From such a
detailed examination, plus my earlier description of Zimbardo’s take on evil as
‘merely a system of intentional harm, abuse, and dehumanization of innocents,
whether by direct or indirect means,’ rather than something that might be
inborn or immanent in an individual or group, one might get the idea that
Zimbardo accepts the social philosopher Hannah Arendt’s by now trite take on
the ‘banality of evil,’ especially since he references Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi
for whom the term was coined. Here is his take on why the phrase stuck:

  Arendt’s phrase ‘the banality of evil’ continues to resonate because genocide has been unleashed around the world and torture and terrorism continue to be common features of our global landscape. We prefer to distance ourselves from such a fundamental truth, seeing the madness of evildoers and senseless violence of tyrants as dispositional characters within their personal makeup. Arendt’s analysis was the first to deny this orientation by observing the fluidity with which social forces can prompt normal people to perform horrific acts.

 But he actually does not. Instead, he believes it distracts the public from the far more interesting and important ‘banality of heroism.’

 
Zimbardo feels that heroism is often measured only on the grand stage, whereas real acts of heroism are small and everyday, but help build up social bulwarks against evil’s creep. While I agree with the general idea that heroism does not necessarily have to be on a grand stage with a great act, there is something a little too PC in Zimbardo’s idea, for me. While it works well as a rhetorical device to point out the inadequacies of Arendt’s coinage; standing alone, it seems to have little else going for it.

  It is also the direct philosophic opposite of the old anecdote about the person who does not stand up against the Nazis when they came for Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Communists, trade unionists, and Catholics, and then when they came for his group, there was no one left to stand up with and for him. And while also certainly true, I find it a bit too akin to al the pop cultural references to people displaying ‘courage’ for merely doing the very things they should- i.e.- accepting congratulations for doing the bare minimum, whereas real heroism is going above and beyond the call of reasonable citizenship.

  Yes, chiding a child or neighbor or co-worker who utters a racial epithet against someone is a good thing, but is that heroic - banal or not? Is whistleblowing really heroic,
especially since most of the petty crimes that go on in corporate America are so small? I think not, although arguments can be made.

  Similarly, to use the case of former pro football star Pat Tillman, was he really
a hero for merely volunteering for duty, then getting himself killed? Are all of our military people really heroes? How about cops and firemen; especially those who died on 9/11, or others in the line of duty? I mean, that’s why they get paid, right? And does not such a facile use of the very idea of heroism for the more banal things undercut its true application for the guy who runs into a burning orphanage and saves a dozen kids, or the gal who testifies about some truly horrific abuse of political or financial power, and whose life can be totally ruined?