The Banality of Evil

It has been over a decade since I first watched “The Banality of Love” at the Istanbul State Theatre, a captivating portrayal of the love between Martin Heidegger and Hannah Arendt. The performance left such a lasting impression on me that I watched five times in a row, each performance sparking a new set of questions and reflections as if the experience had occurred just yesterday.

What truly captivated me, however, was not solely the depiction of Heidegger and Arendt's complex love affair. Perhaps I wanted to explore Arendt, the author of "The Banality of Evil", a little more, to visualize what I had read, and to create a setting in my own mind while rereading.

In “The Banality of Evil,” Arendt argues that evil, contrary to common belief, manifests itself not as an extreme or extraordinary phenomenon, but rather within an ordinary, thoughtless, and predominantly bureaucratic chain of duty. She articulates a profound insight: evil is not exclusively the domain of uniquely pathological individuals; instead, it often arises from the thoughtlessness and complacency of ordinary people, whose lack of critical thinking enables them to suspend their moral responsibilities within the rigid frameworks of bureaucratic structures. This unsettling reality challenges our understanding of morality and compels us to examine the societal conditions that foster such complicity.

In the Executive MBA program I started this year, we read and discuss many articles in the Strategy Management course. Graham Kenny’s “3 Traps to Avoid When Executing Your Strategy” and “Avoid These Pitfalls When Measuring Your Strategy’s Performance,” Eddie Yoon, Christopher Lochhead and Katrina Kirsch’s “The Hard Questions to Ask When Planning Your Strategy,” and most importantly Tim Ryan’s “CEOs, Is Your Strategy Bold Enough?” are some of these articles.

Although all these articles come together within the framework of strategy, they fall short in explaining one point: the yin-yang balance of the human soul. Nobel Prize winner for Economics Professor Daron Acemoglu brings scientific clarity to this missing point: “Societies and institutions where the rule of law is weak do not produce growth or change for the better.”

I want to address the concept of change for the better from the very beginning, that is, from birth. Until a baby is born, all conditions are equal for everyone; however, this equality is disrupted from the moment it is born. The lawlessness and lack of change that Professor Acemoglu points out is now reflected in the journey of individual babies. Naturally, I have to watch with my heart breaking that we are in a period where we have to address this yin-yang balance beyond the material, on an existential level.

I find it deeply disturbing to accept the idea that a defenseless body, newly arrived in this world, would be isolated from it by the banality of evil, rather than protected by the presence of ordinary goodness, that is, in the arms of its mother. The idea that the essence of evil that Arendt articulates could find expression in the defenseless form of an innocent baby is something I simply cannot grasp or reconcile with my understanding of humanity.

Although ancient teachings, philosophical and scientific approaches make it easier to define, they cannot fully explain how much of the individuality of the bridge between the mind and the heart is innate and how much is acquired later.

When reading examples of barbarism in history, it may be an inference to know that they can be repeated; however, what is truly frightening is that this repetition is an ordinary reality that we encounter today. The commercialization of the purity of an innocent body that has just come into the world is not information that my mind can accept. Consequently, my ability to think clearly on this issue becomes clouded by a profound sense of despair and outrage.

Both Arendt and Acemoglu are right. However, what is profoundly lacking in our discourse is the unsettling banality of our numb minds—those that shy away from forging a conscientious and moral connection between these two vital teachings.

What is really missing is the ordinary cowardice of men who emulate the mafia bosses in TV series. They may find inspiration in these fictional characters’ bravado, yet they remain paralyzed in the face of real-world violence, failing to lift a finger when a woman is being assaulted right beside them. This stark contrast underscores not just a moral failure but a disturbing complacency that allows evil to flourish in the shadows of indifference.

What is profoundly absent is the alarming banality of the evil exhibited by those who hesitate to confront the uncomfortable question, “What are we doing?” This question looms large over the individuals who stand by as innocent lives, particularly those of newborn babies, are callously exploited for mere pennies. Such indifference reflects a troubling moral numbness that allows this exploitation to persist without challenge.

What is really missing is the banality of not being able to ask the question, “How brave am I?” As Tim Ryan asks in “CEOs, Is Your Strategy Bold Enough?”

In all this chaos, Arendt’s concept of the “Banality of Evil” reveals how individuals now ignore their responsibilities as citizens in the flow of daily life. But the real issue is to recognize this ordinary evil and break this cycle. Strategies should not just remain on paper; each individual must understand that moral responsibility is an inseparable part of these strategies.

As Acemoglu points out, the rule of law is the cornerstone of growth and development. However, individuals also actively engage in this process. Each person has a role to play in fostering an environment where justice and equity can flourish.

The concept we call strategic courage should not be limited to making bold decisions in the business world; it should also inspire individuals to bravely embrace their social responsibilities. Citizens must critically examine their moral compass and summon the courage to take decisive action in the face of societal challenges.

Being bold to build a better world means not only making strategic decisions, but also embracing our individual and social responsibilities via execution. Bold decisions guided by a strong moral conscience, pave the way to confront and dismantle the ordinary evils of our time, thus making authentic change and transformative progress a tangible reality.