Because the Holocaust can be identified as an extremely efficient, calculated operation, the question arises, “Did the construct and ideology of modern society have anything to do with the Holocaust?” More precisely, “Could the Holocaust have occurred without the advent of modernity?” I believe that the Holocaust could not have occurred without the advent of modernity. First, we must understand that modernity is the idea of construction verses naturalness. Second, we must realize that from modernity also came the influence of the Enlightenment and the advancement of engineering society, which made racism possible. Lastly, the Holocaust must be understood as distinct from all other cases of genocide because of its efficient aim at total annihilation. Having said all this, the evidence indicates that it is likely that another Holocaust could happen in modern society, though it will probably not happen any time soon.
To understand what is meant by “modernity” we must see that it has a distinct emphasis on construction, whereas “pre-modernity” is distinguished by naturalness. Pre-modern thought held that whatever was natural or made possible by nature could be left alone because it functioned well without being tampered with. Bauman says, “…left to its own resources, society would reproduce itself year by year, generation after generation, with scarcely a noticeable change. (Bauman, p.57)” This pre-modern way of thinking allowed the Jews to remain intertwined with society while maintaining their own distinctness without being set apart with a complete boundary of separation. Modern society, on the other hand, with its identity characterize by construction changed all that. Modernity asserted that “Nothing should grow unless planted, and whatever would have grown on its own must have been the wrong thing, and hence a dangerous thing, jeopardizing or confounding the overall plan. (Bauman, p.57)” Modernity brought with it design, technology, the assembly line, administration, and bureaucracy all of which was meant to benefit society, not threaten it.
Surely anti-Semitism and discrimination can be traced back well before modern society, but as Bauman puts it “Modernity made racism possible. (Bauman, p61)” Racism as we have already seen is different from heterophobia in that racism involves a removal of the hated group to benefit the society of the hater, whereas heterophobia is merely resentment of what is different. Modernity made racism possible because of at least two influences, the Enlightenment and an engineering attitude directed toward nature and the modern world. The Enlightenment contributed to racism because it elevated science to a level of deity, thus prescribing any differences in physical make-up as a direct determinant of superiority or inferiority. It is no surprise, then that the father of biological evolution, Charles Darwin, is one of the most prolific products of the Enlightenment. He was no stranger to collecting data and interpreting distinctions in physical make up in terms of unequal categories. In a letter to W. Graham he writes, “The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence.” He says further, “Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world. (Hanegraaff, p.24-25)” While Darwin didn’t advocate the extermination of lower races, the interpretation of his findings has led his successors to believe that racial differences necessitate racial inequality. Some would even conclude that Darwinism is just as much of a contribution to the Holocaust as Christianity because both the scientific findings of Darwin and the Bible are objective sources that, depending on one’s interpretation can be twisted to support Hitler’s beliefs. The problem is that the unity of the Bible clearly shows that hatred of Jews is wrong. Darwinian evolution on the other hand, when interpreted in light of science as a whole (namely the laws of thermodynamics, coupled with the hoaxes and frauds uncovered in the past century used to support macro-evolution) shows severe inconsistency. As you can see modernity has enabled the Enlightenment to act as a contributing factor in the production of the racism of Adolf Hitler.
The second factor produced by modernity that made racism possible is the engineering attitude held toward nature and modern society. The birth of the Enlightenment spawned a philosophy that would conduct science not for its own sake but as “an instrument of awesome power allowing its holder to improve on reality, to re-shape it according to human plans and designs, and to assist it in its drive to self-perfection. (Bauman, p.70)” The illustration of gardening was very popular among Nazis. For it illustrated how flowers and weeds grew together and how with careful organization, the weeds along with all other unwanted elements could be eliminated from the garden for the sake of flowers’ well being. Hitler himself believed that he was doing humanity a service by “healing” and “cleansing” the world of the Jews. This engineering attitude enabled racism because it justified removing the unwanted elements that “threatened” society.
While many would point out that this illustration is Biblical and was even used by 19th and 20th century Christian missionaries, an important qualifier should be noted. First, the passage from Matthew 13:24-30 that could be used to support this point makes God the gardener not man. Second, God destroys the weeds on the basis of faith in Christ, CERTAINLY NOT on the basis of race. Also, those who try drawing parallels between Christianity and Nazism say that Christians believe “something is wrong with Jews and need to be fixed with Christianity.” Again, this argument is not heavily supported because Christianity doesn’t say that anything is inherently wrong with Jews as a race, in fact it says the opposite (Ro 11:1-7). The misunderstanding is that Christ came for everybody, regardless of race not merely for non-Jews (Col 3:11, Gal 3:28). In fact non-Jews are just as much in danger as Jews (Ro 1). The distinction here is between belief and a perception of inherent evil. The chasm between Christianity and Nazism is great; though to many including Elie Wiesel, they are synonymous.
Many could look back through the annals of recorded history and make the assertion that the Holocaust was just another “ordinary” genocide. They would be mistaken because not only was the Holocaust a mass murder on a grand scale like that of Stalin’s but the way in which it was carried out sets it apart as a product of modern civilization. Mob violence, such as the pogroms, which bore assault on many Jews, was based on violent, passionate emotion that can easily subside within time. The Holocaust was an operation carried out through the modern bureaucratic structure of society that split tasks into segments allowing each “department” to concern itself only with the task at hand. This concept, similar to an assembly line allowed for millions to “be killed in a dull, mechanical fashion with no human emotions – hatred included. (Bauman, p.92)” The goal of ordinary genocide is to cripple the strength of a group by killing its most powerful leaders. This enables the dominating party to take control over the dominated party to be used as slave labor or to be “re-educated” according to their ideals so as to filter them into the rest of society. This was not the Holocaust. The Holocaust was an attempt at total elimination of all who seen unfit for living, namely Jews. Those imprisoned were dehumanized into objects of a well-planned, efficiently calculated bureaucratic project with the sole desire of exterminating an entire race.
Bauman correctly asserts that those components of modernity that allowed for the Holocaust still exist. He also says that the Holocaust was a product of modernity and rightly so. The evidence supports that it is possible for the Holocaust to happen again. We’ve already seen attempts with the “ethnic cleansing” of Bosnia; however, it is not very likely (at least now) that a Holocaust would happen any time in the near future. Sure, the components are all there, but it is an empty machine with no driver because no one is powerful enough to carry it out. With elements such as the U.N. and the threat of nuclear war, a full-fledged Holocaust would be met with severe hostility. A Holocaust would never happen in America because it is a left-wing democracy, far removed from the ultra-right-wing fascism of Nazi Germany. The question in point is “How likely is it for the Holocaust to happen again?” There seems to be consensus among most people that if it happened before, and if modernity is still alive and well then it could happen again. The question, though, addresses whether or not it would happen again. Maybe it will, God forbid, but it would take a lot for the immensity of the Holocaust to repeat itself anytime soon.
By MattQuick
*Revised Section of Mid-Term Exam
