was concerned that hating Jews would be an injustice. He had seen envy as an explanation for the anti-Semitic pamphlets, and so he could see this motive in others. But it may be that as his own envy grew, his subsequent “struggle” was to find a way to hate the Jews without attributing his motives to the ugly, humiliating emotion of envy. He may have envied and hated the Jews earlier than he claimed, as his friend during his late teens, August Kubizek, believed. Once they walked past a synagogue in Linz, and Hitler said to him, “This shouldn’t be here.”20 Even Kubizek admitted, however, that Hitler’s experiences in Vienna “might have deepened” his anti-Semitism.21 Arguably, envy found a way to transmute itself into disgust, and then into righteous, justified, “deserved” hatred. As clever as these so-called chosen people might be, they were morally corrupt and traitorous in their motives. Perhaps at some earlier point, the idea of the Jews as the chosen people would have accentuated only the invidious implications of their disproportionate influence for Hitler.22 However, now, he seized on it as evidence for Jewish arrogance, adding further justification for his disgust and hatred.
Historian John Toland, in his biography of Hitler, notes a revealing statement made by Hitler in 1941 to Walther Hewel, an early member of the Nazi Party and one of Hitler’s few friends. It was a few weeks before the invasion of the Soviet Union and during a period in which Hitler set in motion preparations for the liquidation of the Jews. By Hewel’s account, Hitler likened himself to a medical scientist who had “found the bacillus” and had therefore discovered a way to deal with the problem of the Jews. And in words suggesting the invidious roots of his hatred, he said, “one thing I have proven is that a state can live without Jews: that economy, art, culture, etc., can exist even better without Jews, which is the worst blow I could give the Jews.”23 This statement fits with the envious mind set, although Hitler would not have acknowledged it, of course. By the time he wrote his memoirs, he had long convinced himself that by achieving the annihilation of the Jews he would be an avenger for God, so justified did he believe his hatred.24 Hitler probably envied the Jews, but this seemed fully hidden from his awareness.
SCAPEGOATING THE ENVIED JEWS
Does Hitler’s path to hating the Jews generalize in some respects to other Germans who also hated the Jews? Could envy help explain not only the Holocaust, but anti-Semitism going back centuries? Many respected thinkers have argued so, from Mark Twain to Friedrich Nietzsche.25 More recently, Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin, in their analysis of anti-Semitism, Why the Jews? The Reasons for Antisemitism, make the more general point this way:
In nearly every society in which the Jews have lived for the past two thousand years, they have been better educated, more sober, more charitable with one another, committed far fewer violent crimes, and have had a more stable family life than their non-Jewish neighbors. These characteristics of Jewish life have been independent of Jews’ affluence or poverty. … Of course, it is impossible to measure precisely to what extent the higher quality of Jews’ lives has been a major cause of antisemitism. Few antisemites list the Jews’ good qualities as reasons for attacking them. But it is human nature for individuals and groups perceived as living better lives, however that may be understood, to elicit jealousy and resentment.26
Prager and Telushkin’s analysis is especially useful because they suggest that it is not just the obvious markers of wealth, power, and influence that may have created envy. The more subtle but evident cultural strengths usually present in Jewish communities could also be a trigger.27
Social psychologist Peter Glick has addressed the question of envy and Nazi anti-Semitism within the Stereotype Content Model, an innovative theory of prejudice proposed by him and fellow psychologists Susan Fiske and Amy Cuddy.28 Traditional theories cast prejudice as a generic negative feeling toward another group. Glick, Fiske, and Cuddy argue that this way of thinking about prejudice is too general, and, for example, overlooks that groups vary in terms of their perceived status or competence. Prejudice against poor Hispanics is very different from prejudice against successful Jews (or, Asians, etc.). Both feelings can be “negative,” but only one is likely to also contain envy—namely, toward groups enjoying stereotypically high status and competence. Traditional views of prejudice also tend to neglect another important dimension in which other groups differ: whether or not they are perceived as a threat. This is the “warmth” dimension of the Stereotype Content Model. Members of highly competent groups might simply be admired (a high warm feeling) rather than envied (a low warm feeling) if, for example, there is no concern that they will take away jobs from one’s own group. These two fundamental dimensions inherent in our perceptions of other groups (warmth and competence) are crucial to take into account. They address two adaptive questions we should ask about members of other groups: first, are they friends or foes? And, second, are they weak or powerful? Will they like us, and will they hurt us if they can? Not surprisingly, groups with stereotypically higher status (e.g., economic advantages) are perceived as more competent and, if they are perceived to be in competition with us, are also seen as low in warmth and therefore threatening. And this combination of high status and low warmth in another group encourages in us feelings of envious prejudice, as empirical work has confirmed.29
Glick stresses that the remarkable successes of Jews would have been of little consequence, psychologically, for those inclined to dislike the Jews—if it were not for Jews also being perceived as a competitive threat. The Nazis, capitalizing especially on the willingness of people to believe bogus anti-Semitic documents, such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, claimed that Jews represented a kind
of conspiracy aimed at accruing power and favoring only their own interests.30 As we have seen, a constant theme in Hitler’s statements, as well as in propaganda spewed out by other Nazi leaders, was that this sense of threat was reinforced by the belief that many Jews were in leadership positions in the communist movement and its spread. And as we have also seen pulse through Hitler’s own writings, many Germans—and most Nazis—blamed Jews for Germany’s humiliation in World War I and its economic problems following the war and believed the Jews were in bed with the Communists.
In relating his theories of stereotyping and prejudice to anti-Semitism, Glick applies the idea of scapegoating to this type of prejudice. In scapegoating, we see ingroup members, particularly when feeling threatened by, for example, economic circumstances, lash out against a vulnerable outgroup, usually one that is perceived as inferior.31 But Glick points out that this partially fits the history of anti-Semitism. True, stereotypes about Jews had long included negative features suggesting the kind of “inferiority” (e.g., dirty, greedy) so persistently claimed in Hitler’s writings. Indeed, the Nazis did their best to promulgate these beliefs.32 However, other stereotypes of Jews imply a kind of power and superiority (e.g., clever, cunning). Glick argues that viewing the Jews as “inferior” as well as powerful created a particularly malicious form of scapegoating, an intense, envy-tinged blaming of Jews for Germany’s economic woes.33
The wide assimilation of Jews into German culture might have worked to reduce this sense of separateness. But Glick notes that this blending was seen as false. The Nazis, entranced by ideas of race, saw group identity in blood rather than in beliefs. What’s more, Jews’ efforts to fit in could be taken as evidence of conspiratorial motives, as Hitler claimed. Again, as a distinct racial group, Jews were considered both powerful and threatening. Victims of their own success, they were held to be manipulative, powerful threats. The reward for being so perceived was to suffer even more surely from a particularly virulent, unrelenting form of envious prejudice.
The persistence of envious prejudice, particularly in the case of Nazi Germany, can be explained by a number of factors. Like Epstein and other scholars, Glick also emphasizes that Jews were overrepresented in many important aspects of professional and cultural life and that the talents and drive suggested by such success would have been hard to dismiss. The Nazis exaggerated and distorted the prevalence of Jews in powerful positions, claiming that these influential Jews represented a coordinated, monolithic entity bent on domination, but there was just enough surface evidence to justify the sense of power and threat. When economic conditions are poor, it is not surprising that people, in their collective frustration, will search for plausible causes for the hardships they are suffering. Blaming these hardships on another group—one perceived to be different, as well as competent, manipulative, and out for themselves—has a certain plausibility to it. Moreover, Jews who were able to lend money in tough economic times could be construed as making money off the misery of Germans.34 Had economic and political conditions in Germany been different, Glick suggests that Jews might have been tolerated, even seen as useful. But stressful economic times call for explanations for why things are going so poorly. Ideological movements, such as the National Socialism endorsed by the Nazi Party, supplied plausible and well-packaged propaganda that could be used to blame the Jews. Explanations fueled by envious stereotypes took firm hold.
Glick points out that if hatred toward Jews was simply a function of their being a threatening outgroup, this alone would not explain the nature of the hostility directed at them. If it was a straightforward function of threat, then once the basic threat was dealt with, hostile action should cease. Hatred of the Jews was a thing apart, however. The Nazis wanted to eliminate Jews arguably because, in part, their very existence created painful envy. Envious hostility predicts a willingness to suffer in other respects, as long as the envied object can be neutralized or destroyed. The goal of elimination trumps many other concerns.
Consider the Nazis’ treatment of Albert Einstein. Imagine if Einstein had not been a Jew. He would have been feted as the best example of Aryan superiority. But, inconveniently, he was a Jew and, as would be the pattern expected by envy-inspired hatred, the Nazis undermined their full potential by virtue of their treatment of the Jews. If the talents of Einstein and other Jewish scientists had been harnessed by the Nazis, the German war effort would likely have benefited greatly. Germany might have been the first to develop an atomic bomb. Instead, Einstein and other brilliant scientists were persecuted, forced to leave Germany, or delivered into the incomprehensible horrors of the extermination camps.35 But again, people feeling envy get little enjoyment over contemplating the achievements and brilliance of those whom they envy, even when these achievements might lead to some form of personal gain. And so, envy provides a way of understanding why the Nazis would act in puzzling, counterproductive ways.
THE PLEASURES OF PERSECUTION IN ONE’S MIDST
Stereotypes alone can generate envious, prejudicial reactions—and one result is schadenfreude. A study done with Princeton University students by Mina Cikara and Susan Fiske assessed people’s reactions to negative events happening to members of one of four kinds of stereotyped groups.36 Each group fit one of the four categories of the Stereotype Content Model. Cikara and Fiske predicted that members of stereotypically envied groups (i.e., a high competence/high threat type of group) would create more positive reactions to the group member’s suffering than any of the other three categories. A self-report measure and a physiological measure both confirmed this prediction. Compared to the other three groups, the suffering of envied groups generated less empathy and more smiling.
Can we extrapolate such findings to better understand the Nazis, whose stereotypes of Jews were at the far extreme? As the Nazis rose to power, humiliation, violence, and destruction against Jews increasingly became the sanctioned norm and, ultimately, government policy. Keenly aware of the wealth, property, possessions, and professional positions held by many Jews, the Nazis focused on taking these things away, often violently. Sometimes property was simply destroyed, as in the events of Kristallnacht, in which many Jewish shops were damaged and synagogues were burned. Most average Germans were probably shocked and disturbed by these extreme actions. They did not have the stomach for it, especially since scores of Jews were also killed in the process. Some, such as pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, resisted the Nazis from the start. He noted, “If you board the wrong train it is no use running along the corridor in the opposite direction.”37 But it may be that these increasingly brutal actions occurred in part because not enough people were expected to object, because many actually turned a blind eye—and because some displayed their appreciation and pleasure.
We can be confident that Hitler was pleased. Although Hitler disguised his role in Kristallnacht as well as his enthusiasm for it, there is evidence for both. Historian John Toland relates a credible account from Fritz Hesse, one of Hitler’s press agents. It occurred on the very night of Kristallnacht, during a dinner at which Hitler, the Propaganda Minister Goebbels, and other Nazi leaders were present. Hesse was also there, and he overheard Goebbels telling Hitler that the attack against the Jewish businesses and synagogues was about to happen. Hitler’s happy reaction to this information was unmistakable. Hesse remembered that “Hitler squealed with delight and slapped his thigh in his enthusiasm.”38
Hitler also recognized that many Germans did not share in his exuberance, and so he pulled back from these violent tactics. Instead, a series of laws was passed and policies implemented that did the job in a “legal” manner more fitting the sensibilities of the average German. These actions may have pleased the mildly envious in a way that the violent approach could not. In any event, many Germans benefited directly or indirectly, whether it was the shopkeeper who was able to get rid of competition or the student who was able to take the position in a professional school that otherwise might have gone to a Jew.
There
is ample evidence showing the common pleasure that some Germans took in the suffering of Jews, such as gathering to watch Jews scrubbing streets with toothbrushes or soldiers pulling the beards of old Jewish men. There was schadenfreude aplenty.39 Historian Donald McKale gives an example of how the Nazi leadership responded to the horrific conditions created by herding many Jews, mostly in Poland, into ghettos. A Nazi “leisure” organization, Kraft durch Freude (literally meaning “Strength through Joy”!), supervised bus tours. German soldiers took these tours through the ghettos and laughed at suffering Jews as if they were visiting the “zoo to see animals.”40 Funerals were interrupted so that the soldiers could pose for photographs with rabbis and the grieving family members.
Of course, inferring the actual emotional amalgam associated with these and other actions is difficult. Nonetheless, envy provides one credible explanation for some of the behavior that emerged and the pleasure this behavior often produced in witnesses—and in perpetrators.
FROM ENVY TO SCHADENFREUDE TO ACTION
I suggested in the previous chapter that once schadenfreude becomes the normative response to the mistreatment of a group of people, worse behaviors, even genocide, might enter the imagination of the envious person. In this sense, as Russell Spears and Colin Leach note, schadenfreude can be a kind of deliberate passivity which provides encouragement for others willing to commit further and more extreme mistreatment.41
Schadenfreude may motivate action in the observer too. When envy is at the root of schadenfreude, I argue that the line between passive and active becomes quite blurred. Enjoying misfortune evolves into longing for misfortune and then the willingness to bring it about. Mina Cikara and Susan Fiske did another study testing the Stereotype Content Model. This one assessed actions associated with envious prejudice. They showed that members of stereotypically envied groups might also suffer more harm compared to the other three groups.42 Participants in the study were asked to imagine that they were participating in a Fear Factor–type game show. They were further told that they had the power to choose various ways that other group members should receive punishment in the form of a painful (but not lethal) shock. Members of stereotypically envied groups were most often chosen.
The Joy of Pain Page 18