There is an element of comfort and productivity in letting what is, be. In both Man’s Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl and Diane Uwera’s testimony of her experience in the Rwandan genocide, both account for many great psychological theories and concepts. Being that both Frankl and Uwera had extensive exposure to incredibly traumatic events, there is evidence in both of their accounts of psychological concepts they either directly or indirectly applied to their healing, story telling, and widespread reach of the lessons they learned during. Five of which include, conformity, stress/coping, groupthink, obedience, and prejudice/discrimination.
Viktor Frankl, a survivor of the holocaust, and a predominant figure of psychology, wrote Man’s Search for Meaning about his experience in the concentration camps. One of the main concepts addressed in the book is Frankl’s ability to conform under extreme circumstances in order to survive. The lesson being that essentially, sometimes a person needs to accept death (or the absolute worst outcome of a situation) in order to survive it and move forward (Frankl, 1946, pp. 9). Conformity is defined as, “the tendency of people to alter behavior due to pressure,” (Lilienfield, 2011, pp. 100) which is exactly what Frankl did. By accepting the likelihood of the worst possible outcome, death, Frankl’s fear no longer controlled or motivated him and he was able to conform to the greatest extent possible and perform the gruesome duties expected of him, as well as witness his friends and family die. In order to survive, conformity was essential to Frankl because without accepting the possibility of death, Frankl would have held that fear with him during every instance of life in the concentration camp, which would have made him weak and eventually led to his death (Frankl, 1946, pp. 10).
Diane Uwera had a very similar experience mentally as she also witnessed her friends and family die meaninglessly. The premise of prejudice is the thoughts someone has about another person unlike them, and discrimination is the views that a group of people hold against those that are different from them (Lilienfield, 2011, pp. 200). These two terms go hand in hand in Uwera’s case because the Hutus were killing the Tutsi’s simply because they were different than them. There is also another element that seems to shine through during further research of this event, which is termed bidirectional influence. Bidirectional influence is when a group of people are told to do something by someone or some group that is of a higher order, and they do so simply because of this ranking, with no thought about the implications of their actions. This is a perfect example of bidirectional influence because nobody to this day even knows why the Hutus did what they did. Hutu people simply followed orders from a higher order, they were obedient to people for no reason other than their social status (Howell, interview, December 6, 2011). Therefore, it is easily seen that there are at least two psychological concepts that played a role in this genocide, and the way Uwera handles herself during the interview is astonishing given the trauma that must have been endured at such a young age.
There are many similarities between these two accounts of extreme cruelty and evil. The stress that must have been experienced by both parties is worth mentioning because both endured stress reactions in kind. The main form of stress common between the two is deemed, “stress as a transaction,” where the stress is appraised depending on the time it is experienced. The primary appraisal in both cases was whether or not the event was harmful (Lilienfield, 2011, pp. 200). Because Uwera was so young during the genocide, this appraisal comes much later during her analysis of the event as an older woman. Frankl denotes that based on his observations, inmates travel through three mental stages during their experience of the camp. The first is shock, which resonates with the primary appraisal idea. The second is apathy, which is the disinterest in this new life, and lack of motivation to change it, or survive. During this stage is where the inmate is to desensitize himself from the idea of death, which is what Frankl did to, in turn, survive the camp. This apathy is an example of secondary appraisal of stress, which is the ability to cope with the event after primary appraisal, even if coping is essentially giving up (Frankl, 1946, pp. 15).
Uwera experienced stress in a similar way, although because she was so young, it is likely that she did not consciously work through these steps, but just completed them, which led in part to her survival. Uwera experienced the primary appraisal of stress as a transaction in the sense that she simply went through the steps not truly understanding what was happening, but that it was not good. The secondary appraisal likely came much later in her life as she was able to recount her experiences and tell her story so that the rest of the world could learn about the genocide (Howell, interview, December 6, 2011).
Both Uwera and Frankl likely experienced a psychological phenomenon termed, “groupthink,” which is a form of conformity generally seen within genocide analysis. Groupthink is an, “emphasis on group unanimity at the expense of critical thinking,” and there is a high chance that this occurred in both genocides (Lilienfield, 2011, pp. 100). During the Rwandan genocide, the Hutus were likely hindered by this concept because they were simply following what everyone else around them was doing, without stopping to think of the consequences. The same occurrence happened with the Nazis, as most of them probably weren’t inherently evil, but came to commit heinous acts, given their surroundings and what all of the others around them were doing. Group polarization refers to the tendency of the members of a group to make decisions more extremely than what the individuals of the group may initially decide (Lilienfield, 2011, pp. 200).
The psychological concept of obedience is also documented in both Uwera’s and Frankl’s stories. Frankl’s Nazi superiors likely obeyed a higher order authority than themselves, rendering them low in morality and high in obedience (Lilienfield, 2011, pp. 205). The Hutus were also subject to obedience from the Rwandan government, and because there was such a small psychological distance between the government and the Hutus themselves, the obedience was greater than if the distance was larger (Howell, interview, December 6, 2011). At an even more detailed layer, both Uwera and Frankl obeyed their superiors, which in turn allowed them to survive.
It is easily seen that both Viktor Frankl and Diane Uwera went through traumatic events, but were able to combat or engage non-respectively in conformity, obeying, groupthink, group polarization, prejudice, discrimination, and eventually cope well enough with their experiences to recount them through various mediums in order to educate the world for the greater good.