Goebbels was not insane. He was very well aware of, and able to interact and behave in a manner that was acceptable according to the cultural standards of the time and place. In/sanity is a cultural construct used to oppress, and Goebbels was most definitely not oppressed. While I understand our cultural tendency to describe horrible people as insane, I respectfully request that we all reconsider, and refrain from doing so. Because when we do, we unintentionally perpetuate harmful cultural assumptions and biases against people whose brains don't work in a way that is considered "normal" by cultural standards. The vast majority of Mad and neurodivergent people are much more likely to be victims of hate and violence rather than perpetrators of it. Collectively, we need to disrupt the common cultural tendency of lumping "insane" people in with those who are intentionally hateful and violent. Unfortunately, I don't know if any good books on the international history of disability, but if you are interested in learning about it and are content to start with US history, this book is excellent: "A Disability History of the United States" by Kim E. Nielsen.
Your words advocate for those who are neuro-atypical.
I agree that labels get us all into trouble, & can make things worse.
But, I wonder how that has to do with Goebbels? Do you think he was “normal”? Wouldn’t that make it more confusing, or worse?…I mean, “normal” people do NOT behave as he did, in any context. Thankfully, “normal” people are most of population.
If he’s painted as “normal”, that also infers that billions of “normal” people could commit the same kinds of atrocities as Goebbels did. That is kinda scary.
I’m for changing how society views people who struggle with mental issues; most of them got so, related to abuse, neglect, abandonment, sometimes substance abuse that they were powerless to protect themselves from. But they are still not “normal”. They have special needs, & mental health care is FAR from appropriate or adequate. And, mental health assessments are rather “Gonzo”. Lots to fix.
But NOT labeling someone who really is unbalanced, & really is a threat to themselves or others, does them a disservice—rather like docs who see a female patient, & chart her complaints as “all in her head”.
Atrocities committed in known holocausts, like WW2 Holocaust, the Russian Holocaust, the Inquisition, the Japanese cities of Hiroshima & Nagasaki….all those led & perpetrated by apparent psychopaths.
The American Holocaust, which reduced something over 100 million Natives, down to some thousands…it requires a certain extreme hatred of “others”, & a pathological intent to “win”.
Do you mean, you think Goebbels was “normal”, & not insane?
Isn’t Psychopath, a form of insanity, the picture of Goebbels?
Psychopaths can blend well into society, achieve high ranked seats in corporations & govt., using a socially acceptable facade that serves their purposes. They can be in powerful positions for many years, before some around them start noticing something’s wrong.
Until they implement their plans, they can appear quite normal (is there such a thing?)….as long as no one observes them in-person for very long, they are adept at keeping up appearances. Some do it better than others.
We are ALL capable of terrible things to some extent…but it’s extreme cases like Goebbels, & others, which society needs to learn to identify, & work to reduce the inevitable damages some have caused.
If we fail to understand & recognize the dangerous ones, we set-up society to have more holocausts. Including the one brewing now, completely under the auspices of officials in charge & manipulating us all….but people are not really recognizing it, instead calling it “conspiracy”.
Maybe some in Germany then, also were called alarmists (if they lived past speaking up).
Hi, Chi, thanks for your thoughtful response. I love dialogue about these types of rather messy concepts.
First, I would say that Goebbels may or may not have been "normal" given the context of his attrocities (I find the concept of "normal" very problematic in its own right, but I'll address that a bit later). That does not mean I believe there's any excuse whatsoever for what he did. What I mean is that one of the most dangerous aspects of systemic violence is that it is normalized by those who hold power. It is our duty as citizens of whatever society we live in to recognize and push back against the biases and prejudices that the power brokers use to convince the public that there are valid reasons for oppression based on those biases. If - especially in hindsight, ot from a safe distance - we simply label those who embrace system-backed atrocities as "crazy," we are reframing the violence as isolated instances enacted by outliers, rather than examine the cultural systems and processes that allowed that violence to be condoned or encouraged.
The problem with using psychology-based terms or slang to try to explain why the most prolific and overt actors do the harm they do is two-fold. First, it diverts attention from examining what the true catalysts of fascist violence are, and finding ways to make it less likely to happen again. Second, as I mentioned before, it stigmatizes those who are not "normal" by cultural standards, even though, as a group, they are much more likely to be victims than perpetrators (there is plenty of data to back this up).
Rather than assuming we either attach a pathology to the perpetrators or not label them at all, we need to examine them as individuals who had a choice to participate or resist, and thrived in enthusiastic participation.
"Normal" is not a thing. It is a cultural construct with which we are socialized so that we will be obedient. Virtually all oppression is based on cultural assumptions about what is "normal." It's not a good measuring stick for much of anything.
Well explained! I agree…&, there’s more moving parts. Much change is needed, before society can return to things like Not labeling, but accommodating better. There will be far fewer who need some label..maybe…or maybe there will be better language at some point (tho in the last 20 years, bad players have made a fine hash of communications, by changing meanings of words on so many things).
Formal psychology, I think, because too focused on dysfunctional healthcare models that require labeling, then, funneling into them, without paying attention to how those were Not uniformly used, were variable between practitioners, & did not fit properly on many—yet treated them accordingly…sometimes out of desperation to do Something, instead of Nothing…& there have been too many pasted wit very wrong labels, by industry entities trying to avoid paying out disability stipends to people like Veterans.
Maybe you, & those of similar mind, can find better ways to prevent mental instabilities, by bringing back programs like the nurses sent to do home visits for all babies, toddlers, grade school kids—there really, for whole family…both UK & US tried those programs. They really worked! If those had been funded for some years, the far-reaching collateral benefits, will have justified the costs…& costs of program would be more than returned in preventions of crimes, more kids better educated, & more able to stay in jobs & keep families together better.
The US has a long way to go, to adopt things like “human dignity” laws. EU has them. US needs to stop the big corporation’s poor business models which have never really treated front-line workers much better than debt slaves. Lots of room for improvement.
Yes! I agree with everything you've said here, especially your reference to how systemic inequity makes targets of oppression more vulnerable to mental health instabilities.
Goebbels' eyes don't look all that friendly or sane in the first photo, either.
Goebbels was not insane. He was very well aware of, and able to interact and behave in a manner that was acceptable according to the cultural standards of the time and place. In/sanity is a cultural construct used to oppress, and Goebbels was most definitely not oppressed. While I understand our cultural tendency to describe horrible people as insane, I respectfully request that we all reconsider, and refrain from doing so. Because when we do, we unintentionally perpetuate harmful cultural assumptions and biases against people whose brains don't work in a way that is considered "normal" by cultural standards. The vast majority of Mad and neurodivergent people are much more likely to be victims of hate and violence rather than perpetrators of it. Collectively, we need to disrupt the common cultural tendency of lumping "insane" people in with those who are intentionally hateful and violent. Unfortunately, I don't know if any good books on the international history of disability, but if you are interested in learning about it and are content to start with US history, this book is excellent: "A Disability History of the United States" by Kim E. Nielsen.
Your words advocate for those who are neuro-atypical.
I agree that labels get us all into trouble, & can make things worse.
But, I wonder how that has to do with Goebbels? Do you think he was “normal”? Wouldn’t that make it more confusing, or worse?…I mean, “normal” people do NOT behave as he did, in any context. Thankfully, “normal” people are most of population.
If he’s painted as “normal”, that also infers that billions of “normal” people could commit the same kinds of atrocities as Goebbels did. That is kinda scary.
I’m for changing how society views people who struggle with mental issues; most of them got so, related to abuse, neglect, abandonment, sometimes substance abuse that they were powerless to protect themselves from. But they are still not “normal”. They have special needs, & mental health care is FAR from appropriate or adequate. And, mental health assessments are rather “Gonzo”. Lots to fix.
But NOT labeling someone who really is unbalanced, & really is a threat to themselves or others, does them a disservice—rather like docs who see a female patient, & chart her complaints as “all in her head”.
Atrocities committed in known holocausts, like WW2 Holocaust, the Russian Holocaust, the Inquisition, the Japanese cities of Hiroshima & Nagasaki….all those led & perpetrated by apparent psychopaths.
The American Holocaust, which reduced something over 100 million Natives, down to some thousands…it requires a certain extreme hatred of “others”, & a pathological intent to “win”.
Do you mean, you think Goebbels was “normal”, & not insane?
Isn’t Psychopath, a form of insanity, the picture of Goebbels?
Psychopaths can blend well into society, achieve high ranked seats in corporations & govt., using a socially acceptable facade that serves their purposes. They can be in powerful positions for many years, before some around them start noticing something’s wrong.
Until they implement their plans, they can appear quite normal (is there such a thing?)….as long as no one observes them in-person for very long, they are adept at keeping up appearances. Some do it better than others.
We are ALL capable of terrible things to some extent…but it’s extreme cases like Goebbels, & others, which society needs to learn to identify, & work to reduce the inevitable damages some have caused.
If we fail to understand & recognize the dangerous ones, we set-up society to have more holocausts. Including the one brewing now, completely under the auspices of officials in charge & manipulating us all….but people are not really recognizing it, instead calling it “conspiracy”.
Maybe some in Germany then, also were called alarmists (if they lived past speaking up).
Hi, Chi, thanks for your thoughtful response. I love dialogue about these types of rather messy concepts.
First, I would say that Goebbels may or may not have been "normal" given the context of his attrocities (I find the concept of "normal" very problematic in its own right, but I'll address that a bit later). That does not mean I believe there's any excuse whatsoever for what he did. What I mean is that one of the most dangerous aspects of systemic violence is that it is normalized by those who hold power. It is our duty as citizens of whatever society we live in to recognize and push back against the biases and prejudices that the power brokers use to convince the public that there are valid reasons for oppression based on those biases. If - especially in hindsight, ot from a safe distance - we simply label those who embrace system-backed atrocities as "crazy," we are reframing the violence as isolated instances enacted by outliers, rather than examine the cultural systems and processes that allowed that violence to be condoned or encouraged.
The problem with using psychology-based terms or slang to try to explain why the most prolific and overt actors do the harm they do is two-fold. First, it diverts attention from examining what the true catalysts of fascist violence are, and finding ways to make it less likely to happen again. Second, as I mentioned before, it stigmatizes those who are not "normal" by cultural standards, even though, as a group, they are much more likely to be victims than perpetrators (there is plenty of data to back this up).
Rather than assuming we either attach a pathology to the perpetrators or not label them at all, we need to examine them as individuals who had a choice to participate or resist, and thrived in enthusiastic participation.
"Normal" is not a thing. It is a cultural construct with which we are socialized so that we will be obedient. Virtually all oppression is based on cultural assumptions about what is "normal." It's not a good measuring stick for much of anything.
Well explained! I agree…&, there’s more moving parts. Much change is needed, before society can return to things like Not labeling, but accommodating better. There will be far fewer who need some label..maybe…or maybe there will be better language at some point (tho in the last 20 years, bad players have made a fine hash of communications, by changing meanings of words on so many things).
Formal psychology, I think, because too focused on dysfunctional healthcare models that require labeling, then, funneling into them, without paying attention to how those were Not uniformly used, were variable between practitioners, & did not fit properly on many—yet treated them accordingly…sometimes out of desperation to do Something, instead of Nothing…& there have been too many pasted wit very wrong labels, by industry entities trying to avoid paying out disability stipends to people like Veterans.
Maybe you, & those of similar mind, can find better ways to prevent mental instabilities, by bringing back programs like the nurses sent to do home visits for all babies, toddlers, grade school kids—there really, for whole family…both UK & US tried those programs. They really worked! If those had been funded for some years, the far-reaching collateral benefits, will have justified the costs…& costs of program would be more than returned in preventions of crimes, more kids better educated, & more able to stay in jobs & keep families together better.
The US has a long way to go, to adopt things like “human dignity” laws. EU has them. US needs to stop the big corporation’s poor business models which have never really treated front-line workers much better than debt slaves. Lots of room for improvement.
Yes! I agree with everything you've said here, especially your reference to how systemic inequity makes targets of oppression more vulnerable to mental health instabilities.