Lessons From History: How The Oppressed Often Become The Oppressors
Human nature has patterns which repeat throughout history.
History has its ebbs and flows. Cycles repeat. Patterns emerge. Certain thinkers have tried to look at history, and determine which processes are at work. Georg Hegel, influential 19th century German philosopher, declared that in society you have two groups of people, the oppressed and the oppressors. For him, struggle was the natural course of action.
In the German context of his time, he labeled the Catholics as the oppressors, and the Protestants as those being oppressed. This concept of two groups battling each other out was then picked up by Karl Marx. In the form of classes it became the basis of his own analysis of society. The notion has remained influential all the way to today.
Yet, if you look at it, the interplay between the supposed oppressors and the oppressed fluctuates through the times. What we find is that these conditions are quite dynamic. Sometimes, they can even just be the figment of a professed liberator’s imagination. Where popular rhetoric has created this dichotomy of oppression, you often have self-proclaimed liberators wanting to turn society upside down. While their speech is full of talk of “freedom” or “equality”, often their actions aren’t.
Perhaps Brazilian philosopher and educator Paulo Freire spoke an eternal truth when he stated that the oppressed have a tendency to themselves become the oppressors. This cycle perpetuates itself all throughout history.
“The oppressed, instead of striving for liberation, tend themselves to become oppressors.” — Paulo Freire
This idea is echoed in the writings of prominent former Czechoslovak dissident Vaclav Havel. In the treatise “The Power of the Powerless”, he described how a totalitarian system took over his native country. Stemming from popular social movements, it rose to power on the promise of freedom and equality, only to instill a particular form of oppression.
“For even though our dictatorship has long since alienated itself completely from the social movements that give birth to it, the authenticity of these movements (and I am thinking of the proletarian and socialist movements of the nineteenth century) gives it undeniable historicity.” — Vaclav Havel
Be careful that the oppressed don’t become the oppressors
Vaclav Havel lived in Communist Czechoslovakia, where what was supposed to be an experiment in equality, had turned into a system of oppression. Just like in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, where an animal rebellion had overthrown the previous order, in Czechoslovakia the Communists threw out the Capitalists.
Yet, just like the pigs became more equal on the farm, the experiment in Central Europe went sour. The people who had originally battled for the right of the oppressed became the oppressors. This is a dynamic that has played itself out since time immemorial.
Great Roman historian Livy penned these words over 2 thousand years ago:
“Our anxiety to avoid oppression leads us to practice it ourselves; the injustice we repel, we visit in turn upon others, as if there were no choice except either to do it or to suffer it.” — Livy
What is it in humanity, that when it professes to fight for justice, it just perpetuates the same patterns it is allegedly protesting against? Why is it that those who scream against oppression usually become the oppressors? There are particular quirks in human nature that explain why this becomes the case.
Us versus Them
Humans are groupish in nature. As Aristotle stated thousands of years ago, they are social animals. This is for good reason. Physically frail, they cannot survive alone in the wild. Yet when you put them together with others of their species, their chance at survival skyrockets. You can even argue that the skills fostered in groups have been humanity’s competitive advantage.
The way the human brain thinks promotes this gathering together of individuals into larger groups. Numerous cognitive biases that humans fall for actually enhance an individual person’s connectivity to their group. Herd behavior, bandwagon effect, or groupthink are a result of this.
All throughout evolution, success has depended on getting enough resources in order to survive and reproduce. This usually meant competing for food and territory with other groups. Things were often zero sum. Conflicts would frequently arise.
This resulted in a strong dichotomy of “us” versus “them”. People have the propensity to feel an affinity towards the group they label as “us”, while often tend to be belligerent towards “them”. As scientific experiments have shown, these can be initially formed based on arbitrary criteria, but fortify themselves quite fast.
When a group is feeling oppressed by another group, they can create a caricature impression of the supposed oppressors. In Rwanda, there were two main ethnic groups, the Hutus and the Tutsis. The Tutsis were often the rulers and seen as the privileged group. Over time, a racialized discourse developed which pitted the “oppressed” Hutus against the “privileged” Tutsis.
In 1994, this resulted in the Rwandan Genocide of the Tutsis. The previously oppressed Hutus became the oppressors. This episode shows how easily it is to slip from words to violent actions. Once this image of “oppressed” versus “privileged oppressors” takes root, it is very hard to erase it from the minds of people.
Even decades after the genocide, many Hutus still see the Tutsis as privileged and not as victims. A recent report shows how deeply rooted this view is in society.
“Rwandans who were not persecuted during the genocide still associate Tutsis with privilege and not with victimization, instead of their persecution during the genocide.”
What happens in these types of cases is a process of dehumanization. People cease to be seen as individuals. Instead, they are viewed through the prism of a “group” they supposedly belong to. This group is then seen as endowed with negative qualities, which makes it easy for it to be vilified. They are the “other”.
As Steven Gambardella writes in his essay on dehumanization, the “other” becomes painted as someone opposed to or not grasping the truth. Therefore the destruction of this opposition can bring about a desired end.
“The victim is dehumanized in the sense that they become a fungible part of a mass opposed to this truth — their destruction is a means to an ends. The perpetrator is dehumanized because they are putting themselves at the service of this truth — they are also only a means to an end.” — Steven Gambardella
This type of a process has reared its ugly head many times throughout history. In Cambodia, during the reign of the Khmer Rouge, the “privileged” classes of intellectuals, shopkeepers, and even doctors were rounded up and sent into the countryside. To what Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot termed “re-education camps”. Many of them ended up being massacred there.
Unfortunately, in today’s world we are not spared from this type of talk. It’s as if people haven’t learned. Patterns in society that lead to chaos seem to be repeating. All the way back to at least the fall of the Roman Republic and before, humans have seen how quickly things can degenerate. Yet, these cycles never seem to go away.
How to overcome this cycle?
Both history and psychological experiments have shown how darkness can engulf humanity. Luckily, both history and science have also shown that there are mechanisms which can lead to better outcomes.
After apartheid ended in South Africa, Nelson Mandela was elected as the first black president of the country. Many of his supporters were calling for revenge against their former white oppressors. Luckily Nelson knew how negative something like that would be for all the inhabitants of South Africa, black or white. Instead, he set out on a course of reconciliation with the Afrikaners.
Beautifully depicted in the movie “Invictus”, Nelson’s wisdom probably saved South Africa from spiraling into violence and even greater poverty. What happened in neighboring Zimbabwe can serve as a warning sign. Instead of stoking divisions, Mandela came up with projects meant to unite.
It is in fact common projects that can bring people from different groups together. Empathy plays a huge role here. In times of heightened competition, it increases between members of the in-group. However, at the same time antipathy towards the out-group goes sky high too. Common projects turn this dynamic on its head, and spread the empathy all around.
Psychological experiments have supported what Mandela knew intuitively. Change the dynamics from competitive to cooperative, and you get better results overall. The Robbers Cave experiment conducted in the 1950’s is often used as an example of how conflicts between two groups can escalate. What is less well-known is that it also showed how two groups can come together and cooperate for the common good.
Before Robbers Cave, there was Middle Grove. Muzafer Sherif, the researcher who was running these conflict studies had initially conducted his first experiment at Middle Grove. However, there things turned out differently from the Robbers Cave experiment that followed.
At Middle Grove, the two groups of boys instead came together to give each other the benefit of the doubt and worked hand in hand on fixing a broken tent. Instead of viewing each other with animosity, they started viewing the supposed camp counsellor (in fact the researchers) with suspicion. This common project united them.
The answer for social progress and better outcomes for everyone is more than two thousand years old. Hierocles the Stoic stated that in order to make a better world, you need to enlarge your circle of concern beyond yourself and your group. Your circle of concern should encompass other groups too. In fact, it should cover the whole world. This is what Nelson Mandela and the boys at Middle Grove understood, and something which extremists on both sides of the political aisle don’t.