Nevitt Sanford

The preface of Sanctions For Evil (written in 1971 by Nevitt Sanford, a pioneer in the integration of social issues and clinical psychology, and his co-author Craig Comstock), begins, “Most social destructiveness is done by people who feel they have some kind of permission for what they do, even to the point of feeling righteous, and who commonly regard their victim as less than human or otherwise beyond the pale.”

And with that, I was hooked into this excellent psychological treatise that details how social destructiveness and sanction giving are interconnected. Various authors contribute their analyses to the overall work, which is powerful and precise.

The book uses as a grounding point the Mỹ Lai massacre, the mass murder rampage, which included rapes and mutilations of innocent civilians by U.S. Troops in Vietnam during the war in 1968. After the massacre, we witnessed widespread failure to prosecute offenses, light penalties, and tolerance of inhuman treatment of civilians, which was normalized and justified; these unprincipled actions gave atrocities sanctions for evil.

In reading this book, I took in the various historical and psychological viewpoints while focusing my attention to accounts and characterizations that perfectly describe the immoral and disastrous structure and failures of the Medical Board of California, (and related organizations). I’ve been interacting with this agency as an activist for years. The mindset behind this group serves to legitimize and normalize inappropriate and destructive behavior by doctors that are licensed by the board.

I synthesized the concepts, (which are all too familiar for me in dealing with the MBC), and wrote this book review with this exact governmental agency in mind although the principles and deny and defend tactics are sadly all too common.

In the August 19, 2021 public quarterly meeting of the Medical Board of California, a doctor board member ‘suggested’ that others on the board “speak in private” to a public member in order to “bring him around to their way of thinking.” This pressure on members to loyally support past decisions and unquestionably support the group’s arguments is subversive; the authority risks become tyrannical.

In a cohesive group that adopts norms such as dehumanization, as soon as anybody speaks his doubts, he discovers that others are irritated and he is in the presence of powerful group pressures to be a booster, not a detractor.

Self appointed mind guards emerge within the group that take it upon themselves to protect the group from adverse information that will prevent them from continuing their shared sense of complacency about the effectiveness and morality of decisions.

Given this shared commitment, the group marches to the same old drumbeat and insists that everyone stay in step with it. Independently thinking members may become inhibited about expressing doubts to insiders or outsiders with regard to the lacks of success and morality of their policies; members are forced into social conformity and groupthink, which overrides critical thinking.

The members are guilty for failing to prosecute violations; policies of such a biased group legitimize indiscriminate harm. For a start, it may be too unbelievable to think doctors would so horrifically – sometimes intentionally - harm others, so they act like mal events never happened, straight out deny the facts, and remain emotionally detached, using a cover of professionalism to explain their coldness.

They refuse to condemn any doctor to an inferior stature, hiding behind credentials and schooling as the ultimate purveyor of morals and intelligence, which as we know, is hogwash.

Dominant, privileged groups such as the MBC use exploitation to scapegoat victims whom they have convinced themselves are to blame and 'deserve what they got.' Such agencies are focused on economic and political realms, not humanitarian concerns.

Destructive behavior is tolerated and supported by the Medical Board of California. To have compassion and ethico-moral feelings towards another, one must be able to identify; when these qualities are lacking, people are dehumanized and treated as things, statistics, or numbers. When an organization dehumanizes people, their maltreatment and destruction is carried out with relative freedom because they are without restraints of conscience or moral onus.

Evil is the inability to overcome separation, the refusal to see the world as a process. Silence or neutrality, of course, is not acceptable in the face of evil.

A fundamental condition of such a biased organization is secrecy. Only members of a small group are allowed in on the decision-making, which exempts them from oversight by the public, scientists, or other experts. When they keep their value orientations to themselves, they reduce the chance that their unwarranted stereotypes, intolerance, and tilts will be challenged by anyone in any way.

The way out from the pathologies of defense is to humanize and develop constructive relationships, (easier said than done), and seems highly unlikely with the MBC.

Legalities can legitimize almost any wrong doing, explains Kant.

“There is nothing worse, nothing more abominable, than the artifice that invents a false law to enable us, under the shelter of the true law, to do evil. A man who has transgressed against the moral law, but still recognizes it in it’s purity, can be improved because he still has a pure law before his eyes; but a man who has invented for himself a favorable and false law has a principle in his wickedness, and in his case we can hope for no improvement.” ~ Immanuel Kant… (mais)